Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm not a big Big Brother fan. And please forgive me this thread. But I flicked on C4 tonight hoping to see the super Swede stunner I fondly recalled from my student days. And got a bit of a shock.


Yes it's ten years later. And we all age. Hey thats cool. And looks beauty is skin deep anyways etc. And I was hoping for some graceful wrinkles.But has anyone else noticed there is something really weird about her face now? I think its the cheeks...but can't put my finger on it - can anyone else?


And while I'm at it, what about La Toya Jacksons nose? She is looking like ET with long hair. Or her brother Michael. Is this all plastic surgery in action? Whats wrong with ageing gracefully?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/4856-ulrika-jonsson/
Share on other sites

zephyr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ulrika - I think she has been Botoxed (sp?).


Quite the reverse - mrs.number5 and I settled on the single adjective of "jowly"



DISCLAIMER: MR & MRS NUMBER5 ARE NOT, NOR WILL THEY EVER BE, WATCHING CELEBRITY BB. TUNING IN TO THE LAST 5 MINUTES OF THE OPENING SHOW TO SEE WHO'S IN JUST OUT OF PATRONISING CURIOSITY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE WATCHING. THANK YOU.

So what nonenties did you notice in there BN during your 5 minutes worth?

The Ladyfriend I'm visiting tonight likes nothing better than seeing many people she does not know or will ever meet chat pointlessly about nothing at all so I'd better prepare myself(!)

If you saw Ulrika on Shooting Stars last week you would have really had a shock. All panda eyed make-up and epitomising the look of the old trollop she is.


Really harsh man!


I watched Shooting Stars last night (recorded it), and thought she looked pretty good at 41. I also don't know why she has such a bad rep as a tart, what did she do that was so bad?


So she has kids by different dads, so fecking what?!?

But how does that make her different from nearly any other celeb, or person you could mention? Everone loves little Kylie, and she's had a fair few fellas.


Chat to your average 41 year old woman (or man for that matter), and the majority of them (especially ones that hadn't been married) will have had a few partners in their time. Nout wrong in that at all.


I am not a massive Ulrika fan, but I do hink she has had a lot of really harsh treatment just cos she's had a few boyfriends.

I dont see what all the fuss about her is really, granted im not from this land so only have limited knowledge but as far as I know she has had 4 kids by 4 dads but is a good mum and very open about her history.. not quite sure why she gets crucified for that..


ho hum...


oh and NO WAY will I be watching the BB.. I hear in Australia its been banned, lets hope the rest of the world follows suit!

Despite my aforeposted jowly remark, i thought she was looking good on her years, and naturally so, sans botox, surgery etc.


As for the judgement on her personal life, i don't give it a great deal of thought, but she is a part of a special club of famous ladies with entry requirements as follows: if they weren't famous, social services would (post Climbie-Report) be keeping an eye, but they're famous so hello/heat mag can do it instead. Other members include the infamous Katona woman.


I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with having 4 kids by 4 fathers per-se, it's just an observation of an apparent imbalance as alluded to by Mockers.


(edit for typos)

Er, quite - think you answered your own point there, Mockers.


Re: Shooting Stars, did anyone else laugh till they nearly peed at the Simon Cowell / bear whathavetheygotincommon? Other than that, it was a bit of a sigh-inducing trip down Memory Lane.. and like dear old Viz just not nearly as funny as it used to be?


edit to say ffs, what's that BN5? Why would social services be involved? Social services get involved when you don't feed/wash/generally take care of your kids.. anyone accusing Ulrika of that??

Didn't want to make this about social standing, but don't think the mere fact she's a celebrity has anything to do with anything. The fact is, she chose to have her kids, and she can afford to care for them, good on her. Noone has mentioned the 4 dads who have left the mother of their children alone again once things looked like getting serious!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hi - I posted a request for some help with a stuck door and possible leaky roof. I had responses from Lukasz at Look_as.com and Pawel at Sublime Builders. I don't see any/many reviews - has anyone used either person?  Could use a recommendation rather then just being contact by the tradespeople... Many Thanks 
    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...