j2bad 896 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 A butt that won't quit. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Frankthewank 242 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) Women have bottoms too, Frank. Women have bottoms too. I suppose so. Maybe I read too much into the statement. I just imagined that anyone who expressed a preference for young butt was likely homosexual. However I accept they may be heterosexual but just potentially interested in anal sex with young women. Edited November 3, 2016 by Frankthewank Quote Link to post Share on other sites
j2bad 896 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Women have bottoms too, Frank. Women have bottoms too. I suppose so. Maybe I read too much into the statement. I just imagined that anyone who expressed a preference for young butt was likely homosexual. However I accept they may be heterosexual but just interested potentially in anal sex with young women. You don't have to go anal to work the butt. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Sausages 6,375 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 "In the latest return, the auditor notes that there was limited evidence to confirm the completeness of cash receipts in respect of £83,000 of cash income recorded in the company’s records." I don't think our auditors would let us get away with that. Read more at: http://m.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/blessed-by-standing-order-825k-donated-to-church-1-8211123 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JackCarter 649 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 "In the latest return, the auditor notes that there was limited evidence to confirm the completeness of cash receipts in respect of £83,000 of cash income recorded in the company’s records." I don't think our auditors would let us get away with that. Read more at: http://m.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/blessed-by-standing-order-825k-donated-to-church-1-8211123 That's one way of putting it. The other is that the auditors note that they have no idea where you got £83,000 from. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grianane 147 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 (edited) "In the latest return, the auditor notes that there was limited evidence to confirm the completeness of cash receipts in respect of £83,000 of cash income recorded in the company’s records." I don't think our auditors would let us get away with that. Read more at: http://m.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/blessed-by-standing-order-825k-donated-to-church-1-8211123 is there a suggestion that the £83,000 was recorded but because the company is not able to evidence receipts more than that may have been received but not recorded. I suppose if you cant trust the church who can you trust... Edited November 4, 2016 by Grianane Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Heffalump 15 Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 It would appear there is a new "Christian" version of this story now. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/when.this.pastor.needed.to.buy.a.house.his.congregation.stepped.in.and.gave.66000/99771.htm It would appear that even though the linked ad in the article states the house is £625,000 the writer says the following. "A Christian pastor and his wife have been able to buy a £485,000 five-bedroom detached home with a self-contained annex after their congregation donated £66,000. While most of the money donated £55,000 was offered by a few friends of the Stanfield family in the church, a further £11,000 was given anonymously by church goers." Is this maybe the reply from the leadership? So, some of the wealthier people gave first? Just a thought........ if the house is actually worth more than what was paid, do you still have to declare the "estate agent" price for tax etc.? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Heffalump 15 Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 Plus....... Mr Andrew Selley, a partner of mr stanfields from South Africa and the Joshua generation church has Added his own comment on Facebook and I note that many of our Isle of Man people have agreed with his view as below: "Modern Media cannot be trusted in that it functions as both Prosecutor & judge. There is no defense lawyer so the jury( the public) can never objectively judge the facts. Worse still, is the fact that the journalist must justify why his story should go to print & nowadays the criteria is not justice, but will this sell newspapers! In the end, the media cannot be trusted to be presenting the facts on any matter, because the primary principle used in writing the story is how to spin the facts, to create interest & heat(passionate feelings in the reader for good or bad-depending which is most likely to hook), framed in such a way that it will cause anger, a sense of injustice, concern or passion in readers. Read the newspaper like you watch a soapy, a play or a movie, because any relevance to the facts are purely circumstantial!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
code99 42 Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 ‘’An appeal has been made to boost funding for a radiotherapy machine which vastly improves treatment of several forms of cancer’’ Read more at http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/districts/appeal-for-votes-to-secure-cancer-machine-funding-1-8219258 Apparently Living Hope Church is awash/blessed with cash. I wonder if they could spare a quid or two (I know I will) for this and similar good causes, being a charity and all that... Unless of course their pastor has now requested a swimming pool and a room for a pony... to add to his new mansion. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Manxcrabbe 43 Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 Plus....... Mr Andrew Selley, a partner of mr stanfields from South Africa and the Joshua generation church has Added his own comment on Facebook and I note that many of our Isle of Man people have agreed with his view as below: "Modern Media cannot be trusted in that it functions as both Prosecutor & judge. There is no defense lawyer so the jury( the public) can never objectively judge the facts. Worse still, is the fact that the journalist must justify why his story should go to print & nowadays the criteria is not justice, but will this sell newspapers! In the end, the media cannot be trusted to be presenting the facts on any matter, because the primary principle used in writing the story is how to spin the facts, to create interest & heat(passionate feelings in the reader for good or bad-depending which is most likely to hook), framed in such a way that it will cause anger, a sense of injustice, concern or passion in readers. Read the newspaper like you watch a soapy, a play or a movie, because any relevance to the facts are purely circumstantial!" I would have thought that the contents of the accounts were facts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Sausages 6,375 Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 Maybe they'll pray instead. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Albert Tatlock 11,317 Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
notwell 5,721 Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 It would appear there is a new "Christian" version of this story now. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/when.this.pastor.needed.to.buy.a.house.his.congregation.stepped.in.and.gave.66000/99771.htm It would appear that even though the linked ad in the article states the house is £625,000 the writer says the following. "A Christian pastor and his wife have been able to buy a £485,000 five-bedroom detached home with a self-contained annex after their congregation donated £66,000. While most of the money donated £55,000 was offered by a few friends of the Stanfield family in the church, a further £11,000 was given anonymously by church goers." Is this maybe the reply from the leadership? So, some of the wealthier people gave first? Just a thought........ if the house is actually worth more than what was paid, do you still have to declare the "estate agent" price for tax etc.? If there was a suspicion that the value of the transaction was purposely and clearly under market value the land registry could write to their layer about it. There are not any other taxes involved. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Skeletor 136 Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 Maybe they'll pray instead. And blame lack of faith for it not working. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
code99 42 Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 (edited) If I am not mistaken, this Stanfield, he is originally from Ireland, isn’t he? I assume no relation to Father Ted, but sounds like a very entrepreneurial spirit indeed; with his power(s) of persuasion he should be in charge of Brexit, I reckon. Edited November 5, 2016 by code99 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.