Andre's "suffering"

1162163165167168302

Comments

  • SenseiSamSenseiSam Posts: 3,069
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But what teacher is going to tell a famous celeb what he doesnt want to hear when he goes in asking if his reality show is affecting his kid?

    Or are we saying that because she's Katie Price she doesn't know her own kid? :rolleyes:

    It just doesnt matter though, if the mother asks for them off, they should be off - no matter who she is or what shes done, or even if she has other motives - he was all for shared parental rights, he can't just go ignoring what she wants when it suits him. This kind of thing is too important not to have both parents in agreement about whether they are in the media or not.

    This for me has been the single biggest thing i'm dissapointed in him for because IMO it shows up his nice caring dad image for what it is - total fraud - and i'm sure he knows it. But same as a lot of other celebs, when it comes to the crunch he's stuck because he's addicted to the fame and having the TV show.

    If they're a half decent teacher then all of them! What kind of professional is going to be so overawed by meeting Pete of all people that they wouldn't speak up about the welfare of a child? Wouldn't you agree Cyril that the amount the children are featured on screen has changed substantially since CAN TV days and that in most episodes they only appear fairly briefly which might well be at his request. That they still appear suggests to me that he believes they enjoy it and he isn't going to be dictated to by people with their own agenda.

    I agree it's time to withdraw them now if only for the sake of better relations with Katie but I don't believe that it will signal the end of his TV career. He didn't get his gigs on shows like This Morning, Odd One In, Celebrity Juice or 60MM on the back of being DOTY. The public aren't going to assume he's stopped loving his children because they're not seen on screen, quite the opposite judging by these threads, so time to stop.
  • Daisy BennybootsDaisy Bennyboots Posts: 18,375
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't think the concern for the 'Price Andre Family' welfare with regards to filming started with KP's decision to stop filming the children, there were concerns long before that. I can't remember which series I watched all of (I'm supposing it's The Baby chapter or whatever) as KP finished the series by saying wtte of spending too much time filming and promoting when Junior was born contributed to her post-natal depression so the moment Princess was born, the cameras were switched off for a bit. I don't think PA and KP could agree to what extent the cameras trailing the kids around when they were married, so I don't subscibe to think whole 'spite' thing. I also remember then saying wtte that they would only film them when they were a bit tiny and unaware, I got the impression when they were married that daily filming would stop when went to school. Disagreement on how much filming of the children is acceptable predates the split,imo.
  • lexi22lexi22 Posts: 16,394
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    SenseiSam wrote: »
    If they're a half decent teacher then all of them! What kind of professional is going to be so overawed by meeting Pete of all people that they wouldn't speak up about the welfare of a child? Wouldn't you agree Cyril that the amount the children are featured on screen has changed substantially since CAN TV days and that in most episodes they only appear fairly briefly which might well be at his request. That they still appear suggests to me that he believes they enjoy it and he isn't going to be dictated to by people with their own agenda.

    I agree it's time to withdraw them now if only for the sake of better relations with Katie but I don't believe that it will signal the end of his TV career. He didn't get his gigs on shows like This Morning, Odd One In, Celebrity Juice or 60MM on the back of being DOTY. The public aren't going to assume he's stopped loving his children because they're not seen on screen, quite the opposite judging by these threads, so time to stop.

    Disagree strongly! Were it not for his reality series, he'd have disappeared off the radar. He doesn't have a media profile independent of his show - ie. his show is his only means of staying in the public eye. And his reality series has being a DOTY at the centre of it. :)

    As for him believing the kids enjoy it, well, with respect, not the point. He's not the sharpest tool in the box and seems imo to have a very limited and self-serving view of what's good for his kids. What's good for him and CAN and his show, more like.

    I'll be very surprised if he moves away from RTV.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,114
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't think the concern for the 'Price Andre Family' welfare with regards to filming started with KP's decision to stop filming the children, there were concerns long before that. I can't remember which series I watched all of (I'm supposing it's The Baby chapter or whatever) as KP finished the series by saying wtte of spending too much time filming and promoting when Junior was born contributed to her post-natal depression so the moment Princess was born, the cameras were switched off for a bit. I don't think PA and KP could agree to what extent the cameras trailing the kids around when they were married, so I don't subscibe to think whole 'spite' thing. I also remember then saying wtte that they would only film them when they were a bit tiny and unaware, I got the impression when they were married that daily filming would stop when went to school. Disagreement on how much filming of the children is acceptable predates the split,imo.

    Well said.

    The only person using their children in their reality show is Peter Andre. Whatever her motives for stopping, it is irrelevant. She did stop and he didnt.

    An odd photograph on twitter is not filming your children to enhance your tv show. Without the kids and the obligatory filmed days out, the show would die instantly.
  • SenseiSamSenseiSam Posts: 3,069
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If you look at his appearances on morning TV or chat shows they're not only to plug the reality show. He does still have a music career and he also goes on to promote his charity work and schemes like the literacy project he was involved in with Boris Johnson. Some posters on the threads don't rate him as a presenter - fair enough. Other people find him warm, enthusiastic, amusing and likeable which is why ITV are prepared to invest in him.

    Off to enjoy the sunshine now so have fun debating :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If KP did a live twitter feed on her kids 24/7 it would still not excuse the way hes exploited them all these years :mad: hes responsible for his own actions not CP or KP, they have been apart for four years now, and yet his fans just like PA cannot seem to let KP go, they use her to justify his actions and he uses her to keep his career :rolleyes :and grudge against her going in the press.
    Just as he cant stand criticism from a critic neither can he stand an ex moving on, and will keep including himself in every relationship headline she has until finally someone pulls the plug on him once and for all ;)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SenseiSam wrote: »
    If you look at his appearances on morning TV or chat shows they're not only to plug the reality show. He does still have a music career and he also goes on to promote his charity work and schemes like the literacy project he was involved in with Boris Johnson. Some posters on the threads don't rate him as a presenter - fair enough. Other people find him warm, enthusiastic, amusing and likeable which is why ITV are prepared to invest in him.

    Off to enjoy the sunshine now so have fun debating :)

    The way hes coming across at the moment is that hes actually using different causes to get invites onto chat shows :( and then, once hes used them, puts them on the back boiler :(
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,177
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cym wrote: »
    If KP did a live twitter feed on her kids 24/7 it would still not excuse the way hes exploited them all these years :mad: hes responsible for his own actions not CP or KP, they have been apart for four years now, and yet his fans just like PA cannot seem to let KP go, they use her to justify his actions and he uses her to keep his career :rolleyes :and grudge against her going in the press.
    Just as he cant stand criticism from a critic neither can he stand an ex moving on, and will keep including himself in every relationship headline she has until finally someone pulls the plug on him once and for all ;)
    Oh give it up, she hasn't even got a TV job!:rolleyes:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,177
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But what teacher is going to tell a famous celeb what he doesnt want to hear when he goes in asking if his reality show is affecting his kid?

    Or are we saying that because she's Katie Price she doesn't know her own kid? :rolleyes:

    It just doesnt matter though, if the mother asks for them off, they should be off - no matter who she is or what shes done, or even if she has other motives - he was all for shared parental rights, he can't just go ignoring what she wants when it suits him. This kind of thing is too important not to have both parents in agreement about whether they are in the media or not.

    This for me has been the single biggest thing i'm dissapointed in him for because IMO it shows up his nice caring dad image for what it is - total fraud - and i'm sure he knows it. But same as a lot of other celebs, when it comes to the crunch he's stuck because he's addicted to the fame and having the TV show.

    You're saying the teachers daren't tell PA that Junior was having problems at shcool, yet they did tell KP?
    She should take him to court again, if she wants to stop them being on TV, surely she has a case, as she's 50% responsible for them.
    BIB - Are you saying PA doesn't know his own kid?
  • ian hylandian hyland Posts: 215
    Forum Member
    No, he's not the only TV critic.

    IMO though, he's not a very good one as he invariably gets his facts totally wrong (I would hazard guess he doesn't actually watch some of the shows he reviews) His opinion doesn't bother me at all (he's entitled to his opinion) but getting basic facts wrong to jazz up a review is not really on IMO.

    When making accusations such as these it helps if you provide evidence.
    Otherwise you just look really stupid.
  • GoatyGoaty Posts: 7,776
    Forum Member
    ian hyland wrote: »
    When making accusations such as these it helps if you provide evidence.
    Otherwise you just look really stupid.

    :D:D:D

    And congrats on 100th post!
  • sidsgirlsidsgirl Posts: 4,425
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ian hyland wrote: »
    When making accusations such as these it helps if you provide evidence.
    Otherwise you just look really stupid.

    Oh dear. Seems like the critic can give criticism but not take it. :(
  • delazarousdelazarous Posts: 503
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    sidsgirl wrote: »
    Oh dear. Seems like the critic can give criticism but not take it. :(

    Would you not defend a false accusation then?
  • Kay2000Kay2000 Posts: 3,906
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    delazarous wrote: »
    Would you not defend a false accusation then?

    I would go legal if needed to defend any false accusations made about myself ;)
  • ian hylandian hyland Posts: 215
    Forum Member
    Goaty wrote: »
    :D:D:D

    And congrats on 100th post!

    Cheers. I've ruined it now though. 101.
  • Jimmy ConnorsJimmy Connors Posts: 117,524
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    ian hyland wrote: »
    When making accusations such as these it helps if you provide evidence.
    Otherwise you just look really stupid.

    I can give you an example Mr Hyland (just the one, as I have no inclination to bother with more) In one of your 'tweets', you wrote that Pete was in the cemetery where his brother is. That was a lie and very false. He was not IN the cemetery at all.

    As far as looking really stupid is concerned. I can live with that. My ego can handle criticism. Seems you can dish it out, but you can not take it. ;) I find your obsession rather strange to be honest.

    As long as you critique subjects on an open forum, be prepared to have comments in return.
  • Jimmy ConnorsJimmy Connors Posts: 117,524
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    delazarous wrote: »
    Would you not defend a false accusation then?

    It was not a false accusation. I stand squarely by what I said.
  • ian hylandian hyland Posts: 215
    Forum Member
    I can give you an example Mr Hyland (just the one, as I have no inclination to bother with more) In one of your 'tweets' or columns, you wrote that Pete was in the cemetery where his brother is. That was a lie and very false. He was not IN the cemetery at all.

    As far as looking really stupid is concerned. I can live with that. My ego can handle criticism. Seems you can dish it out, but you can not take it. ;) I find your obsession rather strange to be honest.

    As long as you critique subjects on an open forum, be prepared to have comments in return.

    Oh. I must have been momentarily thrown by those GREAT BIG GRAVESTONES he was driving past.
    And me a trained observer.
    The shame.
  • Jimmy ConnorsJimmy Connors Posts: 117,524
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    ian hyland wrote: »
    Oh. I must have been momentarily thrown by those GREAT BIG GRAVESTONES he was driving past.
    And me a trained observer.
    The shame.

    You should be ashamed. You said:
    Ian Hyland ‏@HylandIan
    On ITV2 a tearful Peter Andre has just been to visit his dead brother in the cemetery. On camera. #loveshisprivacy


    You were trying to give the impression he was IN the cemetery on camera. A lie, he was not IN there cemetery (as you well know) You knew exactly what you were doing as well. At least have the balls to admit it.

    As I have said you (and anyone else) are very entitled to their opinion, but at least base it on some resemblance of fact.

    You obviously twisted the facts to suit your 'funny' persona. Shameful!
  • livingdeadgirllivingdeadgirl Posts: 624
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Cym wrote: »
    The way hes coming across at the moment is that hes actually using different causes to get invites onto chat shows :( and then, once hes used them, puts them on the back boiler :(

    I really don't want to agree with you, because I want the foundation to be successful, but sadly I think you might be right :(
    Fizgig wrote: »
    You're saying the teachers daren't tell PA that Junior was having problems at shcool, yet they did tell KP?
    She should take him to court again, if she wants to stop them being on TV, surely she has a case, as she's 50% responsible for them.
    BIB - Are you saying PA doesn't know his own kid?

    I think whether they told KP/PA or not, or she is lying or not (which I wouldn't put past her) is besides the point. What it comes down to is that the kids are more than likely better off NOT being filmed and shown on TV. Her behaviour doesn't excuse his.
  • Betty BritainBetty Britain Posts: 13,721
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You should be ashamed. You said:
    Ian Hyland ‏@HylandIan
    On ITV2 a tearful Peter Andre has just been to visit his dead brother in the cemetery. On camera. #loveshisprivacy


    You were trying to give the impression he was IN the cemetery on camera. A lie, he was not IN there cemetery (as you well know) You knew exactly what you were doing as well. At least have the balls to admit it.

    As I have said you (and anyone else) are very entitled to their opinion, but at least base it on some resemblance of fact.

    You obviously twisted the facts to suit your 'funny' persona. Shameful!

    Peter had been to visit his brothers grave ..so Ian tweet was right.. The cameras didn't film him at the grave but he did go there .and he was filmed at the crematory wasn't he? .Did Ian say Peter was filmed at his grave?
  • Jimmy ConnorsJimmy Connors Posts: 117,524
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Peter had been to visit his brothers grave ..so Ian tweet was right.. The cameras didn't film him at the grave but he did go there .and he was filmed at the crematory wasn't he? .Did Ian say Peter was filmed at his grave?

    The tweet was very misleading. It gave the impression Pete was filmed IN the cemetery (on camera) He was not in the cemetery.

    I know you don't watch the shows Betty. If you watched this episode, you would know what I mean.
  • SenseiSamSenseiSam Posts: 3,069
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    In Jimmy's defence, Betty, the impression the tweet gives is that Pete was filmed physically inside the cemetery visiting Andrew's grave whereas he's filmed talking in his car on the way and then there were artistic shots of trees and ethereal music. So Ian may get off on a technicality but I understand Jimmy's point.
  • Jimmy ConnorsJimmy Connors Posts: 117,524
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    SenseiSam wrote: »
    In Jimmy's defence, Betty, the impression the tweet gives is that Pete was filmed physically inside the cemetery visiting Andrew's grave whereas he's filmed talking in his car on the way and then there were artistic shots of trees and ethereal music. So Ian may get off on a technicality but I understand Jimmy's point.

    Thank you for explaining it far better than I could, Sam. :)
  • SenseiSamSenseiSam Posts: 3,069
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You were doing a great job yourself Jimmy just wanted to back you up :)
This discussion has been closed.