Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Andre's "suffering"


Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-04-2013, 11:03
Grace In Love
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 789
Could someone please tell me why he has named this charity after himself rather than his brother? I can imagine the buses to have his mug on the sides and rear too, what about Andrew? He is mentioned enough, we all know who he is, surely this should have been The Andrew Andre Foundation
Maybe he thinks people will recognise his name and not his brothers?? (I'm trying to think of reasons that are not egotistical, I'm struggling)
Grace In Love is offline  
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 11-04-2013, 11:12
Cyril_Sneer
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,942
I agree and for reasons that have only, as yet, been touched on and dismissed, nothing bad, but something that he should have dealt with a long time ago, for his own sake
Yes indeed. I think there are things being withheld from these law articles for various legal reasons.

I think him accusing her is part of something much much bigger.
Cyril_Sneer is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 11:13
scone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 12,476
Maybe he thinks people will recognise his name and not his brothers?? (I'm trying to think of reasons that are not egotistical, I'm struggling)
That old chestnut. How many charities are out there that we hear about but don't know the person.

Macmillan have been doing their bus rounds for a while now and there are even breast cancer buses out there, I've seen them. It's hardly original AND he has chosen the most obvious of all the cancer charities rather than team up with a cancer charity that is already sending buses out.

If he'd have set up this charity alone and did fund raising for the buses himself, then he has every right to put his name on it, but working with this country's biggest cancer charity and possibly only doing his bit by turning up to parties and featuring them in his TV programme, it's more like a business deal to me.

He should be out there tirelessly jumping off cliffs, bike riding to Mongolia, sitting in a bath of baked beans, etc, but hey I suppose it gives his show something to film
scone is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 11-04-2013, 11:14
Cyril_Sneer
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,942
Have to be honest .. I was suprised he named it after himself ( or maybe not)
I'm surprised they didnt just call it The Andre Foundation

Well, maybe i'm not surprised lol
Cyril_Sneer is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 11:28
SenseiSam
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,359
I'm not so sure there is a 'reason', or a specific reason we don't know about. mainly because the idea of something being secret with these two is laughable, but also because he has built this up and built this up with no reveal, and whenever he is desperate for press he always brings it out, I think anything he says now would be a let down.
He said at the time that there were a number of reasons. I think if they had both kept silent and she'd accepted that he needed to leave there was the potential for a civilised break-up. But she was hurt, lashed out and tried to ruin him and the backlash is still resonating on.

And yes she does have control over what rumours appear in the press. If they are false she can sue for defamation, unless there's some smoking gun that she's worried will come out. If 'the real reason' isn't in the public domain yet I suspect there's enough people who know about it to risk disclosure if there's a public court case and people are backed into corners. Nobody wins in acrimonious divorces they'd both be better cutting their losses instead of trying to emerge as the 'winner'.
SenseiSam is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 11:32
Grace In Love
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 789
That old chestnut. How many charities are out there that we hear about but don't know the person.

Macmillan have been doing their bus rounds for a while now and there are even breast cancer buses out there, I've seen them. It's hardly original AND he has chosen the most obvious of all the cancer charities rather than team up with a cancer charity that is already sending buses out.

If he'd have set up this charity alone and did fund raising for the buses himself, then he has every right to put his name on it, but working with this country's biggest cancer charity and possibly only doing his bit by turning up to parties and featuring them in his TV programme, it's more like a business deal to me.

He should be out there tirelessly jumping off cliffs, bike riding to Mongolia, sitting in a bath of baked beans, etc, but hey I suppose it gives his show something to film
I agree with all this scone, but, as cynical as I am, I'm finding it hard to be truly critical of him since I think what if this charity actually does some good? What if it helps someone?

Despite the fact he named it after himself and the set up, I am glad its there.
Grace In Love is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 11:37
Grace In Love
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 789
He said at the time that there were a number of reasons. I think if they had both kept silent and she'd accepted that he needed to leave there was the potential for a civilised break-up. But she was hurt, lashed out and tried to ruin him and the backlash is still resonating on.

And yes she does have control over what rumours appear in the press. If they are false she can sue for defamation, unless there's some smoking gun that she's worried will come out. If 'the real reason' isn't in the public domain yet I suspect there's enough people who know about it to risk disclosure if there's a public court case and people are backed into corners. Nobody wins in acrimonious divorces they'd both be better cutting their losses instead of trying to emerge as the 'winner'.
You would think that enough years have passed all they would want to do is cut their losses and move on. I think its a mixture of still having a lot of feelings for each other and not wanting to kill the golden goose.
Grace In Love is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 11:39
Cym
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,645
[quote=scone;65311789]That old chestnut. How many charities are out there that we hear about but don't know the person.

Macmillan have been doing their bus rounds for a while now and there are even breast cancer buses out there, I've seen them. It's hardly original AND he has chosen the most obvious of all the cancer charities rather than team up with a cancer charity that is already sending buses out.

If he'd have set up this charity alone and did fund raising for the buses himself, then he has every right to put his name on it, but working with this country's biggest cancer charity and possibly only doing his bit by turning up to parties and featuring them in his TV programme, it's more like a business deal to me.

He should be out there tirelessly jumping off cliffs, bike riding to Mongolia, sitting in a bath of baked beans, etc, but hey I suppose it gives his show something to film[/QUOT

Tbh when he mentioned the word "roadshow" I thought please please dont turn this good thing into another opportunity to keep your face going, and then when I saw he had named it not only after himself but also after his stage name of andre instead of his family and brothers name of andrea yes it does seem more like a business deal to me too , and anyone who says hes named it after himself because hes known, well thanks to him andrew was known too and liked where as PA name could actually put people off donating
Cym is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 11:45
Cyril_Sneer
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,942
But she was hurt, lashed out and tried to ruin him and the backlash is still resonating on..
SHE tried to ruin him?

No you got that very wrong.

She was set up.
Cyril_Sneer is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 11:48
lexi22
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,426
Yes indeed. I think there are things being withheld from these law articles for various legal reasons.

I think him accusing her is part of something much much bigger.
What though, Cyril?
lexi22 is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 11:49
Cym
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,645

And yes she does have control over what rumours appear in the press. If they are false she can sue for defamation, unless there's some smoking gun that she's worried will come out. If 'the real reason' isn't in the public domain yet I suspect there's enough people who know about it to risk disclosure if there's a public court case and people are backed into corners. Nobody wins in acrimonious divorces they'd both be better cutting their losses instead of trying to emerge as the 'winner'.
They werent speculating about her though were they, dont think this is about winners, think its about someone whos finally got enough proof to challenge something theyve suspected for years, cant blame her for that
Cym is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 11:51
SenseiSam
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,359
SHE tried to ruin him?

No you got that very wrong.

She was set up.
The whole thing became MAD (mutual assured destruction) but he was keeping quiet until forced to respond to defend his reputation. He sued for defamation and won.
SenseiSam is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 11:56
SenseiSam
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,359
They werent speculating about her though were they, dont think this is about winners, think its about someone whos finally got enough proof to challenge something theyve suspected for years, cant blame her for that
I don't blame her for going after CAN and Jamelah if they broke confidentiality agreements but I think they'll all end up regretting what's unleashed.
SenseiSam is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 11:57
Cyril_Sneer
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,942
The whole thing became MAD (mutual assured destruction) but he was keeping quiet until forced to respond to defend his reputation. He sued for defamation and won.
He would, because that case wouldnt take into account what was really happening in the background, just what was said?
Cyril_Sneer is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 12:04
Grace In Love
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 789
I don't blame her for going after CAN and Jamelah if they broke confidentiality agreements but I think they'll all end up regretting what's unleashed.
'Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.'

I think that is quite apt.
Grace In Love is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 12:07
Saltydog1955
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,910
He would, because that case wouldnt take into account what was really happening in the background, just what was said?
What was going on in the background was possibly inadmissible evidence. The court has to concentrate on the facts, not some nebulous 'might have beens'.
Saltydog1955 is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 12:09
Badcat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,865
'Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.'

I think that is quite apt.
ooohhhhh! me like that

Also it may come to pass considering the end paragraph to the link:

http://www.thelawyer.com/practice-ar...016358.article


Nevertheless, he said the case could proceed to full trial. He said Eardley’s arguments for Ms Price were to be preferred but, he continued: “A very different picture may emerge if the case does go to trial. At that point the court could with hindsight take the view that Mr Price’s submissions were well founded.”


Maybe we should club together and buy them both a shovel each?
Badcat is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 12:11
Saltydog1955
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,910
ooohhhhh! me like that

Also it may come to pass considering the end paragraph to the link:

http://www.thelawyer.com/practice-ar...ze=10#comments

Nevertheless, he said the case could proceed to full trial. He said Eardley’s arguments for Ms Price were to be preferred but, he continued: “A very different picture may emerge if the case does go to trial. At that point the court could with hindsight take the view that Mr Price’s submissions were well founded.”


Maybe we should club together and buy them both a shovel each?
Here's a fiver for starers badcat.

I'm sure we can reach the sum total for a ceremonial burial a la Thatcher by the end of next week.
Saltydog1955 is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 12:21
Grace In Love
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 789
ooohhhhh! me like that

Also it may come to pass considering the end paragraph to the link:

http://www.thelawyer.com/practice-ar...016358.article


Nevertheless, he said the case could proceed to full trial. He said Eardley’s arguments for Ms Price were to be preferred but, he continued: “A very different picture may emerge if the case does go to trial. At that point the court could with hindsight take the view that Mr Price’s submissions were well founded.”


Maybe we should club together and buy them both a shovel each?
I be happy to make a donation for a shovel (thank you so much for linkage!)

If the allegations are true, I can see why she would want her , but I just hope she is prepared for the repercussions. This is an assumption I know but something tells me she isn't.
Grace In Love is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 12:26
Saltydog1955
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,910
I be happy to make a donation for a shovel (thank you so much for linkage!)

If the allegations are true, I can see why she would want her , but I just hope she is prepared for the repercussions. This is an assumption I know but something tells me she isn't.
She never thinks she's in the wrong, so no, she won't be.

He's so self righteous he thinks he'll win too, so it'd be nice shock for the pair of them if the judge threw the whole lot out and said it was a waste of court time.
Saltydog1955 is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 12:28
Cyril_Sneer
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,942
What was going on in the background was possibly inadmissible evidence. The court has to concentrate on the facts, not some nebulous 'might have beens'.
Possibly.

But heres the thing with me - i dont think you need court cases and judgements to understand what was going on - it is so blatant.

Daily Star published 17 untrue stories, 11 of them by same journo. She now works for CAN.

What more does anyone need to tell you something a bit funky was going on there? The only defence for it is to say she deserved it or something - there is no other defence.

You have to wonder what they were worried about GW saying, since obviously shes been well looked after. They must have known they'd look guilty hiring her so whatever she could have done would have ruined them more i guess.
Cyril_Sneer is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 12:37
Saltydog1955
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,910
Possibly.

But heres the thing with me - i dont think you need court cases and judgements to understand what was going on - it is so blatant.

Daily Star published 17 untrue stories, 11 of them by same journo. She now works for CAN.

What more does anyone need to tell you something a bit funky was going on there? The only defence for it is to say she deserved it or something - there is no other defence.

You have to wonder what they were worried about GW saying, since obviously shes been well looked after. They must have known they'd look guilty hiring her so whatever she could have done would have ruined them more i guess.
Was the Star sued though?
Saltydog1955 is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 12:43
Fizgig
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,974
If its KP, then its a pity shes had to do this to stop two people she trusted from selling/telling the name of her rapist, dont blame her really, with no proof, the only out come now would be that innocent people, like his family would suffer, just like Im sure Andrew Goulds kids must do when they see their dads name dragged about in the press
If Gould was at all worried about his kids, why did he do a raunchy photoshoot with KP just after the marriage split? Hardly 'dragged' into the press was he? This is actually mentioned in the trial papers here, the fact that KP herself was putting out to the public, ideas that there was a relationship.

Cyril, can I ask you, why did she not sue for libel when accused of having an affair with AG?


I honestly dont think the real reason is in the public domain, there's obviously a lot more to it. If it was as simple as her having some affair i couldn't see CP holding back.
Not trying to say either are innocent or misguided but its obviously going to completely screw up his image.
KP put most of the info out there in the first place, an example is this (if true):
"Katie confessed to having the abortion while her marriage to Peter was falling apart, telling all in a magazine interview, for which she is believed to have been paid £50,000."
from here -
http://celebrities.ninemsn.com/?blog...wcomments=true

Surely this one should have been challenged?
Fizgig is offline  
Old 11-04-2013, 12:44
scone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 12,476
I just wish people would stop using initials, KP we know PA we know CP we know, **** knows who all the rest are
scone is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 11-04-2013, 12:46
Saltydog1955
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,910
I just wish people would stop using initials, KP we know PA we know CP we know, **** knows who all the rest are
AG - Andrew Gould

GW - **** knows

Saltydog1955 is offline  
 
Closed Thread



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:11.