The kids have appeared on both parents rtv show,s IMO the difference being that these shows were portraying their lives, family life included. when appearing with their mother most footage was her either getting her nails or hair done and the kids always having to go to their mother when called to come over, then when she took the option of protecting their privacy her show was again hair nails, man of the month which left you wondering how much quality time she spent with her kids.
PA has chosen to include them in his show which is his choice as their father. immediate and extended family are a big factor in his life, and the bond between the family members is evident in his shows. His shows have shown how a father can rebuild his life and make a new home and although not living at the family home, him and his kids can still have stability in their lives, and shows just how adaptable kids are.
If you agree or disagree, I honesty think PA would think its a show about my life, the kids are my life, they are happy to be filmed, so why not.
Its the choice of each parent, my problem is 1 parent has been consistent with their choices, the other seems to make the rules up as she goes along, to whatever whim she is on at that moment in time. And constantly contradicts herself. Which is confusing to the public never mind her kids
Yes, for most people, that was unamimously agreed. Which is why this faux finger-wagging and charges of hypocrisy now are so lame.
What makes me laugh though is that if for some reason, she doesn't do this gameshow thing, it won't be because she decides she doesn't want the kids in the public eye, oh know! it'll be because the show decided not to use her because she's a has-been or some such reasoning. You know it'll happen! So either way, she can't win. ;-)
So she might as well do whatever it is she's offered and be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. :cool:
BIB The woman really is her own worst enemy! Forever making statements and then forgetting what she said, or having to do a complete uturn
sorry ppl,, can't multi quote ATM, broken phone, using a borrowed tablet that won,t multiquote amongst other things ......grrrrrrr
The kids have appeared on both parents rtv show,s IMO the difference being that these shows were portraying their lives, family life included. when appearing with their mother most footage was her either getting her nails or hair done and the kids always having to go to their mother when called to come over, then when she took the option of protecting their privacy her show was again hair nails, man of the month which left you wondering how much quality time she spent with her kids.
PA has chosen to include them in his show which is his choice as their father. immediate and extended family are a big factor in his life, and the bond between the family members is evident in his shows. His shows have shown how a father can rebuild his life and make a new home and although not living at the family home, him and his kids can still have stability in their lives, and shows just how adaptable kids are. If you agree or disagree, I honesty think PA would think its a show about my life, the kids are my life, they are happy to be filmed, so why not.
Its the choice of each parent, my problem is 1 parent has been consistent with their choices, the other seems to make the rules up as she goes along, to whatever whim she is on at that moment in time. And constantly contradicts herself. Which is confusing to the public never mind her kids
What part are you very very very very confused about????
Pretty much the whole post and how you can differentiate between KP getting her nails done and PA making coffee etc... It is both parents' choice - but let's not pretend that either of them is doing anything but creating a storyline for their own ego.
& the BIB - how can you assert they are happy to be filmed for him but not make the same statement for her?? Makes no sense. Unless you can prove they are not happy to be filmed for her.
Pretty much the whole post and how you can differentiate between KP getting her nails done and PA making coffee etc... It is both parents' choice - but let's not pretend that either of them is doing anything but creating a storyline for their own ego.
& the BIB - how can you assert they are happy to be filmed for him but not make the same statement for her?? Makes no sense. Unless you can prove they are not happy to be filmed for her.
They seemed happy enough in front of the camera's in PA show IMO. I didn,t make the same statement for her as apparently she's keeping them out of the public eye.:o
But when they were in the public eye with their mother they seemed happy enough to appear in front of the camera, although younger, with different men sharing the family home.
I the difference in sitting in a chair getting your nails done, hair extensions, or both and a cup of coffee would be quite a good few hours I would think.
and yes it is each parents individual choice, ego,s or not, likewise it is also her choice to give her own definition to "keeping them out of the public eye" (when it suits her)
You seem to have completely misunderstood the point I was making,[/QUOTE
My understanding was you were basically saying, she,s damned if she does, and she,s damned if she doesn,t that either way she will get critised. I agreed with you on this point and have given my reason as to why she would be critised.
As in the past she has always opened her mouth before thinking, ie, "she,s filming for a new show, she will be promoting an exciting new product , bringing out a bridal range. Shes going to stay single, Etc etc the list goes on and on. And nothing comes of these things or she completely does the opposite to what she stated leaving herself open to criticism... Brought on by her own actions imo
If their daddy was making breakfast , reading to them or taking them on holiday with him then I doubt you imagined it . Peter's life includes him making breakfast and reading to them and taking them on holidays .They are his children and a massive part of his life.Not to show them would be like denying them .In my opinion .
Lots of people do that stuff - does it not exist if it is not filmed?
That is a strange argument. None of that is special, it's parenthood. He did not need to have it in his tv show, because it has nothing to do with his career. Except, for him, it does, so it is fair game and has a price tag.
The tv show was a publicity exercise and he included his kids in order to reinforce his "good guy, DOTY, Ilovemykidsandwoulddieforthem"image.
If you are going to attack one, attack the other. They are a pair of hypocrites, they both exploit ALL the kids for their various attention-seeking needs and neither parent has a clue about the idea of children having a separate identity to the parent.
Numpties. Narccisistic numpties.
But again, not the only hypocrites. If it is not a problem when he does it, it should not be a problem when she does.
Nor are very many other posts - are you going to go through and address them?
How come you did not answer Nicola when she asked you directly, but preferred to pick up on my post in response to Kay2000? I only posted a link to the fact that PA has never appeared on Big Star Little Star.
I just cleared up something that was completely incorrect. So there is no need for the deflection. It's not really a big deal.
Lots of people do that stuff - does it not exist if it is not filmed?
That is a strange argument. None of that is special, it's parenthood. He did not need to have it in his tv show, because it has nothing to do with his career. Except, for him, it does, so it is fair game and has a price tag.
The tv show was a publicity exercise and he included his kids in order to reinforce his "good guy, DOTY, Ilovemykidsandwoulddieforthem"image.
If you are going to attack one, attack the other. They are a pair of hypocrites, they both exploit ALL the kids for their various attention-seeking needs and neither parent has a clue about the idea of children having a separate identity to the parent.
Numpties. Narccisistic numpties.
But again, not the only hypocrites. If it is not a problem when he does it, it should not be a problem when she does.
Bib .No .
Personally speaking I've never said her featuring the children was a problem.They are her kids and part of her life. However since her declaration that she would no longer do so and attempts to make her ex bend to her demands on the subject she will be a hypocrite if she backtracks on her own very very vociferous demands of privacy for them .
Peter andre has never decreed that his children be excluded from a show on his life style ,nor has he gone the pixellation demand route re papers ,since the public are well aware of what both children look like due to the the joint reality shows.
His ex missus though is a different kettle of fish .She demanded they be kept private ,coincidentally after her series bombed ,so if she parades them on a telly show, any telly show for whatever reason or for however long then she and only she ,will be the hypocrite.
I'll repeat more succinctly . Peter andre has not made a public decree that he would never again appear with his children. So any appearance with them can be whatever you choose to call it ,but it won't be *hypocrisy* in any form . The ex mrs andre did make a public decree that she would no longer be featured with the andre children .If she reneges on that decree she will be a hypocrite .
Personally speaking I've never said her featuring the children was a problem.They are her kids and part of her life. However since her declaration that she would no longer do so and attempts to make her ex bend to her demands on the subject she will be a hypocrite if she backtracks on her own very very vociferous demands of privacy for them .
Peter andre has never decreed that his children be excluded from a show on his life style ,nor has he gone the pixellation demand route re papers ,since the public are well aware of what both children look like due to the the joint reality shows.
His ex missus though is a different kettle of fish .She demanded they be kept private ,coincidentally after her series bombed ,so if she parades them on a telly show, any telly show for whatever reason or for however long then she and only she ,will be the hypocrite.
I'll repeat more succinctly . Peter andre has not made a public decree that he would never again appear with his children. So any appearance with them can be whatever you choose to call it ,but it won't be *hypocrisy* in any form . The ex mrs andre did make a public decree that she would no longer be featured with the andre children .If she reneges on that decree she will be a hypocrite .
Thanks for the bold - it saved me so much reading. As I stated in my post IF she features her children on a reality show, she is a hypocrite.
But we don't actually know that she has done that...do we?
It does appear that this thread and the KP & KK thread have both turned into 'Pete pimps out his kids' threads.
Maybe others?
Doing a time management course is drawing attention to this kind of thing for me.
As per usual... It kills debate because whenever a conversation begins about Katie Price (and this thread was about her - not anybody else) immediately Peter Andre is drawn into it and always with the same, tired old argument by the same few posters - very dreary. There is a thread to mull over his every utterance, real or imaginary, on here already. Is it not possible to talk about her without having to drag him into it?
He didn't name this baby - she did! And that is the discussion. It is perfectly reasonable to want to draw attention to her inconsistencies and rather desperate attempts to get media attention. It is fun to discuss it!
I must admit that I wish she could find happiness, stop all this desperate posturing on Twitter etc and enjoy what she has - but she seems incapable of that. So why she still spouts what a lot of people think is nonsense, it would be lovely to be able to discuss it!
Back to KP and her baby (which this thread IS about) I had a dream last night about her giving birth (twice) in my living room perched on the edge of wooden tv cabinet under my telly... she needed some kitchen rolll and waddled into my kitchen to get some with the newborn tucked in the top of her shiny leggings she used to wear.... I'm still slightly traumatised... (Kev was there holding my kitchen scissors to cut the cord...)
As per usual... It kills debate because whenever a conversation begins about Katie Price (and this thread was about her - not anybody else) immediately Peter Andre is drawn into it and always with the same, tired old argument by the same few posters - very dreary. There is a thread to mull over his every utterance, real or imaginary, on here already. Is it not possible to talk about her without having to drag him into it?
He didn't name this baby - she did! And that is the discussion. It is perfectly reasonable to want to draw attention to her inconsistencies and rather desperate attempts to get media attention. It is fun to discuss it!
I must admit that I wish she could find happiness, stop all this desperate posturing on Twitter etc and enjoy what she has - but she seems incapable of that. So why she still spouts what a lot of people think is nonsense, it would be lovely to be able to discuss it!
There have been many threads where it is possible to discuss the every nonsensical utterance of KP but they inevitably vanish because posts become bordering of libellous.
Start a thread about her and, if FMs stick to the t&c's and don't post the sort of comments that can get DS in hot water with her legal team, then there will be no problems. There is a reason why these threads disappear and others remain and it doesn't take Einstein to work out why and yet this seems to be difficult for some to accept as they'd rather blame others than think about moderating their own posts
As per usual... It kills debate because whenever a conversation begins about Katie Price (and this thread was about her - not anybody else) immediately Peter Andre is drawn into it and always with the same, tired old argument by the same few posters - very dreary. There is a thread to mull over his every utterance, real or imaginary, on here already. Is it not possible to talk about her without having to drag him into it?
He didn't name this baby - she did! And that is the discussion. It is perfectly reasonable to want to draw attention to her inconsistencies and rather desperate attempts to get media attention. It is fun to discuss it!
I must admit that I wish she could find happiness, stop all this desperate posturing on Twitter etc and enjoy what she has - but she seems incapable of that. So why she still spouts what a lot of people think is nonsense, it would be lovely to be able to discuss it!
^ Of course, perfectly reasonable, but this thread moved on from the 'no baby name' ages back - the baby has a name - Bunny, in case anyone missed it! - and it's been discussed at length! - and really, there's nothing left to say about it so the thread has organically moved on to discuss other things about KP. Someone posted re her doing a gameshow involving the kids and that opened up the discussion about whether or not she would be hypocritical to do so, which relates immediately to her ex since the kids concerned are also the kids of PA. They are forever linked because of that and it would be really odd for him not to also be discussed when the current discussion involves exposing the kids on tv.
There have been many threads where it is possible to discuss the every nonsensical utterance of KP but they inevitably vanish because posts become bordering of libellous.
Start a thread about her and, if FMs stick to the t&c's and don't post the sort of comments that can get DS in hot water with her legal team, then there will be no problems. There is a reason why these threads disappear and others remain and it doesn't take Einstein to work out why and yet this seems to be difficult for some to accept as they'd rather blame others than think about moderating their own posts
But that is not the always the case Blondie X - as on this thread for example. Nothing libellous has been written but still the actual subject of the thread disappears among all the PA posts! It is nothing to do with moderation at all.
Badcat - sounds worrying. What had you been eating before bed? And, more worrying, you could have given her an idea for the next 'My Birth Hell' story...
There have been many threads where it is possible to discuss the every nonsensical utterance of KP but they inevitably vanish because posts become bordering of libellous.
Start a thread about her and, if FMs stick to the t&c's and don't post the sort of comments that can get DS in hot water with her legal team, then there will be no problems. There is a reason why these threads disappear and others remain and it doesn't take Einstein to work out why and yet this seems to be difficult for some to accept as they'd rather blame others than think about moderating their own posts
Actually the last 2 where closed due to the terrible flame wars that occurred so it's more about everyone behaving responsibly and moderating what they post rather than throwing blame about.
Anyway, I hope this thread gets back on track. PA has nothing to do with KP anymore and has no input into what she does or the naming of her new children so no point mentioning him or any of her ex's when it comes with her current antics or baby naming.
God I hope I don't dream of her tonight... maybe I just won't go to sleep....
^ Of course, perfectly reasonable, but this thread moved on from the 'no baby name' ages back - the baby has a name - Bunny, in case anyone missed it! - and it's been discussed at length! - and really, there's nothing left to say about it so the thread has organically moved on to discuss other things about KP. Someone posted re her doing a gameshow involving the kids and that opened up the discussion about whether or not she would be hypocritical to do so, which relates immediately to her ex since the kids concerned are also the kids of PA. They are forever linked because of that and it would be really odd for him not to also be discussed when the current discussion involves exposing the kids on tv.
Absolutely. Moved on from the baby naming eons ago.
And like hunniebun said a while back, pretty much every article or interview about TM STILL refers to MG and KP. They'll forever be entwined. That's just never going to change as far as I can see. So, if I decide to post on a KP thread and I feel her ex is relevant, I'll mention him. In a KP thread!!:)
Comments
PA has chosen to include them in his show which is his choice as their father. immediate and extended family are a big factor in his life, and the bond between the family members is evident in his shows. His shows have shown how a father can rebuild his life and make a new home and although not living at the family home, him and his kids can still have stability in their lives, and shows just how adaptable kids are.
If you agree or disagree, I honesty think PA would think its a show about my life, the kids are my life, they are happy to be filmed, so why not.
Its the choice of each parent, my problem is 1 parent has been consistent with their choices, the other seems to make the rules up as she goes along, to whatever whim she is on at that moment in time. And constantly contradicts herself. Which is confusing to the public never mind her kids
BIB The woman really is her own worst enemy! Forever making statements and then forgetting what she said, or having to do a complete uturn
sorry ppl,, can't multi quote ATM, broken phone, using a borrowed tablet that won,t multiquote amongst other things ......grrrrrrr
So far, kp's not recently done a show with the kids that I have seen- I thought it was okay to speculate?
What part are you very very very very confused about????
Pretty much the whole post and how you can differentiate between KP getting her nails done and PA making coffee etc... It is both parents' choice - but let's not pretend that either of them is doing anything but creating a storyline for their own ego.
& the BIB - how can you assert they are happy to be filmed for him but not make the same statement for her?? Makes no sense. Unless you can prove they are not happy to be filmed for her.
They seemed happy enough in front of the camera's in PA show IMO. I didn,t make the same statement for her as apparently she's keeping them out of the public eye.:o
But when they were in the public eye with their mother they seemed happy enough to appear in front of the camera, although younger, with different men sharing the family home.
I the difference in sitting in a chair getting your nails done, hair extensions, or both and a cup of coffee would be quite a good few hours I would think.
and yes it is each parents individual choice, ego,s or not, likewise it is also her choice to give her own definition to "keeping them out of the public eye" (when it suits her)
You seem to have completely misunderstood the point I was making,
You can speculate all you like. But what you wrote was written as fact, not speculation.
Lots of people do that stuff - does it not exist if it is not filmed?
That is a strange argument. None of that is special, it's parenthood. He did not need to have it in his tv show, because it has nothing to do with his career. Except, for him, it does, so it is fair game and has a price tag.
The tv show was a publicity exercise and he included his kids in order to reinforce his "good guy, DOTY, Ilovemykidsandwoulddieforthem"image.
If you are going to attack one, attack the other. They are a pair of hypocrites, they both exploit ALL the kids for their various attention-seeking needs and neither parent has a clue about the idea of children having a separate identity to the parent.
Numpties. Narccisistic numpties.
But again, not the only hypocrites. If it is not a problem when he does it, it should not be a problem when she does.
Nor are very many other posts - are you going to go through and address them?
How come you did not answer Nicola when she asked you directly, but preferred to pick up on my post in response to Kay2000?
I just cleared up something that was completely incorrect. So there is no need for the deflection.
Personally speaking I've never said her featuring the children was a problem.They are her kids and part of her life. However since her declaration that she would no longer do so and attempts to make her ex bend to her demands on the subject she will be a hypocrite if she backtracks on her own very very vociferous demands of privacy for them .
Peter andre has never decreed that his children be excluded from a show on his life style ,nor has he gone the pixellation demand route re papers ,since the public are well aware of what both children look like due to the the joint reality shows.
His ex missus though is a different kettle of fish .She demanded they be kept private ,coincidentally after her series bombed ,so if she parades them on a telly show, any telly show for whatever reason or for however long then she and only she ,will be the hypocrite.
I'll repeat more succinctly .
Peter andre has not made a public decree that he would never again appear with his children. So any appearance with them can be whatever you choose to call it ,but it won't be *hypocrisy* in any form .
The ex mrs andre did make a public decree that she would no longer be featured with the andre children .If she reneges on that decree she will be a hypocrite .
Thanks for the bold - it saved me so much reading.
But we don't actually know that she has done that...do we?
Maybe others?
Doing a time management course is drawing attention to this kind of thing for me.
As per usual... It kills debate because whenever a conversation begins about Katie Price (and this thread was about her - not anybody else) immediately Peter Andre is drawn into it and always with the same, tired old argument by the same few posters - very dreary. There is a thread to mull over his every utterance, real or imaginary, on here already. Is it not possible to talk about her without having to drag him into it?
He didn't name this baby - she did! And that is the discussion. It is perfectly reasonable to want to draw attention to her inconsistencies and rather desperate attempts to get media attention. It is fun to discuss it!
I must admit that I wish she could find happiness, stop all this desperate posturing on Twitter etc and enjoy what she has - but she seems incapable of that. So why she still spouts what a lot of people think is nonsense, it would be lovely to be able to discuss it!
There have been many threads where it is possible to discuss the every nonsensical utterance of KP but they inevitably vanish because posts become bordering of libellous.
Start a thread about her and, if FMs stick to the t&c's and don't post the sort of comments that can get DS in hot water with her legal team, then there will be no problems. There is a reason why these threads disappear and others remain and it doesn't take Einstein to work out why and yet this seems to be difficult for some to accept as they'd rather blame others than think about moderating their own posts
^ Of course, perfectly reasonable, but this thread moved on from the 'no baby name' ages back - the baby has a name - Bunny, in case anyone missed it! - and it's been discussed at length! - and really, there's nothing left to say about it so the thread has organically moved on to discuss other things about KP. Someone posted re her doing a gameshow involving the kids and that opened up the discussion about whether or not she would be hypocritical to do so, which relates immediately to her ex since the kids concerned are also the kids of PA. They are forever linked because of that and it would be really odd for him not to also be discussed when the current discussion involves exposing the kids on tv.
But that is not the always the case Blondie X - as on this thread for example. Nothing libellous has been written but still the actual subject of the thread disappears among all the PA posts! It is nothing to do with moderation at all.
Badcat - sounds worrying. What had you been eating before bed? And, more worrying, you could have given her an idea for the next 'My Birth Hell' story...
Actually the last 2 where closed due to the terrible flame wars that occurred so it's more about everyone behaving responsibly and moderating what they post rather than throwing blame about.
Anyway, I hope this thread gets back on track. PA has nothing to do with KP anymore and has no input into what she does or the naming of her new children so no point mentioning him or any of her ex's when it comes with her current antics or baby naming.
God I hope I don't dream of her tonight... maybe I just won't go to sleep....
Absolutely. Moved on from the baby naming eons ago.
And like hunniebun said a while back, pretty much every article or interview about TM STILL refers to MG and KP. They'll forever be entwined. That's just never going to change as far as I can see. So, if I decide to post on a KP thread and I feel her ex is relevant, I'll mention him. In a KP thread!!:)