Hugh Grant on the Leveson Inquiry

[Guest]

being rather marvelous and honest if you ask me....

[russycarps]

yep fair play to him.

But I assure yout he would not give a single shit about the whole topic if he wasnt so thirsty for revenge on the press after their revealing his little indiscretion with the prostitute.

Be under no illusions that he is on some kind of moral crusade though. This is pure, cold hard revenge.

He is an odious prick of a man. Let's not let this cloud that fact.

But its good to see the gutter press squirm, of course.

[russycarps]

I cant remember

[kaosmark2]

I cant remember

[eFestivals]

why is he an odious prick of a man?

well, for this subject he has form as a liar no less than the press he's condemning. His whole public prominence is from a lie of his own doing.

[kaosmark2]

I went for a piss next to him once. He'd been sitting on the table next to me in the pub all evening and I didn't realise until a friend pointed it out arriving about 2 hours after I'd been there. Dirty fucker didn't wash his hands.

[The Nal]

Well I think he should be condemned for his stupidity alone.

Imagine risking this girl, for some manky, venereal disease carrying, street walking, sack phlegm guzzling 2x4!!

[eFestivals]

Well I think he should be condemned for his stupidity alone.

Imagine risking this girl, for some manky, venereal disease carrying, street walking, sack phlegm guzzling 2x4!!

The stupidity is all yours.

She was never ever his girlfriend. You - and the rest of the world - were had by a lie of Hugh Grant's.

This is the lie I was referring to. Someone I know is very good friends with Liz.

[The Nal]

The stupidity is all yours.

She was never ever his girlfriend. You - and the rest of the world - were had by a lie of Hugh Grant's.

This is the lie I was referring to. Someone I know is very good friends with Liz.

Edited November 21, 2011 by The Nal

[Kowalski]

Fair play to him I'd say.

What is of more concern was the distressing testimony from the Dowler's. Sounds utterly appauling what they went through.

[eFestivals]

Really? Hardly "stupidity" though is it?

Were they not "together" for 12 years or something? How's that work? Is this "a friend of a friend" told me? How did they keep that secret for 13 years? Did they stay celibate the whole time?

They were never a couple, not ever. They became best friends at school or drama school (I forget which), and made a pact with each other that they'd big up the other to ensure both got famous.

During the time they were thought of as a cou0ple they were both seeing other people on and off - tho with at least some of those others their friendship got in the way too much for those other people.

Is this "a friend of a friend" told me?

I'm extremely confident in what my source told me with very good reason. I'm not going to go into details of who it is tho, apart from saying it's someone who was around both of them a lot both before and after the 4 weddings première, and who is (or perhaps was, I'm out of touch) in and around the acting profession.

[fred quimby]

Just F*ck buddies then

Lucky chap.

Not sure is Nal is stupid by believing it though, pretty sure most folk thought that way.

[Ed209]

Pretty sure Neil would have thought that way if he didn't have inside knowledge as well. However because he knows someone who knows someone, then he's smart and the rest of the world is stupid. Makes sense

[eFestivals]

Just F*ck buddies then

as far as I'm aware, they weren't ever even that.

Not sure is Nal is stupid by believing it though, pretty sure most folk thought that way.

Pretty sure Neil would have thought that way if he didn't have inside knowledge as well. However because he knows someone who knows someone, then he's smart and the rest of the world is stupid. Makes sense

I only called him 'stupid' as a carry-on from his own words, it's not what I'm really thinking for him thinking that. 'Fred' & 'Ed' are dead right, and it's what I thought too till I heard what I heard.

[grumpyhack]

If you live by the sword you must be prepared to die by the sword. This view from The Independent, not a celeb-crazed tabloid, made an interesting read.

http://www.independe...ts-6265439.html

At least it did till it was pulled from their website. May now be back up - worth trying.

Edited November 21, 2011 by grumpyhack

[eFestivals]

Not sure why Hugh and Liz (if it's true) shouldn't be allowed to 'pretend' that they were together.

from one angle, I've no problem with it.

But it gets a bit rich for Grant to be complaining that his image has been manipulated by the press in to something it's not when he's been doing the exact same thing.

I also don't understand how it would have helped their careers.

Hugh was the one in 4 Weddings. The press of the première was all about Liz who wasn't in the film.

He succeeded in turning her from a nobody into a household name in a day. And it didn't do him any harm either, cos each mention of her included a mention of him.

The publicity they got was exactly what they intended, tho they never dreamed it would be as mega as it turned out.

[fred quimby]

from one angle, I've no problem with it.

But it gets a bit rich for Grant to be complaining that his image has been manipulated by the press in to something it's not when he's been doing the exact same thing.

Hugh was the one in 4 Weddings. The press of the première was all about Liz who wasn't in the film.

He succeeded in turning her from a nobody into a household name in a day. And it didn't do him any harm either, cos each mention of her included a mention of him.

The publicity they got was exactly what they intended, tho they never dreamed it would be as mega as it turned out.

[eFestivals]

If it's true (and lets face your "source" could just be having you on, or lying, not sure how they would know there was no friendly bonking) then it's great. Not sure they lied, they just played a part, which is their jobs after all and the papers fell for it. So are we condemning Hugh for being a good actor.

My source could be having me on. But I doubt it hugely; it's not come from some random down the pub.

(I'm quite amused that it's the subject of doubt this time around, and not the previous ten+ times I've said the same thing )

And if playing a part and misleading people is fine for Hugh, then why's it so wrong for the papers to be doing that too?

Either both are guilty of doing the same thing (tho in opposite directions), or both are guilty of doing nothing wrong. It can't work both ways and only in Hugh's favour.

If the likes of Hugh Grant want a heavily regulated press, then the likes of Hugh Grant shouldn't take the piss by using the press as a tool for manipulation of the public.

[fred quimby]

And if playing a part and misleading people is fine for Hugh, then why's it so wrong for the papers to be doing that too?

[russycarps]

It's clear to me. Those who use and manipulate the press for their own ends (hugh grant/jordan etc) are fair game for the press to manipulate to sell papers.

The likes of milly dowler's parents are of course nothing to do with "the game" and should never be maniuplated in any way whatsoever.

It's really very clear and obvious isnt it?

What is so loathesome about hugh grant is that he is comparing his treatment to that of milly dowler's parents.

Edited November 22, 2011 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

I'm sure (hope) you know the answer to that one

The only sensible answer is "it's not".

[Kowalski]

What is so loathesome about hugh grant is that he is comparing his treatment to that of milly dowler's parents.

[russycarps]

I'm not doubting you but I assume he actually said that?

[fred quimby]

It's clear to me. Those who use and manipulate the press for their own ends (hugh grant/jordan etc) are fair game for the press to manipulate to sell papers.

The likes of milly dowler's parents are of course nothing to do with "the game" and should never be maniuplated in any way whatsoever.

It's really very clear and obvious isnt it?

What is so loathesome about hugh grant is that he is comparing his treatment to that of milly dowler's parents.

Edited November 22, 2011 by fred quimby

[fred quimby]

The only sensible answer is "it's not".

Edited November 22, 2011 by fred quimby