retired_princesspouty

She has to ask the question why the public has such an interest in her - someone who is basically irrelevant to the public. The papers are merely responding to public interest.

I suspect it's got something to do with her behaviour... there's plenty of other celebrity divorces.

retired_fabricodalacosta

I've got little sympathy with regards to her and those who complain about the media. As Gregg said, they are only too happy to court publicity when it suits them. I'd today's performance would have been to try and gain some public sympathy.

retired_hinchmaa

Because she sued and won herman.

Ventil

As what Gregg said, she goes on GMTV and Fivelive bemoaning about the media intrusion in her life....

Either you want to live in the limelight and take the brickbats that come with or you don't.

Playing one side of the media off against the other is not going to help your cause.

The fact that she tried to rip off a national institution and is an all round nasty piece of work doesn't go kindly in her favour either.

retired_therob

Read something about her being a high class call girl. Could be crap, but haven't seen anyone get sued over it, which you most probably would if it were false. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I think arguing that something must be true because no-one's sued over it is a pretty tenuous logic. There's lots of reasons why you might not take it to court. And papers can use lots of techniques to strongly suggest something without saying it strongly enough to get into trouble.

retired_txanya

Doesn't come anywhere near justifying following people around 24/7 and printing whatever you feel like printing about them, especially when the people have kids.

trotamundos

Because she sued and won herman. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that there were only certain parts of the case given in her favour, and she is maintaining other aspects were lies? Or do I have that wrong?

retired_kris10nicole

Read something about her being a high class call girl. Could be crap, but haven't seen anyone get sued over it, which you most probably would if it were false. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Not talking about this case specifically, but i'm not sure how good an indicator suing/not suing is. Given the cost of such an action if it fails, the fact that effectively you have to prove they were lying rather than them proving it was true, and the whole muck raking nature of such an action whereby other things you might not want known could be brought up and reported on, there are enough reasons not to do it even if the story is made up to mean it's no guarantee one way or the other.

retired_katie14

She could easily slip away into obscurity. Just take a bumper pay-off from Paul, sign a confidentiality clause and stop all the media work.

The media wouldn’t gaf about her if she wasn’t always putting herself in the limelight.

Never going to happen though. Wonder why?

retired_rgibson881

Well I feel sorry for her.