Anorak

Celebrities | Anorak

Celebrities Category

Celebrity news & gossip from the world’s showbiz and glamour magazines (OK!, Hello, National Enquirer and more). We read them so you don’t have to, picking the best bits from the showbiz world’s maw and spitting it back at them. Expect lots of sarcasm.

Private Cheryl Cole world to keep the limelight as Liam Payne goes solo again

Like you, everyone else thought Cheryl Cole / Surname and former One Direction extra Liam Payne would spend the next decades together in Instagramed bliss. But, then, we also thought “the nation’s sweetheart” (Cheryl – source: all papers) would hang on in their with her first two husbands.

It turns out that Cheryl and Liam are not getting on well. The pair are “preparing to end their relationship”, in much the same way as mere mortals prepare to end a bath or log off twitter. You know how it is: you pull the plug, see the water circling life’s plughole, call your agent and announce that “crisis talks” with the rubber duck might not work.

A few unnamed “friends” helpfully call the Sun to say that Cheryl is “very private” – see photos of her arse and marriage in OK! – that she is an “amazing” mother to the couple’s child, Bear, has been “left holding the baby”, how she will “battle” on, and open Cheryl’s Trust Centre, a place where “vulnerable young people” can feel her unique brand of love.

No word yet on who gets to keep the paparazzi.

Posted: 19th, February 2018 | In: Celebrities, News, Tabloids | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Lisa Armstrong prepared to part with her half her fortune to get shot of Ant McPartlin

When Ant McPartlin’s lawyers thrash out any divorce settlement with his estranged wife Lisa Armstrong, they may refer to the Sun’s reporting on the family fortune.

In today’s paper the news is that Amanda Holden and Alesha Dixon have been “comforting” Lisa and offering “real support”. That news of their good hearts should emerge just as Britain’s Got Talent, the show on which the pair work as judges hits the PR circuit, is surely coincidental and not opportunistic tosh pulled from cynicism’s deepest mine.

 

AntLisadivorce

 

Of more interest is that Sun’s news that Ant is “prepared to part with half his £62m fortune”. You might suppose that money accrued by childhood sweethearts who’ve ben married for 11 years would belong to both of them. The message could be: “Lisa is prepared to part with half her fortune”?

And it’s not £62m. Well, not according to the, er, Sun it isn’t.

 

 

One thing is clear: in the tabloids the money is always his and not hers.

 

Posted: 16th, February 2018 | In: Celebrities, Money, News, Tabloids | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Judge rules: Taylor Swift’s lyrics are too ‘banal’ and ‘unoriginal’ to copyright

Taylor Swift’s lyrics are too banal to copyright. US Judge Michael W Fitzgerald has ruled in a case of alleged copyright infringement against the singer.

Songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler claimed Swift’s song Shake It Off stole from their tune Playas Gon’ Play. They argued that Swift’s lyric relied on their lyric, “playas, they gonna play, and haters, they gonna hate.”

 

taylor swift banal

Shakers gotta shake; makers gotta make; takers gotta take

 

 

Fitzgerald was unimpressed. His ruling is golden:

As reflected in Defendants’ RJN, and as Plaintiffs acknowledge, by 2001, American popular culture was heavily steeped in the concepts of players, haters, and player haters. Although Plaintiffs recognize as much, they allege that they “originated the linguistic combination of playas/players playing along with hatas/haters hating…” Plaintiffs explain that the plethora of prior works that incorporated “the terms ‘playa’ and hater together all revolve about the concept of ‘playa haters’” – a “playa” being “one who is successful at courting women,” and a “playa hater” being “one who is notably jealous of the ‘playas’” success.”… Plaintiffs explain that Playas Gon’ Play “used the terms in the context of a third party, the narrator of a song who is neither a ‘playa’ nor a hater, stating that other people will do what they will and positively affirming that they won’t let the judgment of others affect them.

Isn’t it great.

The concept of actors acting in accordance with their essential nature is not at all creative; it is banal. In the early 2000s, popular culture was adequately suffused with the concepts of players and haters to render the phrases “playas … gonna play” or “haters … gonna hate,” standing on their own, no more creative than “runners gonna run,” “drummers gonna drum,” or “swimmers gonna swim.” Plaintiffs therefore hinge their creativity argument, and their entire case, on the notion that the combination of “playas, they gonna play” and “haters, they gonna hate” is sufficiently creative to warrant copyright protection…

Looking at this this case from a potentially-protectable-short-phrase perspective, the lyrics in question are not sufficiently creative to warrant protection… Even if, as Plaintiffs contend, Plaintiffs were the first to employ the concepts of players playing and haters hating for the purpose of expressing “the idea of not concerning yourself with what other people do and think” …  the allegedly-infringed lyrics consist of just six relevant words – “playas … gonna play” and “haters … gonna hate.” In order for such short phrases to be protected under the Copyright Act, they must be more creative than the lyrics at issue here.

As discussed above, players, haters, and player haters had received substantial pop culture attention prior to 2001. It is hardly surprising that Plaintiffs, hoping to convey the notion that one should persist regardless of others’ thoughts or actions, focused on both players playing and haters hating when numerous recent popular songs had each addressed the subjects of players, haters, and player haters, albeit to convey different messages than Plaintiffs were trying to convey. In short, combining two truisms about playas and haters, both well-worn notions as of 2001, is simply not enough.

At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel offered alternative (very clunky) formulations of pairing a noun with its intransitive verb, thereby suggesting that “[noun] gonna [verb]” was creative in itself. While clever, this argument does not persuade. The argument ultimately only makes sense if the use of “gonna” as a contraction of “is going to” is sufficiently creative, or (as discussed above) one can claim creativity in asserting that a type of person acts in accordance with his or her inherent nature. To explicitly state the argument is to see how banal the asserted creativity is.

In sum, the lyrics at issue – the only thing that Plaintiffs allege Defendants copied – are too brief, unoriginal, and uncreative to warrant protection under the Copyright Act. In light of the fact that the Court seemingly “has before it all that is necessary to make a comparison of the works in question” … the Court is inclined to grant the Motion without leave to amend. However, out of an abundance of caution, the Court will allow Plaintiffs one opportunity to amend, just in case there are more similarities between Playas Gon’ Play and Shake it Off than Plaintiffs have alleged thus far (which Plaintiffs’ counsel did not suggest at the hearing). If there are not, the Court discourages actual amendment. The more efficient course would be for Plaintiffs to consent to judgment being entered against them so that they may pursue an appeal if they believe that is appropriate.

Judges gotta judge.

Posted: 14th, February 2018 | In: Celebrities, Key Posts, News | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Wax your pay gap: Love Island mating pairs are not all equal

Love Island finalist Olivia Attwood claims the reality TV mating show does not secure all would-be breeding pairs the same level of income. She’s part of a story that female stars were “reportedly offered less than their male counterparts for the same work after leaving the show”. Yeah, different human beings earn different amounts of money on account of their popularity, skills and reaction to limelight. WTF! It’s the ‘gender pay gap’, dummy. And no, it’s not something you can wax.

The women and men who participated in the reality television show, in which single contestants are sent to an island and instructed to couple up and find love, were given a variety of employment opportunities with outside companies after the programme ended.

Two went to work as sub-title writers for ITVBe, one became the German chancellor and another scored a job testing NHS  orthopaedic treatments on a pro-celebrity ice dancing show.

Although ITV offers an equal prize for winning the show, regardless of gender, stars have allegedly found that other companies they have worked with offered women less money.

Work like…

The jobs on offer included nightclub appearances, paid sponsorships on social media, media appearances and partnerships with brands. Ms Attwood claimed that women were offered less money for these roles than the men who participated in the reality television show.

Might it be that the punters would pay more to see the boys than the girls?

Spotter: Telegraph

 

Posted: 7th, February 2018 | In: Celebrities, Money, TV & Radio | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


’15 Things I’ve learned from Chris Heath’s remarkable interview with Quincy Jones’

Quincy Jones’s interview in GQ magazine in gangbusters. John Lewis distills the glory in “15 Things I’ve learned from Chris Heath’s remarkable interview with Quincy Jones”:

 

quincy jones dong rats

 

 

1. Aged 84, Quincy Jones has 22 girlfriends around the world, who are all aware of each other.
2. He claims to speak 26 languages.
3. He seems confident that he will live until the age of 120.
4. He watched his mother being carted off in a straitjacket to a mental hospital.
5. He and his brother were forced to catch and eat rats as children.
6. He used to buy dope from Malcolm X when he stayed in Detroit.
7. He watched Ray Charles injecting heroin into his balls (that’s Ray Charles’s balls, not Quincy Jones’s).
8. He was very angry when Michael Jackson’s chimpanzee, Bubbles, bit his baby daughter Rashida. He also saw Michael Jackson’s boa constrictor eat a parrot.
9. His lunch companions have included Pablo Picasso (“he was fucked up with absinthe all the time”) and Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl (“she told me everyone in the Third Reich was on cocaine”).
10. He was due to be at Sharon Tate’s house on the night of the Charles Manson murders, but forgot to go.
11. He still wears a ring given to him by Frank Sinatra, bearing the Sinatra family crest from Sicily.
12. Barack and Michelle Obama came round his house in 2008 and spent six hours trying to convince Quincy to shift his support in the Democratic primaries from Hilary Clinton to Obama.
13. As a guest of the Pope in 1999, he was impressed by the pontiff’s footwear. John Paul II overheard Quincy as he remarked: “Oh, my man’s got some pimp shoes on.”
14. He stays at Bono’s castle when he’s in Ireland (“cos Scotland and Ireland are so racist it’s frightening”).
15. He is a good cook. “I cook gumbo that’ll make you slap your grandmother.”

And that’s not to mention the stuff about Prince, and Marlon Brando, and Marilyn Monroe, and Tupac Shakur, and Nat King Cole, and the Dominican playboy Portfirio Rubirosa (“What a guy: 11-inch dong”).

Read it all.

Posted: 31st, January 2018 | In: Celebrities, Key Posts | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Stormy Daniels is ‘Making American Horny Again’

stormy daniels tou

 

If you want to see what Donald Trumps did or didn’t see you can catch aid to masturbation Stormy Daniels at The Trophy Club in Greenville, South Carolina, tomorrow.

The show is part of Daniels’ “Making America Horny Again Tour”, her entrepreneurial reaction to the Wall Street Journal’s claim that Trump paid her $130,000 to keep quiet about an alleged shag. In 2009 In Touch magazine reported Daniel’s story about her alleged sex with Trump.

“He saw her live. You can too,” oozes the ads on The Trophy Club’s Facebook page.

What else Donald’s eyes see in the throes of passion can be only guessed at. But for the fuller experience, I suggest taking along a pack of Cheetos and a child’s mitten.

Posted: 26th, January 2018 | In: Celebrities, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Take home a topless Jeff Goldblum love toy

Jeff-Goldblum-shirtless-Jurassic-Parktoy

 

Who wants a Pop! figure of a topless Jeff Goldblum? Who doesn’t? Goldblum was shirtless and wounded in the 1993 movie Jurassic Park. And now the “Wounded Dr. Ian Malcolm” love toy is yours to take home.

 

Jeff-Goldblum-shirtless-Jurassic-Parktoy

 

Spotter: Consequence of Sound

Posted: 24th, January 2018 | In: Celebrities, Film, The Consumer | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


L’Oreal model Amena Khan resigns over tweets calling for destruction of Israel

Turns out L’Oreal model Amena Khan isn’t worth it.  Khan, who became the first woman in a hijab to model L’Oreal’s face and hair unguents, has resigned “because the current conversations surrounding it detract from the positive and inclusive sentiment that it set out to deliver”. Eh?

 

loreal kahn antisemitism

 

A L’Oreal spokesperson has more: “We have recently been made aware of a series of tweets posted in 2014 by Amena Khan, who was featured in a UK advertising campaign. We appreciate that Amena has since apologised for the content of these tweets and the offence they have caused. L’Oréal Paris is committed to tolerance and respect towards all people. We agree with her decision to step down from the campaign.”

She’s deleted her posts. But someone saved them. Here they are:

 

loreal racism model

 

Nice one, Amena. You might wonder why she wants the world’s only Jewish state to be utterly destroyed. The assumptions could be the some people will look at her and think she’s a bigot.

 

 

Let’s have a look at what Khan told Vogue she got the job:

“How many brands are doing things like this? Not many. They’re literally putting a girl in a headscarf -whose hair you can’t see- in a hair campaign. Because what they’re really valuing through the campaign is the voices that we have. You have to wonder—why is it presumed that women who don’t show their hair don’t look after it? The opposite of that would be that everyone that does show their hair only looks after it for the sake of showing it to others. And that mindset strips us of our autonomy and our sense of independence. Hair is a big part of self-care.”

Not sure if those noble words extend to Israeli women, who if their country is ended, as Amena hoped, would very possibly all be dead. But that’s not to say those uniquely barbaric Jews can’t and shouldn’t look after their hair as they await their next slaughter. Because as anti-Semites never tire of telling us: they’re worth it.

Posted: 22nd, January 2018 | In: Celebrities, Key Posts, News | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Stormy Daniels: what’s it’s like to have sex with Donald Trump

Ever wonder what sex with Donald Trump is like? There might be bedwetting and orange skids on the sheets. But what about the actual intercourse? Lending Trump watchers and other enthusiastic sex watchers a small moistened helping hand is Stormy Daniels, a pneumatic aid to masturbation who tells us via a 2011 edition of In Touch magazine that sex with Trump in 2006 was “textbook”.

 

donald trump Stormy_Daniels_2010

Stormy in a G-Cup

 

In most of my school textbooks, sex was depictions of gigantic breasts and squirting knobs drawn in the margins. In Stormy’s edition of York Notes, we get more words than images:. “I actually don’t even know why I did it,” says the porn star of the billionaire, “but I do remember while we were having sex I was like, ‘Please don’t try to pay me’.” Well, d’uh. For one thing, where’s she’s gonna swipe the credit card?

She says he asked her to sign a DVD of one of her skin flicks and called her a “smart businesswoman” before they parted.

Anyhow, this is news because Trump says they never shagged. And she agrees, also stating that in no way was she paid $130,000 to never mention the incident.

Which she has and hasn’t.

Posted: 18th, January 2018 | In: Celebrities, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Poor Ant and lucky Lisa: tabloids and PRs control Ant McPartlin’s divorce story

ant mcpartlin divorce

 

How do we feel about Ant McPartlin, the taller half of Ant ‘n’ Dec? The papers want us to sympathise with Ant, who’s filed for divorce from Lisa Armstrong after 11 years of marriage. The Mirror and Express lead with poor Ant: “Ant’s agony” (Express) and the “agony of Any” (Mirror).

The Mirror says the “star looked exhausted and had a bandaged hand during a walk in London.” These are “tough times” for Ant. An unflattering photo of Lisa, shown on the Mirror’s front page and on its page 5, shows her looking less than cock-a-hoop. Over two pages, we read Ant’s message in the Mirror. He has “admitted he is to blame for the break-up”. He “showed the strain of the split and his battle with pill and booze addiction” as he walked wth his mother. A “source” tells us, “the best thing is now that they both move on”.

Beneath that a lawyer opines that because “no one else is involved at present” the assets can be split equally between Lisa and Ant. No-one else involved “at present”? Might that change, then? And those assets are big.

The Sun and Star lead with the cash.

The Star calculates the couple’s pot to be worth £62m. And everything is couched from Ant’s viewpoint. We read that Lisa “stands to gain half of his £62m fortune”. Gain? Doesn’t she, like him, stand to lose control of £62m for half that amount? On page 5, we read that Lisa, who’s been with Ant for 23 years, “could pocket” and “rake in” a fortune. The Sun says Ant must “pay wife £31m“. Pay? Surely split the assets. He is “prepared to part with half his fortune“. Well, yes. That’s marriage mate. The assets are shared. What’s mine is yours. An unnamed “source” arrives to tell us what a good bloke Ant is. “It’s a huge amount,” says Messrs Anon and Anon, ” but he wants Lisa to be financially and emotionally supported.”

One page 4, the Sun tells its readers: “Star just wants Lisa to be happy.” “A source” says, he is “happy to give Lisa 50 per cent in the divorce if that is what is agreed by their lawyers.” Give? And noble of Ant to adhere to what the pricey lawyers hammer out and the law decides. “He wants to divorce for health reasons,” says the source.

 

ant mcpartlin divorce

 

And then the mood changes. Over pages 22-23, the Mail asks: “Why DID Ant abandon the wife who stood by him in his darkest hour – and still adore him?” Bravo, eh? You either take the PR’s word and wrap your story about it, or you form a position your readers will relish. And how does the Mail end its take on a divorce?”Everyone feels for Lisa,” says a “friend”.

Posted: 15th, January 2018 | In: Celebrities, News, Tabloids | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Donald Trump and Obama’s shithole, by John Cusak

When, as reported everywhere, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin said Donald Trump called Haiti, El Salvador and some African countries (none of which have been identified) “shitholes” in an other instalment of his soap opera presidency. Trump’s beef, allegedly, is that immigrants are coming to the US from “shithole countries”. He’d rather aspirational people seeking better lives came from countries he admires, like Norway.

Many people were upset.

Trump denied it:

 

“I cannot believe that in the history of the White House, in that Oval Office, any president has ever spoken the words that I personally heard our president speak yesterday,” countered Mr Durbin.

Did Trump call African countries and Haiti “shitholes”? And if he did, is that really the worst thing any US President has ever said?

Actor John Cusack was among the upset:

john cusak trump shithole

Or as John Cusack out it in 2012: “One is forced to asked the question: Is the President (Obama) just another Ivy League A**hole shredding civil liberties and due process and sending people to die in some sh**hole for purely political reasons?”

No-one voted for Cusak.

Spotter: Tim Blair

Posted: 14th, January 2018 | In: Celebrities, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Woman divorces husband after he spent $50,000 on a great record collection

record collection high fidelity

 

On eBay the story of a broken marriage and a big record collection:

My ex-husband was a big jerk! While that’s the main reason that I divorced him, the final straw was that he spent just over $50,000 buying a stupid huge record collection. Even though it was a good buy, and a sound investment (no pun intended), I felt the money (which was all we had and half mine) should have gone to pay off our mortgage, or put the kids through college, or saved for our retirement, or at least spent on something we could enjoy together, like a second honeymoon (our first was a weekend in Cleveland at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame).

While I honestly know next to nothing about records, he was thrilled and kept bragging about how these were all original pressings from the 1950’s, 60’s & 70’s, that it was the most complete gathering of collectible Rock, Rockabilly, R&B, British Invasion, Motown, Acid, Psych and Folk he’d ever seen (over 5000 albums and over 1000 45’s), and how rare it was that most had never even been played once (why would anyone buy a record and never play it?).

So that’s why I was so nonplused that he left the entire collection to me when he died (maybe he honestly felt some remorse? Nah). Anyway, I don’t want it, so I’m offering them all to you (it will probably take me months to list them all). Please feel free to make an offer on the whole darn thing, or to ask if I have a particular record, or any other questions (which I’ll do my best to answer; though again, I don’t know much at all). All prices are flexible (I’m basing them on what others are selling for), and I would be happy to entertain any offers.

Spotter: ClashMusic

Posted: 11th, January 2018 | In: Music, Strange But True, The Consumer | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


When David Hasselhoff didn’t see Stevie Wonder

David Hasselhoff is talking with the Sunday Times:

I live in Calabasas, outside Los Angeles. I can get to the beach in 18 minutes. It’s more laid-back than the rat race of LA — I can breathe out here. Stevie Wonder lives up the hill, but I’ve never seen him.

Anyone…? Anyone?

Posted: 11th, January 2018 | In: Broadsheets, Celebrities | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Donald Trump was the first person to think Oprah Winfrey should be in the White House

trump oprah daily news

In 2009, Donald Trump said his ideal running mate would be Oprah Winfrey. The actress used her acceptance speech for  receiving a lifetime achievement gong at the Golden Globe Awards to tell a room full of her peers (including the cheaters, narcissists and SADOS – Sons and Daughters of Stars ) that the time for social change for nigh. Oprah for President, came the media response. and the job is surely hers should she give away a free car with every vote.

But the idea was not of the media’s making. In 2009, Donal Trump told us that Oprah would be his dream deputy:

 

 

“Oprah would always be my first choice… I’ll tell ya, she’s really a great woman, though. She is a terrific woman. She’s somebody that’s very special… If she’d do it, she’d be fantastic… She’s popular. She’s brilliant. She’s a wonderful woman. If she’d ever do it, I don’t know if she’d ever do it… She’d be sort of like me. I mean, I have a lot of things going, she’s gotta a lot of things going.”

And Oprah seems to love The Don:

 

 

Spotter: EW

Posted: 9th, January 2018 | In: Celebrities, Key Posts, News, Politicians | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Noel Gallagher on hating Christmas

Noel Gallagher hates Christmas. Well, I guess if you’re called Noel you might well try to break free of nominative determinism. He does protest a lot…

Posted: 24th, December 2017 | In: Celebrities | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Meghan Markle, Princess Michael and the Windsor weirdos

Did you notice that Princess Michael of Kent wore a “blackamoor” brooch, depicting a black person in a turban when she attended a free lunch where Prince Harry and his lover, Meghan Markle, were also dining? The Sun, Mail and Telegraph all did, describing the brooch as “racist”.

That each of those organs couched the word inside inverted commas reveals that they don’t know if it’s racist or not. Is it more racist than dressing up as a Nazi (Prince Harry), having a dad who was an officer in the SS (Michael) or calling a man a “Paki” (Harry again)?

Is it less racist than pointing out that Markle is mixed-race and must therefore be offended by a piece of jewellery worn by a foreign-born divorcee of non-royal birth who married into the weirdest clan this side of the Appalachians? Might Mike and Mark not be kindred spirits who got into bed with people of lower moral worth?

 

 

The Times stirs the bedpan by throwing the matter into the debating ring: “Princess Michael of Kent: racially insensitive – or something worse?”

 

Pricne Harry NAzi

Just larking about

 

The Times informs us that blackamoor tut “is part of a tradition of jewellery and art that was popular in the 18th century, but in recent years has come to be regarded as highly racially insensitive.”

The princess was condemned in a series of posts on social media. One woman wrote: “Ah, the Princess who wears racist jewellery to lunch with Meghan Markle.” Another said: “That looks inappropriate in any setting.”

What else looks inappropriate at a lunch with a woman who rides about in a gold coach and whose eldest son was shagging a married woman while we all simpered at Diana? Poor people? Terry Waite tied to a radiator drinking a glass of urine? Prince Andrew getting a rub down?

A third wrote: “Has no one noticed the Blackamoor pin that Princess Michael of Kent is wearing? Really? #MeghanMarkle officially meets the family and is greeted by THIS? #racism #BritishRoyals.”

And:

Although Ms Markle is not thought to have dined at the same table as Princess Michael, it is likely that they met.

Possibly as Mike handed Mark her coat and asked for a gin and spite.

It’s all huge news, of course. But Harry and his paramour are so much in love no mere trinket can break them. Just get a load of the official photo that shows us how much in love they are (“whatever ‘in love’ means is” – Prince Charles).

 

The official photo

 

Gosh. I’m welling up:

 

harry meghan

 

 

Image: Richard Littler

 

Posted: 22nd, December 2017 | In: Celebrities, News, Royal Family | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Greens attack Amir Khan over desecrated Christmas tree

How do you decorate your Christmas tree? Like you, I like baubles, tinsel and Bruce Willis wiggling through an air vent.

 

amir kahn christmas

 

But Amir Khan rejoices in hate. The boxer recently seen on I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here! has got death threats for his tree.

 

Amir Khan

 

The story turns out to a little different from the Star’s front-page headline. “While everyone’s asleep, daddy put the Christmas tree up,” said Amir on an Instagram post. He then hoped his daughter would like it: “Lamaisah’s going to be happy. Christmas #MerryChristmas2017.”

The Manchester Evenings News says that Amir is a “devout Muslim”, an this might be in some way linked to one kind heart replying to the image: “I promise to god i want kill you and your family amir.”

Another aded: “Muslims don’t celebrate Christmas. It’s one thing to give out cards at school your respecting other faith and their celebration but putting up a tree in your own home….poor kid will be well confused.”

How about if he sticks a Star of David on the top and call it a Chanukah Bush? Better?

Another expert replied: “I read the Quran and it is clear that Jesus is also a prophet. People slating him must not read the Quran.”

What’s Jesus got to do with a pine tree in the lounge?

And why are the Press looking at Khan’s critics as people obsessed with religion, rather than humbugs? This is about a tree dying for our sins. I’d be looking hard at the Greens, for whom the Christmas Tree is an act of desecration.

 

Posted: 21st, December 2017 | In: Celebrities, Tabloids | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


50 Shades of guilt: Bruno Langley had legal sex with young woman

Heard the one about the famous actor and the young woman? The Sun leads with news that Bruno Langley, aka the “Corrie pervert”,  “preyed on a 16-year-old girl” five years ago. In November, Langley admitted molesting two women at the Band on the Wall on Swan Street, Manchester. He was sentenced to a 12-month community order at Manchester Magistrates’ Court. He must sign the sex offenders’ register for five years. Langley apologised for his “disgraceful behaviour”.

In sentencing, District Judge Mark Hadfield told the actor: “You have lost your good name and I know nothing of showbusiness, but… in the current climate, I suspect it may be very difficult for you to gain employment in that industry in the future.”

Well, quite.

 

 

Here he is on the front page the subject of a shag ‘n’ tell, one which might be sub-headed: “Actor has consensual sex – shocker!”

On page 5, we read that when on a date with the 16-year-old, he “spied the erotic novel 50 Shades in her handbag”. Says the woman, who is not named in the story: “He then asked me to read it to him, which was so embarrassing and cringeworthy.” I know. I’ve read it. Not that this is a book review, of course. It’s a review of Langley’s character. And when we read that “the sleazy soap star” pulled her when he “marched over to her at party in July 2012 – just weeks after she left school”, we are sickened.

The sleazy sod. Sun readers must be disgusted at men getting turned on by “girls” and chatting to them:

 

In the Sun – tasteful adverts to listen to “mother and daughter sex sounds”

 

The Mail reads the Sun’s story and thunders: “Disgraced Coronation Street star Bruno Langley, 34, ‘had sex with a 16-year-old girl and pleaded with her to read passages from 50 Shades of Grey'”.

The sick sod.

 

the sun ryan air

As seen in the Mail back in 2008- The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the “irresponsible” Ryan Air advert appeared to link teenage girls with sexually provocative behaviour.The advert was printed in the Herald, Daily Mail and Scottish Daily Mail.

 

Perverts, eh. How the tabloids hate ’em.

Posted: 18th, December 2017 | In: Celebrities, News, Tabloids | Comments (2) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Relive the ‘impossible gloom’ of 1970s Britain with Abba’s London show

 

Ah, the glorious Seventies, when the gap between the top and lowest earner was closer. At the Abba: Super Troupers show at London’s Southbank Centre, visitors get to relive the wonder of power strikes, the three-day week, rubbish going uncollected and condensation on the inside of windows. “You get very close to the reality of Britain in the 70s,” says Abba’s Björn Ulvaeus. “I had no idea it was so gloomy.”

Well, hold your breath, Björn, because a vote for Jeremy Corbyn will bring those good times rolling on back. Less for all and politics wrapped in identity. Just like it was back then, only with less funny comedians and better telly.

“It is the opposite of all those huge technically advanced virtual reality exhibitions that most of those pop groups have,” the Abba bloke who stands up continues. “This is much more intimate, it’s warm, it’s full of a sense of humour.”

Abba, of course, came to the fore in the 1970s, winning the Eurovision song contest when it really counted for something, taking top spot in 1974 with the brilliant Waterloo. The contest was held in Brighton that year, but Björn says he and the rest of the band were only in the country for two days and never realised how “impossibly gloomy” the place was.

Now thanks to the show, we and he can journey back in time to those halcyon says.

 

 

Ulvaeus says he never imagined Abba would endure through the decades. “It is kind of weird, but you get used to it,” he says.

You can get used to anything – like being cold indoors, no mixer taps and spending years dressed in brown velveteen jumpers. The itchiness just became ubiquitous. And then came the 1980s…

Posted: 14th, December 2017 | In: Celebrities, Music, News | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Johnny Depp: JK Rowling defends a man’s right to earn a living

depp

 

Do we look at actors pretending to be other people and beings from fact and fiction, and think they should have had their morals checked before getting the part? Moral thinking can change, so if we are going to check people’s minds, we need to review the past in a modern light, too, in case someone impressionable and vulnerable looks at them and copies their lives. You know how it works: you watch Clark Gable and Carole Lombard in No Man of Her Own, realise he’s cheating on his wife with her, pull on a vest, grow a moustache and shag a colleague.

Blessedly, Kevin Spacey, now the subject of sexual abuse allegations, has been removed from the next series of House of Cards, the TV show in which he plays the main characterVariety reports that “producers plan on scrapping most, if not all, of the footage shot during the roughly two weeks of season-six production that had taken place in October”.

You can still catch Spacey on reruns, but perhaps they too will be binned, just as the BBC purged its archives of Jimmy Savile, both real and imagined. Spacey’s accusers have not had their claims tested in court, their allegations not yet made to vault all those hurdles to justice. He says he’s innocent. But lest we be upset by the look and sight of Spacey playing a murderous figure on the telly, he’s been dismissed.

So when Johnny Deppp was cast in JK Rowling’s Fantastic BeastsThe Crimes of Grindelwald, there were howls of outrage. This is Depp whose then wife Amber Heard accused him of subjecting her to domestic abuse. Depp denied any wrongdoing. The couple divorced. And that was that.

Until that is Deep went to get a job. Rowling, an intelligent woman, told everyone: “Based on our understanding of the circumstances, the filmmakers and I are genuinely happy to have Johnny playing a major character in the movies.”

But some people were dismayed. In what she terms “a post-Weinstein world”, one writer says casting Depp in the show “breaks my heart”. She adds:

The practice of giving men in power the benefit of the doubt simply because other powerful people vouch for them is sometimes known by another name: rape culture.

Well, that escalated quickly. Rape? Depp is presumed innocent, right? And we don’t own him. He’s a private individual. Rowling says just that in her statement:

When Johnny Depp was cast as Grindelwald, I thought he’d be wonderful in the role. However, around the time of filming his cameo in the first movie, stories had appeared in the press that deeply concerned me and everyone most closely involved in the franchise.

Harry Potter fans had legitimate questions and concerns about our choice to continue with Johnny Depp in the role. As David Yates, long-time Potter director, has already said, we naturally considered the possibility of recasting. I understand why some have been confused and angry about why that didn’t happen.

The huge, mutually supportive community that has grown up around Harry Potter is one of the greatest joys of my life. For me personally, the inability to speak openly to fans about this issue has been difficult, frustrating and at times painful. However, the agreements that have been put in place to protect the privacy of two people, both of whom have expressed a desire to get on with their lives, must be respected. Based on our understanding of the circumstances, the filmmakers and I are not only comfortable sticking with our original casting, but genuinely happy to have Johnny playing a major character in the movies.

I’ve loved writing the first two screenplays and I can’t wait for fans to see ‘The Crimes of Grindelwald’. I accept that there will be those who are not satisfied with our choice of actor in the title role. However, conscience isn’t governable by committee. Within the fictional world and outside it, we all have to do what we believe to be the right thing.

How great is that. She gets it. “JK Rowling endorsed Johnny Depp and betrayed millions of women,” laments the Independent, which thinks women are best served by subjecting private lives and relationships between the sexes to forensic scrutiny; equating accusation with guilt; and believing that no-one of whom we have an unfavourable opinion and who is innocent before the eyes of the law should get the job.

How’s that for progress?

Posted: 13th, December 2017 | In: Celebrities, Film, News | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Thomas Markle gets doorstepped

Turns out that Thomas Markle is’t all that “reclusive” after all. He’s on the Daily Mirror’s front page talking about his daughter, Meghan Markle.

 

thomas markle

 

“I’m delighted,” says Thomas of the wedding. For reasons that are not clear, the Mirror presents Thomas Markle with a bottle of French champagne and some Darjeeling tea. “Thank you, that’s very kind,” says Thomas as a stranger gives him free treats.

Not that Thomas needed a free drink. The Mirror’s says it “tracked him down” to his, er, home, and looked on as Thomas Markle “bought a four-pack of Heineken and cigarettes”. Lest we be disbelieving, the Mirror features a video of Thomas walking from a store.

Lest you think that invasive and not in the least bit newsworthy, the Mirror uses an editorial to tell readers: “Thomas Markle’s eyes will have a little more sparkle than most” when he walks his daughter own the aisle. The booze, right? The Mirror says the “British public” will “instantly take to such a down-to-earth chap”.

That’s the divorcee sat in the gold coach, scarfing booze and puffing on a fag. And that’s Camilla wondering what might have been…

Posted: 8th, December 2017 | In: Celebrities, News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Meghan Markle: show us your dirty laundry

Meghan Markle has a “rift “with her father. Well, she had, apparently, because in a video from when she was 19 in the summer of 1999 that’s now the Sun’s front-page news (“MEGHAN: MY RIFT WITH DAD”), the actress tells her pal “my dad and I aren’t on the best of terms”. We’d like to keep up with the Markles, but we’d have to check a new source because the video shooter was Ninaki Priddy, a woman no longer mates with Meghan, 36.

Alongside a photo of Meghan in a short dress, we read that Thomas Markle “now lives a nomadic life driving between rented homes on LA and Mexico in an old Volvo” – a car the Mirror tells us is an “old batted blue Chrysler PT Cruiser”.

The Sun says Thomas’s home is a “cliff shack”. He “proudly tells the locals Meghan’s is his daughter”. Odd because the Mail was looking for the “elusive” Thomas and telling readers that “placed in his position, many fathers would be singing their joy from the rooftops”. The Sun says Thomas’ roof might not take the weight, given that it’s atop a “tiny red-tiled home…on a 120ft cliff overlooking the Pacific.”

Having given a front page and two inside pages to Ninaki Priddy’s scrapbook, the Sun today finds space for Jane Moore to accuse Priddy of “betrayal”. So the tabloids don’t do chequebook journalism any more, expose celebs and feature kiss ‘n’ tells about the beautiful people? Or is it different for Royals? Why shouldn’t a woman sell her story for loadsa money when her ex-pal – and do we know why they fell out?; Priddy says “What came to light after Trevor [Engelson – Meghan’s ex] and I spoke ended my friendship with Meghan”? – is due to remarry, this time to a billionaire’s scion?

We never did get the full story of Princess Diana and Charles when they were engaged. The media kept the knobs on a pedestal by delivering a narrative soaked in magic and star-written love. Let’s not have it again.

Much guff has been written about Meghan and Harry. “Don’t underestimate the symbolism of a royal marriage. From now on, it will be impossible to argue that being black is somehow incompatible with being British,” trumpets the Guardian. “Is it too mad to wonder, once the Brexit dust settles, whether the younger royals may – against all the odds – represent a Britain looking forward to the future rather than an imagined past?” the Indy muses. Once more the royals are showing us the way. But if we want to be modern – and wouldn’t that involve getting shot of them? – then surely we should know who they are and why we need to crane our necks to see them.

Posted: 6th, December 2017 | In: Broadsheets, Celebrities, Key Posts, News, Tabloids | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


Meghan Markle’s dad Thomas is an international man of mystery

Meghan Markle has a “mysterious dad”. And by mysterious we mean not a man who weaves mysteries, vanishes in puff of smoke or is, as one dictionary defines it, “difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify.” We mean a man who doesn’t much fancy being a celebrity.

The Daily Mirror makes Thomas Markle Senior its front-page story. They say that aside from his family, “no-one even knows where Thomas Markle Senior is.” It might be less a mystery than a question of budgets and being bothered to track down a man who was living in Rosario Beach on Mexico’s Baja California Peninsular. He moved on, says the Mirror, “determined to avoid any chance of public attention”.

 

Thomas Markle

 

Not that the man’s absence detracts from the story. He “gets by on his £1,307 monthly pension”, we learn. How the Mirror knows what money he earns and spends is moot. The ‘facts’ are provided to fit the narrative of the future princess’s dad living if not in poverty then at least in humdrum simplicity. Thomas is “driving around in an old batted blue Chrysler PT Cruiser”. His new family-to-be are “one of the richest and most powerful in the world”. He “devoted his life to his daughter”. He “may” be avoiding the spotlight “due to the humiliation of bankruptcy”.

Thomas Markle’s “solitary life means Harry has still not met his future father-in-law”. Or as the Mail puts it: “EXCLUSIVE: Prince Harry has met his girlfriend Meghan Markle’s father.”

 

Thomas Markle

 

 

That’s not to say the Mail isn’t also on the scent.

“Why is Meghan’s dad so determined to hide from the world?” wonders the Mail. “Where is the elusive Mr Markle? Why has this enigmatic man concealed his whereabouts so determinedly?” And: “After all, placed in his position, many fathers would be singing their joy from the rooftops.” Why, because an American – a citizen of the world’s greatest republic, a bastion of freedom and hope to the world – is getting shackled to a man who symbolises inequality? Maybe not because the Sun says Meghan’s dad is “said to be impressed by Prince Harry”.

Shedding light on the international man of mystery is Thomas’s brother Michael, who tells everyone: “Tom is trying to comply with the royal directive to keep a low profile so that’s where he’s coming from. He doesn’t want to upset the Royal Family.” Indeed, there’s nothing like a normal bloke to undo the ‘magic’ of monarchy.

 

Posted: 4th, December 2017 | In: Celebrities, News, Royal Family, Tabloids | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


The Mel B sex tapes no-one has to see

In good news for anyone on the web, former Spice girl Mel B has settled her divorce from Stephen Belafonte. She will pay him £3m over the next three years and money from the sale of their home, says the Star. The paper puts the total figure at £6.5m.

The deal also affords both parents time with their six-year-old daughter Madison. And her future seem more secure because the better news is that the settlement comes with a guarantee Mel and Steve’s “sex tapes will be destroyed”.

Amen.

 

Posted: 29th, November 2017 | In: Celebrities | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0


When Harry met Meghan: tabloids deliver the wedding, the dress and honeymoon facts

Prince Harry wedding newspapers

 

By now you’ll be wondering what Prince Harry and Megan Markle are up to. Thankfully, the tabloids understand your thinking and have produced a few words on the prince and his paramour.

The Sun: 25 pages.
Daily Mail: 18 pages
Daily Star: 6 pages, including one of Page 3 stunna “Royal fan Megan”
Daily Express: 7 pages
Daily Mirror: 9 pages

What about the wedding:

THE MOTHER-IN-LAW

“Tourits flocked to Kensington Palace last night to salute the happy couple and tell of their excitement that ‘new Diana’ Meghan’ will become a royal… She’s very appealing to people, like Diana was” – Star

“Diana would have been thrilled – Meghan’s just the kind of woman she wanted to be” – Mail

THE DRESS

“Meghan Markel’s wedding dress with a glamorous red-carpet gown” – Express

“EXCLUSIVE: Fit for a Princess! Will Meghan Markle choose an Australian designer to make her bridal gown for the ultimate modern Royal wedding?” – Mail

“Meghan Markle is likely to opt for a low-key, cool designer to create her wedding dress” – Standard

“She once revealed what her dream dress would be when talking about her character Rachel in legal drama Suits, who wore a wedding gown in one episode.  She revealed the dress worn in the show wasn’t her “personal style”, adding: “I’m a lot more relaxed than Rachel… Classic and simple is the name of the game, perhaps with a modern twist. I personally prefer wedding dresses that are whimsical or subtly romantic.” – Star, “Meghan Markle’s wedding dress REVEALED: Harry’s fiancee’s dream gown PICTURED”

THE COAT

“Did you spot Meghan Markle’s subtle fashion nod to Princess Diana?.. With the photocall taking place in Princess Diana’s former residence, it seems only fitting that Meghan would wear white, a nod to Diana and the memorial white garden that was created in her memory this year to mark the 20 year anniversary of her death.” – Marie Clair

“Meghan wore a white coat…it did slighlty resemble a dressing gown” – Sun

The coat “was not unlike something her future sister-in-law the Duchess of Cambridge would wear” – Mail

“Meghan’s journey to fashion icon status continued yesterday when she wore a white-belted coat” – Mirror

THE WEDDING FOOD

“Roast chicken, sweet potato and white-bean soup” – Mirror

THE HONEYMOON

Bostwana; Croatia; Bordeaux, Athens, Madrid, New York – Mirror

The Seychelles is “the red-hot favourite” – Star

 

Posted: 28th, November 2017 | In: Celebrities, News, Royal Family | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0