[Alrightmate]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

Yet another FAIL from Dimwit.....sorry, Helen. Wears PETA T-shirt whilst carrying hugely expensive leather bag.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...ther-bags.html

Mind you, the Wail need to stop moaning about the gun pic but still printing it. Eejits.

This can't be real. Something suggests to me that the very fact that she's posing in the photo with leather handbags around her means that there must be some kind of deliberate intent here.
Perhaps not by Helen herself, but maybe whoever does her PR thinking that controversy keeps her in the public eye.

Posing for photos with designer leather handbags around her whilst at the same time wearing a PETA t-shirt.
Come on. This isn't likely to be a mistake. Too much of a coincidence. Somebody knows exactly what they're doing here.

[Alrightmate]

Look at the two photos
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...91_634x677.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...02_634x673.jpg

The article makes out that she's unaware. But the two photos here suggest that this is very staged.
Pretty much the same snap, exactly the same composition, only she's changed clothes and wearing a different top with a pink cardigan in the 2nd.
But we're supposed to believe that she's unaware and that these are just casual random snaps?

This looks very much to me to be engineered, and everybody who's angry about it is probably exactly what the required intention was. It appears that they want to try to create controversy and it appears that it's working.

Expect more 'mistakes' and 'mishaps' in the future where she's caught unaware doing something implausibly stupid and says "Oops, I didn't know what I was doing".

[JasonWatkins]

Originally Posted by Alrightmate

This looks very much to me to be engineered, and everybody who's angry about it is probably exactly what the required intention was. It appears that they want to try to create controversy and it appears that it's working.

Yes, because everything is for "profile" isn't it ?. There's no logical reason why she would deliberately subject herself to another round of abuse on twitter and snidey articles in the paper.

Anyway, sounds like it's getting to her ..

It led to Helen hitting out at her haters, tweeting: ‘I’m sorry but this is ridiculous leave me alone! Ive done something for charity- exotic animals are killed in a cruel way for there skins. Leather is not. Stop picking on me. Enough.’

http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/06/helen-...a-row-3529063/

[Alrightmate]

Originally Posted by JasonWatkins

Yes, because everything is for "profile" isn't it ?. There's no logical reason why she would deliberately subject herself to another round of abuse on twitter and snidey articles in the paper.

Anyway, sounds like it's getting to her ..



http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/06/helen-...a-row-3529063/

I'm not talking about everything. I'm talking about this.

The leather designer bags couldn't be more conspicuous.
Then a snap is taken to highlight the PETA teeshirt.

Show off the bags. Show off the PETA teeshirt.
That looks like too much of a coincidence.

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by JasonWatkins

Yes, because everything is for "profile" isn't it ?. There's no logical reason why she would deliberately subject herself to another round of abuse on twitter and snidey articles in the paper.

Anyway, sounds like it's getting to her ..

http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/06/helen-...a-row-3529063/

I'm still solidly in the 'terminally clueless' corner and while I do think the media is being quite ridiculous bothering about her, she does need to get a grip and stop acting like a baby. She's 22 yrs old and her ignorance is coming across as willfulness. That response of hers re PETA shows yet again how woefully ill-informed she is and I can really understand why people are losing patience with her.

If she has some type of management, why don't they explain to her the PETA issue with skins, rather than let her babble on idiotically about 'leather' being cruelty-free and digging another big hole for herself.

I know she's harmless and means no ill-will to anyone but enough.

[fredster]

Originally Posted by JasonWatkins

Yes, because everything is for "profile" isn't it ?. There's no logical reason why she would deliberately subject herself to another round of abuse on twitter and snidey articles in the paper.

Anyway, sounds like it's getting to her ..



http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/06/helen-...a-row-3529063/

Someone should have told her when to use their and there.

[JasonWatkins]

Originally Posted by lexi22

I'm still solidly in the 'terminally clueless' corner and while I do think the media is being quite ridiculous bothering about her, she does need to get a grip and stop acting like a baby. She's 22 yrs old and her ignorance is coming across as willfulness. That response of hers re PETA shows yet again how woefully ill-informed she is and I can really understand why people are losing patience with her..

The media do need to leave her alone, but really because she's just not very interesting. If she does have management, and her behaviour to date suggests she doesn't, they would certainly be best advised to tell her to withdraw from the limelight for a while.

Get her to leave her Twitter account alone, maybe stay in when she wants to go out - stuff like that. Just have a quiet life for a few months and let the likes of the DM and The Sun turn their focus to someone else.

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by JasonWatkins

The media do need to leave her alone, but really because she's just not very interesting. If she does have management, and her behaviour to date suggests she doesn't, they would certainly be best advised to tell her to withdraw from the limelight for a while.

Get her to leave her Twitter account alone, maybe stay in when she wants to go out - stuff like that. Just have a quiet life for a few months and let the likes of the DM and The Sun turn their focus to someone else.

Exactly. She does have management of some sort, they responded to some recent 'blunder' of hers (the accidental pro-ana one, I think) - it was actually a deliciously sarcastic response too, thanking the Sun for helping to point them on the right moral path! ) so yeah, they need to sit her down and make a new plan.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by JasonWatkins

Yes, because everything is for "profile" isn't it ?. There's no logical reason why she would deliberately subject herself to another round of abuse on twitter and snidey articles in the paper.

Anyway, sounds like it's getting to her ..



http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/06/helen-...a-row-3529063/

If she wants to stand up for animals she can't really pick and choose which ones she stands up for. ALL kinds of animals are killed to make clothing.

[shmisk]

hasnt Helen got ADHD?
because people with ADHD literally sometimes can't help saying stuff, as they have impulsitivity

what her Grandad said about not trusting her to cross the road I say about my ADHD son all the time as he literally just steps out.

[DavetheScot]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

If she doesn't want the media to pounce, then perhaps she should stop Tweeting pictures of herself doing stupid things?

But that's the thing; she doesn't realise that the things she's doing in the pictures will be regarded as stupid. The PETA/leather thing is a case in point; I don't think it would have occurred to her to think about leather being cruel.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by DavetheScot

But that's the thing; she doesn't realise that the things she's doing in the pictures will be regarded as stupid. The PETA/leather thing is a case in point; I don't think it would have occurred to her to think about leather being cruel.

She doesn't believe that leather is obtained in a cruel way though.

It led to Helen hitting out at her haters, tweeting: ‘I’m sorry but this is ridiculous leave me alone! Ive done something for charity- exotic animals are killed in a cruel way for there skins. Leather is not. Stop picking on me. Enough.’

http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/06/helen-...a-row-3529063/

[DavetheScot]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

She doesn't believe that leather is obtained in a cruel way though.

Well, there you go. She probably knows very little about it, and to be honest neither do I.

[Saltydog1955]

She's opening her mouth yet again and putting her foot in it. She really needs to shut up about this until the court case as she's not doing Michael LeVell any favours at all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...r-Le-Vell.html

[Jerrica09]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

She's opening her mouth yet again and putting her foot in it. She really needs to shut up about this until the court case as she's not doing Michael LeVell any favours at all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...r-Le-Vell.html

I don't think she's putting her foot in it at all to be honest, she's being supportive of a friend. It's nice of her. But I don't think we're allowed to discuss that subject here.

[*Cadhla*]

Originally Posted by Jerrica09

I don't think she's putting her foot in it at all to be honest, she's being supportive of a friend. It's nice of her. But I don't think we're allowed to discuss that subject here.

She is basically stating she thinks the accuser is a liar, which is a disgrace as no one KNOWS, least of all that dumbo. And it is hard enough for victims of abuse to come forward without people in the public eye making comments like this...reinforcing fears victims have of being considered liars. This is despite official figures putting false allegations at around a mere 3%, which is on a par with allegations of other crimes, yet for some reason people always doubt those who claim they have been abused.

She should shut up. There are other ways to support her friend, like doing it in private for one!

[Squealer_Mahony]

I would like to see her comments in context.
I mean she has known the man a long time and of course she would find it hard to believe he could do anything like that.
She has a point about the anonymity tho. Its a tough one

[DavetheScot]

I think she'd be better keeping quiet on her opinion of the truth of this case in public and letting LeVell know privately she believes in his innocence. Suggesting that accused people should be granted anonymity is perfectly legitimate for her to give an opinion on though.

While I think she shouldn't give her opinion on his guilt or innocence, I do think her loyalty to an old friend when she might realise she'll be criticised for speaking out speaks well of her.

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by Squealer_Mahony

I would like to see her comments in context.
I mean she has known the man a long time and of course she would find it hard to believe he could do anything like that.
She has a point about the anonymity tho. Its a tough one

Here they are

No probs with her supporting him, but yeah, while no harm meant and it was plainly coming from a well-meaning place, and the lack of anonymity is a bonafide issue, she really should keep her comments about his innocence to herself.

[Jerrica09]

Originally Posted by *Cadhla*

She is basically stating she thinks the accuser is a liar, which is a disgrace as no one KNOWS, least of all that dumbo. And it is hard enough for victims of abuse to come forward without people in the public eye making comments like this...reinforcing fears victims have of being considered liars. This is despite official figures putting false allegations at around a mere 3%, which is on a par with allegations of other crimes, yet for some reason people always doubt those who claim they have been abused.

She should shut up. There are other ways to support her friend, like doing it in private for one!

True, fair points.

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by lexi22

Here they are

No probs with her supporting him, but yeah, while no harm meant and it was plainly coming from a well-meaning place, and the lack of anonymity is a bonafide issue, she really should keep her comments about his innocence to herself.

I somehow doubt she just went out and said this she was obviously asked a question and when asked if it were me and I felt that way I would say so, if she was asked and refused to answer they would have run with a story stating she refused to defend him.

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by skp20040

I somehow doubt she just went out and said this she was obviously asked a question and when asked if it were me and I felt that way I would say so, if she was asked and refused to answer they would have run with a story stating she refused to defend him.

I doubt that, and it really doesn't sound like it if you read the article. I think Helen was just speaking from the heart and said a little more than is wise under the circumstances since she's more or less said she believes the charges are bogus.

No probs whatsoever with her supporting him, she's known him forever, is obviously very upset over it and has every right to express that.

(I really hope these charges turn out to be false. I'm honestly more shocked at this than anything on the JS thread.)

[JasonWatkins]

Originally Posted by *Cadhla*

She is basically stating she thinks the accuser is a liar,..

If you can apply that same train of thought to anyone ever accused of any crime who's friends and colleagues speak out in support of them then fair enough ..

But then no comments about what Bill Roach has said about it though ?. Or are we just having another dig at Flanagan because of who she is ??

[Phyllis Stein]

Originally Posted by lexi22

I doubt that, and it really doesn't sound like it if you read the article. I think Helen was just speaking from the heart and said a little more than is wise under the circumstances since she's more or less said she believes the charges are bogus.

No probs whatsoever with her supporting him, she's known him forever, is obviously very upset over it and has every right to express that.

(I really hope these charges turn out to be false. I'm honestly more shocked at this than anything on the JS thread.)

Agree with all of that.

[Big Boy Barry]

She's hardly likely to say "Ewwww, yeah he's a dirty paedo, I hate him. Never liked him"