Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Andre's "suffering"


Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-05-2013, 08:11
Nicola32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,493
But what teacher is going to tell a famous celeb what he doesnt want to hear when he goes in asking if his reality show is affecting his kid?

Or are we saying that because she's Katie Price she doesn't know her own kid?

It just doesnt matter though, if the mother asks for them off, they should be off - no matter who she is or what shes done, or even if she has other motives - he was all for shared parental rights, he can't just go ignoring what she wants when it suits him. This kind of thing is too important not to have both parents in agreement about whether they are in the media or not.

This for me has been the single biggest thing i'm dissapointed in him for because IMO it shows up his nice caring dad image for what it is - total fraud - and i'm sure he knows it. But same as a lot of other celebs, when it comes to the crunch he's stuck because he's addicted to the fame and having the TV show.

BIB..Are you seriously suggesting that a teacher would LIE to a parent if a child was experiencing problems at school just because the parent is famous??: If that was even remotely true then that teacher should not be in the job!!

Honestly Cyril your arguments get more and more ridiculous, that comment is up there with the dyeing Princess's hair gem. Any teacher worth anything would care more about the well being of the child than telling a parent what they want to hear. A teacher would tell any parent the truth if their child was genuinely experiencing some kind of problems..regardless of whether the parent is famous or not!

As for your argument that he should take them off tv because she asked him to....If it was the other way around and he was asking her the same thing, do you seriously believe she would comply with his wishes? I think not!

He spent years being controlled by her and it's the fact he wont be controlled by her anymore is what really bugs her.

She claimed she was withdrawing them from the public eye for concern over their welfare. IF she was really concerned for their welfare she wouldn't keep bringing strange men into their home to live with them. Any child psychologist will tell you that is damaging to children. It's only been 4 years since their dad left and they've already had 3 other 'daddies' living with them. So nothing will convince me that the children's welfare is uppermost on her list of priorities, As a few others have said, her motives have nothing to do with the childrens welfare.

For the record..I don't think the children should ever have been on tv either. Both parents are responsible and to blame for that ever happening.

Some people think KP has redeemed herself by taking them off tv, I don't believe she has redeemed herself because I don't believe her motives are genuine.. and she has not removed them from the public eye as she said she would.

In her statement declaring she was going to withdraw them from the public eye she didn't say she was only withdrawing them from any tv appearances, she said she was withdrawing them from the public eye completely because she wanted them to live a normal childhood and not be recognised.

She herself has not stuck to that so IMO does not have the moral high ground!.
Nicola32 is offline  
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 09-05-2013, 08:26
SenseiSam
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,625
But what teacher is going to tell a famous celeb what he doesnt want to hear when he goes in asking if his reality show is affecting his kid?

Or are we saying that because she's Katie Price she doesn't know her own kid?

It just doesnt matter though, if the mother asks for them off, they should be off - no matter who she is or what shes done, or even if she has other motives - he was all for shared parental rights, he can't just go ignoring what she wants when it suits him. This kind of thing is too important not to have both parents in agreement about whether they are in the media or not.

This for me has been the single biggest thing i'm dissapointed in him for because IMO it shows up his nice caring dad image for what it is - total fraud - and i'm sure he knows it. But same as a lot of other celebs, when it comes to the crunch he's stuck because he's addicted to the fame and having the TV show.
If they're a half decent teacher then all of them! What kind of professional is going to be so overawed by meeting Pete of all people that they wouldn't speak up about the welfare of a child? Wouldn't you agree Cyril that the amount the children are featured on screen has changed substantially since CAN TV days and that in most episodes they only appear fairly briefly which might well be at his request. That they still appear suggests to me that he believes they enjoy it and he isn't going to be dictated to by people with their own agenda.

I agree it's time to withdraw them now if only for the sake of better relations with Katie but I don't believe that it will signal the end of his TV career. He didn't get his gigs on shows like This Morning, Odd One In, Celebrity Juice or 60MM on the back of being DOTY. The public aren't going to assume he's stopped loving his children because they're not seen on screen, quite the opposite judging by these threads, so time to stop.
SenseiSam is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 09:07
Daisy Bennyboots
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The sticks
Posts: 15,840
I don't think the concern for the 'Price Andre Family' welfare with regards to filming started with KP's decision to stop filming the children, there were concerns long before that. I can't remember which series I watched all of (I'm supposing it's The Baby chapter or whatever) as KP finished the series by saying wtte of spending too much time filming and promoting when Junior was born contributed to her post-natal depression so the moment Princess was born, the cameras were switched off for a bit. I don't think PA and KP could agree to what extent the cameras trailing the kids around when they were married, so I don't subscibe to think whole 'spite' thing. I also remember then saying wtte that they would only film them when they were a bit tiny and unaware, I got the impression when they were married that daily filming would stop when went to school. Disagreement on how much filming of the children is acceptable predates the split,imo.
Daisy Bennyboots is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:06
lexi22
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,426
If they're a half decent teacher then all of them! What kind of professional is going to be so overawed by meeting Pete of all people that they wouldn't speak up about the welfare of a child? Wouldn't you agree Cyril that the amount the children are featured on screen has changed substantially since CAN TV days and that in most episodes they only appear fairly briefly which might well be at his request. That they still appear suggests to me that he believes they enjoy it and he isn't going to be dictated to by people with their own agenda.

I agree it's time to withdraw them now if only for the sake of better relations with Katie but I don't believe that it will signal the end of his TV career. He didn't get his gigs on shows like This Morning, Odd One In, Celebrity Juice or 60MM on the back of being DOTY. The public aren't going to assume he's stopped loving his children because they're not seen on screen, quite the opposite judging by these threads, so time to stop.
Disagree strongly! Were it not for his reality series, he'd have disappeared off the radar. He doesn't have a media profile independent of his show - ie. his show is his only means of staying in the public eye. And his reality series has being a DOTY at the centre of it.

As for him believing the kids enjoy it, well, with respect, not the point. He's not the sharpest tool in the box and seems imo to have a very limited and self-serving view of what's good for his kids. What's good for him and CAN and his show, more like.

I'll be very surprised if he moves away from RTV.
lexi22 is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:21
bunny55
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,982
I don't think the concern for the 'Price Andre Family' welfare with regards to filming started with KP's decision to stop filming the children, there were concerns long before that. I can't remember which series I watched all of (I'm supposing it's The Baby chapter or whatever) as KP finished the series by saying wtte of spending too much time filming and promoting when Junior was born contributed to her post-natal depression so the moment Princess was born, the cameras were switched off for a bit. I don't think PA and KP could agree to what extent the cameras trailing the kids around when they were married, so I don't subscibe to think whole 'spite' thing. I also remember then saying wtte that they would only film them when they were a bit tiny and unaware, I got the impression when they were married that daily filming would stop when went to school. Disagreement on how much filming of the children is acceptable predates the split,imo.
Well said.

The only person using their children in their reality show is Peter Andre. Whatever her motives for stopping, it is irrelevant. She did stop and he didnt.

An odd photograph on twitter is not filming your children to enhance your tv show. Without the kids and the obligatory filmed days out, the show would die instantly.
bunny55 is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:25
SenseiSam
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,625
If you look at his appearances on morning TV or chat shows they're not only to plug the reality show. He does still have a music career and he also goes on to promote his charity work and schemes like the literacy project he was involved in with Boris Johnson. Some posters on the threads don't rate him as a presenter - fair enough. Other people find him warm, enthusiastic, amusing and likeable which is why ITV are prepared to invest in him.

Off to enjoy the sunshine now so have fun debating
SenseiSam is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:55
Cym
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,651
If KP did a live twitter feed on her kids 24/7 it would still not excuse the way hes exploited them all these years hes responsible for his own actions not CP or KP, they have been apart for four years now, and yet his fans just like PA cannot seem to let KP go, they use her to justify his actions and he uses her to keep his career :rolleyes :and grudge against her going in the press.
Just as he cant stand criticism from a critic neither can he stand an ex moving on, and will keep including himself in every relationship headline she has until finally someone pulls the plug on him once and for all
Cym is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 11:03
Cym
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,651
If you look at his appearances on morning TV or chat shows they're not only to plug the reality show. He does still have a music career and he also goes on to promote his charity work and schemes like the literacy project he was involved in with Boris Johnson. Some posters on the threads don't rate him as a presenter - fair enough. Other people find him warm, enthusiastic, amusing and likeable which is why ITV are prepared to invest in him.

Off to enjoy the sunshine now so have fun debating
The way hes coming across at the moment is that hes actually using different causes to get invites onto chat shows and then, once hes used them, puts them on the back boiler
Cym is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 11:18
Fizgig
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,974
If KP did a live twitter feed on her kids 24/7 it would still not excuse the way hes exploited them all these years hes responsible for his own actions not CP or KP, they have been apart for four years now, and yet his fans just like PA cannot seem to let KP go, they use her to justify his actions and he uses her to keep his career :rolleyes :and grudge against her going in the press.
Just as he cant stand criticism from a critic neither can he stand an ex moving on, and will keep including himself in every relationship headline she has until finally someone pulls the plug on him once and for all
Oh give it up, she hasn't even got a TV job!
Fizgig is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 11:23
Fizgig
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,974
But what teacher is going to tell a famous celeb what he doesnt want to hear when he goes in asking if his reality show is affecting his kid?

Or are we saying that because she's Katie Price she doesn't know her own kid?

It just doesnt matter though, if the mother asks for them off, they should be off - no matter who she is or what shes done, or even if she has other motives - he was all for shared parental rights, he can't just go ignoring what she wants when it suits him. This kind of thing is too important not to have both parents in agreement about whether they are in the media or not.

This for me has been the single biggest thing i'm dissapointed in him for because IMO it shows up his nice caring dad image for what it is - total fraud - and i'm sure he knows it. But same as a lot of other celebs, when it comes to the crunch he's stuck because he's addicted to the fame and having the TV show.
You're saying the teachers daren't tell PA that Junior was having problems at shcool, yet they did tell KP?
She should take him to court again, if she wants to stop them being on TV, surely she has a case, as she's 50% responsible for them.
BIB - Are you saying PA doesn't know his own kid?
Fizgig is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 12:04
ian hyland
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 144
No, he's not the only TV critic.

IMO though, he's not a very good one as he invariably gets his facts totally wrong (I would hazard guess he doesn't actually watch some of the shows he reviews) His opinion doesn't bother me at all (he's entitled to his opinion) but getting basic facts wrong to jazz up a review is not really on IMO.
When making accusations such as these it helps if you provide evidence.
Otherwise you just look really stupid.
ian hyland is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 09-05-2013, 12:23
Goaty
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,648
When making accusations such as these it helps if you provide evidence.
Otherwise you just look really stupid.


And congrats on 100th post!
Goaty is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 12:47
sidsgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,580
When making accusations such as these it helps if you provide evidence.
Otherwise you just look really stupid.
Oh dear. Seems like the critic can give criticism but not take it.
sidsgirl is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 12:50
delazarous
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 464
Oh dear. Seems like the critic can give criticism but not take it.
Would you not defend a false accusation then?
delazarous is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 13:00
Kay2000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,125
Would you not defend a false accusation then?
I would go legal if needed to defend any false accusations made about myself
Kay2000 is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 14:44
ian hyland
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 144


And congrats on 100th post!
Cheers. I've ruined it now though. 101.
ian hyland is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 09-05-2013, 14:45
Jimmy Connors
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 78,739
When making accusations such as these it helps if you provide evidence.
Otherwise you just look really stupid.
I can give you an example Mr Hyland (just the one, as I have no inclination to bother with more) In one of your 'tweets', you wrote that Pete was in the cemetery where his brother is. That was a lie and very false. He was not IN the cemetery at all.

As far as looking really stupid is concerned. I can live with that. My ego can handle criticism. Seems you can dish it out, but you can not take it. I find your obsession rather strange to be honest.

As long as you critique subjects on an open forum, be prepared to have comments in return.
Jimmy Connors is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 14:46
Jimmy Connors
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 78,739
Would you not defend a false accusation then?
It was not a false accusation. I stand squarely by what I said.
Jimmy Connors is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 15:06
ian hyland
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 144
I can give you an example Mr Hyland (just the one, as I have no inclination to bother with more) In one of your 'tweets' or columns, you wrote that Pete was in the cemetery where his brother is. That was a lie and very false. He was not IN the cemetery at all.

As far as looking really stupid is concerned. I can live with that. My ego can handle criticism. Seems you can dish it out, but you can not take it. I find your obsession rather strange to be honest.

As long as you critique subjects on an open forum, be prepared to have comments in return.
Oh. I must have been momentarily thrown by those GREAT BIG GRAVESTONES he was driving past.
And me a trained observer.
The shame.
ian hyland is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 09-05-2013, 15:11
Jimmy Connors
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 78,739
Oh. I must have been momentarily thrown by those GREAT BIG GRAVESTONES he was driving past.
And me a trained observer.
The shame.
You should be ashamed. You said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Hyland ‏@HylandIan
On ITV2 a tearful Peter Andre has just been to visit his dead brother in the cemetery. On camera. #loveshisprivacy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You were trying to give the impression he was IN the cemetery on camera. A lie, he was not IN there cemetery (as you well know) You knew exactly what you were doing as well. At least have the balls to admit it.

As I have said you (and anyone else) are very entitled to their opinion, but at least base it on some resemblance of fact.

You obviously twisted the facts to suit your 'funny' persona. Shameful!
Jimmy Connors is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 15:19
livingdeadgirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 566
The way hes coming across at the moment is that hes actually using different causes to get invites onto chat shows and then, once hes used them, puts them on the back boiler
I really don't want to agree with you, because I want the foundation to be successful, but sadly I think you might be right

You're saying the teachers daren't tell PA that Junior was having problems at shcool, yet they did tell KP?
She should take him to court again, if she wants to stop them being on TV, surely she has a case, as she's 50% responsible for them.
BIB - Are you saying PA doesn't know his own kid?
I think whether they told KP/PA or not, or she is lying or not (which I wouldn't put past her) is besides the point. What it comes down to is that the kids are more than likely better off NOT being filmed and shown on TV. Her behaviour doesn't excuse his.
livingdeadgirl is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 15:23
Betty Britain
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,556
You should be ashamed. You said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Hyland ‏@HylandIan
On ITV2 a tearful Peter Andre has just been to visit his dead brother in the cemetery. On camera. #loveshisprivacy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You were trying to give the impression he was IN the cemetery on camera. A lie, he was not IN there cemetery (as you well know) You knew exactly what you were doing as well. At least have the balls to admit it.

As I have said you (and anyone else) are very entitled to their opinion, but at least base it on some resemblance of fact.

You obviously twisted the facts to suit your 'funny' persona. Shameful!
Peter had been to visit his brothers grave ..so Ian tweet was right.. The cameras didn't film him at the grave but he did go there .and he was filmed at the crematory wasn't he? .Did Ian say Peter was filmed at his grave?
Betty Britain is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 15:32
Jimmy Connors
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 78,739
Peter had been to visit his brothers grave ..so Ian tweet was right.. The cameras didn't film him at the grave but he did go there .and he was filmed at the crematory wasn't he? .Did Ian say Peter was filmed at his grave?
The tweet was very misleading. It gave the impression Pete was filmed IN the cemetery (on camera) He was not in the cemetery.

I know you don't watch the shows Betty. If you watched this episode, you would know what I mean.
Jimmy Connors is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 15:33
SenseiSam
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,625
In Jimmy's defence, Betty, the impression the tweet gives is that Pete was filmed physically inside the cemetery visiting Andrew's grave whereas he's filmed talking in his car on the way and then there were artistic shots of trees and ethereal music. So Ian may get off on a technicality but I understand Jimmy's point.
SenseiSam is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 15:40
Jimmy Connors
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 78,739
In Jimmy's defence, Betty, the impression the tweet gives is that Pete was filmed physically inside the cemetery visiting Andrew's grave whereas he's filmed talking in his car on the way and then there were artistic shots of trees and ethereal music. So Ian may get off on a technicality but I understand Jimmy's point.
Thank you for explaining it far better than I could, Sam.
Jimmy Connors is offline  
 
Closed Thread



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:37.