Dannii Minougue reignites decades-old feud with Sharon Osbourne and Graham Norton who ‘ripped her to shreds' on TV
The pop star, 53, described feeling the victim of a "pile on" when she Sharon appeared as a guest on The Graham Norton Show in 2007.
7
7
7
7
Dannii recently reignited her old feud with Sharon and blamed Graham and his production team for planning the comments in advance and springing them on her live on TV.
Speaking on How to Fail with Elizabeth Day Danni said: "I think the difference was it wasn't being rude. There had to be production meetings to set up the things that they were doing on set in this show and these huge personalities that I looked up to and just loved what they had done."
Dannii continued: "'I'd loved Sharon Osbourne on X Factor. I'd love her on the Osborne's.
"I loved what Graham Norton was doing, and here were these people just tearing me to pieces. That show would never be made today."
Dannii recalled how Graham made fun of her appearance saying she "looked bizarre" and also mocked her music career and Aussie accent.
When Graham's fellow guest on the episode, Buffy star David Boreanaz, asked to see a photo of Dannii, Sharon stood up and pointed to her behind and said "look at this."
The Sun contacted the BBC, and representatives for Graham and Sharon for comment.
As former colleagues on the X-Factor, Dannii and Sharon have been involved in a long-running feud.
At the time, their argument reportedly stemmed from Dannii's relationship with exec producer and head judge Simon Cowell.
Dannii did not deny flirting with Simon, but she denied any relationship.
Inside X Factor's fresh backlash x years after show axe as former host reveals she was sacked
Danni previously confessed: "But that man could flirt with a book, a wall, anything."
But Sharon couldn't stand to sit next to the Australian singer during X-Factor as she confessed to Piers Morgan 's Life Stories.
The former music manager admitted: "I didn't hate her because hatred is very close to love and takes a lot of emotion and I don't have that time for her."
She added: "She was like an insect, a mosquito that wouldn't go away."
In her autobiography, Unbreakable, Sharon said that she found the time she spent together with Dannii as "an odious chore."
Dannii eventually left the show in 2010, and there was clearly no love lost on her side of the argument either as she slammed Sharon in public as well.
She said: "Sharon announced to anyone who would listen that I was impossible to work with, that I was only on The X Factor because of my looks – not any visible talent or contribution to the entertainment industry – and Simon employed me only because he wanted to sleep with me.'
7
7
7
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
9 minutes ago
- BBC News
Kemi Badenoch: I don't identify as Nigerian any more
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has said she no longer identifies as Nigerian and has not renewed her passport since the early who was born in the UK, grew up in both Nigeria and the US. She returned to England aged 16 because of Nigeria's worsening political and economic climate, and to continue her on former MP and television presenter Gyles Brandreth's Rosebud podcast, she said she was "Nigerian through ancestry" though "by identity, I'm not really".Last year, Badenoch faced criticism from Nigeria's vice president who said she had "denigrated" the West African country. Badenoch, who lived in Lagos, spoke at length about her upbringing on the podcast. "I know the country very well, I have a lot of family there, and I'm very interested in what happens there. But home is where my now family is."On not renewing her passport, she said: "I don't identify with it any more, most of my life has been in the UK and I've just never felt the need to.""I'm Nigerian through ancestry, by birth, despite not being born there because of my parents... but by identity I'm not really," she added. Badenoch said when she visited the country when her father died she had to get a visa, which was "a big fandango".She said her early experiences in Nigeria shaped her political outlook, including "why I don't like socialism".As a child "I remember never quite feeling that I belonged there", she went on, saying she recalled "coming back to the UK in 1996 thinking this is home".At the end of last year, Badenoch was criticised for saying she had grown up in fear and insecurity in Nigeria, which was plagued by corruption. The country's vice president Kashim Shettima responded, saying his government was "proud" of Badenoch "in spite of her efforts at denigrating her nation of origin". A spokesperson for Badenoch rebuffed the criticism.
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A large pro-Palestine protest has won legal right to march across Harbour Bridge. How will the shutdown affect Sydney?
A pro-Palestine protest that plans to march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge will go ahead with legal protection after its organisers won a supreme court challenge. The court heard up to 50,000 people were expected to attend – the same number of people who marched across the bridge for World Pride in 2023. New South Wales police sought powers to move on protesters and expressed serious concerns about the disruption a large protest on the bridge would have on the city. But Justice Belinda Rigg said disruption and inconvenience alone were not enough to stifle the right to political protest and noted 'significant support for the march'. Here are some answers to questions you may have about the march, including its planned route, transport disruptions and potential risks. The ruling means protesters will have immunity from being charged under the Summary Offences Act. This includes protection from offences like 'obstructing traffic' – crucial in this particular protest. However, police will still have access to a range of other powers to stem what the court described as 'antisocial behaviour' or other types of offending. This includes showing prohibited symbols. David Mejia-Canales, a senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, said the authorisation 'doesn't give people the ability to engage in all types and all forms of activism'. 'It's really important for people who do attend that they follow the directions of organisers and marshals.' There is no authority to ban protest or deem it unlawful in NSW. This is because, while there is no express right to protest in the state, it is covered in common law and by the Australian constitution, which the high court has found implies the right to freedom of political communication. The protest will begin at 1pm on Sunday at Lang Park in Sydney's CBD. Protesters will then march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge into north Sydney. Early plans shared with protesters stated the march would end at the US consulate, but this may change. The protest is expected to last several hours. The bridge will be closed to traffic from about 11.30am. Police hope it will reopen to traffic from about 4pm. They have advised people to avoid the CBD and travel in the city unless necessary. Yes, but NSW police will comply with the court's decision and say they are working with protest organisers to address issues and concerns. A significant police presence will be in the city, including officers brought in from across the suburbs. The force has said it will also use specialist resources, including the public order and riot squad and mounted police. Police have advised the public to expect significant disruptions in and around the CBD. A counter protest against antisemitism, organised by the Christian-led group Never Again is Now, will not be granted legal protection because, according to the supreme court, 'notice was served less than seven days before the proposed assembly'. The group had been planning to protest outside the Sydney harbour tunnel, close to the pro-Palestinian march. Rigg said police would have the legal power to direct this group to move on or, if necessary, arrest demonstrators for non-compliance. These powers will not extend to those marching in the pro-Palestine demonstration. The state government is yet to respond to the supreme court decision. Earlier this week, Chris Minns opposed the protest, saying: 'We cannot allow Sydney to descend into chaos.' But several NSW Labor MPs defied their premier, vowing to attend the march. Labor's Stephen Lawrence, Anthony D'Adam, Lynda Voltz, Cameron Murphy and Sarah Kaine were among 15 NSW politicians who signed an open letter on Thursday evening calling on the government to facilitate 'a safe and orderly event' on Sunday. The state opposition leader, Mark Speakman, said while he respected the freedom to protest, including with rallies and marches, 'allowing the takeover of the Harbour Bridge for a protest in the middle of the day sets the wrong precedent for the future'.
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.
