Peter is doing what all CAN clients do and that's insulting someone in order to bring attention to themselves. No one is desperate to know his opinion on Elizabeth Hurley and it's ridiculous that he passes moral judgements on Liz yet praises Kerry. Elizabeth Hurley may not be Meryl Streep but she does conduct her private life in a tasteful fashion and tries to keep it out of the public eye imo. She also doesn't shove her child in the spotlight to be seen as a good parent.
She dresses him like Little Lord Fontleroy, or however you spell it though. Weird.
What is that talent exactly.its not acting for sure.if it was anymore wooden, we would be talking Pinocchio. I cant think of anything else, except maybe rich man hunting, The woman is famous for shagging and being cheated on by a famous actor and various rich men.Did not her husband leave his previous wife and kids for her.
You could take the OPs post and insert any of our names and the same would apply to us.We all write about people and events that are none of our business and have opinions on them. How many of of the PA detractors here are KP fans, and may be a wee bit biased. just a teensy bit.
I read the article and it was very mild, definitely does not deserve the vitriol on here.Its P.A's job on the mag to comment on the news of the week. In fact I believe the article writer-New hack- asks for an opinion and writes it. None of these celebrity writers actually write anything themselves.
I guess since the Harvey incident is very contentious, PA wisely did not comment, when asked.I think also as he has limited custody, it is probable he is not allowed to discuss the child at all.
I don't know where this idea PA can't discuss Harvey is coming from. He mentions him in his concerts and what he's getting him for Christmas and that he'll see him around Christmas so he can mention him and if he is allowed to give an opinion on Liz Hurley he can certainly give one on Frankie Boyle. Also he can choose what he gives his opinion on,it doesn't have to be Liz Hurley's situation. The biased KP fans are no worse than the biased PA fans on here IMO.
The big difference here with Andre having an opinion and some nobody on a forum is he mixes in her world - Everyone will get to see this. Also she has a son who has to go school and this could make it even worse. I read one of her posts on twitter saying she cannot sleep. This little bit of Andre wisdom is hardly going to help. He should respect a fellow celeb and stop using them for publicity.
His good old mate Katona has had a couple of relationships and she is not divorced.
Andre is a moron. Always has been. He sells his kids for fame and money to the media. Who is he to judge.
What is that talent exactly.its not acting for sure.if it was anymore wooden, we would be talking Pinocchio. I cant think of anything else, except maybe rich man hunting, The woman is famous for shagging and being cheated on by a famous actor and various rich men.Did not her husband leave his previous wife and kids for her.
You could take the OPs post and insert any of our names and the same would apply to us.We all write about people and events that are none of our business and have opinions on them. How many of of the PA detractors here are KP fans, and may be a wee bit biased. just a teensy bit.
I read the article and it was very mild, definitely does not deserve the vitriol on here.Its P.A's job on the mag to comment on the news of the week. In fact I believe the article writer-New hack- asks for an opinion and writes it. None of these celebrity writers actually write anything themselves.
I guess since the Harvey incident is very contentious, PA wisely did not comment, when asked.I think also as he has limited custody, it is probable he is not allowed to discuss the child at all.
It may be that he doesn't wish to give FB any more publicity than he already has out of this incident. :mad:
I don't know where this idea PA can't discuss Harvey is coming from. He mentions him in his concerts and what he's getting him for Christmas and that he'll see him around Christmas so he can mention him and if he is allowed to give an opinion on Liz Hurley he can certainly give one on Frankie Boyle. Also he can choose what he gives his opinion on,it doesn't have to be Liz Hurley's situation. The biased KP fans are no worse than the biased PA fans on here IMO.
The fact is PA did give an opinion through his agents how he felt about FB. That was a formal statement. As I have already said it may be that PA didn't and still doesn't want to give FB any more publicity than he has already raked (which I am sure was FB's intention) through this disgusting incident. One statement on how disgusting you thought and think it was and is should suffice surely.
Maybe he has taken on board the comments re constant repetitions of the "I am a great dad" posts made here and on other forums.
He is not commenting on divorce but on going with someone when you are still married and causing hurt to your other half whilst doing that.
Yes, I'm not arguing with that but you said he was doing it because he took his marriage vows seriously but if that was the case he wouldn't have been getting divorced because that is the entire point of wedding vows. You know, the bit where you promise to be together 'til death do you part? It's quite famous???
The big difference here with Andre having an opinion and some nobody on a forum is he mixes in her world.
Erm no, I doubt it. Although she's not exactly A-list any more she's far above the Z list Andre is on. I doubt he'd be allowed across the threshold at most of the parties she goes to.
Yes, I'm not arguing with that but you said he was doing it because he took his marriage vows seriously but if that was the case he wouldn't have been getting divorced because that is the entire point of wedding vows. You know, the bit where you promise to be together 'til death do you part? It's quite famous???
Yes, but I was basing my responses on what the topic is about and what he was saying about going with someone whilst you are still married.
When and if he comes up with an actual statement against divorce itself and states that under no circumstances is it a valid course, then I can comment on that and call him a hypocrit.
The fact is PA did give an opinion through his agents how he felt about FB. That was a formal statement. As I have already said it may be that PA didn't and still doesn't want to give FB any more publicity than he has already raked (which I am sure was FB's intention) through this disgusting incident. One statement on how disgusting you thought and think it was and is should suffice surely.
Maybe he has taken on board the comments re constant repetitions of the "I am a great dad" posts made here and on other forums.
Yes Harvey warrants one statement through his agency while Kerry warrants endless defending and God knows how much of his column space. Good to know:rolleyes: Also if he took on board the comments then he wouldn't mention Harvey in his concerts or show his kids pictures would he?
Peter is doing what all CAN clients do and that's insulting someone in order to bring attention to themselves. No one is desperate to know his opinion on Elizabeth Hurley and it's ridiculous that he passes moral judgements on Liz yet praises Kerry. Elizabeth Hurley may not be Meryl Streep but she does conduct her private life in a tasteful fashion and tries to keep it out of the public eye imo. She also doesn't shove her child in the spotlight to be seen as a good parent.
That's it exactly! The utter crassness and hypocrisy of criticising one person's morality while bigging up the immoral waste of space that is KK. Oh well, just another day in the delusional world of PA and his place in the scheme of things. :rolleyes:
That's it exactly! The utter crassness and hypocrisy of criticising one person's morality while bigging up the immoral waste of space that is KK. Oh well, just another day in the delusional world of PA and his place in the scheme of things. :rolleyes:
Yep, he can sit in judgement of fornicators and druggies unless they have the same management as him - because then, they are just "having a tough time" of it, and need love and support (and positive press) to help get them through it.
Yes Harvey warrants one statement through his agency while Kerry warrants endless defending and God knows how much of his column space. Good to know:rolleyes: Also if he took on board the comments then he wouldn't mention Harvey in his concerts or show his kids pictures would he?
Jesting, hence the smilies.
If this man had gone on about it, he would have been accused of jumping on the bandwagon, if he doesn't he is accused of not really caring. No happy medium really, is there?
He is accused of using the children for publicity (which he does of course) and pilloried for that, he is then pilloried for not publicly reiterating a statement he has already made via his agent in his column.
I myself would have done what he did state once how he felt and then give no more publicity to FB and/or this incident. Just my opinion of course.
If this man had gone on about it, he would have been accused of jumping on the bandwagon, if he doesn't he is accused of not really caring. No happy medium really, is there?
He is accused of using the children for publicity (which he does of course) and pilloried for that, he is then pilloried for not publicly reiterating a statement he has already made via his agent in his column.
I myself would have done what he did state once how he felt and then give no more publicity to FB and/or this incident. Just my opinion of course.
That would be fine except he goes on and on and on about Kerry Katona and defending her,yet Harvey only gets one defense and a fairly impersonal one IMO. But getting back to topic I still think he has no room to judge Liz and then praise Kerry who is far worse than Liz Hurley has ever been.
That would be fine except he goes on and on and on about Kerry Katona and defending her,yet Harvey only gets one defense and a fairly impersonal one IMO. But getting back to topic I still think he has no room to judge Liz and then praise Kerry who is far worse than Liz Hurley has ever been.
You for your reasons think he didn't do enough, I for mine think he did.
If he was comparing the two Liz and Kerry then yes he is wrong. If he was stating two separate opinions which in no way related to the other then I don't understand the problem. He obviously has his opinions on both these people and has expressed them rightly or wrongly to another observer. We all have differing opiinons on people.
I respect Pete for not raising the Frankie Boyle thing in his column. It's not in Harvey's best interests to keep banging on about it, and it's just giving the man publicity. The only point would be to gain headlines for himself, which he does do a lot, but I'm glad he has chosen not to keep using Harvey for that this time.
It's fine if Pete thinks that a married person going through a divorce shouldn't enter into a new relationship, but he is treading on dangerous territory by singling out Liz for comment. It always came across as something of a boastful publicity stunt when he used to say it, but if he was being honest, fair play to him. I thought it might have simply been a ploy to deflect interest in whether or not he was in a new relationship, and I couldn't blame him for that, if he was sincere about wanting privacy.
Where he comes a bit unstuck is that he is great friends with Kerry, who has done what Liz has done. If he's happy to pose on the cover of OK magazine with one of them, why get morally superior about the other?
When it was reported that Pete had been flirting with a married woman and sending sexually suggestive texts, the excuse was that he thought the marriage was over and they were in the middle of a messy divorce. That implied that he knew that she wasn't actually divorced (at the very least). I'll confess I grew bored of all conversations on the subject, so I've no idea if Pete ever did give a statement on the subject, other than the insider telling the paper how he put a stop to it as soon as he realised the situation.
I respect Pete for not raising the Frankie Boyle thing in his column. It's not in Harvey's best interests to keep banging on about it, and it's just giving the man publicity. The only point would be to gain headlines for himself, which he does do a lot, but I'm glad he has chosen not to keep using Harvey for that this time.
It's fine if Pete thinks that a married person going through a divorce shouldn't enter into a new relationship, but he is treading on dangerous territory by singling out Liz for comment. It always came across as something of a boastful publicity stunt when he used to say it, but if he was being honest, fair play to him. I thought it might have simply been a ploy to deflect interest in whether or not he was in a new relationship, and I couldn't blame him for that, if he was sincere about wanting privacy.
Where he comes a bit unstuck is that he is great friends with Kerry, who has done what Liz has done. If he's happy to pose on the cover of OK magazine with one of them, why get morally superior about the other?
When it was reported that Pete had been flirting with a married woman and sending sexually suggestive texts, the excuse was that he thought the marriage was over and they were in the middle of a messy divorce. That implied that he knew that she wasn't actually divorced (at the very least). I'll confess I grew bored of all conversations on the subject, so I've no idea if Pete ever did give a statement on the subject, other than the insider telling the paper how he put a stop to it as soon as he realised the situation.
Agreed ^^^, Jem. Even about the bit where he could be boasting. It could be taken that way and may even be that way.
I do believe however that as far as I can guage his personality he does have this type of opinon on going with someone whilst you are still legally married. I think it also has something to do with the family values he inherited from his parents.
Yes Harvey warrants one statement through his agency while Kerry warrants endless defending and God knows how much of his column space. Good to know:rolleyes: Also if he took on board the comments then he wouldn't mention Harvey in his concerts or show his kids pictures would he?
Katie made only one statement - why is Pete expected to do more. Since their statements were made at the same time, neither of which were their own personal words, I wouldn't be surprised if this and the subsequent silence on the matter was a joint decision
If PA has such strong opinions on morality and family values, why then hasn't he seen fit to comment on KK and her morals? Why is Liz Hurley a more acceptable target? He's such a puppet. What a weak and venal person he is.
Are people deliberately going off topic to get this thread locked?
It's not off topic. It's discussing what PA chooses to talk about in his column. It may be boring (really, Boyle is so last week, I wish people would let this go) but it's not off-topic.
"I met that nice prime minister the other day. I gave him some great advice on how to get more popular by using your kids! Who needs policies when you can have an OK cover?!"
"I have always had a lot of respect for North Korea, but since they started squabbling with South Korea, I just want to say "Sort it out, guys, can't we all just get along like me and my mate Kerry?"
:D
Now come on politicians use a bit of press manipulation, and give a few evasive answers and do a lot of housewife kissing oh wait.......
I do believe however that as far as I can guage his personality he does have this type of opinon on going with someone whilst you are still legally married. I think it also has something to do with the family values he inherited from his parents.
So how does that fit in with him sending provocative texts to a woman he supposedly thought was in the process of a messy split from her husband?
I already admitted I didn't read everything on the subject, but the last I saw his fans were defending him on the grounds that he didn't realise they were still together, not that he thought they were already divorced. In normal circumstances that would be a fair defence, but given his well self-publicised moral stance on the matter, I thought he might have said something more definite, rather than hoping that people would be distracted by Frankie Boyle, Kerry Katona and what he's getting Harvey for Christmas.
So how does that fit in with him sending provocative texts to a woman he supposedly thought was in the process of a messy split from her husband?
I already admitted I didn't read everything on the subject, but the last I saw his fans were defending him on the grounds that he didn't realise they were still together, not that he thought they were already divorced. In normal circumstances that would be a fair defence, but given his well self-publicised moral stance on the matter, I thought he might have said something more definite, rather than hoping that people would be distracted by Frankie Boyle, Kerry Katona and what he's getting Harvey for Christmas.
Your completely right...he should have more sense given his position and stance.
However, until I or others have actually seen what type of texts they were how can we judge?
If they were only texts supporting this woman through her divorce, fine. If they were texts with sexual conotations then, not fine.
Comments
She dresses him like Little Lord Fontleroy, or however you spell it though. Weird.
I don't know where this idea PA can't discuss Harvey is coming from. He mentions him in his concerts and what he's getting him for Christmas and that he'll see him around Christmas so he can mention him and if he is allowed to give an opinion on Liz Hurley he can certainly give one on Frankie Boyle. Also he can choose what he gives his opinion on,it doesn't have to be Liz Hurley's situation. The biased KP fans are no worse than the biased PA fans on here IMO.
His good old mate Katona has had a couple of relationships and she is not divorced.
Andre is a moron. Always has been. He sells his kids for fame and money to the media. Who is he to judge.
It may be that he doesn't wish to give FB any more publicity than he already has out of this incident. :mad:
The fact is PA did give an opinion through his agents how he felt about FB. That was a formal statement. As I have already said it may be that PA didn't and still doesn't want to give FB any more publicity than he has already raked (which I am sure was FB's intention) through this disgusting incident. One statement on how disgusting you thought and think it was and is should suffice surely.
Maybe he has taken on board the comments re constant repetitions of the "I am a great dad" posts made here and on other forums.
Yes, I'm not arguing with that but you said he was doing it because he took his marriage vows seriously but if that was the case he wouldn't have been getting divorced because that is the entire point of wedding vows. You know, the bit where you promise to be together 'til death do you part? It's quite famous???
Erm no, I doubt it. Although she's not exactly A-list any more she's far above the Z list Andre is on. I doubt he'd be allowed across the threshold at most of the parties she goes to.
Yes, but I was basing my responses on what the topic is about and what he was saying about going with someone whilst you are still married.
When and if he comes up with an actual statement against divorce itself and states that under no circumstances is it a valid course, then I can comment on that and call him a hypocrit.
Yes Harvey warrants one statement through his agency while Kerry warrants endless defending and God knows how much of his column space. Good to know:rolleyes: Also if he took on board the comments then he wouldn't mention Harvey in his concerts or show his kids pictures would he?
That's it exactly! The utter crassness and hypocrisy of criticising one person's morality while bigging up the immoral waste of space that is KK. Oh well, just another day in the delusional world of PA and his place in the scheme of things. :rolleyes:
Yep, he can sit in judgement of fornicators and druggies unless they have the same management as him - because then, they are just "having a tough time" of it, and need love and support (and positive press) to help get them through it.
Jesting, hence the smilies.
If this man had gone on about it, he would have been accused of jumping on the bandwagon, if he doesn't he is accused of not really caring. No happy medium really, is there?
He is accused of using the children for publicity (which he does of course) and pilloried for that, he is then pilloried for not publicly reiterating a statement he has already made via his agent in his column.
I myself would have done what he did state once how he felt and then give no more publicity to FB and/or this incident. Just my opinion of course.
That would be fine except he goes on and on and on about Kerry Katona and defending her,yet Harvey only gets one defense and a fairly impersonal one IMO. But getting back to topic I still think he has no room to judge Liz and then praise Kerry who is far worse than Liz Hurley has ever been.
You for your reasons think he didn't do enough, I for mine think he did.
If he was comparing the two Liz and Kerry then yes he is wrong. If he was stating two separate opinions which in no way related to the other then I don't understand the problem. He obviously has his opinions on both these people and has expressed them rightly or wrongly to another observer. We all have differing opiinons on people.
It's fine if Pete thinks that a married person going through a divorce shouldn't enter into a new relationship, but he is treading on dangerous territory by singling out Liz for comment. It always came across as something of a boastful publicity stunt when he used to say it, but if he was being honest, fair play to him. I thought it might have simply been a ploy to deflect interest in whether or not he was in a new relationship, and I couldn't blame him for that, if he was sincere about wanting privacy.
Where he comes a bit unstuck is that he is great friends with Kerry, who has done what Liz has done. If he's happy to pose on the cover of OK magazine with one of them, why get morally superior about the other?
When it was reported that Pete had been flirting with a married woman and sending sexually suggestive texts, the excuse was that he thought the marriage was over and they were in the middle of a messy divorce. That implied that he knew that she wasn't actually divorced (at the very least). I'll confess I grew bored of all conversations on the subject, so I've no idea if Pete ever did give a statement on the subject, other than the insider telling the paper how he put a stop to it as soon as he realised the situation.
Agreed ^^^, Jem. Even about the bit where he could be boasting. It could be taken that way and may even be that way.
I do believe however that as far as I can guage his personality he does have this type of opinon on going with someone whilst you are still legally married.
Katie made only one statement - why is Pete expected to do more. Since their statements were made at the same time, neither of which were their own personal words, I wouldn't be surprised if this and the subsequent silence on the matter was a joint decision
It's not off topic. It's discussing what PA chooses to talk about in his column. It may be boring (really, Boyle is so last week, I wish people would let this go) but it's not off-topic.
Now come on politicians use a bit of press manipulation, and give a few evasive answers and do a lot of housewife kissing oh wait.......
Wrong thread Goldi.
I already admitted I didn't read everything on the subject, but the last I saw his fans were defending him on the grounds that he didn't realise they were still together, not that he thought they were already divorced. In normal circumstances that would be a fair defence, but given his well self-publicised moral stance on the matter, I thought he might have said something more definite, rather than hoping that people would be distracted by Frankie Boyle, Kerry Katona and what he's getting Harvey for Christmas.
Your completely right...he should have more sense given his position and stance.
However, until I or others have actually seen what type of texts they were how can we judge?
If they were only texts supporting this woman through her divorce, fine. If they were texts with sexual conotations then, not fine.
Where does it say you can't insult Jordan fans? Andre fans have just been called 'desperate housewives'.