• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Big Brother
Well Katie can dish it but can't take it!
<<
<
3 of 3
>>
>
wee-mo
11-01-2015
Originally Posted by Mad Max:
“Hang on she supposedly didnt event want him?? She's still with that man.

HE destroyed the marriage not her there must have been issues before she came along.

And I'm sorry but in my opinion she came across fantastic against Perez. And she confronted him because he was victimising someone else.

Perez was a MESS like a baby blubbing in diary room complete with a bottle.”


All spot on
EnricoIV
11-01-2015
Originally Posted by hopeless case:
“You said she doesn't follow her own rules.

In a thread about her being called out for her affair with a married man.

What rules are you talking about then, and why didn't you specify what they were when randomly including the comment in a thread about Perez dishing it out to her regarding the said affair.”

If it's not okay for Perez to question her, why did she defend Ken's right to question Chloe or Callum?

If it's not okay for people to name their children after locations, why is it okay for her to name her daughter India?

To name two.
Hollie_Louise
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by EnricoIV:
“If it's not okay for Perez to question her, why did she defend Ken's right to question Chloe or Callum?

If it's not okay for people to name their children after locations, why is it okay for her to name her daughter India?

To name two.”

When did she say Perez couldn't question her? She answered his question
mmpfb
12-01-2015
The number of times she asserted that *she* was single at the time - I guess it's perfectly fine to shag a married man as long as *you're* not attached. I look forward to him inevitably cheating on her down the line.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
EchoFalls
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by mmpfb:
“The number of times she asserted that *she* was single at the time - I guess it's perfectly fine to shag a married man as long as *you're* not attached. I look forward to him inevitably cheating on her down the line.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯”

He is the one who cheated not her.
mmpfb
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by EchoFalls:
“He is the one who cheated not her.”

Yes. And as I said, I look forward to him cheating on her.
Joni M
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by mmpfb:
“ The number of times she asserted that *she* was single at the time - I guess it's perfectly fine to shag a married man as long as *you're* not attached. I look forward to him inevitably cheating on her down the line.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯”

She thinks her moral compass is intact as she wasn't the one who did the cheating, she was just the one who shat on a married woman.
Joni M
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by mmpfb:
“Yes. And as I said, I look forward to him cheating on her.”

Ooh gosh, I wouldn't go that far, as much as I dislike her, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
brumilad
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by Flo71:
“So now we know having off with married men isn't on her list of things to rant about.

Fine for her to moralise about how other people live but ok for her to have no morals??”

How does having an affair equate to 'no morals'? This strange attitude that sleeping with a married man means you have the potential to commit every evil deed under the sun is almost medieval.

Maybe... just maybe she has different morals on different thing, i.e. she doesn't take issue with behaviours that only involves the parties impacted while taking issues with behaviours which she feels has implications on society/taxpayer.

Like I say she's never struck me as someone with puritan morals but someone with libertarian morals. So of course she would harp on about things relevant to latter and not the former.

We all have different morals. This idea you can't moralise on one issue because you don't have as big as a moral issue over another issue is clearly quite ridiculous.
MARTYM8
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by hopeless case:
“Does she have a set of "rules" on adultery that she has broadcast?

I wasn't aware that she moralised on this particular subject”

Exactly - if she criticises others for adultery then it's hypocritical. But as far as I am aware she has not.

It's therefore a personal matter between the parties involved.

FDR was an adulterer and he literally saved civilisation from the Nazis. Clinton, JFK and Lloyd George too. It's not nice - but there are worse things.
R82n8
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by Joni M:
“She thinks her moral compass is intact as she wasn't the one who did the cheating, she was just the one who shat on a married woman.”

That's some weird fetish.
Pro_Sniper
12-01-2015
You can tell she's a bit of a screwball. Definitely not the full quid. She's obviously unhappy in many ways and her answers to that is to hurt and attack others in whatever way she finds appropriately satisfying.
Randysback
12-01-2015
Message all on this forum - Let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone.
hisdogspot
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by MrJames:
“Quite the opposite. I think she can take it. She stood and accepted all of Perez's questions. It's everyone else that, rightly so, object to Perez's viciousness.”

What do you mean 'accepted' all of Perez's questions ? ( there was only one actually )

... she never answered it, though, did she ?
TomAce
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by mmpfb:
“Yes. And as I said, I look forward to him cheating on her.”

Ironic that you are calling someone out on their morals in a manner of poor taste, especially when there are children involved.
JB3
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by EchoFalls:
“The husband destroyed his wifes life not Katie.”

Well said.
Nollaig79
12-01-2015
I totally agree with EchoFalls, it takes two to tango and yes, it was the husband who destroyed his marriage, Katie was single at the time.

Katie came out looking calm and dignified tonight, whereas Perez came out looking insecure, unstable, & nasty
Mrstim
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by mmpfb:
“The number of times she asserted that *she* was single at the time - I guess it's perfectly fine to shag a married man as long as *you're* not attached. I look forward to him inevitably cheating on her down the line.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯”

Her first husband ( who was also married when she met him ) left her for another woman when their 2nd child was a day old.

So far the 3rd married man she had an affair with seems to be with her for the long run. So far .....
Matt_Maher
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by EnricoIV:
“Did I say anything about adultery? No, I didn't. I just said she's well-known to be a hypocrite. Fortunately, I've not been privy to all her nasty opinions, as I'm not in the UK. I've only seen the highlights, or should I say lowlights.”


How is she 'well known' to be a hypocrite?

You can't make a sweeping statement like that without elaborating further.
if you do it suggests you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Matt_Maher
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by mmpfb:
“The number of times she asserted that *she* was single at the time - I guess it's perfectly fine to shag a married man as long as *you're* not attached. I look forward to him inevitably cheating on her down the line.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯”


What an incredibly nasty, bitter and twisted thing to say.
They've been happily married for years and have kids together.

Sorry your life has been s*it
hopeless case
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by EnricoIV:
“If it's not okay for Perez to question her, why did she defend Ken's right to question Chloe or Callum?

If it's not okay for people to name their children after locations, why is it okay for her to name her daughter India?

To name two.”

The ridiculous stance she takes on children's' names is well known. It's hardly a "rule", as her position is that she doesn't want her children to associate with children with certain names. What rule does that impose on others?

The other example you give is not a "rule". In addition, she didn't declare that it was not okay for Perez to question her. Further, anyone with any nous at all can see that the way Perez spat out the question more than once, emphasising the f word, was not asking a question but rather making a "point". As I have not heard Katie take a particular moral stance on this issue, she is hardly not following her rule even if it was a rule.
calamity
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by BROXI BEAR:
“She is a spineless idiot. Her perfect opportunity to give i to him both barrels but stood there like a little puppy. Just proves my point that she says all that shit for attention. Without all the attention she waould be a nobody!”

Ktie is the cleverest person in there by a mile. she knows what shes doing... she allowed the public to see how awful that wee Perez really is.
brb
12-01-2015
Originally Posted by Jon_Carke:
“THANK YOU!!!! That's what I have been trying to say! She destroyed a woman's life - and there is plenty saying how she did it and that she didn't even want him - but she never even said sorry. Not to the woman or her family.

Katie lectures people on morals and work ethics and she has NONE herself.”

She married him.
<<
<
3 of 3
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map