imogen death threats.....

[gina32]

whats wrong with people?

http://www.metro.co.u...twitter-death-threats

[milly143]

And the DM is just the first one I picked the link up from, it's also published in many other places.

[joggerjayne]

So, she wants to be out of the public eye ...

... and has hired Britain's best known "publicity guru".

Isn't that like a vegan hiring a personal butcher ?

[gina32]

good on her, why shouldnt she make herself money , it annoys me when people call her, and others who have done the same, names, but he takes out an injunction, because he is trying to "protect" his family, yeah right!

[andy-hughes]

The difference between some drunken idiot issuing threats in conversation with his mates in the pub - and them making news and publicity is due in equal parts to the explosion of personal media, which means any idiot gets a voice, and our celebrity culture, which continues to fuel this story.

Personal insults on this site against either party are nasty, and fuelled by potentially mis-placed moral outrage.

No-one except the two protagnoists know the circumstances of their relationship, or their attitudes to the publicity they are now attracting - but simply making unpleasant judgements based on media perception are unhelpful and do nothing to encourage a reasoned debate on the wider issues of privacy and freedom of speech.

[sara3]

I don't blame her for wanting to get revenge.. his behaviour has been appalling.

[Ankou]

"Personal insults on this site against either party are nasty, and fuelled by potentially mis-placed moral outrage

hmmm, sounds a bit soap boxy.

[andy-hughes]

OK - I can live with that.

[andy-hughes]

Jogger Jayne - you are a nasty small-minded jealous tart!!!!

Of course, you are not - but i have simply used your criteria, and the same public access to make a sweeping comment about someone about whom I know nothing, except what I read via a mass medium.

If you feel I have been harsh and unfair on the basis that I don't know you at all, and know nothing about you and your life, then you must see that your comment about Imogen is equally careless and unecessary.

Food for thought perhaps?

[joggerjayne]

Perhaps, Andy.

But the bases for my antagonism towards IT are ... (inter alia) ...

... that she sleeps with married men

... that, after it was over, instead of trying to put the unfortunate incident behind them, she went to great lengths to publicize it to the max

... which she continues to do!

... for Max Clifford to give her so much of his personal time, she has got to be raking in a SERIOUS amount of cash from this ...

... and so she will keep on doing it.

Stacey Gigs ... hoping to repair her damaged marriage? Not a hope, my darling ... not while Imogen T can make her fortune from your suffering.

You see the problem, Andy?

But ... like I said ... all of the people involved are looking pretty bad.

[andy-hughes]

Nope.

What I see is people making decisions about the behaviour of a stranger based on nothing more than evidence from newspapers whose veracity in confirming the date should be questioned.

It makes for a nasty judgemental society where 'public figures' are derided and criticised by strangers who know nothing at all about the circumstances.

Imogen Thomas may be a nasty money-grubbing publicity hungry tart.

Equally, she may have fallen in love with a married man who promised to leave his wife and marry her.

They know.

We don't.

[ummmm]

It was just a question. I haven't heard of her since BB...

But like Gina said...good on her. Just because she's tried to make a few quid...doesn't mean she didn't love him or fall for his bullsh!t.

[Ankou]

have you not just decided that jayne is not a nasty small minded tart on the same basis ? for all we know, she might be.

[joggerjayne]

But Imogen T is not a "victim" of the newspapers.

They are not pestering her.

SHE went to THEM. She hired Max Clifford, to make sure she controlled what the media say.

On a smaller scale, if a friend has an affair, and it goes pear shaped (for whatever unknown reason), what should we advise them to do?

Talk it over quietly?

Put it down to bad experience?

Blab your mouth off to all your friends, and anyone else who will listen to you?

That just seems vindictive, and I'm not sure that vindictiveness is ever a great healer.

[piggynose]

andy, whats all this, the voice of reason, what a relief.
keep up the good work

pn

[ummmm]

In her interview she claimed that she was approached by reporters. She then went to Max....Max, the man who keeps things out of the papers!!!

[joggerjayne]

Option 1 ... Tell the Press it was a private matter, which you are not prepared to discuss.

Option 2 ... go off and employ a man who is paid purely on the basis of how much money and publicity can be generated by a story?

[Ankou]

its got itv2 written all over it

[Ellipsis]

Here are the Google Trends for Imogen Thomas over the last four years, including her time on Big Brother and all the other stuff pointed out by Ankou ...

http://www.google.com...br&ctab=0&sort=0&sa=N

Note the difference in volume between 2009, when she was publicly dating Premiership footballer Jermain Defoe, and 2011, when she retained Max Clifford to advise her on the dreadful problems she was having trying to keep her name out of the press having allegedly had an affair with a Premiership footballer.

Either Clifford is an idiot who has made things far worse for her, or he's a genius for achieving what she really wanted.

I don't recall many references to "PR idiot Max Clifford"!

Imogen Thomas's whole career is "being in the papers". It's risible to pretend otherwise.

None of that, though, excuses threats of violence against her and particularly against her two year old nephew.

[andy-hughes]

A fair point ankou.

I have worked in the entertainment media long enough to know that they will not shrink from libeling someone, or simply making up stories to sell papers.

That does not make it right - but what I find really objectionable is that the media habit of making lofty moral pronouncecments based on non-existant evidence, encourages society as a whole to do the same thing.

Pandering to people's needs to look down on famous people for what ever reason - real or imagined, is the very worst aspect of our national media. It breeds nasty comptempt for complete strangers, it's no good for anyone, except newspaper owners and journalists.

[jackthehat]

Max Clifford is paid handsomely to keep things 'out' of the papers, too.

As I understand it, the injunction was a knee-jerk reaction, advised (poorly, it would seem) by a firm of solicitors well-known for their attempts to strangle stories about their clients......in the face of a perceived 'possible' threat that IT would approach the papers.

It was worded something to the effect of : "No daily newspaper is allowed to print anything that Imogen Thomas may tell you about her alleged relationship with an unidentified and unidentifiable married man. Thankyou."
Thereby announcing her name to the world whilst conveniently hiding the identity of the married man. Naturally, this started the feeding-frenzy we so often see amongst the press-hacks.........