Kate Winslet accepts libel payout(you will not believe this)

Oscar-winning actress Kate Winslet has accepted £25,000 libel damages over a claim made by the Daily Mail that she lied about her exercise regime. The settlement was agreed at London's High Court on Tuesday, but the actress was not present for the hearing. In May, the 34-year-old filed legal papers saying she was "distressed and embarrassed" by the feature. In a statement the actress said: "I am delighted that the Mail have apologised for making false allegations about me." She added: "I was particularly upset to be accused of lying about my exercise regime and felt that I had a responsibility to request an apology in order to demonstrate my commitment to the views that I have always expressed about body issues, including diet and exercise. "I strongly believe that women should be encouraged to accept themselves as they are, so to suggest that I was lying was an unacceptable accusation of hypocrisy." 'Irritating actress' The star, who won an Oscar for The Reader, said the claims injured her personal and professional reputation. The offending article, headlined "Should Kate Winslet win an Oscar for the world's most irritating actress?" was printed in January. Her solicitor, Rachel Atkins, told Mr Justice Eady the feature was accompanied by several naked photographs of the actress in various films and was offensive in tone. "The claimant has frequently asserted the right of women to accept the way that they look and by accusing her of trying to mislead the public, the defendant caused her a great deal of distress. It was simply not true," Ms Atkins said. The newspaper published an apology in September, accepting that Winslet had not lied about how much she exercised, and agreed to pay the damages and costs. The article disputed a quote given to Elle magazine, in which Winslet said: "I don't go to the gym because I don't have time, but I do Pilates workout DVDs for 20 minutes or more every day at home." In 2007, Winslet accepted an undisclosed settlement from Grazia magazine over allegations that she had visited a diet doctor. The publication apologised and accepted that Winslet had visited a doctor to be treated for a neck problem. .-(my view)-You got to be fucking kidding me.........she has millions from being in a movie and more as shes in more flicks.......and she wants more money from a lie......a paper told and her exercise regime,for fuck sake!,there's people starving in the world which SHE said she cares about and cried over film's being shown about starving people.....SHE(I'm not going to say earn,people do not"except disabled people")has got millions from being in shit movies ect flashing her SAGGY TITS and bush......well...all of her fugly self,so she has NO RIGHT suing them,papers.....85%of the time lie about some of the stuff they print........i am speechless now......I'm so mad......you bitch!!!!

File-sharers are big spenders too

People who download music illegally also spend an average of £77 a year buying it legitimately, a survey has found. Those who claimed not to use peer-to-peer filesharing sites such as The Pirate Bay spent a yearly average of just £44. Almost one in 10 of those questioned aged between 16 and 50 said they downloaded music illegally. However, eight out of 10 of that group also bought CDs, vinyl and as MP3s. A total of 1008 people in the UK took part in the online poll commissioned by researchers Demos. Half the group (50%) accessed music officially via YouTube, and 22% listened to internet radio. Napster, once a pioneer of music filesharing, was used by just 4%, with 21% saying they had not heard of it. Music streaming service Spotify was used by 9% of the group, most of whom had not signed up for the paid-for premium service. However, it was rated highly for being easy to use, convenient and providing access to a wide variety of music. Right price 75% of 16-24 year olds said they were prepared to pay for MP3s. The optimum price for the survey group as a whole was 45 pence for an individual track, with just 2% saying they would pay more than £1. Current chart topper Fight for this Love by Cheryl Cole is priced at 99 pence on iTunes in the UK, and 79 pence on Amazon. "Politicians and music companies need to recognise that the nature of music consumption has changed and consumers are demanding lower prices and easier access to music," said Demos researcher Peter Bradwell. It also raises questions about the draft Digital Economy bill, which is due to be submitted to parliament later this month and proposes disconnecting file-sharers who repeatedly break the law. "The scale of unlawful file-sharing poses a real threat to the long-term sustainability of our creative industries," said a spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. "While surveys asking people about unlawful behaviour should be treated with caution, it's encouraging that the findings signal that the three-pronged approach set out by the Government this week - a mix of education, enforcement and attractive new commercial deals - provides the best way forward for industry and consumers." -(my view)- File-Sharing should NO.....i repeat NOT be illegal.....people buy the media and DECIDE to be kid to others and share it..........there's NO crime being committed,for only crime here is YOU"the big fat companies" who want more money from the stuff we buy.....YES BUY! all of the stuff i download.....guess what?......98% of every thing i download......I BUY.....and OTHERS BUY to.....it does NOT affect sales in shop and YOUR NOT losing money..it HAS been PROVEN time again,this is just one good report.......i bought a sofa from Argos........does that mean my friends can't sit on it and if they do...they are to give the manufacturer money.......fuck that!!! you guys can go fuck off right now you pathetic morons!

Baby RB surgery 'not an option'

"Doctors want to take the boy off the ventilator that is keeping him alive" A one-year-old boy at the centre of a "right-to-life" legal dispute would not benefit from an operation to help him breathe, the High Court has been told. The child, known as Baby RB, has a rare, genetic condition that makes it hard for him to breathe independently. But a leading paediatrician, known as Dr F, said he was "not a candidate" for surgery to try to open up his airway. Baby RB's father is fighting a hospital's attempt - backed by the mother - to withdraw his life support. The father's lawyers argue that the boy's brain is unaffected and that he can see, hear, interact and play. But Dr F, as he is known for legal reasons, told the court Baby RB was living a "burdensome existence". 'On a knife edge' Baby RB suffers from congenital myasthenic syndrome and has been in hospital since birth. His father believes he might be taken off his ventilator and returned home if surgeons carried out a tracheotomy, which creates an opening in the neck to deliver air to the lungs. His doctor has agreed to carry out a tracheotomy assessment on Saturday and report back to the court next week. But on Tuesday, Dr F, who is a paediatric intensive care consultant, agreed with the boy's hospital and his mother that his quality of life was so low that it would not be in his best interests to try to save him. He told Mr Justice McFarlane that Baby RB was living "on a knife edge" and could suffer even greater distress if a tracheotomy was performed and some sort of blockage or infection developed. He said the boy had no brain-stem function, which was needed to survive independently, and feared he may be suffering but unable to show it. "He is severely limited in his ability to reach any sort of potential," the doctor said, pointing out that his disabilities would become more and more marked as he grew older. "My heartfelt feeling is that his existence is impoverished," he added. 'Pitiful existence' For legal reasons, none of the parties in the court case can be identified. Both parents, who are in their 20s and are said to be "amicably separated", have been present at the hearings. The mother agrees with the hospital's lawyers who say her son will lead a "miserable, sad and pitiful existence", even if surgery allows him to be returned home. Instead, they say they are seeking permission to withdraw fundamental life support "to allow him a peaceful, calm and dignified death". The hearing will resume on Wednesday.-(my view)-What the fuck.......its NOT a matter of cure or treatment for this kid that the docs refuse to operate,its a matter of dosh-money-dough......it all boils down to them saving some fucking money....they do NOT care for life....to them...they do NOT see a human life,all they see is a job(if its to hard-fuck it..I'm not doing it) ...YOU HEARTLESS FUCKERS!

Kelly Told"You Need Bigger Buns"

Posters promoting Kelly Brook's new play had to be changed because buns covering her cleavage were deemed too small, it has emerged. The 29-year-old actress is set to join the cast of West End production Calendar Girls this week. Adverts for the play, used on London Underground, featured Kelly using cherry-topped buns to preserve her modesty, but a spokeswoman for the production said the first version of the posters had to be changed so they left more to the imagination. She said: "Producer David Pugh wanted to use it as the poster image in the underground stations. London Underground said that it was indecent and he would need to re-do the photos with bigger buns." Kelly will replace Jerry Hall in the role of Celia in the play, which tells the story of Women's Institute members who decide to bare all for a charity calendar. A Transport for London spokesman said: "We worked with the advertiser to ensure that the advert complied with our policy. We will be carrying an amended version of the advert on the Tube network."-(my view)- Your freakin kidding me? her tits are 100% natural...."the buns are to smell" for crying out loud............so you see her cleavage...big deal,we can see the shit that's coming from the bosses(of the company) mouth but you don't see us bitching.......get your head out your asses!