Chloe Victoria - X Factor contestant

Tom Butcher

Good luck to her. If she's really taking cocaine that regularly then she's going to need some luck too but maybe she'll end up OK - you never know.

The Prime Minister was a member of a student club notorious for their partying but I suppose daddy could pay for that rather than having to sell his body and the Deputy PM has boasted about the amount of shagging around he's done. Maybe she'll end up running the country - then again she's probably not been to the right school for that.

Pross

I'm with Spen on this. Anyone spouting the 'she may have had bad breaks' type stuff is overlooking the fact that she had a chance of the ultimate good break through X Factor (like it or loath it the show can certainly allow you to turn your life around) but couldn't even be bothered to turn up for rehearsals having had late nights. You have to work to get anywhere in life and people blaming bad breaks for turning to drugs and prostitution are insulting all those other people who have had bad breaks and yet manage to drag themselves up through shear hard work. You can't help those who don't want to be helped!

rick_chasey

Ultimately, Spen's (and Pross' it seems) stance achieves very little for people like this Chloe.

I disagree with Spen when he says that suggesting someone needs help, even giving them help, even if they don't want it, is forcing my or one's views on people.

Surely that's one of the roles of the state, and indeed the public as a whole? To help those who cannot help themselves. If people only chose to help those who want to be helped, then not that many people would be helped!


As an aside, Spen - I assume you adopt this agressive tone because you have the annonymity of the internet. I'd be a little worried if my soliciter/lawyer used such a tone when discussing something! That's probably also why I made the assumption you 'hate' this woman.

Pross - I'm not suggesting that there should be a 'break'. I'm suggesting that some people need external help. It's not insulting to people who were able to help themselves without external help to give help to those who cannot. Life and society always has people who can cope and those that can't. It's counter-productive to leave those that can't to continue on their own. It does not achieve anything.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately, Spen's (and Pross' it seems) stance achieves very little for people like this Chloe.

I disagree with Spen when he says that suggesting someone needs help, even giving them help, even if they don't want it, is forcing my or one's views on people.

Surely that's one of the roles of the state, and indeed the public as a whole? To help those who cannot help themselves. If people only chose to help those who want to be helped, then not that many people would be helped!

Whether its you or the state -"helping" people who do not want to be helped is forcing your (or the state's) views on them whether you like it or not.

As an aside, Spen - I assume you adopt this agressive tone because you have the annonymity of the internet. I'd be a little worried if my soliciter/lawyer used such a tone when discussing something! That's probably also why I made the assumption you 'hate' this woman.

Yes, your assumption - despite the fact I came into this thread to berate the opening poster for declaring he hates someone he has never met.

Funny how that is ignored.

Funny how also, I have said absolutely nothing against this lady at all.
The fact that I don't want to force help on her;
the fact that I belive that as an adult she has to take responsiblity for her own actions AND:
The fact she has shown she is not the naive little girl lost you and others have suggested - ie her use of her fame to increase her escort rates

These are not indications of hate at all. Expecting people to be responsible for their own actions is not hate.

As for aggressive tone - if exposing the nonsense that some people have posted on here as such is aggressive, then I';m proud of it. I'm not going to sit back and let people spout rubbish when I can see that it is exactly that.

Pross - I'm not suggesting that there should be a 'break'. I'm suggesting that some people need external help. It's not insulting to people who were able to help themselves without external help to give help to those who cannot. Life and society always has people who can cope and those that can't. It's counter-productive to leave those that can't to continue on their own. It does not achieve anything.

It is however very insulting to force that help on people who do not want such help. She seems quite happy selling her body and exploiting the media for financial gain. Good luck to her in that. It saeems somewhat ironic that you purport to be "defending" this lady (by wanting to change her against her wishes) from people who are allowing her to do what she wants and are not trying to change her.

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

It is however very insulting to force that help on people who do not want such help. She seems quite happy selling her body and exploiting the media for financial gain. Good luck to her in that. It saeems somewhat ironic that you purport to be "defending" this lady (by wanting to change her against her wishes) from people who are allowing her to do what she wants and are not trying to change her.

But what she wants is, a) illegal, and b) harming her. Surely, as a lawyer , you are familiar with a) and the reasons why?

I would suggest that, given the nature of prostitution and drug addiction, that the level of 'free will' is distinctly limited, and its use in this context misleading. Drug addiction, by definition, leaves will at the door, and given she turned to prostitution to fund her addiction, we can assume that that is also not a genuine free choice. My little knowledge on prostitution confirms that it's a trade women are often forced into to fund drug addictios.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

It is however very insulting to force that help on people who do not want such help. She seems quite happy selling her body and exploiting the media for financial gain. Good luck to her in that. It saeems somewhat ironic that you purport to be "defending" this lady (by wanting to change her against her wishes) from people who are allowing her to do what she wants and are not trying to change her.

But what she wants is, a) illegal, and b) harming her. Surely, as a lawyer , you are familiar with a) and the reasons why?

by illegal, I am assuming you are referring to the drugs, not the prostitution/escort matters.

We have laws that punish people for drug taking. Even the criminal system does not seek to force people to change. It punishes people for committing crimes and (allegedly) offers help to those who want it.

I would suggest that, given the nature of prostitution and drug addiction, that the level of 'free will' is distinctly limited, and its use in this context misleading.

I'm suure the English collective of Prostitutes would disagree with you

Drug addiction, by definition, leaves will at the door, and given she turned to prostitution to fund her addiction, we can assume that that is also not a genuine free choice. My little knowledge on prostitution confirms that it's a trade women are often forced into to fund drug addictios.

Do you know the prostitution/ escort is as a result of her drug addiction? Or is it a lifestyle choice that now enables her to fund the life she chooses.

Is she even a drug addict? I'm not sure where the idea she is an addict has come from. [I am not sure if this was reported in the papers]

There are plenty of women who choose prostitution/ escort work because of the high rewards financially rather than to fund a drug addiction. In fact it is quite offensive to suggest that prostitutes are all drug addicts. Some may be, but not all.

rick_chasey

*sighs*

Spen - let me put it this way, since using this case example is clearly going nowhere, since you dispute the grounding of everything I say;


If you don't help people such as the case in point, how do things get better? How are problems such as this solved?

Give me solutions - you're only telling me my solutions are unfair or wrong.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

*sighs*

Spen - let me put it this way, since using this case example is clearly going nowhere, since you dispute the grounding of everything I say;


If you don't help people such as the case in point, how do things get better? How are problems such as this solved?

Give me solutions - you're only telling me my solutions are unfair or wrong.

Solutions?

Well what is the problem? This lady doesn't want help or so it seems


Ever heardthe saying you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink

Leave the lady alone if she is not wanting to change

Stewie Griffin

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

*sighs*

Spen - let me put it this way, since using this case example is clearly going nowhere, since you dispute the grounding of everything I say;


If you don't help people such as the case in point, how do things get better? How are problems such as this solved?

Give me solutions - you're only telling me my solutions are unfair or wrong.

Solutions?

Well what is the problem? This lady doesn't want help or so it seems


Ever heardthe saying you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink

Leave the lady alone if she is not wanting to change

No, but you can drown it 8)

dano

Before we all start quoting "facts" from the tabloids have a look at these:

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/

and

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/

tebbit

Surely that's one of the roles of the state, and indeed the public as a whole? To help those who cannot help themselves. If people only chose to help those who want to be helped, then not that many people would be helped!

Can't agree with the above, micro-management of individuals lives by the state has led to all sorts of disasters, totalitarian regimes and frighteningly liberal social democrat regimes abusing their powers, 20M Eastern Ukrainians prior to the Second World War starved to death to enforce collectivism. The treatment of single mothers in the Republic of Ireland, "it was for their own good" allegedly, then you get onto the eugenics practiced in Sweden up to the early 80s with enforced sterilisation of those considered to be mentally impaired.

While I have no interest in this woman's lifestyle, the duty of the state is not provide help when it is not wanted, very dodgy ground.

kev77

Most cringeworthy!

northernneil

by the way I still 'hate' her

THATS HATE, spen

I HATE HER

I find it astonishing that I can be berated for using a commnly used word which by definition means 'to stongly dislike something' just because I havent met her. I hate marmite too, and never met Gordon Brown but hate him as well.

I think I can gleen enough from tv that I would not get on like an house on fire with this girl, infact 100% to opposite .... which is like hate....innit !

surreyxc

whats more demeaning?

Working your guts out 40+hours a week, to barely scrape by for 40yrs. Or to work a few hours a week and living the high life. To never have any time for your family or loads of time for your family. Every one prostitutes themselves, her is just more direct, other works in industries which are equally imoral, the have just been sanctioned by society. Cheap DVD player, or Primark clothes anyone, or how about a chocolate bar made with child labour, now thats exploitatation and imoral, yet that is acceptable.

spen666

northernneil wrote:

by the way I still 'hate' her

THATS HATE, spen

I HATE HER

I find it astonishing that I can be berated for using a commnly used word which by definition means 'to stongly dislike something' just because I havent met her. I hate marmite too, and never met Gordon Brown but hate him as well.

I think I can gleen enough from tv that I would not get on like an house on fire with this girl, infact 100% to opposite .... which is like hate....innit !

How can you hate someone you do not know?

Hating what she does is one thing, but hating someone you do not know reflects very badly on you

The fact you feel the need to shout on here that you hate people you do not know rather than what they do, shows a sad reflection on you

spen666

surreyxc wrote:

whats more demeaning?

Working your guts out 40+hours a week, to barely scrape by for 40yrs. Or to work a few hours a week and living the high life. To never have any time for your family or loads of time for your family. Every one prostitutes themselves, her is just more direct, other works in industries which are equally imoral, the have just been sanctioned by society. Cheap DVD player, or Primark clothes anyone, or how about a chocolate bar made with child labour, now thats exploitatation and imoral, yet that is acceptable.

+1 where the person is not being forced into prostitution.

However, there are those sad people on here, and elsewhere, who want to force their lifestyle choices on people like this lady. Because of course they know what is better for her

verylonglegs

This thread was a little ridiculous right from the start, an x-factor viewer criticising someone else for how they live

northernneil

verylonglegs wrote:

This thread was a little ridiculous right from the start, an x-factor viewer criticising someone else for how they live

'veiwer' would be a strong assessment, sat on sofa whilst wife watches would be more accurate !!!

northernneil

spen666 wrote:

northernneil wrote:

by the way I still 'hate' her

THATS HATE, spen

I HATE HER

I find it astonishing that I can be berated for using a commnly used word which by definition means 'to stongly dislike something' just because I havent met her. I hate marmite too, and never met Gordon Brown but hate him as well.

I think I can gleen enough from tv that I would not get on like an house on fire with this girl, infact 100% to opposite .... which is like hate....innit !

How can you hate someone you do not know?

Hating what she does is one thing, but hating someone you do not know reflects very badly on you

The fact you feel the need to shout on here that you hate people you do not know rather than what they do, shows a sad reflection on you

I think its just pedantic, liberal cack the way you pick up on the word 'hate' in the same manner as if I had said something racist or homophobic, which plainly I hadn't.

I wasnt shouting about her I was starting a debate, I was shouting at you just to wind you up some more, you obviously HATE me doing it ...

spen666

northernneil wrote:

spen666 wrote:

northernneil wrote:

by the way I still 'hate' her

THATS HATE, spen

I HATE HER

I find it astonishing that I can be berated for using a commnly used word which by definition means 'to stongly dislike something' just because I havent met her. I hate marmite too, and never met Gordon Brown but hate him as well.

I think I can gleen enough from tv that I would not get on like an house on fire with this girl, infact 100% to opposite .... which is like hate....innit !

How can you hate someone you do not know?

Hating what she does is one thing, but hating someone you do not know reflects very badly on you

The fact you feel the need to shout on here that you hate people you do not know rather than what they do, shows a sad reflection on you

I think its just pedantic, liberal cack the way you pick up on the word 'hate' in the same manner as if I had said something racist or homophobic, which plainly I hadn't.

I wasnt shouting about her I was starting a debate, I was shouting at you just to wind you up some more, you obviously HATE me doing it ...

No, Neil, I don't hate you at all. I don't know you. I have no reason to hate you. I may disagree with your view, but I am mature enough to be able to disagree on this without hating someone I don't know.

As for being pedantic, you are the one who claims to hate someone you do not know, and have never met.

I'm sorry you appear to be unable to distinguish between a TV clip you claim not to have been a viewer of and what someone is like.

On this basis, you no doubt think Warren Mitchell, who was on TV as Alf Garnett, is a Jew hating racist as Alf Garnett played such a character.

northernneil

spen666 wrote:

On this basis, you no doubt think Warren Mitchell, who was on TV as Alf Garnett, is a Jew hating racist as Alf Garnett played such a character.

not at all, he is a talented actor, playing a part that doesnt portray his real life

she is annoying, vain, chav, with no acting ability whatsoever. So on camera what you see is what you get, warts an'all.

but I am happy to disagree dude, i just find it annoying people jump all over the word 'hate' as if saying it is a crime,

interesting stuff posted by people here though, especially her previous 'TV work' which backs up my views on her acting abilities.

spen666

northernneil wrote:

spen666 wrote:

On this basis, you no doubt think Warren Mitchell, who was on TV as Alf Garnett, is a Jew hating racist as Alf Garnett played such a character.

not at all, he is a talented actor, playing a part that doesnt portray his real life

she is annoying, vain, chav, with no acting ability whatsoever. So on camera what you see is what you get, warts an'all.

Now, of course this is where you are wrong. She is actually a public school educated and RADAR trained actress who lives in a palatial castle mummy and daddy bought her in Gloucestershire.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

but I am happy to disagree dude, i just find it annoying people jump all over the word 'hate' as if saying it is a crime,

I am intrigued as to how you can "hate" someone you have never met and know little about other than what the media portray of her.

Hating what she stands for is different to hating her. I have to say I'm not too fond of her values or lifestyle, but the person themselves I do not know and couldn't hate uin those circumstance.

Obviously its different in your view and that intriques me

interesting stuff posted by people here though, especially her previous 'TV work' which backs up my views on her acting abilities.