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.
On BBC News they’re covering TV presenter Ant McPartlin’s drink driving story. The star is appearing at Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court. There’s a car crash in the background:
As if there’s been a car crash on BBC News whilst they’re covering Ant’s drink driving story, Jesus 😂 pic.twitter.com/iG0HbRHdaz
— Andrew Jackson (@Andrew_J97) April 16, 2018
In court, McPartlin, 42, was ordered to pay £86,000 after pleading guilty to drink driving – the fine is means tested and based on disposable income. He was banned from driving for 20 months.
McPartlin was over the alcohol limit when the car he was driving collided with two other vehicles in Richmond, south-west London. His mum was in the passenger seat at the time. Five people, including a toddler, were in one of the vehicles McPartlin’s cat hit.
McPartlin has 75 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath – well in excess of the legal limits of 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath.
McPartlin told everyone outside court:
“I just want to say I’m truly sorry for what happened. High standards are expected of me, I expect them of myself. I’ve let myself down, I let a lot of people down. And for that I am truly sorry. I’d like to apologise to everybody involved in the crash and I’m just thankful no-one was seriously hurt.”
He got lucky. But, then, he’s enjoyed good fortune for some time. McPartlin’s huge fine was linked to his wage, which stands at £136,000 a-week.
PS – who gets the £86,000? It should all go to the victims, surely.
Mark Weiss was Bon Jovi’s tour photographer during their 1980s pomp. “I was 13 years old when he got my first camera. I was a kid growing up in Matawan, New Jersey, a suburb an hour outside of New York City,” he tells me. “We were a middle-class family – my mother worked in public relations and my father was a door-to-door salesman selling aluminum siding. It was my dad’s experience that helped me in my lawn-mowing business. He taught me: ‘Make them like you. If they open the door you have a chance. Connect with their eyes, then introduce yourself and be sincere. Always let them think you’re there to help make their lives better.’ And that’s just what I did.”
It gave him an introduction to photography:
“Soon I had a steady list of five customers a week. Still, I was always looking for more. One day I knocked on the door of a neighbor with a seriously unkempt lawn: ‘Hi, my name is Mark. I live down the street. I noticed your lawn is a bit long, can I help you by cutting it?’ The man told me that he cut his own lawn. I quickly responded, with a smirk, “It doesn’t look like it. Is your mower not working?” He gave me a smirk back and told me if I mowed his yard for the whole season, he’d give me a camera. Then he went back inside and came out holding a Bell & Howell Canon FP. It looked to me like it was worth a million bucks. I said, ‘Sure,’ and after a few cuts, he gave me the camera.
Now that I had it, I wanted to learn as much as I could about how to use it. My 8th grade year was ending. There was a photography class with a darkroom at my school and I asked the teacher if he could give me a crash course in developing and printing film. Everything looked so cool to me in that darkroom—entering through the magical, cylinder-like door, it felt like I was being transported into another dimension amid red lights, trays filled with chemicals and glow-in-the-dark timers. I watched in disbelief as a piece of blank paper transformed into an image before my eyes. The whole process was magical.
“Once the school year ended I was bummed that I wouldn’t have a place to develop and print photos anymore. Then on my 14th birthday – June 15, 1973 – my dad took me to Fishkin Bros. in Perth Amboy, the coolest photo store in the area. It was half hobby shop and half camera store—I used to go there to buy model cars and rocket ships. This time I was looking at studio strobe lights and cameras displayed in the glass cabinets. It felt like Fort Knox to me. My dad bought me an enlarger, and with the money I saved from cutting lawns I bought the trays, chemicals and paper. At home I used the bathroom as a darkroom. I had a new hobby!”
Fast forward to the 1980s. Mark is with Bon Jovi. The band’s album Slippery When Wet needed a cover:
“The album was done. Three-hundred-thousand copies, with Angela in her provocatively cut wet t-shirt clinging to her 34DD breasts, had already been released in Japan. Everything was ready to go in the US. But this was 1986, and the PMRC was in full swing. Record stores were telling the labels to ease up on the explicit content and imagery or they wouldn’t sell the products. Polygram knew they had a smash album on their hands, and they didn’t want to jeopardize that success. They also knew the music stood on its own, so we went back to the drawing board to come up with another cover. Mercury destroyed nearly 500,000 copies before they ever left the warehouse to be distributed in the U.S.
“Jon Bon Jovi had issues with the Angela cover as well. Only in his mind, it was more about the color of the border around the photo than the actual photo itself.
“Recently he told Howard Stern that his thinking was, ‘My career is over if we put out a hot pink album cover.’ But if the pink border was the problem, why not just take it out?
“I asked him what we were going to do and he replied: ‘I don’t know, but this is our last chance or the album gets held up.’ Jon arrived at my studio, walked inside and didn’t even say hello. ‘Garbage bag. Spray bottle,’ was all he said. I followed orders. I propped up the black bag and sprayed it with an oil and water mixture. Then Jon wrote the words SLIPPERY WHEN WET. As he was leaving he said, ‘That’s it. That’s their cover.’ He didn’t even wait to see the Polaroid. The next day I delivered the photo, and the rest is history.”
Stormy Daniels, the walking aide to masturbation who claims she was squired by Donald Trump – and to whom Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid a big was of cash to keep from spilling the beans about Trump allegedly spilling his beans in the run up to the 2016 election – has taken to twitter. She seen something unusual – and she’s seen Trump naked (allegedly):
Want to see something scary? Type “stormy daniels” in your twitter search bar & then click the button for “latest” option. Guess someone didn’t like me defending myself and/or doesn’t want people being able search my news stories.
— Stormy Daniels (@StormyDaniels) April 6, 2018
So we did. We searched ‘Stormy Daniels’ on Twitter. We saw the system cough-up some Trump-themed tweets. But we don’t see any tweets from the adult movie actress. Is this a shadowban? The Urban Dictionary explains:
Banning a user from a web forum in such a way that the banned user is unaware of the ban. Usually takes the form of showing that user’s posts/profile/etc. only to that user; other users never see them. Considered underhanded chicken-shit behavior.
So much for the tech.
But does anyone else think Stormy would have made a better First Lady than Melania – considering the bonus that the couple’s son would have had embodied the American dream; you know, what with his being a real-life Porn Barron?
The London Evening Standard freesheet has illustrated a story on the “disease that killed George Michael”. It’s done so with a picture of someone who is not George Michael (25 June 1963 – 25 December 2016 ). That’s a look-alike, who might well be alive.
George Michael’s death has been attributed to heart and liver disease. He had dilated cardiomyopathy with myocarditis and fatty liver. The coroner told us:
“Inquiries into the death of George Michael have been concluded and the final post-mortem report received.
“As there is a confirmed natural cause of death, being dilated cardiomyopathy with myocarditis and fatty liver, the investigation is being discontinued and there is no need for an inquest or any further enquiries.
“No further updates will be provided and the family requests the media and public respect their privacy.”
Illustrating a story with a celebrity is nothing new – but it’s a good idea to correctly identify the dead star you’re using to fuel the feature. The Standard says “260,000 people in the UK” suffer from dilated cardiomyopathy. Let’s hope their doctors are better at identifying them than the Standard is at spotting one victim.
It turns out that TV presenter Ant McPartlin might not be “squeaky clean” after all. To go with the story of alleged drug taking, Ant’s been charged with drink driving. McPartlin was, as you know, arrested following a car crash on Sunday. The 42-year-old will be at Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court on 4 April.
And it’s serious. If found guilty, possible sentences include six months in prison, an unlimited fine and a minimum driving ban of a year.
And he’s been banned before. In 2002, McPartlin earned a 30-day driving ban for shifting at 127mph by an unmarked police car near Bowburn, County Durham. “It was silly and I have learnt my lesson,” said McPartlin after the hearing.
Note: According to Government figures, drink-driving is all too common.
The second provisional estimates for 2015 show:
between 180 and 250 people were killed in Great Britain
at least 1 driver was over the drink drive limit
there has been a rise in overall drink drive casualties of all severities from 2014, a 3% increase to 8,480
there was an estimated 180 fatal drink drive accidents
the total number of drink drive accidents of all severities rose by 2% to 5,740
If he is guilty of drink-driving, Ant McPartlin should count himself lucky.
At what point did a private man in a private vehicle involved in a collision in south-west London become a “scandal”? Ant McPartlin was driving when his vehicle collided with two other cars. He’s ok. His mother was in the passenger seat. No, not Meghan Markle in a state of undress. His mum Christine. She’s alright, too. A family of three and two work colleagues travelling in one of the other vehicles involved in the prang are also ok. None were hospitalised, although Shilpa Dandekar did suffer a cut lip, and her husband, Faheem says the whole thing has been a “nightmare”.
Ant was carted off to the police station to help police with their enquiries. There are allegations that he failed a roadside breath test, and he has been arrested on suspicion of drink-driving.
But in what way is any of that a “scandal”, as the Daily Star calls it on its front page? Is there public outrage at Ant’s accident? Surely not. If there is, well, get a grip. Ant’s back in rehab, where, according to the Sun, he will spend “months”. Maybe if it’s scandal were looking for we should gawk less at Ant McPartlin and more at the therapy industry, which operates behind a soft-hinged revolving door. Does anyone ever graduate from pricey therapy suites, or is it all designed to keep you coming back for more, replacing the patient’s initial obsession with one that keeps medics in jobs and business booming for whoever makes monogrammed towelling gowns and slippers?
The Press has been very much on the side of Ant McPartlin, 42, “getting over an addiction to painkillers following knee surgery”; separated from his wife Lisa, to whom he is prepared to give half of “his fortune“; his condition connived into a campaign we all can take heart from, turning McPartlin from a man who deserves a private life into a role model; his plight told in his own words; a “source” assuring Sun readers that divorce would be “the right thing for his health.” This is “freakishly clean” Ant who in 2013 admitted to having taken drugs. Good old, Ant, then. But things have changed. Ant has been nicked for alleged drink driving.
McPartlin was arrested on suspicion of drink-driving when his car was involved in an accident in Richmond yesterday afternoon, not far from his London home. He allegedly failed a breathalyser test at the scene. He was taken into police custody at a South London police station.
Worse still: the Mini his Mini collided into was carrying a couple and a three-year-old girl. McPartlin was in the car with his mother, Christine.
Sympathy for Ant will be in shorter supply. But not yet. Old habits die hard. In the Press, the same old tired reporting holds sway. The Mail notes:
The divorce from his wife of 11 years is believed to be costing the star around £30 million of his estimated £60 million fortune.
His fortune. Not ‘their’ fortune.
And in the Sun:
After his rehab stint, which was revealed by The Sun On Sunday, Ant announced he was divorcing wife Lisa, 41, after 11 years of marriage. Legal experts say it could cost him £30million.
Let’s see how long this episode can be spun for?
When not teaching us how make Monty Python-style stop animation, Terry Gilliam is opining about Harvey Weinstein. The killer line comes: “Harvey opened the door for a few people, a night with Harvey — that’s the price you pay.”
No word from the disgraced movie mogul, last seen nipping into The Meadows in Arizona for treatment to whatever syndrome his behaviour can be filed under. “The Meadows exists to heal your trauma,” oozes the reassuringly expensive clinic, where Weinstein has been housed since last October. We wish him well with his morbid attraction to actors and plant pots.
And here to help Harvey get well is Gilliam, who tells AFP:
“It is a world of victims. I think some people did very well out of meeting with Harvey and others didn’t. The ones who did, knew what they were doing. These are adults; we are talking about adults with a lot of ambition.”
Gilliam also claimed that some of the women didn’t actually suffer, but used Weinstein to further their careers, and that he knew women who walked out of meetings with the mogul before getting sexually abused.
Meanwhile… on twitter, Ellen Barkin – who starred in Gilliam’s 1998 film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas – tweeted:
My hard won advice: never get into an elevator alone with terry gilliam
— Ellen Barkin (@EllenBarkin) March 17, 2018
Whatever can she mean?
Snapchat wants to know if its users would prefer to “Slap Rihanna” or “Punch Chris Brown”. There’s no option ‘c’, but if there were it would most likely be: do we know which marketing boffin thought it wise to turn criminal assault into larks? You’ll no doubt recall that in 2009 Chris Brown used his fists to put his then lover Rihanna in hospital. Brown pleaded guilty to felony assault.
Nine years laster, and domestic abuse is rebranded as a leisure activity.
Snap, the company that operates Snapchat, tells the BBC that the poll was published “in error”.
“The advert was reviewed and approved in error, as it violates our advertising guidelines,” says Snap. “We immediately removed the ad last weekend, once we became aware.”
Is it just me, or is this ad that popped up on my Snapchat extremely tone deaf? Like what were they thinking with this? pic.twitter.com/7kP9RHcgNG
— Royce Mann (@TheRoyceMann) March 12, 2018
Rihanna used her Instagram account to respsond:
Now SNAPCHAT I know you already know you ain’t my fav app out there! But I’m just trying to figure out what the point was with this mess! I’d love to call it ignorance, but I know you ain’t that dumb! You spent money to animate something that would intentionally bring shame to DV [Domestic Violence] victims and made a joke of it!!!! This isn’t about my personal feelings, cause I don’t have much of them…but all the women, children, and men that have been victims of DV in the past and especially the ones who haven’t made it out yet….you let us down! Shame on you. Throw the whole app-oligy away.
And just like that Snap’s stock tumbled 4%.
So it’s farewell to Jim Bowen, my Bullseye Tumblr muse. He was the engine of that show, propping up hours of awkward banter with shy contestants like Colin the carpet tufter from Dridlington (my favourite ever contestant name town and occupation combo) shuffling in their seats, eyes down. They had only come to win a dinner service, maybe a luggage set, they didn’t want all this razzle dazzle. He chatted to them about their home town, their family, their job, and would valiantly press on whenever the banter couldn’t overcome the nerves and didn’t land, as it once didn’t with a shopkeeper from Diss who took umbrage at Jim saying he had DISS-satisfied customers. The man disagreed (DISSagreed!) Jim explained what he meant. “I know what you meant,” he muttered irritably; right, on with the show!
Jim really came into his own during the quiz portion of the show, routinely asking anyone who responded to a question with a self doubting tone “are you asking me or telling me?” They would confirm that they were indeed telling him and he was duly appeased. Except for one time, when a woman threw him by saying “I’m asking you”. He paused and in a low sombre voice said “I’d prefer it if you’d tell me”.
He wasn’t very consistent bless him, oscillating between violently and unnecessarily shushing the always silent audience whilst the contestants considered their answer and then occasionally jabbering all over their thinking time. My favourite such occasion was when he asked a woman about a cathedral that had burned down “…which cathedral was it?…it was a cathedral…but…but it’s got another name for a cathedral” MOOOOOOOO. Thanks for that Jim.
Another classic was when he spent a man’s thinking time telling him he looked like Rumpole of the Bailey. The man looked annoyed at this comparison and then came Bully’s roar which annoyed him further. Afterwards Jim apologised to the glowering contestant for offending him but maintained that he did look like him.
That man should count himself lucky that at least he didn’t get the “I’m surprised you didn’t know that” treatment on a question about STDs.
The quiz section led to everyone’s favourite part of the night; the famed prize board. Where Jim would get to announce such bizarre prize hauls as “pound puppies and fine wines” (GAMBLE!) and physically drag people to what they had won and also to what they hadn’t won. Like when he pushed two unhappy contestants up onto a beach set and made them sit unhappily in cane chairs so they could watch footage of a holiday they had failed to obtain, having lost all of their other prizes in the process. But they had a good day and that is all that matters. Plus you got a tankard win or lose.
I will leave you with a clip of Jim being serenaded by some very 1980s men for far too long. His face in the middle is wonderful.
Thank you Mr Bowen for all of the awkward moments, the great chat, the deliberately bad jokes, and for a show that I always find gives me the biggest of hugs whenever I watch it.
James Bowen (born Peter Williams; 20 August 1937 – 14 March 2018).
The hard working Daily Mail Reporter was helping readers sat in their Comfi-Gowns and support stockings identify the “Worst dressed women” at the Oscars.
Eyes are drawn to Salma Hayek, who came as a “Shiny disaster”. Her “dress was baffling to behold… serving as more of an eye sore than a style statement”. What a horror show.
And you too can get the look because just one line down, the same readers are told: “Shimmer in sequins like Salma wearing a Gucci gown… Whoever said sequins can’t be worn all over on a maxi gown must’ve not seen how good Salma Hayek rocked this one at the 2018 Oscars.”
Who said it? The Daily Mail did a moment earlier.
Price on application.
You know how it goes: you shag the billionaire and take his hush money. Then the billionaire becomes president of the US of And you realise you undervalued your services. And so it is that adult film star Stormy Daniels says she not longer wants the $130,000 she claims Donald Trump paid her to remain tight lipped about their affair. She thinks it best that she return the cash and place her story on the public record.
Daniels, nee Stephanie Clifford, has laid out her plan in a letter to Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen. She has set a deadline of Friday for the return of the cash. She will then be at liberty to “speak openly and freely about her prior relationship with the president and the attempts to silence her and use and publish and text messages, photos and videos relating to the president that she may have in her possession, all without fear of retribution or legal liability.”
“This has never been about the money,” Clifford’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, told NBC New. It’s the principle, right? “It has always been about Ms. Clifford being allowed to tell the truth. The American people should be permitted to judge for themselves who is shooting straight with them and who is misleading them. Our offer seeks to allow this to happen.”
Generous it is, indeed. And should Trump fall into a a trap marked ‘TRAP’ with huge arrow pointing at it, we can all marvel at how a man who outlined his mating ritual as “Grab her by the pussy” really treats women he fancies.
You can read Daniels’ letter in full here.
All power, then, to Kylie Jenner, 20, half-sister to Kim Kardashian, who has issued the first billion dollar tweet: “Sooo does anyone else not open Snapchat anymore?”
Her message was liked more than 250,000 times. Around the same time, shares in Snap, which operates the social media app., dropped 6 per cent ($1.3bn).
Such is Jenner’s power that a role as share tipster must beckon. Kylie tips a few companies for greatness and – waboom!- their short-term share price rises sharply. You can debate why anyone would follow the advice of a woman who called her first child Stormi Webster later. But they do. So there.
Of course, there’s more to it that just Jenner’s tweet. Citigroup analyst Mark May has seen a “significant jump” in negative reviews of the app’s redesign. Over one million names appeared on an online petition asking Snap to keep the old look. Maybelline New York asked its followers if it should bother staying on the Snapchat platform.
But the story is out there – “Kylie Jenner’s pop at Snapchat wipes $1bn off value” (Times); “Reality TV star Kylie Jenner wiped $1.3bn off Snap’s stock market value after tweeting that she no longer used its Snapchat messaging app” (BBC); and “SNAPCRASH -Kylie Jenner wipes £1BILLION off value of Snapchat just by saying she doesn’t use the app any more” (Sun).
When later on Jenner tweeted “Still love you tho snap”. The stock did not rally. Last night shares in Snap closed down $1.13 at $17.51.
Still, it’s good marketing for Jenner and Snapchat, which now appears to be relevant. It’s almost as if – as if! – it was all a spot of PR…
Jennifer Lawrence showed some skin as she lined up with her Red Sparrow co-stars for a press call. The men showed no skin. The Mail says the looks sparked “controversy on social media”. Helen Lewis, for one, was upset by what came to be called – get this – “WarmCoatGate”.
This is such a quietly depressing (and revealing) image. Not least because I’ve been outside today and it’s bloody FREEZING. pic.twitter.com/BRnmgKJ5wY
— Helen Lewis (@helenlewis) February 20, 2018
Not that Lewis, the Deputy editor @newstatesman, was outside to promote a film. Some clothes are best for popping to shops, others are good for gardening or climbing Everest. Some are good at getting attention.
The Mail couldn’t resist editorialising, telling readers that Jennifer Lawrence “appears to be shivering in a plunging Versace dress”. You can tell if someone’s shivering from a still? Maybe the cold is why the four man are all sporting coats and beards. Maybe the beards are viewed as part of what it is to be a man, just as Lawrence’s cleavage is essentially feminine?
Lawrence got wind of people voicing their disapproval. “This is not only utterly ridiculous, I am extremely offended,” she writes on Facebook. “That Versace dress was fabulous, you think I’m going to cover that gorgeous dress up with a coat and a scarf? I was outside for 5 minutes. I would have stood in the snow for that dress because I love fashion and that was my choice.”
Get a load of all that freedom. And then get another big stinky load of the righteous trying to work out if you can have freedom and enforced equality.
In other news: attractive actress in revealing dress gets film lots of attention. Read all about it!
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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?
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”:
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”).
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.
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.
Spotter: Consequence of Sound
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?
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:
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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”.
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:
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