https://x.com/thehlworld/status/2028919902598287581?s=46
Ooooh… I’m going to have to research this account and get back to you…
Ohhh… please get back to me because that’s what we’ve been saying for YEARS. That shit gets bought and killed.
x

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Netherlands
seen from Russia

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Dominican Republic

seen from Dominican Republic
seen from Dominican Republic

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Australia

seen from Dominican Republic

seen from Australia
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from China
https://x.com/thehlworld/status/2028919902598287581?s=46
Ooooh… I’m going to have to research this account and get back to you…
Ohhh… please get back to me because that’s what we’ve been saying for YEARS. That shit gets bought and killed.
x

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Gina and her anons burbling nonsense about contracts again. Her agreeing that Zara would be in breach of contract over Joey Essex and would have to repay Louis the mythical money he has paid her, multiplied as reparations. Try taking that to court : “So your client paid Ms McDermott X amount to play the part of his serious girlfriend for a time limited period ? Why ? Because he is under a non time limited contract which forces him to hide the fact that he is in an ongoing homosexual relationship with another pop star ? “ The whole idea of these contracts falls apart very quickly - there’s no way of enforcing these ‘must not appear to be gay’ contracts legally and there is the Streisand effect ; all any legal action would do would draw attention to the situation ! And no, this would not be covered under a super injunction. They took the cleanliness clause comment ( common where reputation matters and covers a whole load of behaviours but being gay would not legally be one of them ) twisted it for their own purposes and run with it ever since.
Absolutely. Same for the nonsense they spew about NDAs. An NDA cannot stop someone from speaking up about an illegal activity.
I don’t know a ton about nda’s but I’ve been thinking about the circumstances that one might be used. I’m going to share my thoughts because I see this getting thrown around a lot.
First of all, I think they can be signed pre-emptively for very famous people, like before someone even gets involved they have to sign this document not to disclose certain information they might be privy to as a precaution. I’m guessing this is not what happened between L&A.
The second way would be after the fact- the person already has information and/or access and you want to control what they can share legally, not just on the honor system. In this case, the person has leverage because in exchange for signing the agreement they can ask or be offered something out of the deal, like money or exposure. This way makes more sense in the case of L, A and co. Something was being shared, or being threatened to be shared, and it needed locked down. A might have asked or been offered provisions in the agreement which explains why she was going to events with him, might have had financial compensation or housing arrangements, etc.
We have no way of knowing if this is the case, but it would explain L’s demeanor with her and seemingly contradictory behavior.
I definitely agree NDAs seem to have been put into place after the fact! I think L is learning how to navigate fame, and he lost control of his public image (which his career depends on). I think he is trying to regain control of his public narrative, and protect the public narrative of a certain Irish princess we all love (including him ❤️️).
UPDATE ON THE UK NDA BAN:
While not a full NDA ban, it IS a change in the restriction of what they can be used for, which is a step in the right direction. As far as I can tell, it's also retroactive, so people who entered NDAs before this change goes into effect still abide by the new adjustments.
Article, and also more sources that have discussed this change. I got to it a bit late but I haven't seen anyone else going on about this, so better late than never, eh?

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Just outlaw the NDAs. NonDisclosure Agreements are a threat to a civil society.
Jeffrey Epstein’s most powerful ally was silence - Gretchen Carlson and Julie Roginsky - Mon 8 Dec 2025 06.00 EST The Guardian This pattern echoes across institutions and industries. When abuse occurs, the first instinct is too often containment, not accountability. Corporations draft non-disclosure agreements that muzzle employees. Organizations force workers into arbitration, protecting executives while survivors are bound by confidentiality and pushed out the door. Even government agencies, as in Epstein’s case, have shown a willingness to trade transparency for expediency.
Names shouldn't be hidden to protect the guilty.
Trump Faces LEGAL NIGHTMARE After Survivors FLIP THE SCRIPT Katie Phang Feb 19, 2026 The victims and survivors of Epstein, Maxwell, and others deserve justice. But, as Julie Roginsky and Gretchen Carlson note, “Jeffrey Epstein’s most powerful ally was silence.” They join Katie Phang for a discussion on NDAs, forced arbitration clauses, and other weapons to keep the truth from coming out when abuse occurs.
Elected representatives especially shouldn't be signing NDAs to hide projects and their impact from the public they work for.
Public officials who sign NDAs should resign because they don't understand the job. And there really ought to be a law to prevent any such thing from ever happening where elected officials sign agreements to keep secrets from the communities they serve. Chloe Humbert Aug 12, 2025
I am begging y'all to understand NDAs
Something I am really noticing online when it comes to discussions of eventual "behind the scenes drama", "early cancellations" and such things of media, but also "upcoming projects" for media is, that folks clearly do not understand NDAs.
NDAs are Non-Disclosure Agreements. Basically, if you work in any form of big media production, or even so much as a journalist covering this (same when you work in all sorts of other fields), you will be handed an NDA for work. I mean, I worked for a bank for a while, I had to sign an NDA basically saying. "Yo, I won't talk shit about anyone's personal finances." Chances are: If you are working, you have signed an NDA together with your work contract for something.
And the same is true with anything in terms of multimedia production. Basically anyone who works in media will sign an NDA that will cover all sorts of stuff - and might be up for adjustments later on.
So, basically, your NDA will say:
You cannot spoil upcoming projects.
You cannot speak about anything upcoming, until whoever holds to property rights gives the okay and makes an announcement.
You cannot talk about any behind the scenes drama (like beef between people - or illicit affairs happening) - unless something explicitly criminal happened.
Usually there is a script about the narrative media is having about a production, and you gotta stick to that - says your NDA.
This means the following: Just stop annoying people with your questions about the upcoming season or movie for franchise whatever. No, they will not be able to answer you whether XY happens. Because they literally signed a contract saying they owe whoever they work for a whole big bunch of money if they do.
But this also means: If you hear a rumor about someone behaving shitty or about a studio cancelling a project or something along those lines, and you ask people who worked on that about it online and they either are vague about it or deny it, this also does not have to mean anything, because chances are, they have signed an NDA, and yes, this NDA can force them to outright lie, unless they would cover up a crime.
(And let's face it, when it comes to Hollywood, people have absolutely tried to just gaslight folks into covering up crimes by having them sign such NDAs. No, this is not legal. It absolutely is not. But not everyone knows that and if like Harvey Weinstein's army of lawyers tells you, that you cannot talk about Harvey raping you, because otherwise you owe him 10 million, you might think twice about risking it.)
I am writing this, because last year I noticed both a lot. Fans bugging creators with questions about upcoming shows or movies, while the creatives reiterated several times that they could not talk about it because of their NDAs. And also fans just eating up the "official narratives" of studios about cases where probably some really bad stuff happened behind the scenes with the words of: "Well, but producer XY said so, and nobody else disagreed." Yeah, duh, they didn't. Because if that happened, they signed an NDA to not lose a word about it.
And mind you, I do not wnat to say: "Whatever rumor you heard about XY happening on the production of show Whatever is definitely true." I am just saying: "Just because the official statement is 'no, this did not happen, and the two week break in shooting was totally planned', does not mean it is, even if nobody openly disagrees." Just keep in mind that NDAs are a thing.