Katie Price Ties The Knot

1313234363750

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,450
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I wish someone would tie a knot around her neck.
  • Kay2000Kay2000 Posts: 3,906
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Of course it does, there's not a huge amount of point if he wont do it is there.

    I take your point she could keep the moral high ground though.

    There is a point, she is asking for them to be removed, yet willingly posts pictures for the world on her own account
  • Blondie XBlondie X Posts: 28,662
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The difference is Jeff has sole custody because their mother died so didn't need anyone else to agree to the ban.. Katie has Peter and CAN ( who sell the perfect family image as part of their marketing) not agreeing to it. Look how quick they got rid of Élan Rivas when Frank Lampard said he wouldn't allow them to be pictured.

    How is that relevant? PA is the CAN cash cow. Without him they are nothing. Elen was a bit part player who the public didn't care about. She was easy to lose
  • Kay2000Kay2000 Posts: 3,906
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Of course it does, there's not a huge amount of point if he wont do it is there.

    I take your point she could keep the moral high ground though. You do see them very very rarely though.

    It makes no difference what so ever if they were only pictured once a year, she went on and on about wanted them to be removed, yet willingly post pictures herself, i would call that very hypercritical, would you not
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 34
    Forum Member
    I don't honestly believe for one second that KP is bothered if the kids are filmed or not. She is just bitter that Pete has still got a show on ITV and she hasn't.

    Pulling the kids from her Sky show meant nothing, as it was bombing and not being renewed anyway. But she knows Pete enjoys filming with them and she is desperate to do him down in any way she can.
  • Blondie XBlondie X Posts: 28,662
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't think the number of times is important, once is enough. if she was serious she wouldn't put ANY pics on such a public place as twitter.

    I was just going to respond to BB but this says what I was going to.

    She either means it or she doesn't. If she means it, then she can't argue 'it's only a couple of times' or 'well he does it'
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 813
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Kay2000 wrote: »
    There is a point, she is asking for them to be removed, yet willingly posts pictures for the world on her own account

    Sometimes I believe that intentions are just as important as the results. Yes PA may still parade KPs children around, and we would still know what they looked like, but if KP was genuine then many would be on her side. There are many famous children that we know the faces of, yet we also know there parents are desperately trying their hardest to give them as normal life as possible. Sometimes that is just as admirable then whether they are successful or not.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,881
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    As confirmed by Dan Wootton that Nick Baker gave him the photo and a taped conversation between KP and PA.

    Nick Baker, friend of Pete, and is married to Michelle Clack. Michelle Clack introduced PA to Maddy Ford and they used to meet sometimes at their house.


    "Late Saturday evening the Sunday Mirror called my PR company to say they had been given a story that Princess had been burnt by hair straighteners."

    "My ex-husband was made aware of this incident when we returned from Klosters. He saw Princess on the Wednesday after the incident. On the Friday he made various comments to me after I rang which I presumed were because he was being filmed. That was of course over a week ago (as my ex-husbands public statement on this matter confirms) so I am not sure why he was quoted saying that he was unaware of the incident in the Sunday Mirror."

    "At a time when I am trying to persuade my ex-husband to remove the children from the public eye to have this incident appear in the press and garner a little publicity is quite shameful"


    http://www.katieprice.co.uk/princess-tiaamii-2


    "I am naturally delighted that the police have concluded their investigation into the minor burn that Princess sustained while she was in Klosters."

    " I am so relieved at the police findings – even though I knew that Princess had received no injury that warranted anything more than the most basic of treatment and that this injury was sustained in a fluke accident having the police investigate and seeing headlines about child abuse and my ex-husband being ‘horrified’ at what he called a ‘bad’ burn have caused a terrific strain. Dan Wootton of the News of the World claimed that Princess had been ‘badly burnt’ and that ‘it is far more serious than Jordan has publicly indicated’ (Mr. Wootton also tweeted that Princess burn was “NOT minor, despite what she said”) and my family has been traumatised, not least my wonderful mother whose care Princess was in."


    http://www.katieprice.co.uk/princess-and-the-police

    Terrible to read back on this and realise that these were the actions of a father who regards his kids as no more than publicity props :mad:
  • Cyril_SneerCyril_Sneer Posts: 2,314
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dexie wrote: »
    I don't honestly believe for one second that KP is bothered if the kids are filmed or not. She is just bitter that Pete has still got a show on ITV and she hasn't.

    Could be right, although there was a bidding war between ITV and Living for her shows, so she made an absolute mint off them - way more than PA gets. But yes his is higher profile.

    The thing about removing the kids - she said it was partly about J and if you watch even PA's show it was pretty obvious the whole fame thing WAS affecting him.
  • Kay2000Kay2000 Posts: 3,906
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cym wrote: »
    Terrible to read back on this and realise that these were the actions of a father who regards his kids as no more than publicity props :mad:

    They both guilty of that
  • Goldbear86Goldbear86 Posts: 1,141
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sometimes I believe that intentions are just as important as the results. Yes PA may still parade KPs children around, and we would still know what they looked like, but if KP was genuine then many would be on her side. There are many famous children that we know the faces of, yet we also know there parents are desperately trying their hardest to give them as normal life as possible. Sometimes that is just as admirable then whether they are successful or not.

    Exactly.

    But I don't believe for one minute her ban was did with good intentions. If so why does it only affect her youngest two children? I don't buy the "raising awareness with Harvey" line. That poor boy needs protecting every bit as much as his siblings.

    No doubt when mini Kiev is born there will be a reason as to why she has to have photo shoots with him/her. "Look Leo it's not yours!":D
  • Kay2000Kay2000 Posts: 3,906
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Could be right, although there was a bidding war between ITV and Living for her shows, so she made an absolute mint off them - way more than PA gets. But yes his is higher profile.

    The thing about removing the kids - she said it was partly about J and if you watch even PA's show it was pretty obvious the whole fame thing was affecting him.

    Why is it affecting him? He is showing off for the cameras, as most kids do
  • Goldbear86Goldbear86 Posts: 1,141
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Kay2000 wrote: »
    Why is it affecting him? He is showing off for the cameras, as most kids do

    Maybe because J was getting more camera time than his mother and KP was getting jealous?

    Lets face it there's only so many Botox treatments you can watch:D;)
  • Kay2000Kay2000 Posts: 3,906
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Goldbear86 wrote: »
    Maybe because J was getting more camera time than his mother and KP was getting jealous?

    Lets face it there's only so many Botox treatments you can watch:D;)

    And the hair and nails, how is that seen as entertainment, i could sit outside the hairdressers and see that, and she was paid how much for it :eek:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,540
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No doubt when the new baby arrives she'll prove how much of a hypocrite she really is when she allows the new addition to be photographed.
  • Kay2000Kay2000 Posts: 3,906
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    claire33 wrote: »
    No doubt when the new baby arrives she'll prove how much of a hypocrite she really is when she allows the new addition to be photographed.

    Bet she already signed on the dotted line ;)
  • Saltydog1955Saltydog1955 Posts: 4,134
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Goldbear86 wrote: »
    Exactly.

    But I don't believe for one minute her ban was did with good intentions. If so why does it only affect her youngest two children? I don't buy the "raising awareness with Harvey" line. That poor boy needs protecting every bit as much as his siblings.

    No doubt when mini Kiev is born there will be a reason as to why she has to have photo shoots with him/her. "Look Leo it's not yours!":D

    She makes me mad when she talks about Harvey.

    'Harvey's still in nappies', 'Harvey bites me'. It's all grist to the mill for her, and humiliating for him. I've no doubt there'll be a 20 page spread somewhere when this baby's born, and it'll be shoved down our throats until she's no longer a cute baby that her money grabbing mother can sell.
  • Goldbear86Goldbear86 Posts: 1,141
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Kay2000 wrote: »
    And the hair and nails, how is that seen as entertainment, i could sit outside the hairdressers and see that, and she was paid how much for it :eek:

    I would rather watch paint dry.
    But it does make me laugh when she goes on about how hard she works :D she wouldn't know hard work if it bit her in the ass!
  • Cyril_SneerCyril_Sneer Posts: 2,314
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Kay2000 wrote: »
    Why is it affecting him? He is showing off for the cameras, as most kids do

    I think on TV its different from say kids at home on a camcorder. He is well aware hes on TV, and at signings the fans make a big deal of him etc.

    When its kids and they get some level of fame they tend to show off, get an attitude, expect treatment etc. I guess same as all the child stars that go a bit crazy. Not that its at that level with him but give it time.

    Take the above as personal experience, there are child performance laws but when it comes to reality tv they aren't very stringent.
  • sidsgirlsidsgirl Posts: 4,425
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    claire33 wrote: »
    No doubt when the new baby arrives she'll prove how much of a hypocrite she really is when she allows the new addition to be photographed.

    Yep. Await the excuses that will come from her followers when she does. ;)
  • Kay2000Kay2000 Posts: 3,906
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Goldbear86 wrote: »
    I would rather watch paint dry.
    But it does make me laugh when she goes on about how hard she works :D she wouldn't know hard work if it bit her in the ass!

    Just like any businessman woman, its the little man that does the grafting
  • Goldbear86Goldbear86 Posts: 1,141
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    She makes me mad when she talks about Harvey.

    'Harvey's still in nappies', 'Harvey bites me'. It's all grist to the mill for her, and humiliating for him. I've no doubt there'll be a 20 page spread somewhere when this baby's born, and it'll be shoved down our throats until she's no longer a cute baby that her money grabbing mother can sell.

    I know it grinds my gears. But I think that's quite obvious:D

    She has just sold her wedding pics, if there's no pics of the baby I will eat my hat. Too good a business opportunity not to when there's no father to tell her not to and at the same time have a dig at them at how happy she is and how great *kevin /*latests man name is here* is with the kids.
  • Kay2000Kay2000 Posts: 3,906
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think on TV its different from say kids at home on a camcorder. He is well aware hes on TV, and at signings the fans make a big deal of him etc.

    When its kids and they get some level of fame they tend to show off, get an attitude, expect treatment etc. I guess same as all the child stars that go a bit crazy. Not that its at that level with him but give it time.

    Take the above as personal experience, there are child performance laws but when it comes to reality tv they aren't very stringent.

    *Cough* Did you say signings? Katie takes him to her own signings. How do young child actors start out i wonder?
  • artlesschaosartlesschaos Posts: 11,345
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Blondie X wrote: »
    Lets watch this space ;)

    We all know where that will go, what with that dad not being her nemesis, yet.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,114
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Could be right, although there was a bidding war between ITV and Living for her shows, so she made an absolute mint off them - way more than PA gets. But yes his is higher profile.

    The thing about removing the kids - she said it was partly about J and if you watch even PA's show it was pretty obvious the whole fame thing WAS affecting him.

    Of course its affecting Junior and one can see it on the show. He was having trouble at school because of the show and Kate made her decision to stop

    It was awful to watch his participation in a photoshoot at the Barn. I think it was a fathers day shoot and Powell told Andre to take him off for a while for a play and return for more photographs, when he was saying he had had enough. Its all about the money.
Sign In or Register to comment.