Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Hugh Grant on the Leveson Inquiry


Guest tonyblair

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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!! :O:lol:

Elizabeth-Hurley-For-Wonder-Woman-Pilot.jpg

The stupidity is all yours. :lol:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by grumpyhack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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 :lol:)

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by russycarps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by fred quimby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Ah, well. Never mind, hey.
    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...