Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
Imagine me using U Instead of my 🖐🏾 Lemme make it reality😈 Subscribe #Exhib #crusingenbaños #cruising #publicflashing #publicjerk #publicflash #public #BBC #bathrooms #risky #publicplay #b8 #publicb8 #ExhibicionismoPúblico #jacking
140,110 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
Похожие видео
![Gabriel Quadri: “Mexico is a totalitarian regime” What the persecution of a Mexican congressman reveals about woke narco-authoritarianism Imagine a nation where people are required “to apologize daily during one month” on X for thought crimes; where your name can be entered “in a public registry of people that are aggressive against women” for insisting upon the biological reality of sex; and where the state is implementing digital ID along with “facial recognition systems” and “a new law for regulation of social media.” That is not a dystopian movie. It is modern-day Mexico. “Mexico is no longer a democracyii,” said former Congressman Gabriel Quadri. “It is, in fact, a dictatorship in which gender ideology and political violence against women laws are being used to curtail and to repress freedom of speech.” Mexico remains a formal democracy with freedom of the press, and independent election authorities declared the last presidential elections free and fair. But since then, President Claudia Sheinbaum, a climate scientist turned politician, has taken aggressive action to take control of elections and the judiciary, with the help of her Left-wing party, Morena. “The [Sheinbaum] government has total control of the National Electoral Authority,” said Quadri. “It has total control of the judiciary. One month ago, the Mexican judiciary was totally dismantled, was destroyed, and substituted by a system of supposedly democratically elected judges.” The government came after Quadri when he insisted that biological sex was real and unchangeable. “I was prosecuted by the electoral authorities,” he said. “They obliged me to erase all my tweets, to publicize my repentance… and they would like me to take a course of indoctrination about gender ideology… I had to apologize during one month daily in Twitter…. They put my name in this public registry of people that are aggressive against women.” Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1947747245010653329/amplify_video_thumb/1947743299454070784/img/8HlBI8H-6HflajR5.jpg)
![Ultra-critical to note: The Constitution is still (unlawfully) suspended because of COVID. Figures like RFK Jr. and Sen. Ron Johnson know COVID was a military operation but are still framing it as a botched public health response. (Tweet 1/5) Retired pharma R&D executive Sasha Latypova (sashalatypova.substack.com "Due Diligence and Art") describes for Sarah Westall (Sarah Westall) how "we're [still] in the Twilight Zone" post COVID, as nearly everyone in government—from both sides of the aisle—are pretending that COVID was a public health event when it was, in fact, a military operation. "[A] military framework was used [for COVID], and the public was lied to, as if [it was] a public health event," Latypova says. She notes that while figures like RFK Jr. and Senator Ron Johnson are willing to talk about the "botching" of the COVID response, they refuse to address "the castle" of—unlawful—laws surrounding public health emergencies that completely negate the Constitution. Although Latypova doesn't mention it in this clip, take as one example of the unlawful laws that make up the "castle" of unlawful laws that suspend constitutional rights the PREP Act. The PREP Act, passed in 2005 under George Bush, negates American citizens' right to petition the government for redress of grievances, which is explicitly protected by the First Amendment. I.e. the PREP Act says you can't sue "covered persons" (e.g., "vaccine" manufacturers, doctors, pharmacy personnel) involved in the administration or use of "covered countermeasures" (e.g., "vaccines") in response to public health emergencies. —> This. Liability. Protection. Is. Not. Constitutional. <— "We're in the Twilight Zone. Everyone pretends on both sides of the aisle. I'm accusing both Democrats, Republicans, everyone in Congress [of pretending COVID is a public health response instead of a military operation]," Latypova says. "Since...December 2022, we [have] had sufficient evidence to demonstrate this is a military operation. That [a] military framework was used, and the public was lied to, as if [COVID were] a public health event." "We...compiled this material at the request of Senator Johnson of Wisconsin," Latypova adds. "Senator Johnson, actually, his staffers, set up a Zoom call with me and Katherine [Watt] and a few other people. And he asked us, 'Can you put together a memo for me and, the package of evidence, which we've done?' And it's a two-page memo describing this—what laws have been utilized [for the military operation]... I published all of this and sent it to him in December, 2022. Nothing happened after that." Latypova adds, "As you know, he held several hearings before and after. And to give him credit, he invited me to one, but I couldn't make the schedule. But he's held several hearings, with very high-profile so-called freedom leaders, discussing how COVID was [a] public health response [that] was botched...[but] this wasn't a public health anything, and he knows it." "I give him a lot of credit for calling attention to the victims of this [military operation]," Latypova says. "You know, I'm very grateful that he gave any attention to this, but this wasn't a secret. We've published it many times. I gave it to him. I [also] gave this information to RFK Jr. too. I have a podcast with him recorded—two podcasts, actually. And he knows all of this also...But still, the public perception is being managed, and I don't know what he's gonna do about it." Latypova goes on to say: 'What['s happening] right now is the public opinion is getting managed back into this box of, 'This was a public health event,' and 'This was a public health response. Some mistakes were made, some overreach. Let's fix those things.' But they won't do anything about the castle. The castle is these laws that they're using. These, essentially, military martial law[s] that they have pulled. They suspended the Constitution. They haven't unsuspended it yet. I haven't seen any evidence of this...[And] they've written a mountain of law[s], to do exactly this, starting even maybe in the 1800s. "My friend, Katherine [Watt], started going back and tracing all these legal changes, specifically around the vaccines, even going back to the 1700s. And you can see how this, like, machine is morphing—meaning the federal government, which the Constitution actually is the document that limits the federal government very severely...But [what] they've done since, you know, the late 1700s or or even, you know, mid 1800s, they've done the complete opposite of it. So now the federal government is everything, pretty much. And what they've done in this last last episode [COVID], is they further merged the power of separate federal agencies that are supposed to be separate, supposed to be separately, you know, constrained and regulated. They're not. So since then, they've merged 11 federal agencies into what's called PEMSI [?]. It's a pandemic enterprise."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1885770249892409509/ext_tw_video_thumb/1885759142452764672/pu/img/u2JXOEC282jgt4gu.jpg)
![Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people 💯 Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs 👏 Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR 👏 Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country— Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009—not in a boy band—I experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about it—it is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problem—it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, “But we have just passed”— Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can now—for my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, “But we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?” Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered down—[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one in—it was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targets—just vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. No—we must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Government’s legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the room—who owns our water—has been ruled out of the Cunliffe commission’s operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasury—he probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownership—something that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Water’s case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith rose— Mark Ferguson rose— Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Water—that half a billion pounds in interest payments—will keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should have—from us, the public—and every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell games—just clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each other’s backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbert’s novel “Dune” believed: “A man’s flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe”. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1905614329543532962/amplify_video_thumb/1905612252947865600/img/4N7RnIbeKkSuIXsR.jpg)
0:05
Sensitive content
Alright. I’m honestly relieved that this is finally coming out, so we can finally put an end to the fairytale conspiracies about March 4, courtesy of Joe Flipperhead and the ratchet harem. Since Aidan and his Dollar-Tree-sidekick Chelsea want to drag March 4th into the public arena, let’s do it properly– with facts, not the fairy tale he’s been feeding everyone. The rumors flying around are completely untrue, and I’ve wanted to defend myself for weeks, but Aidan has spent the last month threatening me, telling people that if the truth ever came out he’d “turn me into the next Lindsey,” that everyone would believe him because he has a platform, and even declaring he’d tell his followers to contact my work. Well, here we are. Since he chose to drag this into the public and sic his ratchet brigade on me, I’m finally telling the actual story. That night wasn’t some dramatic “Meredith tried to send me to jail” moment. It was a drunk, disgusting fight between two adults—the kind Aidan has on rotation with every woman he dates. Both of us were very intoxicated, but he was blackout drunk, verbally abusive, and filming me against my will. I told him to stop. He didn’t. I’d found out about him sexting another girl and had bottled up emotions for months, which is what started the argument. I asked him to leave after he said horrible things to me, including calling me fat and useless, that people only like me because I’m “Turtleboy’s girlfriend”. I asked him to leave and he began recording me, pointing a phone in my face while I repeatedly told him to stop. He lost his own key, and because he couldn’t remember anything, he made up a story that I “stole it.” Imagine spreading this fantasy when I have him on video of me asking him to return MY KEYS? I was uncomfortable, overwhelmed, and didn’t want a drunken fight being filmed. He took our feud out into the common area of my building, disturbing other tenants. So yes, I said “you hit me,” specifically because I believed he wouldn’t share the video if I said that. I said it so he would STOP RECORDING ME, and he has a full video that I clearly say, “I’m only saying that so you’ll stop recording me.” I never reported anything to the police, never intended to, never would. He knows this. We discussed this fact many times the next day and several occasions in the last few months. That context has been deliberately cut out to push a fake narrative, but don’t worry, I’ll be posting the full videos that I took of that night. When he’s threatened me with releasing this very video, he admitted it would be edited out and no one would believe me over him. Meanwhile, the victim cosplay he’s doing now? Pathetic. He claims he was “stuck” in my house. Reality: I asked him to leave over and over. This narrative that he was somehow stuck there held hostage is simply not true. Reality: I have video of him refusing to get out of my bed, not “sleeping on the couch.” Reality: I have video of him screaming at me like a lunatic. Reality: He lost his key because he was hammered, then somehow turned that into me “stealing it.” Reality: He was causing a huge scene in my apartment throwing a literal temper tantrum on the floor. With other tenants in the building, I was genuinely concerned someone would call the police. He also lies that I tried to keep him from court the next day. Reality? I gave him my car so he could get to court. I sat in the passenger seat half-dead from a hangover while chauffeuring Captain Accountability to his court date. I sat next to him during court, then eventually throwing up in a bag on the way home. Then he used that same car to drive to his house for his spare key, and back again. I supported him through the entire aftermath, like I did every time. But now he’s trying to pretend he was some endangered baby deer and I was plotting to Lindsay him? Get real. This narrative that I was somehow trying to get him arrested? An absolutely disgusting lie considering the trauma that situation caused him. Not to mention the countless hours I spent during our 1.5 year relationship assisting with his legal defense to keep him OUT of jail. He knows it’s not true. He knows exactly what happened. Do you really think if his narrative were true, he’d stay with me for months to come and not file his own police report? But he also knows he thrives off playing victim, and he knows he has people willing to believe anything he says without question. Over the last month, behind the scenes with recording gate, he’s been telling me and others that if I ever spoke up, he’d ruin me. That he’d twist the story because he has the bigger platform. That he’d make sure people contacted my job. He has leaked private texts, sent people after me, and used Chelsea, a woman he cheated on me with, to push his manufactured victim narrative. But here’s the truth: Aidan is not the victim of March 5th. He was drunk, verbally abusive, refusing to leave, and escalating a situation he then turned around and weaponized. And like every situation he touches, every feud, every fallout, every “enemy,” every messy disaster, he plays the same role: the powerless victim of consequences he created. At some point, people need to recognize the common denominator. I stayed silent because I didn’t want this ugliness public. I didn’t want to embarrass him. I didn’t want to rehash something painful, private, and humiliating for both of us. But since he chose to send CamelToe Joe and his ratchet harem to post private fights, twist reality, and smear me, I’m done being quiet. Aidan is incapable of having a private relationship and ending. And Chelsea…hun. I know your brain cells are limited, but your "insurance" explanation makes no sense. When did he send you this video? Months after it happened? Why would you need insurance at that point? You’re being used like a scratch-off ticket from Cumberland Farms. He feeds you a cropped video and suddenly you’re Nancy Drew with a nicotine patch? Please. You weren’t even in the picture until after he was done cheating with you. These videos paint a wildly different picture of the fake victim narrative CamelToe Joe has been pushing, huh? I’ll be posting more soon, about the recording, about every single lie he has chosen to spread through his minions the last two months. I guess I was crazy to think Aidan would ever be okay with someone walking away and moving on peacefully. Since Aidan wanted the truth out, he's about to get it. PS- Speaking of men being fake scared of women– Funny how some people with very chaotic personal histories suddenly decide they’re the moral authority on my life, enough so to peddle lies on their large platforms. If I had these kinds of pasts, I'd probably sit this one out, and maybe stop throwing stones from your glass basements and (mom’s) houses.
The old M can’t come to the phone right now
122,740 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад
![gunil only had 1 minute and 20 seconds to share his point and he still kept getting cut off 🫠 "Should neighborhoods where many foreigners live be officially designated as 'special public-safety zones" [Gunil - opposition] 🐹 firstly, i've been listening the whole time. just because you designate an area like that for foreigners, it's not like people will go, "ah, then i shouldn't commit crimes anymore," it's not like crime just suddenly disappears. instead, because it's specifically designated, they could just think, "then i'll go commit crimes somewhere else," and then crime still happens, it just shifts to another area. i really want to ask about a solution that can address the fundamental problem here- (they whisper to each other while gunil was still talking) 🐹 i'm not done yet. and, externally, like you said, it might look like south korea is a country that really tries to protect the safety of foreigners. but the reality is that foreigners might actually face discrimination, or rather, once you actually look beneath the surface, you'll realize this policy is more rotten / flawed than you think. 👴 when it comes to crime prevention, there's a concept called the Broken Windows Theory. the Broken Windows Theory. if you leave a window broken and just let it be, eventually that whole area deteriorates. gunil's teammates: it hasn't broken yet. 👴 such crimes can be prevented in advance make things safer. so, opposing the establishment of a special security zone itself is stigmatizing. 🐹 let me ask one thing here. let me just ask one thing here (he keeps getting cut off) 👴 you haven't let me finish my point. you haven't let me finish. listen for a moment. 🐹 i don't think there's any reason to listen to things that stray too far from the main topic. 👴 if you interrupt in the middle like this, the discussion won't proceed. 🐹 if we don't designate these 'special foreigner zones', aren't foreigners in south korea already being protected by the country's public authority (law enforcement)? aren't they already being protected? 👴 ultimately, we may have high ideals, but we have to acknowledge reality. gunil's teammate: of you talk about something off-topic, you get a yellow card. we already did that, right?](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2019408892275675479/amplify_video_thumb/2019408386945929216/img/-qPH8c03Zl6IKvT1.jpg)
