Rebecca or Posh?

who would you rather?

 

what shag or have for a wife

neither to the latter, I dunno actually, rebecca might be really nice, and all the furore about posh, she might be really nice in real life, all this media bollux

 

You romantic old soul. I was being politely elliptical but assuming people would read it as 'shag':MILD:

 

I used to have a thing for Posh before she became....well......'posh'. She has the same birthday as me as well :shame:.
Rebecca Loos[e] is a complete munter IMO and, even if she dig get jiggy wit' Golden Balls, why did she have to drag it up ?

If she was that skint she could have just asked him for the money .

 

the slim honey-skinned bisexual looks pretty good in here http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004160455,00.html

 

Posh - no contest . I've always had a thing for her :shame: .

Poor old Becks - I really wonder whether any of this tabloid garbage is true. Personally I doubt it. Posh and Becks have the right to their privacy and the fact that this "story" is the biggest tabloid revenue generator since Diana & Dodi just shows what a sad state our society is in

Same goes for the recent coverage of Prince William and his new "girlfriend". I saw the Sun comment section where they tried to justify those pics by saying that since Wills is a likely next king (and this girlfriend therefore a potential future queen) it suddenly becomes "in the public interest" to expose every detail about their private lives. Give me a f*cking break . Even so, that justification might work for some people but I don't see any way in which they can justify even more intrusive coverage of a player in the England football team. IT'S NOBODY'S BLOODY BUSINESS! :inferno:

Michael.

 

I'd probably do them both, but beggars can't be choosers

Plus I've always been partial to a bit of posh...

 

ah but what you forget Michael if papers like the sun stopped printing articles about williams new bird,or beckam having a bit on the side they'd have to start printing real news stories to fill the pages.
As for the pole neither for me,much prefer something to grab hold of,instead of an anarexic bean pole

 

For a couple who wanted to live their lives on TV and in the Newspapers, they have got the ultimate exposure. They cannot complain about that.

They have both been caught up in the bullshit that have been spinning us for ages. Neither of them deserved the high profile status they are living in. I am not a football fan at all so I cannot comment on his football skills, but to be led the merry dance that 'Posh' has lead him show's just how vain the man is.

I don't blame him for having an (alleged) affair – after all how ugly is Vic, and as for her personality, it goes without saying that she is living on a different plant from the rest of us.

As far as I concerned they have both got what they deserved, and should now go on and live their lives out of the newspapers and off TV, and give us all a break from the charade of a life.

 

I think you're being a bit hard on them Mark. It's been a long time since either of them has courted the media for personal benefit. I had hoped, for their sake, that moving to Madrid might have calmed down the media frenzy somewhat but the scum of the earth tabloid reporters seem to have gone into overdrive since then and have, incredibly, managed to squeeze a story from their arses based on a couple of "photos" that make the Turin Shroud look convincing

As for their life - who are you to say it's a charade? Looks like a young family with 2 kids and a lot of money to me. Nothing more.

Michael.

 

No disrespect michael - but you must be wearing rose coloured shades.

If ever there was an example of a couple who have two lives they are them.

One Life In the News Papers - A charade

One Life Out of The Papers - Which Is Becoming increasingly Obvious Is A sham.

As for courting the Media - they are in it 24/7, they derserve all the bad publicity they are getting, it is their own doing.

 

I guess I'm just not as cynical as you are. I don't see any reason why celebs can't have normal lives and relationships just like the rest of us. IMO Posh & Becks is one of the most believeable celeb marriages there is.

Michael.

 

Michael, you must be reading different newspapers to me. Surely "Posh" does little other than that. Call me cynical but how many of the couples "paparazzi" photo opportunities are not going to be tipped off or set up by PR ??

"Posh" has hardly done anything to justify such publicity and needs constant media exposure to generate some sort of demand for her errrr... music albums. She really is such a complete nobody otherwise. There are plenty of much more or equally attractive females on the normal high street.

I for one shed no tears for either.

 

Each to their own I guess. I still don't think that anybody deserves to go through the gross intrusion into their private lives that Becks has had to face recently, no matter how much they put themselves in the media spotlight. The sooner the UK (or Europe) has strong privacy laws the better - who knows it might even put the bottom feeding tabloid journalists out of business which would be no bad thing.

Tabloid journos, editors and photographers are only marginally above terrorists and peadophiles in my book :inferno:

Michael.

 

But Michael, becks and vic WANTED to live thier lives in the newspapers. Thats what they lived for.
To blame the tabloids is IMO is silly. OK sometimes they do intrude into peoples private lives and that is wrong. But Becks and vic they are they are the sad sort of people who need to be up yer nose day and night, thats thier fix.

 

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not having a go at you, Michael, in any way, but I do think that the above statement raises an interesting point:- would you hold as strong a view on terrorism or paedophilia if the abovementioned tabloid journos, editors, or photographers didn't exist?

Back on topic, though, I'm with hippy: neither.

Chris.

 

Yes, I would. I used those two groups of people precisely because they are the ones most often portrayed as evil and sub-human by the tabloids as if their readers somehow need someone to hate.

The coverage of the Ian Huntley case was IMO quite disgusting, with calls for a public hanging etc and pictures of a hangmans noose.

So much of the hate surrounding peadophiles arises, IMO, from most people's (particularly men's) inability to deal with their own inner feelings on a subject which is riddled with hypocrisy. If a bloke gets done for having sex with a 15yr old girl he's an evil pervert of the worst kind yet those same men who'd be shouting "string him up" would be quite happy to jack off over a TaTu video or the pics of the latest 13yr old modelling sensation in skimpy underwear. Or, on the one hand we have "Anyone who touches my daughter is a dead man" followed later by:

- "Ere, Jones' daughter Abigail, she ain't half got a body on her 'asn't she? - Wouldn't mind some o' that"
- "Yeah, but she's only 14 mate"
- "Well, you know what they say, ready for sex when they leave school, about 4 o'clock harr, harr, harr".

They use an irrational hatred of peadophiles to try and drown out the fact that they actually find many young girls very attractive, even if they perhaps are unlikely to act on those feelings.

Michael.

 

Agreed. The same could be said about a homophobe's attitude towards a homosexual, or a racist's attitude to someone of another race.

I'm not a fan of the tabloids by the way - as a (waiting rooms excepted)non-newspaper reader I can honestly say I'm not a fan of most forms of news reporting -, nor am I fan of zoos but I can understand the argument that a zoo might play an important role in animal and environmental welfare. A zoo allows a person to actually see something which, if it weren't for the existance of the zoo itself, that person might otherwise never see, and therefore never empathise with. It would be interesting to know - and impossible to find out - how many animal rights campaigners had the seeds for their interest in campaigning sown in a childhood visit to a zoo.

I feel a bit like that about the tabloids - I don't, as a rule, read them, and it's quite possible that they do more harm than good(the Daily Express readers phone in poll on 'Should We Torture Saddam' was a personal fave of mine), but if one person who reads them becomes passionate about something that they weren't passionate about previously, then they can't be completely worthless or harmful.

I hope that makes some kind of sense - freedom of speech/right to privacy is a very complicated issue, IMO, and I'm too simple to clearly explain what I mean, I think.

All the best,

Chris.

 

I understand what you mean - and I would agree with most of what you say

Michael.

 

Only most? I couldn't have been explaining myself properly...