Originally Posted by toasties:
“I don't often post on this thread (not being a Ziggy appreciator) but I feel like I have to reply to this.
I'm sorry but I get really fed up with hearing how Chanelle's support is over the top. Since Ziggy gave his NOTW article I have heard the following excuses for his behaviour
- the interview was a pre-emptive attack on Chanelle because she had already given an equally vitriolic interview that was due to be pubished in the following week. This was actually the most popular excuse until it turned out to be bollocks. Since then I've heard it said that Chanelle's PR fed Ziggy's PR the lie that Chanelle was going to launch an attack, forcing Ziggy to do the interview and making him look bad!
- Ziggy was trying to help Chanelle by encouraging her to seek councilling for her problems.
- He had no choice, he didn't want to do the interview, it was all his PR people's idea.
Never is any evidence presented for the above excuses
I've also been told that if I do not believe Ziggy then it must be because I don't take domestic violence seriously and that people like me are the reason victims of abuse don't come forward about their plight.
I have alos been told, several times, that all the accusations must be true and there must be evidence supporting Ziggy because the NOTW would never print such allegations without evidence. This is now almost accepted without question by many and the existence of this evidence is taken as a given, despite there being no proof of it's existence other than the veracity of the News of the World.
Of course, it's nothing new that people will talk tosh to defend their fav HM, but what I find really annoying is that the same people who come out with the above will then post about how obsessive Chanelle fans are and how they can justify anything”
“I don't often post on this thread (not being a Ziggy appreciator) but I feel like I have to reply to this.
I'm sorry but I get really fed up with hearing how Chanelle's support is over the top. Since Ziggy gave his NOTW article I have heard the following excuses for his behaviour
- the interview was a pre-emptive attack on Chanelle because she had already given an equally vitriolic interview that was due to be pubished in the following week. This was actually the most popular excuse until it turned out to be bollocks. Since then I've heard it said that Chanelle's PR fed Ziggy's PR the lie that Chanelle was going to launch an attack, forcing Ziggy to do the interview and making him look bad!
- Ziggy was trying to help Chanelle by encouraging her to seek councilling for her problems.
- He had no choice, he didn't want to do the interview, it was all his PR people's idea.
Never is any evidence presented for the above excuses
I've also been told that if I do not believe Ziggy then it must be because I don't take domestic violence seriously and that people like me are the reason victims of abuse don't come forward about their plight.
I have alos been told, several times, that all the accusations must be true and there must be evidence supporting Ziggy because the NOTW would never print such allegations without evidence. This is now almost accepted without question by many and the existence of this evidence is taken as a given, despite there being no proof of it's existence other than the veracity of the News of the World.
Of course, it's nothing new that people will talk tosh to defend their fav HM, but what I find really annoying is that the same people who come out with the above will then post about how obsessive Chanelle fans are and how they can justify anything”
deffo agree with you




Chanelle will be in The Star Mag tomorrow with an Exclusive interview putting her view across to what Ziggy said in the NOTW.

