Sunday, September 21, 2003

COURT REPORT: The ongoing court battle between Holly Vallance and Brad from Neighbours has finally started to attract the attention of the British media, because Holly has started to give evidence and the attention has turned to her - ah - rauncy photoshoots.

Holly told the court in New South Wales that all Michaelson was getting her was FHM cover shoots and that she was sick of it. There then followed an exchange about if she was so tired of being sold on her body, why did she make the Kiss video?

But Michaelson's lawyer, John Garnsey QC, quizzed the singer on the Kiss Kiss video, which she shot with eight male dancers in London just prior to dropping Michaelson.
"I want to suggest to you that Kiss Kiss is a very seductive video . . . and that you appear in a state of semi-undress?," Mr Garnsey said.
"I appear that way, but I wasn't. It was more of a mirage," she replied.

Ah, so providing it's only that you look naked, then it's not titilation, then, Holly?

Far more curious, though, is the question that if Holly dumped Scott/Brad because he was marketing her in a titalating way, with which she didn't agree, how does she explain the cover of this month's FHM, which is, erm, Holly Vallance in her pants? We hope she's not, you know, fibbing to the Australian court in the hope that nobody in Australia has access to the internet...

No comments:

Post a Comment

As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.