And that’s fine. But even Sharon Osbourne has her limits. Cross them and she’ll sue your flipping bum off. That’s what Sharon Osbourne did to The Sun after it claimed she was working Ozzy Osbourne ‘to destruction’ to keep her rich, and she’s won a substantial payout from it.

So whatever you do, don’t say that Sharon Osbourne is trying to kill her husband with work. But feel free to laugh at her funny Skeletor voice. That’s probably OK. If it isn’t, we’re screwed.

We genuinely can’t understand why, but Sharon Osbourne seems to be everywhere at the moment. One minute she’s being rumoured to appear on Strictly Come Dancing, the next she’s getting all Lady Macbeth about Dannii Minogue.

We’re not sure why this is happening, and we’re not certain we approve of it, but at least now that Sharon Osbourne has won a crapstand of money by suing a newspaper for libel, hopefully she can disappear again for a while.

The trouble all started when The Sun printed an article in 2007 claiming that Sharon Osbourne was forcing Ozzy Osbourne to perform a gruelling string of concerts just because she wanted some new jewels or shoes or another dehumanising round of cosmetic surgery or something. And this is Ozzy Osbourne we’re talking about, remember – a man who looks like he has trouble remember what trousers are for – so obviously forcing him to sing Crazy Train night after night would be impossibly cruel, right? BBC News reports:

The article, published in October 2007, claimed that Mrs Osbourne was “driving her frail husband Ozzy Osbourne to destruction” and was working him “so hard she will kill him”. It alleged that she was forcing the Black Sabbath star to perform in a series of live shows in order to fund her exorbitant spending. The article continued: “Sharon will keep Ozzy on the road until, like Tommy Cooper, he dies on stage”.

Anyway, long story short, it’s all bollocks. Sharon Osbourne didn’t try to kill Ozzy Osbourne. She doesn’t need to – Ozzy Osbourne is perfectly capable of almost dying by himself, as any number of amateur quad-biking enthusiasts will tell you.

And, as such, The Sun has paid Sharon Osbourne a substantial, undisclosed sum of money in libel damages. But, let’s look on the bright side, at least it’s only money – Sharon didn’t lob a cup of coffee in their faces and then try to physically rip them limb from limb in front of a gaggle of bewildered bikini models. She does that, we hear.

So ‘trying to kill Ozzy Osbourne to fund her lifestyle’ is off the list of things we can say about Sharon Osbourne. Are we still allowed to say that her daughter looks like a sullen Moomin, though? Because it would sort of suck if we weren’t.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

Snorting a line of ants? Check. Chewing the heads off animals? Check. Urinating on the Alamo? Check. Getting hammered and trying to murder his wife? Check. Falling over a couple of times before the Brit Awards earlier this year? No way! Ugh! You sick bastard! Suggest that and Ozzy Osbourne will sue your tits off.

And win, too – Ozzy Osbourne has won undisclosed damages from the Daily Star after it claimed that Ozzy had a health scare right before the Brit Awards that almost saw him get withdrawn from the show. Turns out, though, that he was such a shaky and incoherent mess during the Brit Awards because he’s Ozzy Osbourne. Sheesh.

Anyone who saw the Brit Awards this year will know two things – 1) that there’s not a court in the land that would convict you for tearing Mika’s head off and shoving it up his bottom and, 2) whoever let the Osbournes host the show is a clown.

Because the Osbournes were dreadful for so many different ways. Kelly and Jack Osbourne, knowing that that sort of stuff is what they’re going to do for the rest of their lives, dug in grimly and tried to act all professional while Sharon Osbourne managed to get so enraged at Vic Reeves that she actually bent the laws of space and time.

And then there was Ozzy Osbourne – a man who was only allowed to say about four words during the entire show, and even then in the wrong order at completely the wrong time. But the thing is, that’s Ozzy Osbourne. Ever since The Osbournes was on TV he’s been a kind of professional shambles. That’s what we expect from him.

You know what would have happened if Ozzy Osbourne had dug into his heart and delivered a precise, eloquent speech about the myriad ways that Paul McCartney had influenced him as a person and a musician at the climax of The Brits? There’d have been a bloody riot. Appalled Brit School students would have torn up their seats in protest and Take That would have started bottling each other in the face out of nothing more than confused fury. It would have been awful.

So instead Ozzy Osbourne just yelled “Laydeezangennalman, Mr Sir Pol McCartnezizzyszzagh!” and everyone was happy. Especially the Daily Star, because it got to write a story called Ozzy’s Freak Show claiming that Ozzy’s shambolic appearance was down to him collapsing twice before the show and spooking the organisers into discussing whether or not he should appear at all.

None of that actually happened, by the way, which is why Ozzy Osbourne has just won a massive libel settlement against the newspaper, as BBC News reports:

Rocker Ozzy Osbourne has accepted libel damages from the Daily Star over allegations he suffered a health scare which jeopardised the Brit Awards. Osbourne’s lawyer John Kelly said the article had caused “considerable embarrassment and distress”. He added that the newspaper now accepted that Osbourne was fit enough to present the awards and had not suffered health problems.

But, as embarrassing as this ordeal must have been for Ozzy Osbourne, at least there’s a happy ending – Ozzy has decided to donate all his damages to Sharon Osbourne’s colon charity. And, although we’re not sure of the exact figure he received, it’s thought to be at least enough to send four underdeveloped Southeast Asian boys up into Sharon Osbourne’s colon with industrial floor polishers and not come out until it’s shiny and polished enough to eat your dinner off.

Daily Star, everyone scheduled to eat their dinner out of Sharon Osbourne’s arse thanks you for your libellous inaccuracies. Keep up the good work.

Except one. GMTV’s Kate Garraway – who took part in last year’s Strictly Come Dancing – definitely didn’t have sex with her chinny professional partner Anton Du Beke, and if you say she did you have to give her loads of money.

Which is what the Sunday Mirror has done after publishing a story claiming that Kate Garraway and Anton Du Beke were having an affair. In retrospect it seems like a silly claim – the thought of a Garraway/Du Beke affair seems ludicrous. Because, well, because he’s a massive chinny chin machine with a great big chinny chin.

Typical. Our life is basically a procession of not sleeping with any dancers whatsoever at all over a period of many, many years. But nobody cares about that, do they? Meanwhile Kate Garraway doesn’t sleep with one dancer once and newspapers have to chuck all kinds of substantial libel damages at her. Really, where’s the justice?

Earlier this year, The Sunday Mirror published a report that appeared to claim that Kate Garraway and Anton Du Beke were continuing an affair that began when they took part on Strictly Come Dancing together.

But it turns out that the report was absolutely false, because Kate Garraway has just accepted a giant lump of cash from the Sunday Mirror because of all the nasty lies it told. BBC News reports:

GMTV presenter Kate Garraway has accepted “substantial” libel damages from the Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror over claims she committed adultery. The star, who is married to former Labour spin doctor Derek Draper, said she was “glad” the matter was resolved. “The way my friendship with Anton was twisted into something sordid was terribly unfair and upsetting,” the 39-year-old said. “No-one likes to take legal action against a newspaper but I could see no alternative.”

You know, we’d even go one step further than Kate Garraway here – claiming that she had an affair with Anton Du Beke isn’t just sordid, it’s downright nonsensical. Put yourself in Anton Du Beke’s place and you’ll see why.

Firstly, prior to Kate Garraway, Anton Du Beke’s other Strictly Come Dancing partners were Lesley Garrett, Esther Rantzen, Jan Ravens and Patsy Palmer. Having to dance with those women week after week would turn any man into a snarling misogynist who’d rather stab forks into his eyes than bring himself to look at a female again, let alone have sex with one.

Secondly, and this is the most important point, did you see how Kate Garraway danced on Strictly Come Dancing? They say that how someone dances is an indication of how they have sex, and if that’s the case then making love to Kate Garraway must be like catching your genitals in a bear trap that’s been welded to an out-of-control washing machine balanced on a trampoline in a wind tunnel.

And – trust us, this is experience talking – no man wants to do that. Not again.

Read more:

GMTV host Garraway wins damages - BBC

Fed up with a passage in her autobiography claiming that he's not only a drink-driver but a brazen chihuahua-thief, Nicolas Cage has decided to sue Kathleen Turner for everything she's got – which at the last count totalled three boxes of Serial Mom VHS tapes, some elastic-waisted jeans and half a packet of Lockets.

Still, Kathleen Turner should count herself lucky that Nicolas Cage is only suing her – it's only common decency that's stopping him from jumping into his old bear suit and smacking her right in the face.

Thanks to Ghost Rider and National Treasure 2 topping the box office, it's fair to say that Nicolas Cage is at the top of his game. That's strange in itself, especially given that the latter mainly involves Cage saying a lot of words he clearly doesn't understand and wishing he could just roll around the floor screaming "Not the bees! NOT THE BEES!" at the top of his voice again.

Anyway, as a bona fide star, Nicolas Cage needs to protect his reputation. Admittedly his reputation is that of a terrible actor who names his son after Superman and goes all boogley-eyed when confronted with triplets, but that's his reputation and he needs to defend it my any means he can.

And that means that when chainsaw-voiced actresses who used to be pretty but now look kind of old and dumpy saw that Nicolas Cage possibly stole a small dog 22 years ago, he'll sue them to high heaven. A shame, because that's pretty much what Kathleen Turner claims in her autobiography Send Yourself Roses.

Discussing when she worked with Nicolas Cage on the 1986 Francis Ford Coppola movie Peggy Sue Got Married, Kathleen Turner wrote:

"Everything Francis (Ford Coppola) wanted him (Cage) to do, he went against to show that he wasn't under his uncle's wing. Which was ridiculous. Oh, that stupid voice of his and the fake teeth! Honestly, I cringe to think about it. He caused so many problems. He was arrested twice for drunk driving and, I think, once for stealing a dog. He'd come across a Chihuahua he liked and stuck it in his jacket."

And, as far as Nicolas Cage is concerned, none of that happened, and so he's launched libel proceedings against Kathleen Turner in London's High Court. Why London? It could be because Nicolas Cage has a house in England and it's closer, or it could be because British libel laws are weighted flatly in favour of the plaintiff and it would have been much harder for him to win a similar case in America.

Either way, it's so rare for celebrities to sue each other that this could be one to keep an eye on. After all, imagine if Steve Guttenburg sued Ally Sheedy for something that happened during the production of Short Circuit. That's the magnitude of we're talking about here, people.

Read more:

Nicolas Cage To Sue Turner Over 'False' Book Claims – FemaleFirst