It is absolutely amazing how quickly people find my site when out to defend an official narrative. I am of course talking about the Jessica Whelan article. Mind you, it was inevitable that I was going to get some grief over it but how does a critic defend the indefensible? Well, if you are Nadia you do it like
What a sick individual you are ! No hello or fuck all... Just straight into it.
However that opening gambit shows you how fucked up these useful-idiots are. I mean Nadia accuses me of being "sick" - and I am assuming that she doesn't mean 'brilliant' as in the modern sense of the word - for exposing a fraud or series of frauds that run into millions of Pounds.
And as such, logic dictates that if I am "sick" for doing so Nadia must think that those committing the frauds using the premise of a dying child are also "sick" - as in fucking brilliant. Which in my book makes Nadia "sick" - as in 'vomit'.
Actually Nadia, I spent many hours of my time uncovering an indisputable case of obtaining money under false pretences... Yet that fact has fuck all to do with how I feel about Go-Fucking-Fund-Me pages.
Sick Benefit part 3 is on it's way too... Keep an eye out for it !