• 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
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Michael Barrymore sues Essex police
<<
<
4 of 5
>>
>
Madridista23
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by hazydayz:
“I hope he wins and gets a new TV deal and is back where he belongs on Saturday night telly.”

To quote John McEnroe........ YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!!
hazydayz
09-07-2015
Absolutely not. He was always one of the legends. I remember my granny and Mum used to love Strike It Lucky/Rich and that show where he went round all the shopping centres. He had a way with the public no one else did. He knew how to engage and make people laugh. He deserves to be back on the throne, the king of Saturday night telly.
SJ_Mental
09-07-2015
Perhaps he could take over splash!
ChipDouglas82
09-07-2015
He never came across as a nice person, I remember him patronizing contestants on strike it lucky, usually the older generation who went on that show.
idlewilde
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by SJ_Mental:
“Perhaps he could take over splash!”

Tom Daley's agent best haggle hard then for a danger money fee.
Tourista
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by hazydayz:
“Absolutely not. He was always one of the legends. .”

More like bell end.

Always thought he was the most over rated "entertainer" out there personally, and his humour simply made me cringe.....
Soomacdoo
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by Tourista:
“More like bell end.

Always thought he was the most over rated "entertainer" out there personally, and his humour simply made me cringe.....”

That is probably the only time I have laughed out loud at Michael Barrymore!
darkisland
09-07-2015
So depressing that the usual DS suspects need to indulge their naive armchair warrior status here.

Like so many, he struggled for years with his sexuality, whilst entertaining and performing like a consummate professional.

I wonder just how many of the ever so well informed cotton-socked still living with mummy & daddy brigade who have so much vitriol to pour, will ever achieve in the way he did until the unfortunate butcher thought it would be a good idea to mix in circles which appear to have been well beyond his comprehension ?

Re the injuries to the butcher chap - there is documented proof that they weren't present at the time of his departure from Mr.Barrymore's home.

By all means, indulge any immature, ill-informed personal prejudices you might have, but at least get your facts right...if that's not too hard.
evie71
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by hazydayz:
“Absolutely not. He was always one of the legends. I remember my granny and Mum used to love Strike It Lucky/Rich and that show where he went round all the shopping centres. He had a way with the public no one else did. He knew how to engage and make people laugh. He deserves to be back on the throne, the king of Saturday night telly.”

He really was great at what he did and had a genuine warmth and charm with the audience. He was top of his game for some time. It's a shame what happened, his coming out was the start of the slippery slope and imo he had an awful time accepting he's gay, hence the drug use and general destructive behaviour. Having said all that though I think his attitude since the death of that man has been pretty disgusting with zero self- awareness regarding his role in the whole sordid mess. I also believe he knows more about that night than what he says and on that note he should never be allowed on our screens again.
Bedlam_maid
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by darkisland:
“So depressing that the usual DS suspects need to indulge their naive armchair warrior status here.

Like so many, he struggled for years with his sexuality, whilst entertaining and performing like a consummate professional.

I wonder just how many of the ever so well informed cotton-socked still living with mummy & daddy brigade who have so much vitriol to pour, will ever achieve in the way he did until the unfortunate butcher thought it would be a good idea to mix in circles which appear to have been well beyond his comprehension ?

Re the injuries to the butcher chap - there is documented proof that they weren't present at the time of his departure from Mr.Barrymore's home.

By all means, indulge any immature, ill-informed personal prejudices you might have, but at least get your facts right...if that's not too hard.”

No, that was just a suggestion put forward by Barrymore's lawyer.
Soomacdoo
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by darkisland:
“So depressing that the usual DS suspects need to indulge their naive armchair warrior status here.

Like so many, he struggled for years with his sexuality, whilst entertaining and performing like a consummate professional.

I wonder just how many of the ever so well informed cotton-socked still living with mummy & daddy brigade who have so much vitriol to pour, will ever achieve in the way he did until the unfortunate butcher thought it would be a good idea to mix in circles which appear to have been well beyond his comprehension ?

Re the injuries to the butcher chap - there is documented proof that they weren't present at the time of his departure from Mr.Barrymore's home.

By all means, indulge any immature, ill-informed personal prejudices you might have, but at least get your facts right...if that's not too hard.”

What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that Barrymore and his mates were too good/too clever/too rich for the 'butcher boy'?
anne_666
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by darkisland:
“So depressing that the usual DS suspects need to indulge their naive armchair warrior status here.

Like so many, he struggled for years with his sexuality, whilst entertaining and performing like a consummate professional.

I wonder just how many of the ever so well informed cotton-socked still living with mummy & daddy brigade who have so much vitriol to pour, will ever achieve in the way he did until the unfortunate butcher thought it would be a good idea to mix in circles which appear to have been well beyond his comprehension ?

Re the injuries to the butcher chap - there is documented proof that they weren't present at the time of his departure from Mr.Barrymore's home.

By all means, indulge any immature, ill-informed personal prejudices you might have, but at least get your facts right...if that's not too hard.”

Is that really necessary in any discussion? What exactly are circles beyond anyone's comprehension?
Are you saying this "nobody" butcher chap, having the effrontery to associate with these "circles", was the cause of Barrymore's downfall?
darkisland
09-07-2015
^ No. I'm saying that he was perhaps inexperienced and unused to just what would pass for normal behaviour at the type of party he attended that night.

I suspect both of the above posters knew precisely what I meant.
performingmonk
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by darkisland:
“So depressing that the usual DS suspects need to indulge their naive armchair warrior status here.

Like so many, he struggled for years with his sexuality, whilst entertaining and performing like a consummate professional.

I wonder just how many of the ever so well informed cotton-socked still living with mummy & daddy brigade who have so much vitriol to pour, will ever achieve in the way he did until the unfortunate butcher thought it would be a good idea to mix in circles which appear to have been well beyond his comprehension ?

Re the injuries to the butcher chap - there is documented proof that they weren't present at the time of his departure from Mr.Barrymore's home.

By all means, indulge any immature, ill-informed personal prejudices you might have, but at least get your facts right...if that's not too hard.”

I never knew there was 'proof' that the injuries weren't there, I thought it was just rumoured? As I said before, I wouldn't put it past certain parties to tamper with the body, maybe even someone on the payroll of the tabloids, just to make the story bigger.
Soomacdoo
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by darkisland:
“^ No. I'm saying that he was perhaps inexperienced and unused to just what would pass for normal behaviour at the type of party he attended that night.

I suspect both of the above posters knew precisely what I meant.”

No, I don't know what you mean. What does pass for normal behaviour at 'that type of party'? Do tell, as you seem so well informed.
performingmonk
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by darkisland:
“^ No. I'm saying that he was perhaps inexperienced and unused to just what would pass for normal behaviour at the type of party he attended that night.

I suspect both of the above posters knew precisely what I meant.”

Which is what, being left to die in a pool??
Cornish_Piskie
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by SULLA:
“
NB. 'Celebs' do not have special rights.”

I didn't suggest they should have. Please do not make things up and attribute them to me.

It is not a clever thing to do. If you wish to correct anything that I DID say, then please do, with your reasons........ and evidence......... for doing so. I would be interested to read that.

If you cannot do that, and if you cannot avoid the improper practice of false attribution, then please do not reply to my posts at all.
anne_666
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by darkisland:
“^ No. I'm saying that he was perhaps inexperienced and unused to just what would pass for normal behaviour at the type of party he attended that night.

I suspect both of the above posters knew precisely what I meant.”

No, I didn't as you didn't say anything like that. The wording of your post infers he wasn't good enough and he was responsible for the downfall of Barrymore.

Unused to their normal behaviour ? Are you now saying he didn't know to expect to end up dead in a pool? If not what are you saying?
Keyser_Soze1
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by anne_666:
“No, I didn't as you didn't say anything like that. The wording of your post infers he wasn't good enough and he was responsible for the downfall of Barrymore.

Unused to their normal behaviour ? Are you now saying he didn't know to expect to end up dead in a pool? If not what are you saying? ”

I do not know either Ann.

Perhaps it is common at these parties to find dead sexually violated corpses in swimming pools - although I very much doubt it.

As for Barrymore behind the public facade he has proved himself to be a depressingly unpleasant man.
puffenstuff
09-07-2015
I can't believe all the nasty comments about Michael Barrymore if the police had any evidence to charge him whatsoever they would have done it by now.

Despite the fact that I am a straight middle aged woman I do appreciate that the younger generation have parties involving drink and drugs and it should not matter if the host of that party was straight or gay.

These late night parties usually wind down with people heading off to bed , crash out on the sofa , people calling it a night bit by bit falling asleep listening to music etc that kind of thing , sometimes the Host will go off to bed and leave his guests to enjoy themselves

imagine if you went to bed and left your guests sitting around talking or swiiming or drinking but discovered that when you woke up the next morning somebody had died in your swimming pool

this was not just a tragedy for the dead person it was also a tragedy for Michael Barrymore. except for holding the party he wasn't personally responsible if his guests had sex or took drugs or drank alcohol. if people drink and take drugs whilst in a swimming pool I'm not surprised somebody died .

I just think it's hugely unfair that people think it was Michael Barrymore's fault when clearly the Police don't, otherwise he would've been charged. all you people criticising Michael Barrymore have no evidence whatsoever that he was personally responsible.

plus all those people who don't think he was funny are trying to rewrite history he was hugely popular on many many shows on Prime Time television and to suggest he was anything less than a huge star is completely stupid
Phoenix Lazarus
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by puffenstuff:
“all those people who don't think he was funny are trying to rewrite history he was hugely popular on many many shows on Prime Time television and to suggest he was anything less than a huge star is completely stupid”

No one's contesting he was popular, just some would contest that he was funny. All subjective of course. I found his attempts at humour forced, nasty and crass very often.
xbling
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by hazydayz:
“Absolutely not. He was always one of the legends. I remember my granny and Mum used to love Strike It Lucky/Rich and that show where he went round all the shopping centres. He had a way with the public no one else did. He knew how to engage and make people laugh. He deserves to be back on the throne, the king of Saturday night telly.”

All I saw was a man who made fun of people in a snide way for a laugh. Never liked that madcap behaviour. It made me feel uncomfortable. Bit like Freddie Star and Robin Williams.
marjangles
09-07-2015
If he's suing for wrongful arrest then he's out of time. You have six years from the wrongful arrest within which to bring a claim, if you don't then it's tough. In very rare cases this can be set aside but you need a blooming good argument as to why you didn't bring your action in time.

Barrymore had until June 2013 to bring an action following his arrest in 2007. Unless I'm missing something I genuinely can't see how he can possibly succeed.
Jeeeezzz
09-07-2015
Originally Posted by marjangles:
“If he's suing for wrongful arrest then he's out of time. You have six years from the wrongful arrest within which to bring a claim, if you don't then it's tough. In very rare cases this can be set aside but you need a blooming good argument as to why you didn't bring your action in time.

Barrymore had until June 2013 to bring an action following his arrest in 2007. Unless I'm missing something I genuinely can't see how he can possibly succeed.”

Yes, I thought there was a 6 year 'limitation period' for most types of claims. From memory there is some further rule about 'latent defects' whereby the 6 years only begins from the date you realise that you suffered the loss (usually goods that looked fine to begin with but later turned out to be faulty). So don't see how that would apply here unless he could argue that he only recently realised that the alleged wrongful arrest affected his career. Grasping at straws though.
marjangles
10-07-2015
Originally Posted by Jeeeezzz:
“Yes, I thought there was a 6 year 'limitation period' for most types of claims. From memory there is some further rule about 'latent defects' whereby the 6 years only begins from the date you realise that you suffered the loss (usually goods that looked fine to begin with but later turned out to be faulty). So don't see how that would apply here unless he could argue that he only recently realised that the alleged wrongful arrest affected his career. Grasping at straws though.”

I think he'd struggle to show that he'd only realised the effect of the arrest within the last six years. Especially since he'd barely worked since this all blew up back in 2001.
<<
<
4 of 5
>>
>
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