Pro-Katie Price bias?

Whovian · 14/07/10 - 12:03

I have noticed that a number of posts concerning Katie Price have been deleted. The posts I saw were not rude or insulting but expressing an opinion that the poster was not one of her fans. Now, what I can't understand is why a post claiming a celeb 'gives a good bj' is allowed to remain, but one where the poster states that they do not like Ms Price is deleted. If a site like Digital Spy wants to be seen as a place for fair discussion, the same rules must apply to all users and topics of conversation, not just selected ones. Deleting negative comments re a certain celeb and allowing sycophantic ones and derogatory ones about other celebs, paints a picture of DS being a place which is not impartial or fair.

[Deleted User] · 14/07/10 - 12:14

My post is gone. I have no clue why. I just questioned how much truth we would actually see on the show tonight as there is usually heavy editing on shows like this. I didn't believe it to be negative?

artlesschaos · 14/07/10 - 12:15

Appreciation threads are for fans only.

The rest of the forum is full of Anti-Tango stuff.

Try starting a thread about how Peter Andre exploits his kids and see how long that lasts!

[Deleted User] · 14/07/10 - 12:18

Ah ok.. I get it. Thanks!

notfussy · 14/07/10 - 12:24

I think you'll find various threads, including those on KP, had reference to a management company on them.

I think you'll find those threads got deleted. They were about three different celebs.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

glowboy · 14/07/10 - 13:04

notfussy wrote: »

I think you'll find various threads, including those on KP, had reference to a management company on them.

I think you'll find those threads got deleted. They were about three different celebs.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

You mean a certain management company are now having a say on what can, and can't, be said here?

I see that KP is now calling for a law protecting celebrities from Paparazzi.

The woman who has sold her soul to the tabs and paps. Hilarious!

lotty27 · 14/07/10 - 13:43

glowboy wrote: »

You mean a certain management company are now having a say on what can, and can't, be said here?

I see that KP is now calling for a law protecting celebrities from Paparazzi.

The woman who has sold her soul to the tabs and paps. Hilarious!

I don't normally post on any threads to do with KP, Alex or Peter but your post has almost taken my breath away.

What a hypocrite! She's sold everything about her life to the highest bidder for years so therefore can't moan when she gets publicity she doesn't want. SHE put herself out there and I bet when she was starting her career she wasn't bothered about being 'papped'. Is she such a control freak nowadays that she only wants what she's in control of out there? Sorry but that won't wash. If she's getting hounded by paparazzi then she only has herself to blame.

Incidentally I think the paps go too far on many occasions but to hear THAT from someone who has lived her adult life in the basking in the glare of publicity is absolutely absurd.

flyingv · 14/07/10 - 13:46

glowboy wrote: »

You mean a certain management company are now having a say on what can, and can't, be said here?

I see that KP is now calling for a law protecting celebrities from Paparazzi.

The woman who has sold her soul to the tabs and paps. Hilarious!

Isn't it just. She should re-market herself as a stand up comedian.

[Deleted User] · 14/07/10 - 13:55

What is she famous for again ?
thats right strutting around in a pair of false breasts...

Mr Giggles · 14/07/10 - 13:56

glowboy wrote: »

You mean a certain management company are now having a say on what can, and can't, be said here?

I see that KP is now calling for a law protecting celebrities from Paparazzi.

The woman who has sold her soul to the tabs and paps. Hilarious!

That's a real laugh, she can't have it both ways, oh hang on, she's Jordan, she can do what she likes.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Tabbythecat · 14/07/10 - 14:07

glowboy wrote: »

You mean a certain management company are now having a say on what can, and can't, be said here?

I see that KP is now calling for a law protecting celebrities from Paparazzi.

The woman who has sold her soul to the tabs and paps. Hilarious!

I rest my case

[Deleted User] · 14/07/10 - 14:10

glowboy wrote: »

You mean a certain management company are now having a say on what can, and can't, be said here?

I see that KP is now calling for a law protecting celebrities from Paparazzi.

The woman who has sold her soul to the tabs and paps. Hilarious!

Link here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/10612853

So, according to this article, she is now saying that Egypt in April was her honeymoon?? Probably thinks she can sue for more that way!

So that is 3 she has claimed to have so far:

– Vegas, straight after the ‘wedding’ (round the strip clubs, with Gary & Phil in tow)
– Sharm (with horse trainer & wife in tow)
– Thailand (with camera crew in tow)

And then she contradicts herself, once again, by saying that they still haven’t had their ‘real’ one yet??

Clearly ‘holiday’ does not have the same money-making ring to it! :rolleyes:

Idiotgirle · 14/07/10 - 14:25

Billie Piper rang. She want her eyebrows back!

[Deleted User] · 14/07/10 - 14:43

I like the Mirror's take on it:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2010/07/14/odds-on-katie-price-jordan-s-single-to-reach-no1-and-marriage-ending-115875-22411611/

Katie Price is set to sue a newspaper for printing nude shots of her.

The model, who shot to fame by having newspapers print nude shots of her, says the press must respect her privacy... or at least meet the asking price.

Publicity-loving Price has divided her year between getting married and going on honeymoon. She's married Alex Reid twice and whisked three camera crews off on honeymoon.

The main advantage of pretending it's your honeymoon when you go on holiday is that you get a bowl of fruit and a bottle of champagne. The main disadvantage is being stuck with your spouse.

WAKEYLASS · 14/07/10 - 15:00

Loulou65 wrote: »

Link here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/10612853

So, according to this article, she is now saying that Egypt in April was her honeymoon?? Probably thinks she can sue for more that way!

So that is 3 she has claimed to have so far:

– Vegas, straight after the ‘wedding’ (round the strip clubs, with Gary & Phil in tow)
– Sharm (with horse trainer & wife in tow)
– Thailand (with camera crew in tow)

And then she contradicts herself, once again, by saying that they still haven’t had their ‘real’ one yet??

Clearly ‘holiday’ does not have the same money-making ring to it! :rolleyes:

Exactly! So why didn't she sue over these photos from last year?
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/443484/Katie-Price-rages-about-Alex-you-knew-it-had-to-happen.html

Slojo · 14/07/10 - 15:07

WAKEYLASS wrote: »

Exactly! So why didn't she sue over these photos from last year?
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/443484/Katie-Price-rages-about-Alex-you-knew-it-had-to-happen.html

Because they were probably stage managed and posed for and she got paid for them but the latest ones wern't and she hasn't

lexi22 · 14/07/10 - 15:10

notfussy wrote: »

I think you'll find various threads, including those on KP, had reference to a management company on them.

I think you'll find those threads got deleted. They were about three different celebs.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Ah. That would explain a few things that have left me endlessly confused on here about what can and can't be said about certain people....

But how come the same thing doesn't happen with Max Clifford?

Idiotgirle · 14/07/10 - 15:13

lexi22 wrote: »

Ah. That would explain a few things that have left me endlessly confused on here about what can and can't be said about certain people....

But how come the same thing doesn't happen with Max Clifford?

It did... a lot!

WAKEYLASS · 14/07/10 - 15:15

Slojo wrote: »

Because they were probably stage managed and posed for and she got paid for them but the latest ones wern't and she hasn't

So nothing to do with all this privacy rubbish! I hope any judge presiding over the case sees her for what she is and throws her law suit against the paper out! Privacy - my a*se!

I think the papers should do an embargo against her, no photos of her anywhere, she'd be spitting feathers when there are no paps of her in any papers.

lexi22 · 14/07/10 - 15:17

Idiotgirle wrote: »

It did... a lot!

Ah right. I don't really post on Max-related threads so just made an assumption there.

Yes. That now makes sense of a few things.

Slojo · 14/07/10 - 15:30

WAKEYLASS wrote: »

So nothing to do with all this privacy rubbish! I hope any judge presiding over the case sees her for what she is and throws her law suit against the paper out! Privacy - my a*se!

I think the papers should do an embargo against her, no photos of her anywhere, she'd be spitting feathers when there are no paps of her in any papers.

Not at all - the dividing line seems to simply be as long as she gets paid she is fair game. If she doesn't then it is invasion of privacy.

The same pretty much applies to most celebs I would think.

Support · 14/07/10 - 15:38

Please note that threads marked as 'appreciation' are designed to allow people to post positive comments regarding a subject. Negative comments are regarded as being off-topic. You are of course welcome to post constructive negative comments about the subject in a separate thread.

For future reference, please review the community guidelines:

"Where has my thread gone?" "Why was my post removed?" "Why was I banned?"

These are not questions that can be answered on the forum. Please contact us directly with your query via http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/contact/?contact_type=forum

Hey there!

Quick Links

Pro-Katie Price bias?

Comments