Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Null37283t03

Who, What, When, Where?!: Miscellaneous Celebrity News

Recommended Posts


4 hours ago, Bastet said:

In which Parton reflected on an easy decision a couple of years ago to change the name of a planned attraction at her theme park once the offensiveness was pointed out, because of her fundamental understanding of business and life in general:

Quote

“There’s such a thing as innocent ignorance, and so many of us are guilty of that," she says now. "When they said 'Dixie' was an offensive word, I thought, 'Well, I don't want to offend anybody. This is a business. We'll just call it The Stampede.' As soon as you realize that [something] is a problem, you should fix it. Don't be a dumbass. That's where my heart is. I would never dream of hurting anybody on purpose."

 

I went to the Dixie Stampede several years ago when I visited Dollywood. It was a horse and dinner show like Medieval Times, but Civil War themed and the two sides of the arena were North and South, and the announcer claimed that the outcome of the various horse tricks/games would determine which side was superior "once and for all." It was a ridiculous and surreal concept, but a fun evening. I was mostly surprised by how many Mennonites were in the audience (I don't see them much around my area). I'd be interested to see the changes to the show that have been made since I went. I love Dolly!

  • Like 14
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Britney Spears according to court documents 'strongly opposes' her father James 'Jamie' Spears resuming sole conservatorship over her affairs and I don't blame her in the least for making those objections! She seeks to 'remove' him from overseeing her financial affairs, IMO good for her!  Miss Spears has stated for the record that while she hopes to END this limbo state, if it MUST go on, she'd prefer the temporary conservator (one Jodi Montgomery) [who was put in place after Mr. Spears health setbacks last year] to keep the position for the time being.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/britney-spears-opposes-father-conservatorship-court-filing-1046506/https://consequenceofsound.net/2020/08/britney-spears-court-conservatorship/

 

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Bruinsfan said:

I don't know if most southerner's love for Dolly Parton is equal to their ingrained racism or not, but Baker personally trashing country music's most beloved icon Will Not Work Out Well for him.

You come at the Queen, you best not miss!

I am southern and that's what I told my husband last night, lol. Nobody trashes the Queen!

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

It’s interesting about Lori Loughlin getting sentenced on Friday, because I thought that she was supposed to get sentenced on October 5th.

I wonder why the date got changed at the last minute.

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, BradyBunchFan said:

Anyone who calls themselves a good man without a healthy dose of humor or humility is probably anything but. 

3 hours ago, BradyBunchFan said:

It’s interesting about Lori Loughlin getting sentenced on Friday, because I thought that she was supposed to get sentenced on October 5th.

I wonder why the date got changed at the last minute.

October 5th was the original trial date. August 21st has been their sentencing date since they pleaded guilty. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 1
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Dani said:

Anyone who calls themselves a good man without a healthy dose of humor or humility is probably anything but. 

Right.  When I finally read his statement, I had to shake my head because he didn't just disagree with her.  Oh no, he went ahead and did it in the most misogynistic way he could to boot.

 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Dani said:

Anyone who calls themselves a good man without a healthy dose of humor or humility is probably anything but. 

October 5th was the original trial date. August 21st has been their sentencing date sense the pleaded guilty. 

So if they didn’t plead guilty, then the trial date would’ve been October 5th?

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, BradyBunchFan said:

So if they didn’t plead guilty, then the trial date would’ve been October 5th?

Yes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

Tiger King Zoo is closing forever

Best news I heard so far. 

Sadly it is only closing the public.   the article states he intends to make it a private film set for related Tiger King productions.   Meaning the animals continue to be exploited.

I wouldn't celebrate Carole Baskin either.    I have some SERIOUS questions about Big Cat Rescue, not to mention the "disappearance" of her husband.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post

Well supposedly Jeff Lowe was going to move the animals to a new zoo in Thackerville.  It’s along the Oklahoma/Texas border near Winstar casino.  He has “Oklahoma Zoo” trademarked and already owns the land. I think it was supposed to open in 2019 but that didn’t happen. I don’t know the plan now. Last I heard the plans haven’t been canceled. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Silver Raven said:

How did his chin get so pointy?

 

Could be fillers, but if you look at the photos, his face looks thinner & longer in the after photo, so maybe he stretched his face in the photo.

Share this post


Link to post

11 hours ago, Stuffy said:

Well supposedly Jeff Lowe was going to move the animals to a new zoo in Thackerville.  It’s along the Oklahoma/Texas border near Winstar casino.  He has “Oklahoma Zoo” trademarked and already owns the land. I think it was supposed to open in 2019 but that didn’t happen. I don’t know the plan now. Last I heard the plans haven’t been canceled. 

He gave up his exhibitors license so I don't think he can just open another zoo elsewhere.   Which still, either way, the animals are exploited.   I have nothing against zoos -- that are well run.   Where the animals have large open habitats.   Even though have issues, but still they allow folks to see animals they wouldn't otherwise and protect species whose wild habitats are threatened.   So they serve a purpose.    The ones run by people like Joe Exotic and Jeff Lowe are little roadside attractions with animals in cages and no room to roam whose sole purpose is exploitation.   

  • Like 3
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Right.  When I finally read his statement, I had to shake my head because he didn't just disagree with her.  Oh no, he went ahead and did it in the most misogynistic way he could to boot.

 

Not to mention that this whole thing STARTED with Mr. Baker's nasty diatribe ATTACKING Miss Parton for having exercised her OWN free speech- and he actually threw a pity party via claiming punishment for voicing his opinion? It's called consequences for  nastily attacking someone who was trying to encourage others to be as fair minded as possible!  Yeah, he didn't say 'I disagree with her POV but I respect  her right to voice it' it was closer to 'how DARE she express her POV  that I disagree with and I'm attacking her as nastily as possible for having done so' ! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

If the new property for the zoo is on tribal land, then the U.S. government may not have jurisdiction, especially considering that recent court ruling about Oklahoma. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/18/2020 at 5:46 AM, BradyBunchFan said:

I think this it too lenient. 1) They committed this crime twice 2) They refused to admit their guilt for over a year 3) They should not be allowed to dictate their own sentences when the people who immediately admitted their guilt took whatever punishment the judge handed down 4) The fines total less than they shelled out to Singer 5) They shouldn't be expecting to serve their sentences separately. If anything, their "children" would probably be better off if both parents went to prison simultaneously, so they can learn to make ethical decisions without their parents around to influence them 6) Their community service should amount to working a full-time job for six months at the absolute least.

Edited by eel21788
  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, eel21788 said:

I think this it too lenient. 1) They committed this crime twice 2) They refused to admit their guilt for over a year 3) They should not be allowed to recommend their own sentences when the people who immediately admitted their guilt took whatever punishment the judge handed down 4) The fines total less than they shelled out to Singer 5) They shouldn't be expecting to serve their sentences separately. If anything, their "children" would probably be better off if both parents went to prison simultaneously, so they can learn to make ethical decisions without their parents around to influence them 6) Their community service should amount to working a full-time job for six months at the absolute least.

I actually think jail time is ridiculous (for any of the parents) for this particular crime. This is just a bunch of parents who tried to get their kids into colleges they weren't qualified for. They aren't violent criminals, they aren't a danger to society & there isn't enough room in jails as it is. I think that since their crime was rich people bribery, they should make them pay for scholarships for kids whose parents can't afford the tuition. Maybe multiply whatever bribes they paid by ten & make them pay. That would pay for a whole lot of scholarships. 

Now, Singer & the people who took the bribes can all use a little jail time IMO.

  • Like 22

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, praeceptrix said:

Taylor Swift has donated £23,000 to help an 18 year old Portuguese student pay for her education at the University of Warwick. It's nice to hear about acts of kindness.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53857694

That's so cool!

6 hours ago, GaT said:

I actually think jail time is ridiculous (for any of the parents) for this particular crime. This is just a bunch of parents who tried to get their kids into colleges they weren't qualified for. They aren't violent criminals, they aren't a danger to society & there isn't enough room in jails as it is. I think that since their crime was rich people bribery, they should make them pay for scholarships for kids whose parents can't afford the tuition. Maybe multiply whatever bribes they paid by ten & make them pay. That would pay for a whole lot of scholarships. 

Now, Singer & the people who took the bribes can all use a little jail time IMO.

While I do think they should get some jail time I do really like the idea of making them pay for scholarships for kids who are less fortunate or just straight up pay their full tuition. And having how many kids receive it be based on how much they paid in bribes for a certain amount. Not just for Lori and her husband but all the other parents too.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

That's so cool!

While I do think they should get some jail time I do really like the idea of making them pay for scholarships for kids who are less fortunate or just straight up pay their full tuition. And having how many kids receive it be based on how much they paid in bribes for a certain amount. Not just for Lori and her husband but all the other parents too.  

The amount they paid in bribes would only cover two students full tuition for four years at USC.

Edited by biakbiak
  • Useful 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

While I think it's fitting and apt that Mr.Giannulli and Miss Louglin to  actually be compelled to pay for worthy scholars to go to a university, I agree that it's bogus for ANY convicted criminal to have any kind of clout to decide the lengths of their own sentences and how convenient for their legal adult offspring it would be for said criminal criminal parents to be incarcerated together or at separate times. There's been plenty of convicts with MINOR offspring who had no say so in their sentencing and zero thoughts given how incredibly traumatizing and risky it would be for the minor offspring to be separated from the convicted parents so why should Mr. Giannulli and Miss Louglin and their grown kids be given kid glove treatment?

  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post

In 'hooray she's there for her grandson but sad that this has had to happen news', the 87-year-old legendary performer Carol Burnett and her husband have filed for legal guardianship of her minor grandson due to his own parents having had severe issues with drug addiction and depression for quite sometime. It's not easy for anyone to have to raise a grandchild but with the duo challenges of trying to provide stability despite the trauma they've already endured AND the fact that Miss Burnett has less statistical chance of seeing that grandson's legal adulthood than others decades her junior, I have to say that I'm admiring her more for rising to said challenges rather than throwing up her hands and citing her own age as a reason. If there's anything to be encouraged by is that Miss Burnett  WAS able to encourage her now-deceased eldest child Carrie Hamilton to become clean and sober for the last part of Miss Hamilton's life despite also having had severe issues with drug addition and depression so there's hope that her grandson can avoid repeating the family history and that her youngest daughter Erin (his mother) can one day become sober and a contented person. 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/carol-burnetts-tragic-history-addiction-174639335.html

  • Sad 21

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Blergh said:

While I think it's fitting and apt that Mr.Giannulli and Miss Louglin to  actually be compelled to pay for worthy scholars to go to a university, I agree that it's bogus for ANY convicted criminal to have any kind of clout to decide the lengths of their own sentences and how convenient for their legal adult offspring it would be for said criminal criminal parents to be incarcerated together or at separate times. There's been plenty of convicts with MINOR offspring who had no say so in their sentencing and zero thoughts given how incredibly traumatizing and risky it would be for the minor offspring to be separated from the convicted parents so why should Mr. Giannulli and Miss Louglin and their grown kids be given kid glove treatment?

I don't think they are dictating their sentences.  It is perfectly normal procedure for the prosecutor to make a sentencing recommendation AND for the defense to make their own, with any justifications for their recommendation.   It happens all the time.   Sometimes, the defense doesn't because they already worked with the DA to make a sentencing recommendation that the DA then presents.   So it looks like the defense is okay with whatever is recommended.   Or the defense really is okay with what was offered.    the felons here are doing what is within the rules by requesting a sentence different than the DA recommends.   It is all usual for married felons to request their times be served staggered so that the kids can be provided for.   Usually the kids are minors, but in this case the kids are so dippy they probably still need full time care.   I know the Giudices actually were given staggered sentences so one parent could stay home with the kids while the other served time.     The judge is in no way to follow the recommendations of either side.   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, merylinkid said:

I don't think they are dictating their sentences.  It is perfectly normal procedure for the prosecutor to make a sentencing recommendation AND for the defense to make their own, with any justifications for their recommendation.   It happens all the time.   Sometimes, the defense doesn't because they already worked with the DA to make a sentencing recommendation that the DA then presents.   So it looks like the defense is okay with whatever is recommended.   Or the defense really is okay with what was offered.    the felons here are doing what is within the rules by requesting a sentence different than the DA recommends.   It is all usual for married felons to request their times be served staggered so that the kids can be provided for.   Usually the kids are minors, but in this case the kids are so dippy they probably still need full time care.   I know the Giudices actually were given staggered sentences so one parent could stay home with the kids while the other served time.     The judge is in no way to follow the recommendations of either side.   

Exactly this. It has nothing to do with special treatment and is just a part of the process. Just like every other aspect of legal proceedings the judge hears both sides out and than makes their decision. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

FYI: for anyone following Mossimo’s sentencing several news stories are reporting that he was sentenced to 5 months but it’s not final yet. The judge has only accepted the plea and read the recommendation. He’s still hearing both sides and hasn’t made a sentence yet. Here’s a twitter thread posting updates as they happen.  

 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Now he’s been sentenced to five months. Sounds like the defense decided to agree with the recommendation for him and try and get a lighter sentence for Loughlin. 
 

394131D8-89D3-4C89-8BEB-30D171E6495D.jpeg

FD165BAD-6DCE-4806-9D70-C5245D524C58.jpeg

  • Like 3
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

I like this judge.  Dude you had no excuse for what you did.  5 months is about right.  This isn't the crime of the century.

I live in Delaware, where a teenaged girl beat another teenaged girl to death and got 6 months in juvie. That is outrageous. This is just kind of a shrug for me.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder what all those celeb pals of Miss Loughlin who claimed to have known she was innocent will have to say now that she actually admitted guilt and has been sentenced?  Will they still say she's innocent of the charges but lying about her guilt? Time will tell.

 

P.S. And, as I've said before, none of those singing her praises put in the disclaimer of 'even though she helped to raise and contribute the character of a twit'.

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone actually think Lori Loughlin was going to do any substantial time in prison?   I had 6 months in the raffle so I lost.   She had good lawyers and the only reason I thought it was going to be that high was because she pissed off the DA by not taking the original  deal.  But I think Covid worked in her favor.   Her lawyers banked on home confinement but the prosecution demanded she do actual time so her lawyers earned whatever high dollar amount they got paid and negotiate it down to two months.   
 

But hey she will get out in time to play herself in the Hallmark special.

And yes I still find the whole thing funnier then most people.

Edited by Chaos Theory
  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

I'm glad the judge believes she's remorseful, because I most certainly don't believe it.

I don't claim to be a clairvoyant but IMO I'd say she's about as remorseful as Aunt Becky was when Michelle nailed then  pouted over her missing an air tea party.  She may not be  Oscar- worthy but I don't think she's above not using those acting skills offstage when she thinks it could help things. 

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Browncoat said:

I'm glad the judge believes she's remorseful, because I most certainly don't believe it.

I'm sure she is very remorseful that she didn't do a better job of getting away with it. 

I am glad they have to do at least a little prison time because they need to be taught that they are not above the law as they both seemed to assume.

If she is truly remorseful, she will find a way to fund tuition for some kids whose parents couldn't buy their way into college, who might have gone to a good school on merit if only they could afford the tuition. But I am not holding my breath. Prove me wrong Lori, please. I would love for you to prove me wrong and for even just one deserving kid to get the tuition they need. Help a kid who wants to go to school, not some vacuous celebutant who happens to be your daughter. 

Edited by Mabinogia
  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, she's extremely remorseful she got caught, and even more remorseful she has to pay some unpleasant consequences for her actions.  Although her sentence seems way too light, I'm glad she will have to report to prison, and suffer all the indignities of life as an inmate.  Ironically, if she and her husband hadn't decided they were above the law, they most likely could have gotten this same deal a year ago without spending a fortune in legal fees.  They really are idiots.

  • Like 24

Share this post


Link to post
OtterMommy

Please do not post only links to news stories. Please add some context for the link for the other members. Context can even be as simple as a quote from the article itself. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size