[vc318]

Well GL had a good run, I think.

I cannot believe the following news:

Chris Brown enters not-guilty plea in beating case - MSN Music News

Chris Brown enters not-guilty plea in beating case
April 6, 2009, 5:46 PM EST

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Chris Brown has pleaded not guilty to threatening and assaulting his girlfriend, fellow music superstar Rihanna.

The 19-year-old R&B singer appeared in a Los Angeles courtroom Monday alongside his attorney, Mark Geragos.

He entered his plea in a soft voice while his mother sat in the first row, red-eyed.

Brown was charged in March by Los Angeles County prosecutors with felony assault likely to cause great bodily injury and making criminal threats. He was arrested nearly a month earlier after police said he was involved in an early morning altercation with a woman who identified the "Run It!" singer as her attacker.

Court records list Brown's victim as "Robyn F." Rihanna's real name is Robyn Rihanna Fenty.

The 21-year-old "Umbrella" singer was represented by attorney Donald Etra.

If convicted, Brown could be sentenced to probation or nearly five years in prison.

Neither side has publicly addressed Brown and Rihann's relationship since the incident.

But there has been discernible fallout and backlash since Brown's arrest.

Neither singer performed at the Grammy Awards hours after the alleged beating, and both were also no-shows for the Kids' Choice Awards show held March 28.

Sponsors have stopped using Brown, some radio stations have stopped playing his music and some broadcasters have even started playing an anti-Chris Brown song created by the little-known dance group Smoke Jumpers.

Brown left the courthouse with his mother, two bodyguards and an entourage. On his way out, he had to walk through a phalanx of cameras. He was picked up by a car in front of the courthouse.

Geragos offered no comment and quickly left the courthouse with his client.

So Rihanna just woke up with those bruises all over her then? You know what? He's less than a man. Good job, Chris. You are an outstanding example of what it means to admitting to your mistakes. Such a coward. And boo-hoo about the way he said his plea in court. If it had been anyone else, he or she would've been fried already.

[sunnykerr]

Two things.

First, as appalling and ludicrous as it is for Chris Brown to claim he's not guilty, you gotta know that he's taking legal counsel in this matter. Trials are about the truth, but they're a lot more about what can be proven. And, even though we've all seen the pictures, and we all know what's going on there, who knows...

It's appalling, but it wouldn't be the first time that someone on trial tried to hedge their bets, as it were...

Second, I don't think soaps are meant to end... Are they? Besides, it would be something if, like in other parts of the world, one soap would be replaced by another. But that's not what CBS is gonna do. You know they're gonna replace it with some other lame reality-TV crass thing or a game show.

Either way, it's another scripted program being taken off the air. Which sucks, regardless of how lame the show has become.

[vc318]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) Two things. First, as appalling and ludicrous as it is for Chris Brown to claim he's not guilty, you gotta know that he's taking legal counsel in this matter. Trials are about the truth, but they're a lot more about what can be proven. And, even though we've all seen the pictures, and we all know what's going on there, who knows...

Then his lawyer is as much as an idiot as he is. This isn't some drug or theft case - this is about ASSUALT. How you can do that to someone you supposedly love and then say you're not guilty for it is downright disgusting. He's just trying to avoid jail time. I hope the prosecutors are tough as nails and can prove this case well enough so that he doesn't get a free walk on this.

Second, I don't think soaps are meant to end... Are they? Besides, it would be something if, like in other parts of the world, one soap would be replaced by another. But that's not what CBS is gonna do. You know they're gonna replace it with some other lame reality-TV crass thing or a game show. Either way, it's another scripted program being taken off the air. Which sucks, regardless of how lame the show has become.

But it has suffered low ratings as of recent, right? I mean, it's a hard thing to keep a soap going that long with good storylines for such a long time. I don't think any other soap has been on that long.

[sunnykerr]

Actually, if his lawyer can get him off, he's as far from stupid as you get. It'd be quite the trick, given all the evidence against him.

And none of it will ever make the behaviour right, but it's his lawyer's job to get him acquitted. By law, Mr Brown is entitled to a defense. So, in fact, it would compound the wrong to have him go unrepresented. It doesn't make it right, but it is what it is.

And, of course, Guiding Light had low ratings. All soaps have low ratings. They're in the daytime, when a large segment of the population is typically at work. Besides, ALL television is sinking in the ratings.

No other soap has been on as long as Guiding Light, that's true. But that doesn't really mean anything. Soaps aren't like primetime TV. They're repetitive and incredibly conservative. They have their good periods and their bad periods.

It doesn't mean they shouldn't be cancelled. I know that. But it seems to me like networks are dumping them all, slowly but surely.

And I just find it sad that more and more scripted television is being sacrificed to yet more craptacular reality TV or game shows.

[vc318]

I think the networks are under even more pressure to ax any show that's not bringing in its revenue. I know - GL has given them their fair share and even more after over 70 years but I guess tough times are forcing them to take these sort of measures.

And I understand that Chris Brown is entitled to a fair trial just as much as anyone else out there, but a far as morals, he really showed what kind of person he is especially after this weak plea. I really don't see how he can be found innocent after this but in this day and age, anything is possible.

[sunnykerr]

Originally Posted by vc318 (View Post) I think the networks are under even more pressure to ax any show that's not bringing in its revenue. I know - GL has given them their fair share and even more after over 70 years but I guess tough times are forcing them to take these sort of measures.

Oh, I understand that.

But that implies that there are shows that would bring in more revenue than soaps, and I just don't see that happening. Especially not in a timeslot that has been occupied for decades upon decades by soaps.

First of all, we see how replacing shows to try and get better ratings doesn't happen very often in primetime. Also, if you'll allow me to repeat myself, daytime shows face particular challenges that aren't going to change, regardless of the nature of the programs chosen.

Obviously, the decision's been made and nothing anyone can say about it will change it. I just think it's a shame.

And I don't think firing entire teams of actors, writers, directors, makeup artists, etc., is gonna help any economy.

Originally Posted by vc318 (View Post) And I understand that Chris Brown is entitled to a fair trial just as much as anyone else out there, but a far as morals, he really showed what kind of person he is especially after this weak plea. I really don't see how he can be found innocent after this but in this day and age, anything is possible.

Well, who knows if he will be found innocent.

But it is the usual legal strategy to at least try and fight the charges, if for no other reason than to diminish it so that the sentence ultimately given will likewise be reduced.

I would imagine that in cases such as that of Chris Brown, where so much of his ability to make money is tied in to his image, it becomes particularly important to the defense to try and mitigate circumstances as much as they can.

I don't think it'll succeed, but I am not surprised or appalled by the decision to plead not guilty. I wasn't expecting anything else.

[vc318]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) Oh, I understand that. But that implies that there are shows that would bring in more revenue than soaps, and I just don't see that happening. Especially not in a timeslot that has been occupied for decades upon decades by soaps.

Good point. Whatever program is chosen to replace that timeslot will have big shoes to fill.

And I don't think firing entire teams of actors, writers, directors, makeup artists, etc., is gonna help any economy.

I wish you could explain that to the countless businesses who keep letting people go on a daily basis.

I would imagine that in cases such as that of Chris Brown, where so much of his ability to make money is tied in to his image, it becomes particularly important to the defense to try and mitigate circumstances as much as they can. I don't think it'll succeed, but I am not surprised or appalled by the decision to plead not guilty. I wasn't expecting anything else.

I think whether he is found innocent or guilty, this guy is done for. His character is pretty much tarnished. He has refused to get any professional help and has not taken the least bit of responsibility for his actions. I'm sure his album sales have plummeted since this all came out.

[sunnykerr]

I think time will tell for Chris Brown. The entertainment industry has a very interesting habit of "redeeming" some of its offenders...

I'm not comparing crimes here, but Woody Allen married his step-daughter. Roman Polansky slept with a 13-year-old. Yet they're both still considered good directors. Which they no doubt are. I wouldn't know. I don't watch their movies. But the point is that they're still professionally well regarded and... busy, or whatever.

Now, sleeping with underage people isn't the same as using violence. And you really can't compare the two.

Also, Woody Allen's fans and Roman Polansky's fans have probably always been older than the tweens and teens who were/are a large part of the Chris Brown audience...

[vc318]

News in the entertainment world continues down its twisted path:

'Slumdog' Child Star Allegedly For Sale

'Slumdog' Child Star Allegedly For Sale

(April 19) - The child stars of 'Slumdog Millionaire' have made news repeatedly since their return to India, little of it good. In the most tragic turn, Britain's News of the World has accused Rubina's Ali's father of attempting to sell the nine-year-old actress.

Rafiq Qureshi allegedly offered to let News of the World's undercover "fake sheik" adopt his daughter, saying, "I have to consider what's best for me, my family and Rubina's future." The asking price? Thousands of rupees, worth almost $400,000.

The British paper reports that Rafiq's brother helped to engineer a sale, adding, "The child is special now. This is NOT an ordinary child. This is an Oscar child!" Rubina Ali played young Latika in the award-winning film.
"Rubina's family are furious that despite the film doing so well and their pretty daughter becoming so famous, they are still living in such rough conditions," a local source told News of the World. "They were approached by one wealthy Middle Eastern family who saw their plight... Dad Rafiq is streetwise and knows that soon his daughter's success will be forgotten and her moment of fame will be over. He has a family to feed and simply can't afford it. He is keen to find a rich family to bring up Rubina but only if they are willing to help the whole family to get out of the slums."

News of the World claims they were tipped off by an informant close to the family, and sent a reporter to gather more information. The article details a conversation between the undercover journalist and Rafiq's brother-in-law, who reportedly explained, "Obviously if you wanted to adopt we could discuss this, but her parents would also expect some proper compensation in return."


It's no secret that this sort of thing goes on but there's some twisted concept out there that a rich family means a "loving" family. And then to pawn off the poor child like some golden retriever just because she was in a movie? I'm just speechless.

[wanderer78]

I'm really sad about GL being cancelled. I really wish the network would rethink it. Especially considering the history involved.

The SM story is so sad. Actually, the producers offered to move her family into an apt, but they wanted cash.

[sunnykerr]

I'm hearing so many conflicting stories about the SM story. The father's now come out saying he didn't try to sell his daughter but the paper tried to get him to do it...

I don't know. It's horrible if it did happen. If it didn't, it's really sneaky and conniving of the paper. It's not like the man has many means of defending his good name.

I can't imagine what it must be like. They've lived in poverty for generations. I think it's probably normal that they don't trust outsiders easily. I also think this probably means that they'll try to milk their daughter's financial potential as much as they can, which is another kind of horrible altogether.

[vc318]

Don't they prostitute their little girls there as well? So, I'm sure the stories are true and he's just trying to cover it up since the media got wind of all this.

[amble]

With the Slumdog Millionaire story I think we have to take into account that its the News Of The World that ran this story. Its a sunday morning tabloid that focuses mainly on celebrities and their lives.
On the other hand though, they have run undercover stories before now and what they have printed has been true.
Personally I think that the story is true. They live in poverty and I'm guessing the man will do anything for money, even selling his own daughter. I think he is denying trying to sell her because of he backlash that he is going to get from people

[sunnykerr]

Little girls are prostituted in certain slums of India, but it's by no means an automatic thing.

But I do think it's a good thing that independent officials will look into her situation. At least, I seriously hope they do. Because, indeed, maybe her father didn't try to sell her, and maybe he wouldn't prostitute her. But look at what happens to little girls who suddenly make a lot of money in the USA. Look at how Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears and all those girls became their entire family's main breadwinner. And that's in a country where there are laws protecting children from exploitation.

I shudder to think what could happen in a place where there are no such safeguards.

[Dana_Lana]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) Now, sleeping with underage people isn't the same as using violence. And you really can't compare the two.

Gonna have to disagree here. Having sex with a child (especially a 13 year old child) is very much a violent act. Sexual abuse is any time that a child is engaged in a sexual situation with an adult. It's very much abuse of the worst kind to me.