Wealth has nothing to do with it. Richard Madeley stealing wine, Worral-Thompson stealing onions. There is no relevance.
Is there any word of social work being investigated or the unfortunate children being taken to a place of safety? The father should not have left the smaller child alone with Ms. Geldof if hehad any suspicion of substance misuse.
The reason I posted about wealth was not to make excuses, but to offer an alternative view to the downsides of drug abuse.
There is a relevance, when Kate Moss was found to have a cocaine habit, she went into rehab. It costs thousands.
I questioned wether Peaches had the resources and believe me there is a difference.
No great loss really. Paula talentless. Peaches talentless. Hutchens- poor Jim Moorison clone. The world of the arts will not miss them.
I feel sorry for the children but the husband left his baby unattended with someone he knew was struggling with an opiate/methadone script. I don't think he should have custody.
No great loss to who exactly - her father & stepmum, her sisters, her husband & kids, all her friends - or maybe just you, some faceless person on the internet.
Paula Yates wasn't talentless. She was bright, sassy and very much part of the eighties scene. And by the way, she was tee total for many years. She loved being a mum and wrote books on the subject. She fell in love with Michael Hutchens, like many other beautiful & talented women did , and her world started to collapse.
It's so sad that Peaches couldn't overcome her problems, sad for her family, her husband & her kids. Whatever, I'm sure the kids will be very well looked after.
No great loss to who exactly - her father & stepmum, her sisters, her husband & kids, all her friends - or maybe just you, some faceless person on the internet.
Paula Yates washer life eless. She was bright, sassy and very much part of the eighties scene. And by the way, she was tee total for many years. She loved being a mum and wrote books on the subject. She fell in love with Michael Hutchens, like many other beautiful & talented women did , and her world started to collapse.
It's so sad that Peaches couldn't overcome her problems, sad for her family, her husband & her kids. Whatever, I'm sure the kids will be very well looked after.
I disagree. As I would. She was a hanger on in the eighties scene. At best. Many people are tea total and drug free, that does not make them a paragon of virtue. Did she do anything worthwhile with her life? I didn't see her books doing well or getting plaudits. Another individual who was made and broken by the media without any concern for a discernible talent.
She was no "hanger on" in the eighties scene in London . I was there!
She was no "paragon of virtue" but she was a fab presenter with Jools Holland, funny , bright and on the ball. And she didn't drink. I seem to remember her doing a great advert for non alcoholic lager - Kaliber, I think - look it up. Who cares if her books got plaudits or not- they were funny, witty and for mums, like her.
No you are misreading. I am saying she should have got herself clean BEFORE she started her family. NHS advice, which most mothers follow is to prepare your body to carry a new life and not to do anything which would harm them.
Of course she should in an ideal world but I really think she was a very troubled person. It seems obvious the marriage (an old friend), the children was Peaches attempt to fill some black hole. It's not the sensible/responsible approach to starting a family or getting over addiction but I totally get it. Her former nannys words about 'you nearly made it' sum it up. She was at least trying to get sorted, she didn't and it's tragic. She looked really sad and lost in most of the pics I have seen of her, not like she was having a ball and sod the children:(
Has it not occurred to anyone that Peaches maybe got pregnant in the same way a lot of non-celebrity non-junkies get pregnant when they're not necessarily planning it (especially with the younger baby), and she was not comfortable with termination?
I stand by everything I say in my post. Only yesterday I had to deal with yet another young child who is on the at risk child protection register because of drug addicted parents. They have already had a baby die under suspicious circumstances whilst under their care. This problem is spiralling out of control and innocent children will continue to suffer and even die. Maybe if her young son had died while she was getting high some of the people on here wouldn't have been so sympathetic. I dread to think how many children are dying up an down the country because of neglect as you only hear about a few cases. I find it staggering that people can still have sympathy for a woman who took drugs while in charge of a baby and ultimately put that child's life at risk.
Judge me all you like and of course I am not perfect, no one is, but if I was lucky enough to have children I would do everything in my power to protect them. In my opinion there are no excuses for her actions and as other posters said those of her husband leaving a young baby with someone he suspected of taking drugs.
I find it a bit scary that you work with the results of drug addiction without seeming to understand the first thing about it. Her husband will have left the child with her because he was absolutely convinced it was OK. Drug addicts are turned into devious manipulative liars because the power of addiction is so strong that you will do anything, say anything,to get what you feel you need. Drug addicts can love their children just as much as non addicts, so if you remove one child from them their feeling of loss will be enormous and as they aren't the best at coping with negative feelings they will replace the child. Seems obvious to me. Its a vicious horrible cycle that sucks in victims and once they're in its like being pulled down a plughole.
Children in care are more likely to develop addictions to drugs and alcohol, at what point do the children you so passionately (and rightly) defend cross into the group that deserve no sympathy because they are selfish and thoughtless?
I find it a bit scary that you work with the results of drug addiction without seeming to understand the first thing about it. Her husband will have left the child with her because he was absolutely convinced it was OK. Drug addicts are turned into devious manipulative liars because the power of addiction is so strong that you will do anything, say anything,to get what you feel you need. Drug addicts can love their children just as much as non addicts, so if you remove one child from them their feeling of loss will be enormous and as they aren't the best at coping with negative feelings they will replace the child. Seems obvious to me. Its a vicious horrible cycle that sucks in victims and once they're in its like being pulled down a plughole.
Children in care are more likely to develop addictions to drugs and alcohol, at what point do the children you so passionately (and rightly) defend cross into the group that deserve no sympathy because they are selfish and thoughtless?
I'm not quite sure why her hubby was convinced everything would be ok. By his own admission, he'd suspected P of using again for some time and he obviously knew her and the addict side of her well enough to know how well users cover their tracks. I'm also at at a loss as to why he did not return home sooner, having been unable to reach her for several hours.
She would have maintained a very convincing front of normalcy in front of anyone. Any attempt,in my experience, to ask if everything is OK gets a response of something along the lines that everything is OK,stop fussing, you have to trust me, I can't stand being scrutinised all the time. Tears and guilt trips which play with your mind till you maybe think you are being paranoid about their behaviour. He wouldn't have left her with the child if he thought she was going to be shooting up. Wasn't it his dad who actually dropped the baby off, saw her face to face and said she was absolutely normal? Its bad enough to condemn a deadwoman as viciously as some do without dragging her husband in to it as well.
Of course she should in an ideal world but I really think she was a very troubled person. It seems obvious the marriage (an old friend), the children was Peaches attempt to fill some black hole. It's not the sensible/responsible approach to starting a family or getting over addiction but I totally get it. Her former nannys words about 'you nearly made it' sum it up. She was at least trying to get sorted, she didn't and it's tragic. She looked really sad and lost in most of the pics I have seen of her, not like she was having a ball and sod the children:(
I think that's very likely true. Swopping one all-consuming 'passion' for another in the hope that the joy and fulfillment of the new one would negate the need for the old one. And it also explains why she was so 'hands-on'. I don't find anything insincere or disingenuous about the so-called public front she put on. She wasn't imo doing it to deceive, just her need to be seen to be strong and engaged and focused - everything that an addict is not - in the hope that she would become all of those things without a crutch.
She would have maintained a very convincing front of normalcy in front of anyone. Any attempt,in my experience, to ask if everything is OK gets a response of something along the lines that everything is OK,stop fussing, you have to trust me, I can't stand being scrutinised all the time. Tears and guilt trips which play with your mind till you maybe think you are being paranoid about their behaviour. He wouldn't have left her with the child if he thought she was going to be shooting up. Wasn't it his dad who actually dropped the baby off, saw her face to face and said she was absolutely normal? Its bad enough to condemn a deadwoman as viciously as some do without dragging her husband in to it as well.
Peaches behaviour whilst is sole charge of her son was appalling, even her staunch defenders can't deny that, surely? As for her husband, even if he did genuinely trust his wife, it is still questionable as to why it took so long for him to return home having been unable to contact her all evening and into next morning. My brother is a recovering heroin addict so I'm familiar with all the lies, guilt trips, etc, etc and there is just no way I would leave my baby with him overnight.
Posts such as this make life sound so incredibly simple and straight forward.
Why do I choose to defend her? Maybe because she isn't around to defend herself. Maybe because I suspect that behind all the glamour of "celebrity" there was probably an extremely vulnerable young girl who had a screwed up start to her own life and who was probably just trying her best to get herself by and make the best of her life and try to deal with the numerous issues she had going on.
Why did she have kids and throw herself into parenting? Probably because she hoped it would be something to consume her life enough that she wouldn't think about drugs or need to turn to drugs. If she had her love for her kids and had parenting.. why would she need drugs. That's perhaps what she hoped or thought. And sadly it appears she lost that particular battle.
We all have our demons. We all have skeletons. We all have vices. We all do things that aren't healthy for us. Some of us are on the lower end of the scale and have an addiction to coffee, chocolate or junk food. Some of us smoke. Some of us drink too much. Some of us use drugs or prescription medication. And some of us use heroin. No one is perfect. Not a single one of us.
I honestly believe she was trying her best. Yes, she died and she's left her kids without a mother. And that's tragic. But no one here as far as I'm aware knew her well enough to be able to announce on a forum that she loved drugs more than she loved her kids. You didn't know her. I just struggle with this concept that we can sit here on a forum and condemn others who have passed away and ridicule their decisions in life. Who are we to do that?
None of us are perfect.
A lovely post, Inspiration. I also agree with the ^BIB above.
Wealth has nothing to do with it. Richard Madeley stealing wine, Worral-Thompson stealing onions. There is no relevance.
Is there any word of social work being investigated or the unfortunate children being taken to a place of safety? The father should not have left the smaller child alone with Ms. Geldof if hehad any suspicion of substance misuse.
I thought Madeley was cleared of stealing the wine, also don't mean to sound picky but wasn't it sausages AWT stole and not onions?
The reason I posted about wealth was not to make excuses, but to offer an alternative view to the downsides of drug abuse.
There is a relevance, when Kate Moss was found to have a cocaine habit, she went into rehab. It costs thousands.
I questioned wether Peaches had the resources and believe me there is a difference.
I don't think Kate had a cocaine habit as such. I think the rehab was just to save face and of course, her career.
I think that's very likely true. Swopping one all-consuming 'passion' for another in the hope that the joy and fulfillment of the new one would negate the need for the old one. And it also explains why she was so 'hands-on'. I don't find anything insincere or disingenuous about the so-called public front she put on. She wasn't imo doing it to deceive, just her need to be seen to be strong and engaged and focused - everything that an addict is not - in the hope that she would become all of those things without a crutch.
Of course she should in an ideal world but I really think she was a very troubled person. It seems obvious the marriage (an old friend), the children was Peaches attempt to fill some black hole. It's not the sensible/responsible approach to starting a family or getting over addiction but I totally get it. Her former nannys words about 'you nearly made it' sum it up. She was at least trying to get sorted, she didn't and it's tragic. She looked really sad and lost in most of the pics I have seen of her, not like she was having a ball and sod the children:(
What her nanny said (someone who knew her very well) was beautiful & so very, very sad. I recently looked at some of her pics & I agree, she did look like a lost, wee girl in some of them & for anyone to suggest she didn't love her children enough to stop taking drugs, should perhaps look again at those pics...........
She would have maintained a very convincing front of normalcy in front of anyone. Any attempt,in my experience, to ask if everything is OK gets a response of something along the lines that everything is OK,stop fussing, you have to trust me, I can't stand being scrutinised all the time. Tears and guilt trips which play with your mind till you maybe think you are being paranoid about their behaviour. He wouldn't have left her with the child if he thought she was going to be shooting up. Wasn't it his dad who actually dropped the baby off, saw her face to face and said she was absolutely normal? Its bad enough to condemn a deadwoman as viciously as some do without dragging her husband in to it as well.
Agree, some comments on here are at best distasteful, the woman is dead, heroin beat her, she's not here to defend herself.
There are times & imo this being one of them, if you can't say anything nice, it's better to say nothing.
As for dragging her poor husband into it, is he not suffering enough?
I'm not quite sure why her hubby was convinced everything would be ok. By his own admission, he'd suspected P of using again for some time and he obviously knew her and the addict side of her well enough to know how well users cover their tracks. I'm also at at a loss as to why he did not return home sooner, having been unable to reach her for several hours.
The guy is also part of the music industry and so I'd be surprised if he hasn't taken drugs himself or mixed with others who have, other than Peaches. He probably isn't as innocent as what some people want to think.
The guy is also part of the music industry and so I'd be surprised if he hasn't taken drugs himself or mixed with others who have, other than Peaches. He probably isn't as innocent as what some people want to think.
Tom isn't your typical "rock star type" though. He isn't Axl Rose. I don't doubt he probably has mixed with other people who take drugs, no-one has said he's "innocent" but he seems a very intelligent man who was well-brought up who I believe will do his best to bring his boys up in the same way.
I stand by everything I say in my post. Only yesterday I had to deal with yet another young child who is on the at risk child protection register because of drug addicted parents. They have already had a baby die under suspicious circumstances whilst under their care. This problem is spiralling out of control and innocent children will continue to suffer and even die. Maybe if her young son had died while she was getting high some of the people on here wouldn't have been so sympathetic. I dread to think how many children are dying up an down the country because of neglect as you only hear about a few cases. I find it staggering that people can still have sympathy for a woman who took drugs while in charge of a baby and ultimately put that child's life at risk.
Judge me all you like and of course I am not perfect, no one is, but if I was lucky enough to have children I would do everything in my power to protect them. In my opinion there are no excuses for her actions and as other posters said those of her husband leaving a young baby with someone he suspected of taking drugs.
Including your suggestion about adding contraceptives to methadone? I presume this would be with the clients' consent?
No great loss really. Paula talentless. Peaches talentless. Hutchens- poor Jim Moorison clone. The world of the arts will not miss them.
I feel sorry for the children but the husband left his baby unattended with someone he knew was struggling with an opiate/methadone script. I don't think he should have custody.
i agree with you mostly but to call Michael Hutchence a poor jim Morrison when he was nothing remotely like him is bonkers.
Michael Hutchence had one of the finest rock voices ever and was a brilliant frontman,i am not a massive fan of his but i know he was not in any shape a poor Jim Morrison clone
i agree with you mostly but to call Michael Hutchence a poor jim Morrison when he was nothing remotely like him is bonkers.
Michael Hutchence had one of the finest rock voices ever and was a brilliant frontman,i am not a massive fan of his but i know he was not in any shape a poor Jim Morrison clone
Nothing makes me sicker than viewing the posts of those ready to scorn with such glee because they would not do the things that Peaches did. We are all different, we are all flawed and sometimes make the wrong decisions. Some, a lot worse than others.
I agree it's distressing to see her torn apart on here and for those nasty commentators to be patted on the back by others What are people trying to achieve by adding their nasty two pennies worth.
I disagree. As I would. She was a hanger on in the eighties scene. At best. Many people are tea total and drug free, that does not make them a paragon of virtue. Did she do anything worthwhile with her life? I didn't see her books doing well or getting plaudits. Another individual who was made and broken by the media without any concern for a discernible talent.
I am gonna ask, apart from being mean about dead celebrities, what is your contribution to the world to be so judgemental of REAL people with problems?
Comments
There is a relevance, when Kate Moss was found to have a cocaine habit, she went into rehab. It costs thousands.
I questioned wether Peaches had the resources and believe me there is a difference.
No great loss to who exactly - her father & stepmum, her sisters, her husband & kids, all her friends - or maybe just you, some faceless person on the internet.
Paula Yates wasn't talentless. She was bright, sassy and very much part of the eighties scene. And by the way, she was tee total for many years. She loved being a mum and wrote books on the subject. She fell in love with Michael Hutchens, like many other beautiful & talented women did , and her world started to collapse.
It's so sad that Peaches couldn't overcome her problems, sad for her family, her husband & her kids. Whatever, I'm sure the kids will be very well looked after.
I disagree. As I would. She was a hanger on in the eighties scene. At best. Many people are tea total and drug free, that does not make them a paragon of virtue. Did she do anything worthwhile with her life? I didn't see her books doing well or getting plaudits. Another individual who was made and broken by the media without any concern for a discernible talent.
She was no "paragon of virtue" but she was a fab presenter with Jools Holland, funny , bright and on the ball. And she didn't drink. I seem to remember her doing a great advert for non alcoholic lager - Kaliber, I think - look it up. Who cares if her books got plaudits or not- they were funny, witty and for mums, like her.
She looks so lovely!
Of course she should in an ideal world but I really think she was a very troubled person. It seems obvious the marriage (an old friend), the children was Peaches attempt to fill some black hole. It's not the sensible/responsible approach to starting a family or getting over addiction but I totally get it. Her former nannys words about 'you nearly made it' sum it up. She was at least trying to get sorted, she didn't and it's tragic. She looked really sad and lost in most of the pics I have seen of her, not like she was having a ball and sod the children:(
Judge me all you like and of course I am not perfect, no one is, but if I was lucky enough to have children I would do everything in my power to protect them. In my opinion there are no excuses for her actions and as other posters said those of her husband leaving a young baby with someone he suspected of taking drugs.
Children in care are more likely to develop addictions to drugs and alcohol, at what point do the children you so passionately (and rightly) defend cross into the group that deserve no sympathy because they are selfish and thoughtless?
I'm not quite sure why her hubby was convinced everything would be ok. By his own admission, he'd suspected P of using again for some time and he obviously knew her and the addict side of her well enough to know how well users cover their tracks. I'm also at at a loss as to why he did not return home sooner, having been unable to reach her for several hours.
I think that's very likely true. Swopping one all-consuming 'passion' for another in the hope that the joy and fulfillment of the new one would negate the need for the old one. And it also explains why she was so 'hands-on'. I don't find anything insincere or disingenuous about the so-called public front she put on. She wasn't imo doing it to deceive, just her need to be seen to be strong and engaged and focused - everything that an addict is not - in the hope that she would become all of those things without a crutch.
Peaches behaviour whilst is sole charge of her son was appalling, even her staunch defenders can't deny that, surely? As for her husband, even if he did genuinely trust his wife, it is still questionable as to why it took so long for him to return home having been unable to contact her all evening and into next morning. My brother is a recovering heroin addict so I'm familiar with all the lies, guilt trips, etc, etc and there is just no way I would leave my baby with him overnight.
A lovely post, Inspiration. I also agree with the ^BIB above.
I thought Madeley was cleared of stealing the wine, also don't mean to sound picky but wasn't it sausages AWT stole and not onions?
I don't think Kate had a cocaine habit as such. I think the rehab was just to save face and of course, her career.
Totally agree especially with BIB.
What her nanny said (someone who knew her very well) was beautiful & so very, very sad. I recently looked at some of her pics & I agree, she did look like a lost, wee girl in some of them & for anyone to suggest she didn't love her children enough to stop taking drugs, should perhaps look again at those pics...........
Agree, some comments on here are at best distasteful, the woman is dead, heroin beat her, she's not here to defend herself.
There are times & imo this being one of them, if you can't say anything nice, it's better to say nothing.
As for dragging her poor husband into it, is he not suffering enough?
The guy is also part of the music industry and so I'd be surprised if he hasn't taken drugs himself or mixed with others who have, other than Peaches. He probably isn't as innocent as what some people want to think.
Tom isn't your typical "rock star type" though. He isn't Axl Rose. I don't doubt he probably has mixed with other people who take drugs, no-one has said he's "innocent" but he seems a very intelligent man who was well-brought up who I believe will do his best to bring his boys up in the same way.
Including your suggestion about adding contraceptives to methadone? I presume this would be with the clients' consent?
i agree with you mostly but to call Michael Hutchence a poor jim Morrison when he was nothing remotely like him is bonkers.
Michael Hutchence had one of the finest rock voices ever and was a brilliant frontman,i am not a massive fan of his but i know he was not in any shape a poor Jim Morrison clone
*Hutchence
*Morrison
FYI
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2705081/You-ve-no-idea-talking-Fifi-Geldof-launches-expletive-laden-attack-critic-called-sister-Peaches-selfish-online.html
I also see that mother of the year "I will abort my baby so I can appear on big brother" Josie Cunningham has been laying into Peaches.
This I can agree with.
I agree it's distressing to see her torn apart on here and for those nasty commentators to be patted on the back by others
I am gonna ask, apart from being mean about dead celebrities, what is your contribution to the world to be so judgemental of REAL people with problems?