Interesting.:) I wonder - when you keep writing about the same person whether you have to keep informing them about the article in advance - guess you probably do, unless John signed a waiver as part of his earlier OK! contract!
I was wondering about this. Surely every time a newspaper mentions somebody they don't have to tell them... I mean they mention hundreds of people a day; say some guy in a village in China does a brave thing and is mentioned in a small piece in a UK paper... is he contacted about being in print? I don't think so!
If it were the case that people were advised of every mention to be made, there would be no article exposing ... well whatever is being exposed at the time (not boobs and bums )... I think you get my drift It just isn't possible.
How is it that some people are surprised to see themselves in the papers if this is the case or didn't know that something was printed until they are confronted by a mass of press... just examples there, but we've all seen that happen.
I just can't see that it can be done; it may be that they are supposed to do so, but it's not really feasible surely? It certainly isn't practiced if it is a 'rule'.
Muggins14 not keen on twitter - this is hard to visualise, must have been a parallel universe!
Not sure whether twitter can cope with my backside, but appears that's where it's headed!
Thanks for that Muggs, good Christmas reading and maybe I'll tweet you up in the new year. :D
I look forward to it... I'll have the block button at the ready
looks like John was right "Desperate times call for Desperate Measures"
Now THAT is what they call washing your dirty laundry in public, big styleeee. The mags are so bored they are printing what everybody can see on twitter... I find that really odd to be honest!
Now THAT is what they call washing your dirty laundry in public, big styleeee. The mags are so bored they are printing what everybody can see on twitter... I find that really odd to be honest!
i just think enough is enough now leave the guy alone.
looks like John was right "Desperate times call for Desperate Measures"
Wouldn't it be ironic, given all the nonsense about John needing to apologise, if the communication between them was to ask John to get his backside back on twitter as Josie had run out of newsworthy content for her Desmond articles! :D
[I'm assuming she would get paid something for this article, even though it's based on public information?? Alternatively, at least her future paid articles could be spiced up by reference to this same episode!]
looks like John was right "Desperate times call for Desperate Measures"
This is exactly what Josie wanted.I just hope John for once learns to ignore things.She sent him an email knowing it would bring him back to twitter.Oh dear,how desperate:eek:
This is exactly what Josie wanted.I just hope John for once learns to ignore things.She sent him an email knowing it would bring him back to twitter.Oh dear,how desperate:eek:
What she has done isnt worthy of comment. I just hope that John now sees what she is up to and doesnt comment anymore. She is desperate to keep herself in the limelight and of course she would get paid for this . More monety to get herself a pub in Bristol. I just hope she stays there and goes quietly but IMO thats not going to happen. She has to keep up the lifestyle and of course its quiet in the building trade at the moment and who is going to have someone in their house who has knickers attached to his jacket.
Wouldn't it be ironic, given all the nonsense about John needing to apologise, if the communication between them was to ask John to get his backside back on twitter as Josie had run out of newsworthy content for her Desmond articles! :D
[I'm assuming she would get paid something for this article, even though it's based on public information?? Alternatively, at least her future paid articles could be spiced up by reference to this same episode!]
:eek: :eek: It would be ironic indeed ....in fact it would be pretty awful. I hope and believe this was not the case
In any case, John should ignore all of this nonsense and get on with his life (IMO) :cool:
i just think enough is enough now leave the guy alone.
Morning all. Have to agree with you. Enough is enough.
Good journalists and reputable magazines have to be very careful of what they say to prevent liable lawsuits. The article appears to be based on tweets which as I understand it are in the public domain so don't think permission from John or Josie was necessary.
I find the whole situation very very sad. As I said before I think John should change his email and mobile phone number and delete any tweets from Josie. She cannot stand being ignored and I think the reality that she is no longer hot media property has hit her like a lead balloon. I'm not sure she even has an agent anymore. She will have to adjust to normal life and find a job the way John has.
I for one do not want to read anymore about Josie's antics.
Happy Holidays Khyra. Excellent thought-provoking post as always. Hope you have a lovely holiday. Will definitely let people know if we all meet up again.
I just wonder if it really is John fans tweeting nasty things. Looking at other threads I don't think John's fans can be blamed solely for Josie's distress. She has shot herself in the foot many times and to be honest, I think the wider BB fans at large are fed up with her shenanigans.
Anyway, off to consultant later and the mountain of ironing keeps growing so best get on with it.
Don't want to get into football debate as I like Arsenal but prefer rugby.
Interesting.:) I wonder - when you keep writing about the same person whether you have to keep informing them about the article in advance - guess you probably do, unless John signed a waiver as part of his earlier OK! contract!
Ive no idea how it works in practise....however...in this instance the journalist writing/involved in this piece would surely know that there is still an interest in John James....
so it is in there interests to pass the interview on ...in case he wants to comment in some way?
I was wondering about this. Surely every time a newspaper mentions somebody they don't have to tell them... I mean they mention hundreds of people a day; say some guy in a village in China does a brave thing and is mentioned in a small piece in a UK paper... is he contacted about being in print? I don't think so!
If it were the case that people were advised of every mention to be made, there would be no article exposing ... well whatever is being exposed at the time (not boobs and bums )... I think you get my drift It just isn't possible.
How is it that some people are surprised to see themselves in the papers if this is the case or didn't know that something was printed until they are confronted by a mass of press... just examples there, but we've all seen that happen.
I just can't see that it can be done; it may be that they are supposed to do so, but it's not really feasible surely? It certainly isn't practiced if it is a 'rule'.
in the leverson enquiry....people like charlotte church were notified of things ., like her fathers affairs..a couple of days before they were published...but too late to actually prevent the story coming out...
I too was surprised by this, but it was mentioned that it was industry practise to inform someone if there was going to be an article written about them.
The point being made ...was that even if they were told of a forthcoming spread, the celeb rarely had an opportunity to actually put their side of the story...:eek:
but it also explains the whole thing of the super injunction.. and how .stories were suppressed by celebs cos they didnt want them to get into the public arena....
unless it was general practise to inform people, how could anyone create a super injunction in the first place?
looks like John was right "Desperate times call for Desperate Measures"
that is so sad......
im not impressed with that magazine publishing this.....:(
maybe Josie would want that kind of story out there...but maybe she would be upset and embarrassed about it all?
Cos I would doubt if this is the response that John was expecting...
it is a factual article...but.....if you are going to end the article by saying maybe its better that they arent together....
why write it in the first place?
Happy Holidays Khyra. Excellent thought-provoking post as always. Hope you have a lovely holiday. Will definitely let people know if we all meet up again.
I just wonder if it really is John fans tweeting nasty things. Looking at other threads I don't think John's fans can be blamed solely for Josie's distress. She has shot herself in the foot many times and to be honest, I think the wider BB fans at large are fed up with her shenanigans.
Anyway, off to consultant later and the mountain of ironing keeps growing so best get on with it.
Don't want to get into football debate as I like Arsenal but prefer rugby.
I do actually think you have a point......
it cant just be Johns fans who are getting involved in all this.... and even if a few may or may not be involved...there are also a lot of sensible and thoughtful John fans who wouldnt comment at all..
however perhaps there is also something in how differently people percieve things.....
I thought that Josie's last article in NOW magazine was nasty about John....she obviously didnt....
and instead said on twitter how happy she was with the piece and how lovely it was for her and luke to be shown like that.....
but if she is going to write a comment about that on twitter...then surely people have the right to comment back to her directly???
looks like John was right "Desperate times call for Desperate Measures"
Oh la la...where to start with that?
1:The first time we heard about those threats,Jose said she got them by phone...i doubt any John fan has access to her mobile?
2:I see they *forgot* to mention the reason John was annoyed,is cause of that stupid poll retweet,after badmouthing him in the press,it must've been weird for him,being asked,and also the way she asked wasn't that clever either.What a selective piece of shite the editor put on the mag....but at least they used a lovely pics of John hehe;)
Oh,and there must be no important news,for those tweets to make it to paper lmao.
Ive no idea how it works in practise....however...in this instance the journalist writing/involved in this piece would surely know that there is still an interest in John James.... so it is in there interests to pass the interview on ...in case he wants to comment in some way?
in the leverson enquiry....people like charlotte church were notified of things ., like her fathers affairs..a couple of days before they were published...but too late to actually prevent the story coming out...
I too was surprised by this, but it was mentioned that it was industry practise to inform someone if there was going to be an article written about them.
The point being made ...was that even if they were told of a forthcoming spread, the celeb rarely had an opportunity to actually put their side of the story...:eek:
but it also explains the whole thing of the super injunction.. and how .stories were suppressed by celebs cos they didnt want them to get into the public arena....
unless it was general practise to inform people, how could anyone create a super injunction in the first place?
It is still a puzzle to me.Who exactly is still interested in John James?Josie or the media? These were tweets.So when John tweets then he becomes news? I am confused
Comments
I was wondering about this. Surely every time a newspaper mentions somebody they don't have to tell them... I mean they mention hundreds of people a day; say some guy in a village in China does a brave thing and is mentioned in a small piece in a UK paper... is he contacted about being in print? I don't think so!
If it were the case that people were advised of every mention to be made, there would be no article exposing ... well whatever is being exposed at the time (not boobs and bums
How is it that some people are surprised to see themselves in the papers if this is the case or didn't know that something was printed until they are confronted by a mass of press... just examples there, but we've all seen that happen.
I just can't see that it can be done; it may be that they are supposed to do so, but it's not really feasible surely? It certainly isn't practiced if it is a 'rule'.
I look forward to it... I'll have the block button at the ready
Now THAT is what they call washing your dirty laundry in public, big styleeee. The mags are so bored they are printing what everybody can see on twitter... I find that really odd to be honest!
i just think enough is enough now leave the guy alone.
The ex gets exactly what she was after, whats that expression again? Fame something or other lol
Wouldn't it be ironic, given all the nonsense about John needing to apologise, if the communication between them was to ask John to get his backside back on twitter as Josie had run out of newsworthy content for her Desmond articles!
[I'm assuming she would get paid something for this article, even though it's based on public information?? Alternatively, at least her future paid articles could be spiced up by reference to this same episode!]
This is exactly what Josie wanted.I just hope John for once learns to ignore things.She sent him an email knowing it would bring him back to twitter.Oh dear,how desperate:eek:
John shouldnt allow her to get to him anymore,it is pathetic!
What she has done isnt worthy of comment. I just hope that John now sees what she is up to and doesnt comment anymore. She is desperate to keep herself in the limelight and of course she would get paid for this . More monety to get herself a pub in Bristol. I just hope she stays there and goes quietly but IMO thats not going to happen. She has to keep up the lifestyle and of course its quiet in the building trade at the moment and who is going to have someone in their house who has knickers attached to his jacket.
:eek: :eek: It would be ironic indeed ....in fact it would be pretty awful. I hope and believe this was not the case
In any case, John should ignore all of this nonsense and get on with his life (IMO) :cool:
Sleep tight :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
Lindy x
Morning all. Have to agree with you. Enough is enough.
Good journalists and reputable magazines have to be very careful of what they say to prevent liable lawsuits. The article appears to be based on tweets which as I understand it are in the public domain so don't think permission from John or Josie was necessary.
I find the whole situation very very sad. As I said before I think John should change his email and mobile phone number and delete any tweets from Josie. She cannot stand being ignored and I think the reality that she is no longer hot media property has hit her like a lead balloon. I'm not sure she even has an agent anymore. She will have to adjust to normal life and find a job the way John has.
I for one do not want to read anymore about Josie's antics.
I just wonder if it really is John fans tweeting nasty things. Looking at other threads I don't think John's fans can be blamed solely for Josie's distress. She has shot herself in the foot many times and to be honest, I think the wider BB fans at large are fed up with her shenanigans.
Anyway, off to consultant later and the mountain of ironing keeps growing so best get on with it.
Don't want to get into football debate as I like Arsenal but prefer rugby.
im just popping in quickly ....
Ive no idea how it works in practise....however...in this instance the journalist writing/involved in this piece would surely know that there is still an interest in John James....
so it is in there interests to pass the interview on ...in case he wants to comment in some way?
in the leverson enquiry....people like charlotte church were notified of things ., like her fathers affairs..a couple of days before they were published...but too late to actually prevent the story coming out...
I too was surprised by this, but it was mentioned that it was industry practise to inform someone if there was going to be an article written about them.
The point being made ...was that even if they were told of a forthcoming spread, the celeb rarely had an opportunity to actually put their side of the story...:eek:
but it also explains the whole thing of the super injunction.. and how .stories were suppressed by celebs cos they didnt want them to get into the public arena....
unless it was general practise to inform people, how could anyone create a super injunction in the first place?
that is so sad......
im not impressed with that magazine publishing this.....:(
maybe Josie would want that kind of story out there...but maybe she would be upset and embarrassed about it all?
Cos I would doubt if this is the response that John was expecting...
it is a factual article...but.....if you are going to end the article by saying maybe its better that they arent together....
why write it in the first place?
im trying hard to relax....
and not to let the craziness of christmas, and the stress of my OH on holiday...get to me....:eek:
hes gone to london today with daughter no. 1, so hopefully I can just potter around and do what Id like to do today!!!
I do actually think you have a point......
it cant just be Johns fans who are getting involved in all this.... and even if a few may or may not be involved...there are also a lot of sensible and thoughtful John fans who wouldnt comment at all..
however perhaps there is also something in how differently people percieve things.....
I thought that Josie's last article in NOW magazine was nasty about John....she obviously didnt....
and instead said on twitter how happy she was with the piece and how lovely it was for her and luke to be shown like that.....
but if she is going to write a comment about that on twitter...then surely people have the right to comment back to her directly???
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOO
Rushed off my feet
its this Christmas thing
thats causing me trouble
will be with you soon
Georgyx
hello.....georgy....
just as a matter of curiousity...
I got a signed photo from Josie today, with Happy christmas written on it...
which was a lovely gesture....but has she sent out christmas wishes to everyone who ever wrote to her last year?
I think I might have thanked her for the Bristol party, which would be where she got my name and address...
but that was months ago.....??
But that is a positive thing to do for all fans....to send them christmas wishes....well done Josie
You look shiny.:D
Oh la la...where to start with that?
1:The first time we heard about those threats,Jose said she got them by phone...i doubt any John fan has access to her mobile?
2:I see they *forgot* to mention the reason John was annoyed,is cause of that stupid poll retweet,after badmouthing him in the press,it must've been weird for him,being asked,and also the way she asked wasn't that clever either.What a selective piece of shite the editor put on the mag....but at least they used a lovely pics of John hehe;)
Oh,and there must be no important news,for those tweets to make it to paper lmao.
Very generous move indeed:D
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xipo0r_john-james-is-so-dodgy_shortfilms
It is still a puzzle to me.Who exactly is still interested in John James?Josie or the media? These were tweets.So when John tweets then he becomes news? I am confused