Options

Peters response to Katie not filming/photographing kids

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,114
Forum Member
✭✭✭
http://www.new-magazine.co.uk/peterandre

"Apparently, Katie has said she won’t be allowing the kids to be filmed for her TV show or photographed in magazines.
All I’ll say is that I find the whole thing a bit strange and no one has discussed it with me".

Why would you find it "strange" would be my first question and "why would she need to discuss it with you", the second one. She has said what she has decided to do,

Leaves Mr. Andre now in a very difficult position. Cant wait to see his move.
«13456715

Comments

  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 634
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't get why it is suddenly an issue for her now when she has been allowing them to be filmed pretty much since birth..
  • Options
    smashboxsmashbox Posts: 4,049
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't get why it is suddenly an issue for her now when she has been allowing them to be filmed pretty much since birth..

    Because she now thinks it will make her look a better person than Pete:rolleyes: I know, she has the mentality of a gnat. Notice she never said Harvey, she blamed him for stealing Petes brothers camera on Sunday!! How low can you go:mad:
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,933
    Forum Member
    I think something like that is best discussed with the ex-partner first rather than Katie saying in the press that she hopes Pete will agree. I expect he would also want to talk to Junior first and see what he actually said and then discuss it with Katie. She will, of course, have to take them out of her product websites..
    Pete hardly had his children in his series this time so it wouldn't affect his show at all.
  • Options
    Blondie XBlondie X Posts: 28,662
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why should she discuss it with him? Have they got a signed agreement that makes them both legally have to run every decision they ever make past each other?

    Make them both go away someone
  • Options
    BReal2BReal2 Posts: 863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't understand what's strange about it and why he feels the need to respond to statements she makes in the press unless they're attacking him,which she has not yet done. When she starts saying he refused her request to stop filming the kids then it would make sense to respond.
  • Options
    BReal2BReal2 Posts: 863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Blondie X wrote: »
    Why should she discuss it with him? Have they got a signed agreement that makes them both legally have to run every decision they ever make past each other?

    Make them both go away someone

    I think he meant she hasn't asked him to keep the kids away from the cameras as of yet.
  • Options
    BReal2BReal2 Posts: 863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Liz G-S wrote: »
    I think something like that is best discussed with the ex-partner first rather than Katie saying in the press that she hopes Pete will agree. I expect he would also want to talk to Junior first and see what he actually said and then discuss it with Katie. She will, of course, have to take them out of her product websites..
    Pete hardly had his children in his series this time so it wouldn't affect his show at all.

    Junior's a child,so it's not up to him if he's on TV or not. Not being on TV can't be a bad thing for a child. I agree Katie should have talked to Peter privately first but those two bring they're private lives to the public on a regular basis,like when he whined about Princess wearing makeup on Facebook.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,114
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BReal2 wrote: »
    I don't understand what's strange about it and why he feels the need to respond to statements she makes in the press unless they're attacking him,which she has not yet done. When she starts saying he refused her request to stop filming the kids then it would make sense to respond.

    Of course he and CAN will not like her doing this. If she stops totally, which is what she is saying and he continues. What will that say about him? They will not like her move one bit.

    Her statement was what she intends to do in the future. She has acknowleged that Junior is having a problem and she wants them to have now have a normal childhood.
  • Options
    BReal2BReal2 Posts: 863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bunny55 wrote: »
    Of course he and CAN will not like her doing this. If she stops totally, which is what she is saying and he continues. What will that say about him? They will not like her move one bit.

    Her statement was what she intends to do in the future. She has acknowleged that Junior is having a problem and she wants them to have now have a normal childhood.

    Oh I understand that bit about everything Katie said and her reason for doing it and if she follows through then well done to her. But I don't see why Peter is even mentioning this to the public when Katie hasn't publicly demanded he stop as well. He's responding to something that currently only involves Katie and a personal choice she made for herself and the kids when they're with her.
  • Options
    muddipawsmuddipaws Posts: 3,300
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Because her What Katie did Next has bombed, gone to UK Living or whatever and no one really watches it, so she can dump that and run with the Jordan Idol hence no need for kids?
  • Options
    lexi22lexi22 Posts: 16,394
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why is he yapping on about what is a very private matter concerning the welfare of his kids in his column? Surely a normal mature adult would pick up the phone and discuss it that way? Oh wait, I said a normal mature adult...

    I see my mistake now.

    He sounds very peeved. I wonder what he hopes to achieve by making it now a matter for public discussion?
  • Options
    artlesschaosartlesschaos Posts: 11,345
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't get why it is suddenly an issue for her now when she has been allowing them to be filmed pretty much since birth..

    Either she has seen the criticism leved at them both and had a rethink, or she has seen the criticism levelled at them both and decided to use it as a stick to beat him with...either way, it is all for the better for the kids.

    Interesting that he finds the idea of not exploiting his kids as "strange".

    But why does she have to discuss NOT using the kids with him?
  • Options
    BReal2BReal2 Posts: 863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lexi22 wrote: »
    Why is he yapping on about what is a very private matter concerning the welfare of his kids in his column? Surely a normal mature adult would pick up the phone and discuss it that way? Oh wait, I said a normal mature adult...

    I see my mistake now.

    He sounds very peeved. I wonder what he hopes to achieve by making it now a matter for public discussion?

    Tehnically Katie made it a public matter by announcing she wasn't using her kids anyore in her shows. But Peter made the choice to comment on her decision,he almost sounds like it's a bad thing to not put the kids in her show. He must now that if she really lives up to her word people will expect him to do the same.
  • Options
    BReal2BReal2 Posts: 863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Either she has seen the criticism leved at them both and had a rethink, or she has seen the criticism levelled at them both and decided to use it as a stick to beat him with...either way, it is all for the better for the kids.

    Interesting that he finds the idea of not exploiting his kids as "strange".

    But why does she have to discuss NOT using the kids with him?

    She doesn't,unless she wants to ask him not to use them. Which she apparently has not done
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,020
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Unfortunately she has reportedly been unable to speak to PA except through their lawyers. IMO she cannot stop him so chooses to highlight her opinion via usual media in a hope he might feel guilty and stop too. I can't see it happening whilst CAN are involved P & J are little money spinners for PA how sad.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,341
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Can either of these two fart unless there is a camera or a journo present?

    Sad pair of media **** who need to grow up and think of their kids rather than their egos
  • Options
    BReal2BReal2 Posts: 863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    goldiloks wrote: »
    Unfortunately she has reportedly been unable to speak to PA except through there lawyers. IMO she cannot stop him so chooses to highlight her opinion via usual media in a hope he might feel guilty and stop too. I can't see it happening whilst CAN are involved P & J are little money spinners for PA how sad.

    If both parents share custody don't they have to sign off on anything involving the kids,like them appearing on TV?
  • Options
    sionnaighsionnaigh Posts: 1,599
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    *sneaks in*

    Maybe he thought decisions about their childrens future was something they should have discussed jointly, between themselves, as parents, rather than one of the parents making an announcement to the media without the other parent being aware of it beforehand? Maybe?

    It should have been a private matter, IMO, before (or indeed if) any announcement was made - in a joint 'statement' regarding what was happening to their children.

    It would appear that one of the parents decided to make this decision, regarding their particular choice, public and the other parent is being castigated for, in essence, saying - erm, when was this decision about our children made then? Would it have been such an issue to have discussed it between them and then prevented all of this (yawn) point scoring and such?

    Then again, privacy and these two individuals don't exactly make good bedfellows do they?

    *sneaks out*
  • Options
    lexi22lexi22 Posts: 16,394
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    BReal2 wrote: »
    Tehnically Katie made it a public matter by announcing she wasn't using her kids anyore in her shows. But Peter made the choice to comment on her decision,he almost sounds like it's a bad thing to not put the kids in her show. He must now that if she really lives up to her word people will expect him to do the same.

    Yes, sure, but she didn't mention anything about PA, it was her speaking for herself. This is PA making a private matter which should be between them public. Yes, she should have discussed it with him, like a normal mature adult would, and talked about it afterwards if she felt the need to but - I refer you to my earlier comment re 'normal mature adults'...
  • Options
    BReal2BReal2 Posts: 863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    sionnaigh wrote: »
    *sneaks in*

    Maybe he thought decisions about their childrens future was something they should have discussed jointly, between themselves, as parents, rather than one of the parents making an announcement to the media without the other parent being aware of it beforehand? Maybe?

    It should have been a private matter, IMO, before (or indeed if) any announcement was made - in a joint 'statement' regarding what was happening to their children.

    It would appear that one of the parents decided to make this decision, regarding their particular choice, public and the other parent is being castigated for, in essence, saying - erm, when was this decision about our children made then? Would it have been such an issue to have discussed it between them and then prevented all of this (yawn) point scoring and such?

    Then again, privacy and these two individuals don't exactly make good bedfellows do they?

    *sneaks out*

    Normally I would agree but not putting the kids on her show really shouldn't be of any concern to him or discussed with him,unless he believes not being filmed will cause a trauma to them.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,933
    Forum Member
    goldiloks wrote: »
    Unfortunately she has reportedly been unable to speak to PA except through their lawyers. IMO she cannot stop him so chooses to highlight her opinion via usual media in a hope he might feel guilty and stop too. I can't see it happening whilst CAN are involved P & J are little money spinners for PA how sad.

    That isn't true, they talk all the time on the phone about the children and it seems very amicably. She has said that, but their phone calls have been documented on both their shows and seemed very friendly and they were well-informed about what the other was doing at the time.
    I think Katie can stop Pete, but they have to talk about it and come to an agreement.
  • Options
    BReal2BReal2 Posts: 863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lexi22 wrote: »
    Yes, sure, but she didn't mention anything about PA, it was her speaking for herself. This is PA making a private matter which should be between them public. Yes, she should have discussed it with him, like a normal mature adult would, and talked about it afterwards if she felt the need to but - I refer you to my earlier comment re 'normal mature adults'...

    She didn't owe it to him to discuss her personal choice not to use the kids,she would only owe it to him to privately ask him not to,which she hasn't done publicly or privately. She's only said she herself won't be using them
  • Options
    BReal2BReal2 Posts: 863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Liz G-S wrote: »
    That isn't true, they talk all the time on the phone about the children and it seems very amicably. She has said that, but their phone calls have been documented on both their shows and seemed very friendly and they were well-informed about what the other was doing at the time.
    I think Katie can stop Pete, but they have to talk about it and come to an agreement.

    Wouldn't she be able to speak to him when he comes round to see Harvey? Surely Mike and Claire aren't going to her house with him.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 638
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I thought Katie said she was hoping Peter would do the same? Which would be great if he did, but should have been handled like sionnaigh suggested?

    Will she remove them from her internet shopping page?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,933
    Forum Member
    BReal2 wrote: »
    Normally I would agree but not putting the kids on her show really shouldn't be of any concern to him or discussed with him,unless he believes not being filmed will cause a trauma to them.

    That is true, but she then shouldn't discuss what Pete does as it shouldn't be of any concern to her either, and she should certainly not talk to the press first with the comment implying Pete probably will continue to film the children.
    They both have the children's best interest at heart and neither would do anything that the children were unhappy with.
This discussion has been closed.