egafd.com

Yes, she certainly knows how to achieve financial security.

I remember the days before the vendetta, when Charlene would be mentioned and the "Kylie" hardcore stuff would be brought up. No problem in my book, probably not hers either.

Then someone came along with something darker and we have seen a succession of Charlene threads, all of which have quickly descended into nudge, nudge, wink, wink and much worse.

A while back, as both I and Autolycus mentioned, Charlene felt forced out of being a model because of the darker side stories - all of which, as I understand it, she denied. I believe this was a vendetta - who knows from who or why.

Autolycus is wrong - he and I and the rest of us posting here are contiinuing all this and, however inadvertently, furthering this vendetta - no washing of hands - no, "I'm just a fan" - Autolycus even admits to looking at most of the stuff in question.

Autolycus seems to know an awful lot about the detail of this........

I know a lot because I was for a time the go-between for Charlene and Mr X - trying to reach an amicable solution so that he would leave her alone and not release the extreme stuff she had done for him.

It descended into all sorts of threats and name-calling with no satisfactory resolution on either part. Mr X then told Mr Y (who worked on the car mags that were then employing Charlene). That's why so many people know what she did.

I have no idea why Charlene would deny what she has done - it's not difficult to find (except perhaps the most extreme, illegal stuff which hopefully is no longer around).

It is human nature to want to know more about someone that you have an interest in - as is evidenced by the number of posts asking for more info, real names, etc. Liz Hurley still has reference made to "that dress" she wore in about 1994 - it is in the public domain and as I said before fame is not a tap you can turn off when you want. In coming back, Charlene must have realised what would be unleashed...

Autolycus - you make all these good points as to why Charlene Hart's name and work should be in the public domain with regard to the extreme material she produced in the past, free for everyone to discuss and view. And that she should not deny what she did etc, nor expect special treatment, yet the producer of this work you refer to as 'Mr.X' like some kind of Bond villain? Strange how your logic does not apply to him, why is he afforded the cloak of anonymity? You obviously know his name too.

I don't think the bad blood exists because of the material Charlene produced as if it was filmed when she was 18 and 19 it was before she moved into glamour work, I am also sceptical of the idea that the material was somehow released as some kind of punishment and that it had not already been put out while she was still making the films, as far as I am aware this material was released over a lengthy period of time, years in fact, before Charlene switched to glamour modelling, and Charlene would have been aware it was already available on sites where you would expect to find it. I don't think thats what she may have an issue with. I also doubt that she objects to that material being used in the correct way by its owners as its pretty much a self contained market with a limited appeal.

I think the problem is that someone deliberately tried to wreck her new career by purposefully sending that material or links to it, to anyone who gave her a job or worked with her in future, as well as making sure it was posted on normal modelling sites for no other purpose than to make her life a misery, is that acceptable?