keepittight
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 3:43:29 GMT -4
|
Post by keepittight on Aug 2, 2006 8:33:40 GMT -4
This just makes me very sad indeed.This just goes to show that snidey comments about someone's looks in the press really do have a detrimental effect on the young women they are aimed at. I remember when she first came on the music scene she was full of life and almost obnoxiously overconfident- and her debut album was incredibly well written for a then 19 year old. But there was a LOT of negativity about her looks, her face in particular, to the point she once said "I'm ugly, I don't give a shit". Now she looks like she's trying to disappear. Just really very sad. It disgusts me how many people in the comments link above are saying she looks better now. Seriously. What the fuck is wrong with people!?
|
|
girlnamedcarl
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 3:43:29 GMT -4
|
Post by girlnamedcarl on Aug 2, 2006 8:37:17 GMT -4
Damn. The pic on the left looks like Dave Navarro. I have no idea who this woman is (British jazz singer?), but I strongly suspect that heroin might have at least a walk-on role in her (dis)appearance.
|
|
keepittight
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 3:43:29 GMT -4
|
Post by keepittight on Aug 2, 2006 8:42:20 GMT -4
Yeah, she's a British soul singer who got a lot of critical acclaim/awards attention in 2004, nominated for Brits etc. Most people know her for giving Charlotte Church-ian interviews in which she roundly slated most of her peers (I can't imagine what she'd make of James Blunt, but I imagine it wouldn't be pretty). She definitely likes her drugs, she's said on record more than once that she smoked spliffs daily, and she was notorious for going on stage wasted. She's very talented, though, and seemed likeable and funny in interviews. Now she looks like just another Camden scenester ho. Sad.
|
|
|
Post by littleblacksheep on Aug 2, 2006 8:42:59 GMT -4
That is sad. She has completely wasted away and yeah, can totally see the Dave Navarro resemblence. She looks more like him than like her former self. The tattoos don't help.
|
|
ownlife
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 3:43:29 GMT -4
|
Post by ownlife on Aug 2, 2006 8:57:04 GMT -4
I've never heard of her and she definitely wasn't ugly in the "before" picture but she looks terrible now.
|
|
groovethang
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 3:43:29 GMT -4
|
Post by groovethang on Aug 2, 2006 9:04:45 GMT -4
I find it hard to believe she was a 14 before (according to the article linked upthread) - I'm guessing they were referring to her size in US terms? - she looked great in the picture on the right and not heavy AT ALL.
|
|
madrugada
Blueblood
Oh bother.
Posts: 1,636
Mar 1, 2006 0:35:26 GMT -4
|
Post by madrugada on Aug 2, 2006 9:14:35 GMT -4
I don't know who she is, but she was beautiful before and looks like hell now.
Size 6? I'd say more likely a size 0 or - tops - a 2.
The bruises on her legs and arms scare me. She looks so bad that I'd like to reach out and give her a hug.
|
|
|
Post by littleblacksheep on Aug 2, 2006 9:24:21 GMT -4
I think they're Uk sizes So before a US 8 and now a US 2. US 4 = 34 inches? Can't believe I've fogotten.
|
|
|
Post by chonies on Aug 2, 2006 9:30:59 GMT -4
I think a UK 14 is a US 12.
Not only is the weight loss dramatic, but those tattoos are hideous. She really was lovely before; I've never heard of her but the "gravel voiced award winning jazz" is intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by Auroranorth on Aug 2, 2006 11:07:27 GMT -4
What a difference three years makes. Lovely before, dreadful now.
|
|