+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Daytime Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+--- Forum: Former Daytime Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=237)
+---- Forum: Studio 66 TV Daytime (formerly Elite TV Daytime) (/forumdisplay.php?fid=266)
+----- Forum: Lucy-Anne Brooks (/forumdisplay.php?fid=420)
+----- Thread: Lucy-Anne - Chat & Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=285)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184
RE: Lucy-Anne - Chat & Discussion - Rammyrascal - 25-11-2015 15:33
(25-11-2015 15:10 )Charlemagne Wrote: ^^Rammy there's no way that you can portray 'rinsing' with a positive spin.
It may not be illegal but it's morally unacceptable.
I wasn't intending to portray rinsing in a positive light. i was just saying why i don't really have a problem with rinsing as it's not illegal for models to ask for gifts from people and no one is being forced to buy these gifts.
do think Loose Women should have had Lucy-Anne & her sisters on to put forward their side of things or at least got a statement from Lucy-Anne & her Sisters
RE: Lucy-Anne - Chat & Discussion - skully - 25-11-2015 16:06
I deleted a rant I was planing to post about this the other day, but seeing as this shite isn't going away...
As long as there are children going hungry in the world, there is no defending this greedy behaviour, it's certainly nothing to be proud of.
We aren't talking a box of chocolates, some flowers or a reasonably priced gift here (which is fine I suppose), we're talking about things worth hundreds or even thousands of pounds. How about instead of a wishlist that fleeces people that have more money than sense (I still can't wrap my head around this whole buying something expensive for a stranger thing), they stick up a list of good causes and charities for those idiots to give their money to instead, do some good for fucks sake people!!!
(The above is my opinion and not that of the forum team)
RE: Lucy-Anne - Chat & Discussion - Charlemagne - 25-11-2015 16:24
![[Image: image-8714_5655E09C.jpg]](https://www.tvgirlsgallery.co.uk/image-8714_5655E09C.jpg)
RE: Lucy-Anne - Chat & Discussion - minordriver - 25-11-2015 16:27
The girls are not breaking the law & not doing anything wrong.
If these men are sad enough to buy them stuff & only get a photo back then more fool them, they should try and get a life..
RE: Lucy-Anne - Chat & Discussion - Maggot - 25-11-2015 16:46
It's not black and white.
If they are rinsing rich and powerful blokes trying to buy sex, then good on the girls.
If they are rinsing lonely and vulnerable Walter Mitty characters, then shame on the girls for encouraging it.
Impossible to know who is who over the internet though.
RE: Lucy-Anne - Chat & Discussion - kifkiz - 25-11-2015 16:50
Didn't some guy buy a Mercedes for Lucy Zara and not a bottom spec a class either.
Why wasn't that on the news.
RE: Lucy-Anne - Chat & Discussion - gonzo - 25-11-2015 16:57
I used to rate her highly as one of my favourite girls, then I paid her some money for some worn items that never turned up and now I don't have any time for her. She emails you back immediately when it's all business to be done, then once she has your money you never hear from her again. I genuinely think she is horrible person despite whatever facade she might show on the outside.
RE: Lucy-Anne - Chat & Discussion - westie2k - 25-11-2015 17:23
I'm seeing a lot of it chat about how this is ok because the guys have a choice in this, well imho it's not. These guys r still vulnerable. If it was old ladies getting conned out of money for a service they perceived to be value for money the country would be up in arms. I know specific promises are not made, but a hell of a lot is implied. I once overheard a conversation, a couple of years back, where a girl was guiding a obviously drunk guy on how to get to her wish list on Amazon. It was the last call I made to the girl.
RE: Lucy-Anne - Chat & Discussion - jimmyt73 - 25-11-2015 19:51
(25-11-2015 15:05 )circles_o_o_o Wrote: So it seems the sisters should have appeared on loose women but had their booking cancelled when their "porn background" came to light (that's what it says in the headline)I wonder if Lucy cancelled due to it being available on tv for free,with no webcam option.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/75k-selfie-sisters-brand-loose-6896636
RE: Lucy-Anne - Chat & Discussion - KerrAvon - 26-11-2015 14:51
"We’re doing many of these men a favour"