Latest news with #Crystal
2 hours ago
- Entertainment
Hulk Hogan's daughter honors late WWE star in moving posts on their 'eternal bond'
Brooke Hogan is opening up about her late father, Hulk Hogan. The legendary WWE Hall of Famer, whose real name is Terry Gene Bollea, died last Thursday. He was 71. On Tuesday, his daughter took to Instagram and shared two posts about him. The first post she shared was a lengthy statement about her and her dad's relationship, in which she wrote about their "sacred bond." "My dad's blood runs through my veins," she began. "His eyes shine through my children. And our bond has never been broken, not even in his final moments. We had a connection deeper than words, one that spanned lifetimes." She continued, "I am so grateful I knew the real version of him. Not just the one the world viewed through a carefully curated lens. We shared a quiet, sacred bond, one that could be seen and felt by anyone who witnessed us together." "When he left this earth, it felt like part of my spirit left with him," she added. "I felt it before the news even reached us." The singer and actress also cleared up reports in the media that she said "has been convoluting the narrative" about their relationship. "We never had a 'big fight,'" she began. "My father and I never 'fought.' It was a series of private phone calls no one will ever hear, know, or understand. My father was confiding in me about issues weighing on his heart, both personal and business." She continued, "I offered to be a life raft in whatever capacity he needed. I told him he had my support. I begged him to rest, to take care of himself. He had nothing else to prove to the world or anyone." Brooke Hogan went on to say that leading up to her father's death, she and her husband moved to Florida to be closer to him. "He was getting older. I wanted to be there as much as possible," she said, adding that it came to a point in their relationship when Hulk Hogan didn't want her to be around for his surgeries. "Everything started getting covered in a thick veil. It was like there was a force field around him that I couldn't get through," she said. Ultimately, she said she had to "step away to protect my heart," but her husband, Steven Oleksy, continued to reach out to her dad. "I know in my heart I did everything I could," she said. "He knew I would run through a burning building for him. And in many ways, along the path of life, I did. He knows how deeply, how hard and how purely I loved him. I am at peace knowing this." She added that her "world is forever changed" and thanked his fans and friends for their love over the past few days. Separately, Brooke Hogan shared another post featuring a photo slideshow of photos with her dad over the years. In the caption of the video, which includes the song "Crystal" by Stevie Nicks, Brooke Hogan said that she is "PROUD to be your daughter" and thanked him "for choosing me in this lifetime, and for loving me so deeply." "Our bond is eternal," she added. "That truth brings me comfort and hope, even in your absence." She ended her message by writing, "I love you more than stars in the sky, 4LifeAfterLife."
The Independent
a day ago
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Laurence Fox ‘paedophile' posts would not have been taken seriously, appeal told
Social media posts by Laurence Fox referring to two people as paedophiles likely would not have been taken 'seriously' by many people, the Court of Appeal has heard. The actor was successfully sued by now- Stonewall CEO Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal over a row on Twitter, now known as X. Mr Fox called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul's Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, 'paedophiles' in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month in October 2020. Mr Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called 'a racist' by the pair, as well as broadcaster Nicola Thorp, before he responded with the 'paedophile' tweets which led to the libel claims. In two judgments in 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour and said Mr Fox should pay the pair £90,000 each in damages. The judge dismissed Mr Fox's counter claims against the pair and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. The 47-year-old is now challenging the rulings at the Court of Appeal in London, attending the first day of the hearing on Monday. Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the judgment which found Mr Fox had libelled the pair should be quashed due to 'errors of approach' by the judge, including over whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were caused serious harm. Mr Green said: 'Her conclusions were in any event, plainly wrong, on any fair consideration of the evidence.' The barrister added that Mrs Justice Collins Rice had wrongly decided damages for the two men, who, along with Ms Thorp, are opposing the appeal. Mr Green said that the decision on damages did not consider the actual words Mr Fox used 'and the likelihood that many or the vast majority of readers would have not have taken them seriously, particularly in their context'. The barrister said that in one of her rulings, the judge 'ignores the actual words used, or their all important context'. He also said the judge 'failed to account adequately or at all' for an apology Mr Fox made, or alleged misconduct by Mr Blake and Mr Seymour in 'exaggerating' the harm and distress caused. Mr Fox told the original trial in November 2023 that his use of the term was 'rhetorical', and 'there was no inference at any point that I thought they were a paedophile'. 'I was diminishing the ridiculousness of calling me a racist,' he said. And on Monday, Mr Green said it was clear Mr Fox was being rhetorical. The barrister told appeal judges: 'He's not saying 'I am a racist and they are paedophiles' and everyone understood it in that way.' Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox's appeal was 'lacking in merit'. She continued: 'The 'paedophile' tweets did not embody the appellant's opinions about Mr Blake and Mr Seymour. 'They conveyed factual imputations of the most serious defamatory character.' The barrister added there was 'no meaningful retraction or apology' by Mr Fox. She later said: 'Whichever way one looks at it, the judge was fully entitled to reach the factual conclusions that she did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the appellant's tweets, for the reasons which she gave. 'There was nothing wrong with her analysis in fact or law.' Ms Page added that Mr Fox's case at trial had been 'largely devoted to hypothesising, as already noted, a series of different scenarios as to the various ways or settings in which his tweets may have appeared to different readers'. 'After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judge was, unsurprisingly, not persuaded of this on the facts,' she continued. Ms Page continued that the sums of £90,000 in damages awarded to the pair were 'unexceptionable'. The hearing before Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Tuesday.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Laurence Fox ‘paedophile' posts would not have been taken seriously, appeal told
Social media posts by Laurence Fox referring to two people as paedophiles likely would not have been taken 'seriously' by many people, the Court of Appeal has heard. The actor-turned-activist was successfully sued by now-Stonewall CEO Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal over a row on Twitter, now known as X. Mr Fox called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul's Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, 'paedophiles' in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month in October 2020. Mr Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called 'a racist' by the pair, as well as broadcaster Nicola Thorp, before he responded with the 'paedophile' tweets which led to the libel claims. In two judgments in 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour and said Mr Fox should pay the pair £90,000 each in damages. The judge dismissed Mr Fox's counter claims against the pair and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. The 47-year-old is now challenging the rulings at the Court of Appeal in London, attending the first day of the hearing on Monday. Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the judgment which found Mr Fox had libelled the pair should be quashed due to 'errors of approach' by the judge, including over whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were caused serious harm. Mr Green said: 'Her conclusions were in any event, plainly wrong, on any fair consideration of the evidence.' The barrister added that Mrs Justice Collins Rice had wrongly decided damages for the two men, who, along with Ms Thorp, are opposing the appeal. Mr Green said that the decision on damages did not consider the actual words Mr Fox used 'and the likelihood that many or the vast majority of readers would have not have taken them seriously, particularly in their context'. The barrister said that in one of her rulings, the judge 'ignores the actual words used, or their all important context'. He also said the judge 'failed to account adequately or at all' for an apology Mr Fox made, or alleged misconduct by Mr Blake and Mr Seymour in 'exaggerating' the harm and distress caused. Mr Fox told the original trial in November 2023 that his use of the term was 'rhetorical', and 'there was no inference at any point that I thought they were a paedophile'. 'I was diminishing the ridiculousness of calling me a racist,' he said. And on Monday, Mr Green said it was clear Mr Fox was being rhetorical. The barrister told appeal judges: 'He's not saying 'I am a racist and they are paedophiles' and everyone understood it in that way.' Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox's appeal was 'lacking in merit'. She continued: 'The 'paedophile' tweets did not embody the appellant's opinions about Mr Blake and Mr Seymour. 'They conveyed factual imputations of the most serious defamatory character.' The barrister added there was 'no meaningful retraction or apology' by Mr Fox. She later said: 'Whichever way one looks at it, the judge was fully entitled to reach the factual conclusions that she did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the appellant's tweets, for the reasons which she gave. 'There was nothing wrong with her analysis in fact or law.' Ms Page added that Mr Fox's case at trial had been 'largely devoted to hypothesising, as already noted, a series of different scenarios as to the various ways or settings in which his tweets may have appeared to different readers'. 'After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judge was, unsurprisingly, not persuaded of this on the facts,' she continued. Ms Page continued that the sums of £90,000 in damages awarded to the pair were 'unexceptionable'. The hearing before Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Tuesday.
Daily Mirror
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Laurence Fox appeal LIVE: Actor arrives at court to appeal £180k ‘paedophile' row fine
Actor-turned-politician Laurence Fox is appearing at The Royal Courts of Justice today to appeal against libel judgements after being ordered to pay £180,000 in damages for calling two people 'paedophiles'. Mental health campaigner Simon Blake, Drag star Crystal, and actress Nicola Thorp began legal proceedings against actor-turned-activist on 1 April, 2021. The claimants allege Mr Fox defamed them on Twitter in October 2020. The comments have since been deleted. Mr Fox defended his comments, claiming the term "paedophiles" was a "meaningless and baseless" insult. He said: "Free speech. You throw meaningless and baseless insults at someone you get a meaningless and baseless insult in return." He added: "People can call me whatever they want." Fox is now appealing against libel judgments after he was ordered to pay £180,000 in damages to Simon Blake and Drag star Crystal. After losing the High Court case last year, Fox vowed to appeal the ruling and suggested £2 million had been spent on the legal battle. At the time he said: "Today a judge in the High Court has ruled I didn't suffer any serious harm through the allegation of racism made against me, which is strange because at the same time she also declined to define the meaning of the word racist." Of the appeal, he said: "That's another million quid we are going to have to spend to find out the meaning of a word every single person in this country knows." 11:35KEY EVENT Laurence Fox puffs on cigarette as he arrives at Royal Court of Justice Fox was pictured arriving at the Royal Court of Justice on Monday as he walked hand-in-hand with his wife Elizabeth Barker. The wannabe politician stood outside the courts to finish his cigarette as he told photographs that he would not turn his back away from the cameras to pose for a picture ahead of the appeal. Fox wore a white shirt and a pair of blue jeans as he arrived at the court. He also wore a pair of sunglasses and wore a pair of spectacles on his shirt. When asked by a photgrapher if he could turn around and look at the camera, Fox replied: "No! Why would I want to look at you guys?" 09:07Susan Knox Fox ordered to pay £180,000 in libel damages Fox was ordered to pay £90,000 in damages two of the people he referred to as "paedophiles" in October 2020. The actor-turned-politician lost a High Court libel case with former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal. In a post after the ruling, Mr Fox said he intended to appeal and today he is doing it at The Royal Courts of Justice. In January, the court ruled in favour of Mr Blake and former RuPaul's Drag Race contestant Crystal, whose real name is Colin Seymour, and dismissed Mr Fox's counter-claims. Mrs Justice Collins Rice said in her written ruling: "By calling Mr Blake and Mr Seymour paedophiles, Mr Fox subjected them to a wholly undeserved public ordeal. "It was a gross, groundless and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them. "They are entitled by law to an award of money, to compensate them for those damaging effects, and to ensure that they can put this matter behind them, vindicated and confident that no-one can sensibly doubt their blamelessness of that disgusting slur and that they were seriously wronged by it." The judge said there was "no element" of punishment for Mr Fox in the judgement, with the damages due "purely compensatory". She said Mr Fox could be found guilty of contempt of court if he repeated the allegations against Mr Blake and Mr Seymour. 09:02Susan Knox What did Fox say in his tweets to Simon Blake, Nicola Thorp, and drag artist Crystal? The fall out started in October 2020 when Mr Fox announced on the social media platform he was boycotting Sainsbury's supermarket over their support of Black History Month and former Coronation Street actress Thorpe, Stonewall Trustee Blake, and drag queen Crystal criticised his tweet and accused him of racism – Laurence then responded in three separate tweets calling each of the trio "peadophiles". After Fox shared his message about no longer shopping at the supermarket, Blake, CEO of Mental Health First Aid England and chair of Stonewall UK – who campaign for the equality of lesbian, gay, bi and trans people across Britain and abroad – retweeted his tweet and penned: "What a mess. What a racist t**t." In response, Fox tweeted alongside Blake's message: "Pretty rich coming from a paedophile." Simon then replied: "Hi @LozzaFox - please would you remove this tweet as you know it to be untrue. Thanks." And Laurence used the same slur towards Nicola and Crystal as they embarked on an online debate. Nicole also criticised the actor's post and wrote in one tweet: "Any company giving future employment to Laurence Fox, or providing him with a platform, does so with the complete knowledge that he is unequivocally, publicly and undeniably a racist. And they should probably re-read their own statements of 'solidarity' with the black community." Laurence re-posted the message and typed: "Hey @nicolathorp_ Any company giving future employment to Nicola Thorpe or providing her with a platform does so with the complete knowledge that she is unequivocally, publicly and undeniably a paedophile." Drag queen Crystal also replied to Fox, tweeting: "Imagine being this proud of being a racist. So cringe. Total snowflake behaviour." Fox, 42, responded to the star - real name Colin Munro - writing: "Says the paedophile", in a tweet that has since been deleted. 09:00Susan Knox Why is Laurence Fox in court today? Laurence Fox is appealling against libel judgments after calling two people 'paedophiles' in a bitter social media row. Fox is challenging two High Court rulings after he was ordered to pay a total of £180,000 in damages to two people he was found to have libelled when he referred to them as paedophiles on social media. Mental health campaigner Simon Blake, Drag star Crystal, and actress Nicola Thorp began legal proceedings against actor-turned-activist on 1 April, 2021. The claimants allege Mr Fox defamed them on Twitter in October 2020. The comments have since been deleted. Mr Fox defended his comments, claiming the term "paedophiles" was a "meaningless and baseless" insult. He said: "Free speech. You throw meaningless and baseless insults at someone you get a meaningless and baseless insult in return." He added: "People can call me whatever they want."
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Laurence Fox arrives at court with his new wife to challenge £180k ruling after losing libel battle against two men he branded paedophiles
Laurence Fox has arrived at court with his wife to challenge a £180,000 High Court ruling after losing a libel battle against two men he branded 'paedophiles' online. The actor-turned-politician was successfully sued last year by former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal over a row on X, formerly Twitter. Fox, 47, called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul 's Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, 'paedophiles' in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month in October 2020. A High Court judge said Fox should pay both men £90,000 each in damages and slammed the Reclaim Party founder for trying to 'attach blame and discredit' the pair during litigation. Shortly after the verdict was announced in April 2024, Fox called the result 'so surreal it's almost funny' in a bizarre social media post in which he also claimed: 'Lady justice ain't blind. She's got both eyes wide open.' He wrote: 'None of the claimants could provide a single witness in court to support the claim that they had suffered any harm. You get the same wonga if you lose a leg at work. 'So surreal it's almost funny. Lady justice ain't blind. She's got both eyes wide open. Will be appealing.' Fox and his wife Elizabeth arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice in London this morning as the right-wing online provocateur sought to make good on his vow to appeal the judgment. Sporting a tattoo of a crucifix on his neck and smoking a cigarette, Fox arrived hand-in-hand with his wife, who he married earlier this year during a private ceremony. The former actor was dressed in a white shirt, jeans and a pair of tan Vivo barefoot hiking boots worth about £296. During the last court battle, Fox had counter-sued Mr Blake and Mr Seymour and broadcaster Nicola Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. In a previous judgment in January 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, dismissing Mr Fox's counter-claims. During a ruling in April of that year, the judge said Mr Fox should pay Mr Blake and Mr Seymour £90,000 each in damages. She said: 'By calling Mr Blake and Mr Seymour paedophiles, Mr Fox subjected them to a wholly undeserved public ordeal. It was a gross, groundless and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them.' During the previous court case, Lorna Skinner KC, for Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, had said the pair should receive 'at least six-figure sums' from Mr Fox, calling a suggestion the pair should only receive a 'modest' award 'nonsense'. However, Patrick Green KC, for Fox, said the starting point of damages should be between £10,000 and £20,000, with the total being 'substantially lowered' due to an apology from Mr Fox and the absence of malice. Fox previously described the original judgment as a 'bullies charter' and said he disagreed 'profoundly' with the result. He said in a post on X at the time: 'I don't know what the judge will award these people. But the costs of these proceedings are enormous. So a whopper of a cheque is getting written in the next few days.' Fox added: 'We are seeing the courts used maliciously across the west and that is a very concerning trend. So enjoy the victory guys and I hope it is short lived!' Mrs Justice Collins Rice declined to make an order requiring the 47-year-old to publish a summary of the judge's decision on his X account. During a hearing in March 2024, Mr Green had said there was no need for the Lewis actor to publicise the ruling decision on his social media. He said in written submissions: 'This has been the most high-profile libel action of the year and both the trial and the judgment were massively reported in the media.... There can be few, if any, original publishees in the present case who will be unaware of its outcome.' The barrister added: 'The outcome of this long-running case literally could not be better known than it is already. 'For whatever passing doubts or vague suspicions that may have at some time subsisted in the minds of readers, only a modest financial award in compensation should be due.' Mr Green added: 'The remarks were quickly retracted and apologised for, and at the very least it was clear to the public at large at an early stage that the allegation was baseless.'
