est1892

est1892 (https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/index.php)
-   Jokes, Links & Funnies (https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   Holly Willoughbooby (https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=84479)

Kloppster 27-06-13 03:06 PM

Holly Willoughbooby
 
Apparently the BBC have received over 100 complaints from viewers regarding Holly Willoughby's low cut dress she wore on the final of The Voice....when asked to comment their spokesperson said 'its nothing much... just a little storm in a DD cup' :-)

Neil Young 30-06-13 08:20 AM

I heard it's now over 150 complaints now.

Bloody ridiculous.

BobTheCharmer 30-06-13 11:35 AM

To be fair 120 of the complaints were from me. I wanted to see more.

Mattshark 30-06-13 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCharmer (Post 2680750)
To be fair 120 of the complaints were from me. I wanted to see more.

:haha:

Neil Young 30-06-13 11:42 AM

:haha:

Hollowman 30-06-13 03:49 PM

Are we getting more puritanical, or is it just Paul Dacre? Because I remember some of the shit Marti Caine wore presenting New Faces, and you didn't require a lot of imagination to fill in the gaps.

Neil Young 01-07-13 07:52 PM

:D

I don't think Paul Dacre can be. Have you seen Mail Online?

Hollowman 01-07-13 08:27 PM

Aye, that's the inherent hypocrisy. He loves starting a populist moral crusade, but presides over a pornographic site.

Helios Creed 01-07-13 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hollowman (Post 2680952)
Are we getting more puritanical, or is it just Paul Dacre? Because I remember some of the shit Marti Caine wore presenting New Faces, and you didn't require a lot of imagination to fill in the gaps.

we had to be a lot more resourceful in the days before the internets. You really had to earn that orgasm.

tufty 01-07-13 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helios Creed (Post 2682020)
we had to be a lot more resourceful in the days before the internets. You really had to earn that orgasm.

yes, can't say I miss carrying that fukin massive Kays catalogue to the bog :D

baitman 02-07-13 12:39 AM

catalogue wank :haha:

Exiled_red 02-07-13 07:12 AM

:haha:

Carras_Shin_Pads 02-07-13 03:35 PM

Thought there'd be more pictures in here!!

Kenneth 02-07-13 03:39 PM

Really?

Quote:

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 13
User Name Posts
Neil Young 3
Hollowman 2
...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4LYDVPK0Os...5bhf20_210.jpg

Norbs 02-07-13 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tufty (Post 2682139)
yes, can't say I miss carrying that fukin massive Kays catalogue to the bog :D

My parents had the Freeman's catalog. I was weird even back then, I used to get a thrill from the maternity bras

baitman 02-07-13 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norbs (Post 2682689)
My parents had the Freeman's catalog. I was weird even back then, I used to get a thrill from the maternity bras

are you Slinky in disguise :chin:

Norbs 02-07-13 04:30 PM

Have you ever seen a peak-a-boo maternity bra? Phroar

Yozza 02-07-13 04:32 PM

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...l-Holl-008.jpg

Is this what all the fuss is about? Really?! Ridiculous....

baitman 02-07-13 04:40 PM

i do appreciate her communication and presentation skills


Norbs 02-07-13 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yozza (Post 2682699)
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...l-Holl-008.jpg

Is this what all the fuss is about? Really?! Ridiculous....

Lol, I hadn't seen that before.

My fantasy is a show that has both her and Kelly Brook doing daft things in more revelaing tops. Oh, hang on a minute :D

muddym2002 04-07-13 10:00 PM


:shake:

Shaggy 04-07-13 10:03 PM

That woman is a fucking disgusting pig, no more than a professional troll.

Tee 04-07-13 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy (Post 2684663)
That woman is a fucking disgusting pig, no more than a professional troll.

:handshake:

Judging children by their names. Unbelievable. :shake:

AnfieldForever 04-07-13 10:29 PM

She can't be for real? :shake:

ChesterDave 04-07-13 10:31 PM

She was a lunatic on Apprentice so she probably is.

RichC 04-07-13 10:55 PM

Wow, surely she'll watch this back and be horrified by her comments.

Judging a child by his or her name FFS :shake:

Toxic woman and I feel sorry for her kids

Shaggy 04-07-13 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcasemore (Post 2684693)
Wow, surely she'll watch this back and be horrified by her comments.

Judging a child by his or her name FFS :shake:

Toxic woman and I feel sorry for her kids

I hate to link to this but if you've ever read it you'll know she doesn't seem to give a fuck about her own kids anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ring-bits.html

Fivex 04-07-13 11:17 PM

She's vile.

RichC 04-07-13 11:19 PM

Wow, what a horrible narcissistic woman, completely self absorbed

I feel so sorry for her kids

TheElephantMan 04-07-13 11:47 PM

Most programmes on TV have no point and seem to have angry people not making much sense.

EwarWoo 05-07-13 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy (Post 2684698)
I hate to link to this but if you've ever read it you'll know she doesn't seem to give a fuck about her own kids anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ring-bits.html

I'd disagree. she's clearly not a touchy feely mummy but the fact she as back-up nannies to make sure it's always someone who knows the children and fetches in a regular tutor to give the kids an advantage at their no doubt already high fee school would indicate that she does care.

The way shes phrased it makes her sound like a bit of a witch, but it's almost as though shes trying to get a bite out of it.

The underlying point is a good one. Really, what is she doing wrong? Is she not allowed to be a successful woman with a career?

And why is it her responsibility to look after the kids, and her being neglectful, and not her husband? Surely this day and age the same rules should apply for both parents.

She seems like an utterly horrendous excuse for a human being, but to attack her love of her children for choosing a career is a bit 1980's.

ChesterDave 05-07-13 12:50 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...far-happy.html

ChesterDave 05-07-13 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EwarWoo (Post 2684724)
The underlying point is a good one. Really, what is she doing wrong?

Teaching her children to be a bigoted snob and stopping them from making friends with who they want? Showing that she is not capable of compromising her wishes to give them the time of day herself? Great so she splashes the cash for them. Maybe her kids want a bit of love off her instead of an open cheque book?

Basically the only parenting she seems to bother with is to tell her kids that they can't be friends with someone because they have a 'working class name'. They must hate her. Much like her step daughter seems to.

EwarWoo 05-07-13 04:19 AM

But the article doesn't state that. The nanny is off duty at 7:30, so clearly she spends time with the kids until bedtime. And for all the article covers she could be with the kids as soon as she arrives home from work and the nanny is spending the last hour or 2 tidying up. And then there's weekends.

Assumptions are being made.

If it's because shes an ugly bigotted person fine, if it's because shes a woman having a career whilst having kids not so.

5europeancups 05-07-13 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EwarWoo (Post 2684724)
I'd disagree. she's clearly not a touchy feely mummy but the fact she as back-up nannies to make sure it's always someone who knows the children and fetches in a regular tutor to give the kids an advantage at their no doubt already high fee school would indicate that she does care.

The way shes phrased it makes her sound like a bit of a witch, but it's almost as though shes trying to get a bite out of it.

The underlying point is a good one. Really, what is she doing wrong? Is she not allowed to be a successful woman with a career?

And why is it her responsibility to look after the kids, and her being neglectful, and not her husband? Surely this day and age the same rules should apply for both parents.

She seems like an utterly horrendous excuse for a human being, but to attack her love of her children for choosing a career is a bit 1980's.

I tend to agree with these comments. She is looking after number one and the very fact that she even applied to go on Apprentice defines what sort of person she is. A Self Serving, Publicity seeker who yearns to be famous or loved or whatever...
However she also does want the best for her kids, even if she expresses herself poorly, she is also direct and honest. I much prefer people that speak their minds honestly than people who pretend to care but in reality dont give a fuck aslong as they are seen to be caring.
Some of her comments like she needs to be like a man to succeed, are now getting outdated. As a single father of four kids we all have to balance out life / work decisions.

She is probably rather difficult to work with, she is smug and certainly self conceited, and rather narcissisistic, but I can tell you now, these days this is the majority of people in business.

Pablo 05-07-13 10:26 AM

Blatant WUMerchanty. She's basically a female Adrian Durham.

PTP 05-07-13 08:15 PM

:haha:...the bit about naming children after a location...Schofield points out that she has named her own child India haha completely stumps her

Her children will rebel...they will become stoners or goths, have tattoos on their faces and get caught stealing socks from primark

Subby 05-07-13 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tufty (Post 2682139)
yes, can't say I miss carrying that fukin massive Kays catalogue to the bog :D

:haha::haha::haha:

Funniest thing I've read all week :haha::haha::respect:

Icon 06-07-13 12:03 AM

Hopkins is a twat...

ChesterDave 06-07-13 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EwarWoo (Post 2684729)
But the article doesn't state that. The nanny is off duty at 7:30, so clearly she spends time with the kids until bedtime. And for all the article covers she could be with the kids as soon as she arrives home from work and the nanny is spending the last hour or 2 tidying up. And then there's weekends.

Assumptions are being made.

If it's because shes an ugly bigotted person fine, if it's because shes a woman having a career whilst having kids not so.

No, it is because in her own words she is a Thatcherite female who seems to think employment rights for women are...iffy. Someone who thinks a kid is dodgy because of the name given to it by its parent. Someone with a child called India who thinks geographical names are stupid and someone who can't be arsed to go and watch her own child at sports day because it is too much of a chore and gets in with her own life.

That is not an assumption. It is from the horses mouth.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.