As a cynical outsider it just comes across as her trying to get back with the previous husband because the rebound version wasn't as useful to her celebrity *ahem* status.
He should stay well clear except for where children are involved.
My thread got deleted because apparently it was too rude, but Popbitch say she dumped Alex for Jermaine Defoe!!! That is barrel scrapping on both their parts. Although possibly they have both found the partner that they deserve.
My thread got deleted because apparently it was too rude, but Popbitch say she dumped Alex for Jermaine Defoe!!! That is barrel scrapping on both their parts. Although possibly they have both found the partner that they deserve.
I know this is the Daily Star we are talking about, where you take everything with a huge pinch of salt but.....
What is there in that article to disagree about. She is saying what we have said in another thread.
Keep your spats private re kids and try and keep them out of the limelight as much as possible.
Simples.
Why still keep Harvey in the public eye and not her two other children?
Katie Price can publicise Harvey's condition and charity without actually having him in the public eye, as running the marathons, etc.
Surely it is just as damaging for Harvey as it is for the other two if not more as he doesn't like loud sounds or cameras flashing, etc?
IMO it is a ruse she knows Peter Andre legally cannot have Harvey on his show if she says so but can his own children, hence it not aplying to Harvey. :rolleyes:
This woman just doesn't give up or get it does she? Her recent, past and I am sure future actions and antics have and will do more damage to her children than anything else. :rolleyes:
I know this is the Daily Star we are talking about, where you take everything with a huge pinch of salt but.....
What is there in that article to disagree about. She is saying what we have said in another thread.
Keep your spats private re kids and try and keep them out of the limelight as much as possible.
Simples.
The whole article? Why does she need to say anything? We really don't need her every action explained to us. By doing that, it invalidates the action and makes it come across as publicity seeking!
I wonder if she trumpets her every bl**dy move at home?
"Right, I'm going to the toilet...I'm taking a dump...now I'm wiping my arse...now I'm washing my hands...now I'm drying my hands...now I'm walking into the kitchen...now I'm picking my teeth...now I'm crawling around on the floor looking for the veneer I just dislodged when I was picking my teeth..."
Hi I am new here been reading the website for many years just decided to join in. Hope everyone is well
I read the Daily Star website. Normally hard to believe anything that the newspaper writes but it does look like Katie has written a new statement on her website. It is under “Harvey, Junior, Princess and the Media” Link: http://www.katieprice.co.uk/harvey-junior-princess-and-the-media
Katie price says,they are older now and that exposure is now starting to impact in a way it should not, well she should stop embarrassing them with her sluttish ways,peter Andra is a more stable influence on his children,it seems like Kate price is throwing a big temper tantrum, all because peter is seeing ellen,she's now got rid of Alex,and now no photos of the children,wot next :rolleyes:
Hi I am new here been reading the website for many years just decided to join in. Hope everyone is well
I read the Daily Star website. Normally hard to believe anything that the newspaper writes but it does look like Katie has written a new statement on her website. It is under “Harvey, Junior, Princess and the Media” Link: http://www.katieprice.co.uk/harvey-junior-princess-and-the-media
Welcome, just a little 1.
I think it is very sensible and clever statement but as per usual her positives quickly get turned into negatives on here.
Lets see if PA can keep them out of his career/media.
So attention seeking d**khead A has a pop at attention seeking d**khead B for messing with their daughters hair so B pretends she just wants them to be best fwiends again for the sake of the children. Said children have had every fart since birth on camera but now B thinks that it's wrong and has to publically announce she's withdrawing them from her tv show to have a dig at A.
However, child 1 will still be flaunted in the front of the cameras because it doesn't matter if he isaffected by it at all because she can milk the publicity about his disability.
Meanwhile, attention seeking d**khead C (the soon to be ex) is wandering around like a puppy who has been kicked because B wants a divorced because he is too attention seeking even for her.
Plus B has hired a bodyguard to keep C out of her bed because, in reality, she'd rather it was A in there.
So you advocate different degrees of domestic violence towards different women depending on their fame? Good to know! smiley smiley smiley etc
Look dear, I'm not sure you are familier with the term "olive branch" it is a sign of peace. And the other poster who you quoted was obviously having a laugh. Get a sense of humour babe and don't be getting on a high horse unless you are sure about what your talking about.
The statement reads like her 'end of marriage' one, i.e. written for her, the style is very similar. However, I do not understand the logic of Harvey still being used in her shows - surely he needs protecting as much as the other two, if not more - he is far more vulnerable.
Anyway, she has now said this a number of times, so I suppose it should be the end of the topic now as far as she is concerned. The next logical step would be to stop the press printing any photos of the children when they are with her, otherwise her stand doesn't really help much.
It is up to Pete what he does, but as with the hair debates on both of their parts, it should be discussed in private, not through statements. He will come to his own conclusions about what to do.
The statement reads like her 'end of marriage' one, i.e. written for her, the style is very similar. However, I do not understand the logic of Harvey still being used in her shows - surely he needs protecting as much as the other two, if not more - he is far more vulnerable.
Anyway, she has now said this a number of times, so I suppose it should be the end of the topic now as far as she is concerned. The next logical step would be to stop the press printing any photos of the children when they are with her, otherwise her stand doesn't really help much.
It is up to Pete what he does, but as with the hair debates on both of their parts, it should be discussed in private, not through statements. He will come to his own conclusions about what to do.
She has stated this a number of times but as of yet Pete has not agreed and so she goes on until she gets what she wants. :rolleyes:
She talks about privacy on a public forum yet again. :rolleyes:
The logic behind Harvey (well KP's logic) is that Pete cannot do anything with Harvey anyway unless KP agrees to it, therefore she has no need to ask him to keep him out the limelight and therefore it allows her to keep him in it. :rolleyes:
Harvey to my mind needs to be kept out of it more than the others as he dislikes loud noises (crowds, etc) and although he loves lights and colours does not like cameras flashing. Katie Price says it is because she wants to publicise his condition. Surely this can be done without keeping Harvey in the public eye? She is the so called celeb and it is she who has the power to pull the money in by proxy for Harvey?
Why talk about privacy and publish statements in a mega public place? Maybe to put pressure on Peter Andre to do as Katie Price wants. Again IMO.
The most adverse effect on these children will be her past, present and future embarrassing antics! :rolleyes:
The statement reads like her 'end of marriage' one, i.e. written for her, the style is very similar. However, I do not understand the logic of Harvey still being used in her shows - surely he needs protecting as much as the other two, if not more - he is far more vulnerable. QUOTE]
And we saw an example of that with the F Boyle joke.
The statement reads like her 'end of marriage' one, i.e. written for her, the style is very similar. However, I do not understand the logic of Harvey still being used in her shows - surely he needs protecting as much as the other two, if not more - he is far more vulnerable. QUOTE]
And we saw an example of that with the F Boyle joke.
Yeah, and also with heat magazine and the sticker.
Does she collaborate with this comic? Everything this orange twonk does is so transparent and attention seeking it is laughable...
Perhaps, but it pales into comparison with Andre, who's such a poor father he'd rather whine in his magazine column than settle things in private with dignity.
Perhaps, but it pales into comparison with Andre, who's such a poor father he'd rather whine in his magazine column than settle things in private with dignity.
Are you claiming Katie Price has dignity? if so. LOL
Look dear, I'm not sure you are familier with the term "olive branch" it is a sign of peace. And the other poster who you quoted was obviously having a laugh. Get a sense of humour babe and don't be getting on a high horse unless you are sure about what your talking about.
I'm entirely familiar with the term, pet. And get a sense of humour about assaulting a woman? Oh, sweetie, Never. Not even someone like Katie Price.
I'm entirely familiar with the term, pet. And get a sense of humour about assaulting a woman? Oh, sweetie, Never. Not even someone like Katie Price.
I think youre taking it a little too seriously? i dont think she meant it as in anyone should be violent to another human it was a turn of phrase it dosent mean she advocates violence?
This is probably all because Pete gets more sympathy as he is always seen playing with the kids... so when she say's 'it's up to Pete' what she means is she's told Pete she doesn't want them on his prog either!
And of course next week it'll be something else ....
Are you claiming Katie Price has dignity? if so. LOL
I'm claiming that comparatively, she does - yeah.
You might not like her career choices (although that is your subjective moral opinion, no more valid than anyone else's) but you can't reasonably deny that Andre has sought to try and make issues with his kids as public as possible.
When was the last time you heard her directly raising an issue about her children through a magazine column?
Comments
agree with this
Thoroughly agree.
It's the oddest "olive branch" I've ever seen. :rolleyes: Personally, I'd take it as a declaration of war!
no wonder his forms off
Why still keep Harvey in the public eye and not her two other children?
Katie Price can publicise Harvey's condition and charity without actually having him in the public eye, as running the marathons, etc.
Surely it is just as damaging for Harvey as it is for the other two if not more as he doesn't like loud sounds or cameras flashing, etc?
IMO it is a ruse she knows Peter Andre legally cannot have Harvey on his show if she says so but can his own children, hence it not aplying to Harvey. :rolleyes:
This woman just doesn't give up or get it does she? Her recent, past and I am sure future actions and antics have and will do more damage to her children than anything else. :rolleyes:
The whole article? Why does she need to say anything? We really don't need her every action explained to us. By doing that, it invalidates the action and makes it come across as publicity seeking!
I wonder if she trumpets her every bl**dy move at home?
"Right, I'm going to the toilet...I'm taking a dump...now I'm wiping my arse...now I'm washing my hands...now I'm drying my hands...now I'm walking into the kitchen...now I'm picking my teeth...now I'm crawling around on the floor looking for the veneer I just dislodged when I was picking my teeth..."
:rolleyes::rolleyes::D
I read the Daily Star website. Normally hard to believe anything that the newspaper writes but it does look like Katie has written a new statement on her website. It is under “Harvey, Junior, Princess and the Media” Link: http://www.katieprice.co.uk/harvey-junior-princess-and-the-media
Welcome, just a little 1.
I think it is very sensible and clever statement but as per usual her positives quickly get turned into negatives on here.
Lets see if PA can keep them out of his career/media.
However, child 1 will still be flaunted in the front of the cameras because it doesn't matter if he isaffected by it at all because she can milk the publicity about his disability.
Meanwhile, attention seeking d**khead C (the soon to be ex) is wandering around like a puppy who has been kicked because B wants a divorced because he is too attention seeking even for her.
Plus B has hired a bodyguard to keep C out of her bed because, in reality, she'd rather it was A in there.
Have I got that right?
Look dear, I'm not sure you are familier with the term "olive branch" it is a sign of peace. And the other poster who you quoted was obviously having a laugh. Get a sense of humour babe and don't be getting on a high horse unless you are sure about what your talking about.
Anyway, she has now said this a number of times, so I suppose it should be the end of the topic now as far as she is concerned. The next logical step would be to stop the press printing any photos of the children when they are with her, otherwise her stand doesn't really help much.
It is up to Pete what he does, but as with the hair debates on both of their parts, it should be discussed in private, not through statements. He will come to his own conclusions about what to do.
She has stated this a number of times but as of yet Pete has not agreed and so she goes on until she gets what she wants. :rolleyes:
She talks about privacy on a public forum yet again. :rolleyes:
The logic behind Harvey (well KP's logic) is that Pete cannot do anything with Harvey anyway unless KP agrees to it, therefore she has no need to ask him to keep him out the limelight and therefore it allows her to keep him in it. :rolleyes:
Harvey to my mind needs to be kept out of it more than the others as he dislikes loud noises (crowds, etc) and although he loves lights and colours does not like cameras flashing. Katie Price says it is because she wants to publicise his condition. Surely this can be done without keeping Harvey in the public eye? She is the so called celeb and it is she who has the power to pull the money in by proxy for Harvey?
Why talk about privacy and publish statements in a mega public place? Maybe to put pressure on Peter Andre to do as Katie Price wants. Again IMO.
The most adverse effect on these children will be her past, present and future embarrassing antics! :rolleyes:
Perhaps, but it pales into comparison with Andre, who's such a poor father he'd rather whine in his magazine column than settle things in private with dignity.
Are you claiming Katie Price has dignity? if so. LOL
She had protected her children by not doing this publicly.
She was not papped with the children regularly and she hadn't already admitted she informs them of her whereabouts.
She was removing her most vulnerable child from the public eye, as he is the least able to verbalise discontent with being paraded in public.
To me this comes across as her being spiteful, she cannot legally stop PA using J&P, so she will make him look bad for it instead.
Until the are old enough for informed consent none of those children should be so publicly visible.
I'm not so sure you are... please tell me how you could really assault someone with an olive branch
I think youre taking it a little too seriously? i dont think she meant it as in anyone should be violent to another human it was a turn of phrase it dosent mean she advocates violence?
And of course next week it'll be something else ....
I'm claiming that comparatively, she does - yeah.
You might not like her career choices (although that is your subjective moral opinion, no more valid than anyone else's) but you can't reasonably deny that Andre has sought to try and make issues with his kids as public as possible.
When was the last time you heard her directly raising an issue about her children through a magazine column?
I rest my case.