Sensible people don't go around assaulting innocent people in night clubs.
And sensible people don't go on and on about minor incidents that happened over thirteen years and try to claim they were only one of a number of a series incidents.
And sensible people don't go on and on about minor incidents that happened over thirteen years and try to claim they were only one of a number of a series incidents.
Minor? Wouldn't class assault as minor. She gave the woman a huge swollen black eye. Says alot about her character regardless of how long ago it was.
We all get worked up in arguments. But most Sensible people would just walk away from the situation. Wonder if youd feel the same if it had been you that got attacked or a loved one.
And sensible people don't go on and on about minor incidents that happened over thirteen years and try to claim they were only one of a number of a series incidents.
it's a crime she was found guilty, to most normal people a criminal offence is not a minor incident.
it's a crime she was found guilty, to most normal people a criminal offence is not a minor incident.
Worth reading the contemporary accounts of the case, some interesting aspects to it. The verdict might have been different if she had had a better lawyer or if it had been appealed.
Worth reading the contemporary accounts of the case, some interesting aspects to it. The verdict might have been different if she had had a better lawyer or if it had been appealed.
That's supposition she was found guilty and therefore is guilty by the legal definition thereof. There was no appeal or facts proven in a court of law that oppose that.
She had some money back then so to accuse her lawyer of not being good enough is in my opinion bordering On slanderous and a statement saying poor Cheryl was innocent but her lawyer made her guilty. Very believable. I am sure if she had a good chance of a successful appeal she would have taken it. Frankly , blaming the law for someone being convicted of a crime is a sorry example of how celebrity allows people to be excused fr all sorts of unacceptable behaviour.
I'd like to know how she actually got into Girls Aloud.
The other 4 had really good voices ,but never did i think cheryls name would be called out . Even her singing on Popstars the rivals , wasn't very good.
I really think some dodgy deal was made backstage....
I'd like to know how she actually got into Girls Aloud.
Her looks.
Watch her first audition, if it's still on Youtube. The only thing the judges talk about after she's finished singing is her looks.
For a very long time now in the music industry it doesn't matter if you can't sing or are a very weak singer as long as you can look good on an album cover.
I'd like to know how she actually got into Girls Aloud.
The other 4 had really good voices ,but never did i think cheryls name would be called out . Even her singing on Popstars the rivals , wasn't very good.
I really think some dodgy deal was made backstage....
Auditions back then were more about looks and charisma, instead of genuine talent. I mean look how they treated Nicola (?).
I remember Cheryl was in the bottom two on PSTR. She was in tears, kept going on about how she let her mam, family, gran, etc down. Playing the sympathy card worked as she came out top in the final vote.
She couldn't sing for toffee, but her 'beauty' was what seperated her from the other contestants. When you look back now, the talent wasn't amazing. It was a given Nadine was going to be in the band, I guess the real surprise was Javine's exclusion. People probably thought she did enough.
Watch her first audition, if it's still on Youtube. The only thing the judges talk about after she's finished singing is her looks.
For a very long time now in the music industry it doesn't matter if you can't sing or are a very weak singer as long as you can look good on an album cover.
From what I remember, Pete Waterman was virtually drooling and just kept repeating how stunning she was. That audition set the tone for her career - weak vocal, charisma of a plank, no real spark but a pretty face seems to be all that matters.
I'm a straight woman so I don't really see females in the way a man or a gay woman does but, despite the fact I think she's very pretty, I don't think she has any sex appeal what so ever.
Nadine is very pretty too as is sarah and there were other good looking girls too. Not as if cheryl was the only attractive one there. I agree she cannot sing, and after the assault i would of thought she have been kicked out of girls aloud she seems to have power over people even now she controls cowell, the press, her ex's etc._ funny thing is there are just as nice looking girls as tweedy in celeb land but get half the attention which is weird
This Liam 1D romance - what's that all about then? One Direction fans don't take kindly to 'their' boys being mucked about. Cheryl better have good security!!
Comments
And sensible people don't go on and on about minor incidents that happened over thirteen years and try to claim they were only one of a number of a series incidents.
Minor? Wouldn't class assault as minor. She gave the woman a huge swollen black eye. Says alot about her character regardless of how long ago it was.
We all get worked up in arguments. But most Sensible people would just walk away from the situation. Wonder if youd feel the same if it had been you that got attacked or a loved one.
How do you know that Cheryl wasn't attacked first?
Worth reading the contemporary accounts of the case, some interesting aspects to it. The verdict might have been different if she had had a better lawyer or if it had been appealed.
Actually this is most important.
Most people tend to ignore that Cheryl was 'allegedly' attacked first.
Fact is, from the court hearing, on Cheryl's defence, three people came forward to claim the lady had attacked them unprovoked in the past.
The only difference is, Cheryl was found guilty because (as she was raised), when she gets attacked, she fights back big style.
She had some money back then so to accuse her lawyer of not being good enough is in my opinion bordering On slanderous and a statement saying poor Cheryl was innocent but her lawyer made her guilty. Very believable. I am sure if she had a good chance of a successful appeal she would have taken it. Frankly , blaming the law for someone being convicted of a crime is a sorry example of how celebrity allows people to be excused fr all sorts of unacceptable behaviour.
I remain silent on the alleged and tried attack - we will never know the truth
The other 4 had really good voices ,but never did i think cheryls name would be called out . Even her singing on Popstars the rivals , wasn't very good.
I really think some dodgy deal was made backstage....
Her looks.
Watch her first audition, if it's still on Youtube. The only thing the judges talk about after she's finished singing is her looks.
For a very long time now in the music industry it doesn't matter if you can't sing or are a very weak singer as long as you can look good on an album cover.
I remember Cheryl was in the bottom two on PSTR. She was in tears, kept going on about how she let her mam, family, gran, etc down. Playing the sympathy card worked as she came out top in the final vote.
She couldn't sing for toffee, but her 'beauty' was what seperated her from the other contestants. When you look back now, the talent wasn't amazing. It was a given Nadine was going to be in the band, I guess the real surprise was Javine's exclusion. People probably thought she did enough.
From what I remember, Pete Waterman was virtually drooling and just kept repeating how stunning she was. That audition set the tone for her career - weak vocal, charisma of a plank, no real spark but a pretty face seems to be all that matters.
I'm a straight woman so I don't really see females in the way a man or a gay woman does but, despite the fact I think she's very pretty, I don't think she has any sex appeal what so ever.