Jump to content
FastFreddy2

Celeb Outfits - Yes Or No?

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I have never been afraid of hard work. In fact, I’ll lie down next to it and go to sleep!

Or, as the poet said; 'Hard work never killed anybody - but then again resting results in very few casualties'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vaguely remember Dick van Dyke in a film where he played all the central characters, and one of their strap lines was; "hard work never killed anyone" but it did to his character in the film. 

I sometimes wonder what that film was called. Quite amusing as I remember. 

 

I may have recalled that slightly in error. I think this might be it:

 

 

The whole trailer is a distraction with those legs, but one of her outfits ..... Red PVC. (1m 20 sec in.)

Edited by FastFreddy2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Lord, what a movie. Looks like it could be kind of fun, actually, on a rainy Sunday afternoon with a bowl of popcorn and nothing else to do. 

And what a voice-over on the trailer! 

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Shirley Maclaine's legs .... Enough said.... :wub:

Jeez .... The whole film!

 

 

Lifelong enigma solved....

29:00

"Besides, what's the matter with work?

A little hard work never killed anybody."

 

33:51

"A little hard work never killed anybody." [Falls backwards, dead.]

 

 

Edited by FastFreddy2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These combined images are (so far) the largest available.... 

 

5a724f3d74460_FionaShackletonx3.jpg.b1f7196a15acdfb211efec68ad98241d.jpg

 

Clad head to toe in PVC, with high heel stiletto boots no less, you might be tempted to question the likely 'morality' or the wearer? This outfit more in keeping with that seen in fetish clubs (I frequented) 30 years ago .... ;)

Her 'day job' ....... divorce lawyer to the worlds richest people. Oh the irony. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never question or judge the morals of anybody by the basis of their clothes. I might wonder about their fashion sense on occasion, but that would be the extent of my wondering on that score. I don't see anything wrong with her outfit. It's fairly conservative, actually, in its styling. Had her raincoat been of any other material no one would give it a second thought. 

I'll bet she's a formidable lawyer though ... the one you hope your soon-to-be ex doesn't turn up to court with

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiona Shackleton?   If so, a very formidable lawyer, and woman, who is certainly best retained by your side - if you can afford her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I would never question or judge the morals of anybody by the basis of their clothes.

In this instance, I was being a tad fatuous for the sake of the thread ....

As for not judging the morals of people by their clothing .... in some instances it's an obvious conclusion whether you care to make it or otherwise ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the same way that it is an obvious conclusion than a man wearing heels must be gay?  Or unmanly?

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/01/2018 at 3:03 AM, Shyheels said:

In the same way that it is an obvious conclusion than a man wearing heels must be gay?  Or unmanly?

 

Neither would surprise me ....

 

48AE488F00000578-0-image-m-26_1517177224

Edited by FastFreddy2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Still, it would be leaping to a conclusion

Yeah well, sometimes those "leaps" are no more than realising the obvious. No leaping necessary. Not even a hiccup. 

I'm into my later years. Would have been a terrible waste of my time here if I hadn't worked out the blindingly obvious.....

 

angus-mcbean-danny-la-rue-1968-web.jpg?w

iamdivine_650-620x366.jpg?format=1000w

paul_ogrady_story.jpg

RPDRS6_vertical_RuPaul_whtBg.jpg

 

Of course, I could be mistaken ....

 

Then there is Patrick Starr. Yes, he does many of the same things as the other social media mavens, but "I feel I'm so different. I'm a boy, I have a turban, I'm gay," Starr (not his real last name), 26, says. 

 

But I'm not!   From >> here <<

 

pstarr-2jpeg.webp

 

Patrick Starr, with signature turban. (Photo: Patrick Starr)

Edited by FastFreddy2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about assumptions made about men in heels in general  - and you present these images as 'case in point'. Is it your assumption then that all men in heels are closet drag queens?  That certainly isn't mine. 

And do you really believe that 'blindingly obvious' assumptions about someone's morals can be made by the clothes they wear? I don't.

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

In this instance, I was being a tad fatuous for the sake of the thread ....

As for not judging the morals of people by their clothing .... in some instances it's an obvious conclusion whether you care to make it or otherwise ....

My comments were fairly specific

I also suggested any conclusion was a choice.

Not everyone sits in the closet, some actually want to be seen as they are. Patrick Starr being the perfect example. To paint him as completely 'normal man' is probably insulting to him and I would say a little disingenuous. I'd suggest the same was true of RuPaul, and even Danny La Rue. These are people who want to be singled out as 'special' as does Ms Shackleton, who is something of an exceptionally well dressed celeb in her field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/02/2018 at 9:29 AM, Shyheels said:

Shackleton, eh? Any relation to Ernest?

It was indeed (Lady) Fiona Shackleton.   And her husband is a descendant of Sir Ernest.   She appears to have a rather offbeat idea of fashion, at least given her profession and her age (61, and looks it).   [Having said that, she will probably now sue me for libel - I hope I will be able to afford someone cheaper than her to defend me; I believe she charges around £600 per hour!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Puffer said:

She appears to have a rather offbeat idea of fashion, at least given her profession and her age (61, and looks it).   [Having said that, she will probably now sue me for libel ....

I think defamation, rather than slander.

If need be, re-reading my original remarks you will find they were obtuse enough as to be completely oblique. Unlike your comments. ;) :P :D

I was also careful not to mention her name in my original post ..... So a search on her name would not bring anyone here.

For my part, I quite like the way she dresses. Reminds me a bit of Celine Dion.  I find them both attractive. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FastFreddy2 said:

I think defamation, rather than slander.

If need be, re-reading my original remarks you will find they were obtuse enough as to be completely oblique. Unlike your comments. ;) :P :D

I was also careful not to mention her name in my original post ..... So a search on her name would not bring anyone here.

For my part, I quite like the way she dresses. Reminds me a bit of Celine Dion.  I find them both attractive. B)

'Defamation' is the general term covering libel (written or broadcast - as above) or slander (spoken).   The scope for action and the remedy in a libel are not quite the same as in a slander.   In any action for libel, I would claim the defences of 'fair comment' and 'truth'.   I rest my case.

Failure to mention the lady's name is of no assistance to you; she was (and is) readily identifiable from the picture that you published here, as indeed my first reply indicates.

I do however completely agree that your own comments were 'obtuse' (although I'm not sure that you intended that to be the description). :unsure:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Puffer said:

'Defamation' is the general term covering libel (written or broadcast - as above) or slander (spoken).   The scope for action and the remedy in a libel are not quite the same as in a slander.   In any action for libel, I would claim the defences of 'fair comment' and 'truth'.   I rest my case.

Failure to mention the lady's name is of no assistance to you; she was (and is) readily identifiable from the picture that you published here, as indeed my first reply indicates.

I do however completely agree that your own comments were 'obtuse' (although I'm not sure that you intended that to be the description). :unsure:

 

I had to look long and hard to find the answer for this.

My background to this issue is in the publishing of pictures. While lying is plainly slander (if spoken) libel (if written) the issue of defamation 'in my experience' and the use of "defamation" need not carry words either spoke or written. Newer "revenge porn" laws probably make more sense as a benchmark for this.

With 'revenge porn', nothing need be said or written for "ill-will" or "malice" to have occurred. The video is truthful, but there is some loss of reputation to the person identified in the film. This has been the case with photographs. If I take a photograph of a woman (any woman) and place that photo on website for "doggers" and their partners (I assume these sites exist), I haven't said or written anything defamatory. There is a 'loss' identifiable though.

Typically (in old world photography parlance) portraying someone in a "poor light" could harm their reputation. That's one of the many reason why a Model Release Form is useful with contracted work, especially in the glamour industry. As an agreement/contract it both limits what the photographer can do with the images, and also allows the photographer to use them in the way he originally intended having prior consent from the model.

One of the reasons "we" (me and anyone else here) don't publish the faces of any private individual, is that it's hard to defame anyone (place them in a bad light) if they can't be identified. "Public" faces, those that seek or expect publicity, those in the public eye can be treated a little differently. However, I had understood that even if  "telling a truth" caused harm to someones reputation, because the truth was told "in ill-will" or "in malice", there was a case to answer. Seems not.

  

This quote concerns a legal query from a person who had a criminal conviction that had come under the "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act" as it related to a 30 year old conviction. Someone at their workplace had informed their employer of the undisclosed conviction. It's likely that R/O Act meant this didn't need to be disclosed, and before a CRB became typical. The information was true, but sent "in malice".

 

Just to clarify the issue, I do not intend taking action against my former employer but against the person who sent them the information. I was obviously not obliged to disclose the information due to the period that elapsed. The issue of malicious intent arises with the person who sent the letter and whose sole purpose was to cause distress and damage.
 
2015-12-1_0437_ennew.64x64.jpg
There is unfortunately no action you can take against this individual for what they have done. Whilst their actions may have been with malicious intent, they are not actually unlawful. They have not blackmailed you, neither have they defamed you. What they have done is disclose information about you that is publically available – any employer can request a CRB check if they want and that conviction will still show up on there even if it is considered spent.

Whilst I understand that the reason for what they did was malicious, it is not actually unlawful.

I'm sorry if this is not the answer you wanted to hear but I hope you understand I have a duty to explain the law as it actually stands.

    

Having ascertained that, I personally would not choose to insult a woman qualified in law who commands an alleged £600 per hour charge for fear she might know of some alternative route to compensation.

As to failing to name anyone, it was never intended as a possible defence. Rather (as I so often tell you) it removes the opportunity for any reference to her being found. Now, a search on the ladies name, could bring a search engine to your comments. That wasn't possible from my post. It's why I leave these details out. It's why I created an image that appears nowhere else, so Google couldn't stumble across it if someone did a search on the DM originals that were published. 

Lastly, even if my remarks were not considered 'obtuse', I could prove that I find PVC clothing attractive, and those who wear it attractive. (And tick both boxes for this lady.)  It would be impossible for this to be proved otherwise, even by someone allegedly able to charge £600 an hour for their services. :)  I even confirmed it in writing.

That said, she might well decide me finding her attractive, caused her some loss:D

 

 

Edited by FastFreddy2
Repeated word deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...