Irrespective of anything else that may or may not be going on, James Hewitt and Rebecca Loos may have put in a lot of effort but they have systematically failed to hit a single note, in a single song, between the two of them.
Quite honestly I like James' attitude which is pretty gung-ho and he is being a gentleman in avoiding any suggestion that he feels he has a right to be on the show.
I just don't understand whats going on with the voting and why they are still in the running, purely on the basis that they both seem to be tone deaf.
Is anyone in the UK blogosphere actually voting for them? I'd love to know because I suspect that someone on salary (to who knows who) has a hundred mobiles on autodial, ie I suspect a fix.
Anybody want to illuminate me?
8 comments:
People love Sharon's reaction to them. Apparently it's "good TV".
I wouldnt know, but I will agree with ya Cheryl. :D
erm, what the hell are you talking about now?
I swear, you're impossible to keep up with. I'm about ready to soak my brain in ice water to reduce the swelling.
But, you know, keep it up. I actually need confusion the same way other people need ... air.
:-D
LOL!
Thats a turn up - two comments from American friends who (lucky for them) will never see the show.
Steggy - I can't help it, what irks me is RL's apparent assumption thats she's being kept in as a singer or a hero and not as the fool.
I've been voting for James and Rebecca (honestly) purely to spite that rude woman on the judges' panel.
Ugh! Ghastly creature!
Billy.
PS What a barrel-scraping assortment of 'celebrities' they managed to acquire! I suppose no-one with a shred of dignity would wish to be associated with such people or such a crassly vulgar enterprise. Rather like that jungle thing.
Your poor American readers don't know what they're missing, eh?
Oh Billy!
The woman apparently really did perform the song with no knickers on, and made a point of telling people as if it was something to be proud of. Otherwise how would anyone know, and why would the other judges not jump to her defense even if only for fear of a lawsuit?
I have to suspect that the most inappropriate behaviour was actually displayed by this 'victim', well away from the cameras.
There is something intensely wrong with a woman (or man) finding fame on the back of what she did to whom, or to what. Nonetheless the public arent so silly, after a period in the limelight this or that person will display their true colours, whether they have any humanity, shame or modesty, for example. We all know better than to take the tabloids at face value.
It is even more worrying when someone shows no discretion, no self doubt, nothing but narcissistic or even psycopathic belief in their right to be where they are, against all the evidence we can see.
Quite honestly, I'd sooner be Sharon, what you se is what you get, no deceit in her. Someone suggested Sharon O is friendly with the Beckhams which would also explain a lot.
I genuinely pity the other one more, but only because, I suspect, if she ever wakes up to the reputation she has painted for herself and revelled in, she will probably need professional help. I doubt that supporting an unwell mind in its fantasy by voting for reasons other than singing skill is helpful to anyone.
Look, no names.
:-)
But none of them can sing. And it's for charity. I'm just voting for Harry's dad because I knew him vaguely some years ago.
And if Sharon is so vehemently anti-Loos because of the David Beckham affair, well, wasn't he an equal partner in that? Or are men just weaklings, led astray by Jezebels?
Maybe there's an Ozzy connection. That would account for it. Yes, that'll be it.
Billy.
Three points to Billy.
Are we keeping score?
Touche, and thanks for a real giggle... (are we allowed to call him Harry's dad out loud? I hear Raven poop is hard to shift.)
Post a Comment