So that's why celebs attend charity bashes. Somewhat naively, I thought they did that just for self promotion purposes.
Supermodel Naomi Campbell will be summonsed to a war crimes trial in The Hague, the Telegraph reports. Mercifully for fans of the battling Streatham clotheshorse, she is not accused of committing terrible atrocities on unarmed civilians with a PDA, but rather will appear as a witness in the trial of former Liberian president …
If she didn't receive a dimamond, then the answer is no. Giving any other answer can only be interpreted as a yes. And I really can't see why a friend would lie claiming she has when she hasn't. If she were smart (intelligent) , which she isn't, she'd just admit the truth: that'd do less harm to her image and reputation.
She's a good looking girl, but she's a complete b**ch. I'm not a prima donna honest...
If she lies in court then it's perjury (presumably they have the same law over there), so will be interesting to see what she says and how she fairs up under cross examination.
I hope they broadcast it.
Watching her squeam and lie under cross examination...should be bad for her reputation, hopefully.
>>"If she were smart (intelligent) , which she isn't, she'd just admit the truth: that'd do less harm to her image and reputation."
That rather depends what she might have done with the [alleged] rock, if it existed, and whether any forgetfulness with respect to customs or tax authorities might have occurred.
Not surprised she's denying all knowledge then.
Presumably if it becomes apparent that this is true, the current Sierra Leonian government are going to ask for it back since it was half-inched from them in the first place. They'll probably be a little miffed when they find it's been chopped into little pieces, glued to an iSomethingorother and subsequently embedded piecemeal in the crania of various migrant workers.
...... the battling Streatham clotheshorse, she is not accused of committing terrible atrocities."
Bloody hell, can't they find some trumped up charge to accuse her with? After all, she WAS in possession of a diamond (allegedly) and so is complicit in Sierra Leone's civil war.
And another thing - Naomi almost rhymes with Leone. I rest my case.
Campbell is that dumb, or short of a few cells in the brain department, that when given the diamond, it wouldn't have even occurred to her that it was a blood diamond and considered the circumstances under how it was obtained.
The whole thing about diamonds is completely over-rated. There are far prettier stones which also cost more to extract and process and are rarer than diamonds.
The idea a "diamond is forever" is just a marketing ploy by DeBeers to keep the thing selling and keep the price (and their profits) high.
Women like diamonds not because of how they look, but because they're expensive.
It's that old money thing again. Oh yes it is. The most important thing on the mind of a women when marrying men is financial security, and if they're loaded, it helps.
Why Sarah, are you denying that a significant percentage of the female population still judges the suitability of their mates almost entirely on their financial fitness? Are you attempting to claim, here in full view of the public, that all (or even most) women have magically evolved past all of their preconceptions? That all (or even most) women select their mates based on the ‘proper’ intangibles such as compatibility of personalities, key beliefs, ability to exercise basic common sense, kindness and so forth?
If you are indeed attempting (through your reply to TkH11) to either insinuate this, or even to say it outright then I have a boon to ask of you. Please tell me where this magical fairy land is so that both my Fiancée and I might quite our jobs and immediately move there. Such a place would mean that true equality between the sexes had finally been achieved, and the pendulum has ceased swinging between one gender or the other holding more power.
So far as I can tell looking around here, TkH11 is pretty dead bang right. It is the really rare individual in this town that doesn’t fall into his description. (Which is why I consider myself so very lucky to have found the mate I did.) Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a significant portion of our population works in the oilfield: gone for three out of every four months, but completely loaded. I don’t have answers for that, but the “you are only as good as the money you give me” crowd are very dramatically the majority over here. They also tend to be remarkably fickle, and not all that committed to their supposed mates for three out of four weeks.
I am not at all saying this is a gender-based item, simply that culture and opportunity play huge parts in how anyone reacts. Here in Edmonton, an enormous percentage of the male population spends three weeks in all (or nearly all) male work camps then come back into the city for a week. They can (and do) spend decades of their lives working like this. The female population thusly have an enormous advantage due to male desperation, one that very few of them are above exercising.
It would be wrong to state that “all women are only in it for the money.” It is similarly wrong to deny that in many places (even “free” and supposedly “modern” places) there are shockingly high percentages of the female population that truly are in it for nothing but the money. Women are just as greedy as men, and they will use and most thoroughly abuse any advantage they have. From looks and pheromones to population scarcity to intelligence. They will even take full advantage of being the non-migratory gender in such a way as to work tirelessly to influence political processes. (“Women’s groups” here are to be feared. They are unbelievably politically puissant, largely because the women are actually around to vote come election time, whereas the men do not always get the chance.)
Women are equal in every way, including every nasty, greedy, conniving and manipulative trait you could ascribe to either gender.
So anyways, if you have found this magical place where people don’t take advantage of each other for petty things like money, reputation or status then please do share. It sounds bloody lovely compared to here.
>>"It's that old money thing again. Oh yes it is. The most important thing on the mind of a women when marrying men is financial security, and if they're loaded, it helps."
I'd wonder if it was more of a commitment thing - though there are some gold-diggers around, I'd have thought that for many (maybe most?) women, it's the extent to which someone might spend more than they can easily afford that would impress more than the absolute value of an object.
A diamond ring that cost someone a months's wages would be more meaningful than one that was rather more expensive but given by someone for whom the cost was chicken feed.
In that situation, the reason diamond-based tokens are valued isn't down to what they're *worth*, but purely to what they *cost*, which doesn't make life too hard for De Beers' promotional tactics.
SB, you gest, but the fact remains if you undertake a survey of women you'll soon find that the majority of them want their partner to be earning more money than them - and that includes the ones that work in the investment banks on damn good contractor rates! I know because I've asked them.
If that isn't about financial security then tell me what is?
>>"and that includes the ones that work in the investment banks on damn good contractor rates! I know because I've asked them"
Do you think that people who go for well-paid jobs in the banking sectors should be expected to be significantly *less* interested in money compared to the average person, or compared to people who choose to work in professions like medicine or education?
How's abou a formal study then?
Money is certainly well up in the rankings.
Not to mention that money is the most frequently argued-about subject in marriages - so if you've got a lot of it, that's a major source of arguments that ain't happening.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020