Whereas the explosion-loving director ordered every young boy in the world’s wet dream to put some weight on for Transformers 2, the actress has revealed that she instead decides to clean herself out with vinegar.

No, we have no idea either.

But, reports have flooded in on all the websites you would hope to print them – namely the ones aimed at already-image-conscious young teenage girls, who are now likely to think that drinking vinegar is a viable dieting option. What a great example these Hollywood types set each and every day.

First Megan Fox decided to ruin the underwear of millions of men and boys around the world with the news she was going to lez off in her upcoming movie Jennifer’s Body. Then, as if the news of a “hot” and “hardcore” lesbian scene weren’t enough, it was revealed she would be doing some topless stuff too.

That girl really knows how to ruin lives, that’s for sure.

After destroying millions of male psyches with the news of her lesbo-nudity, the sexiest woman in the world has turned her attention on the female populace. While she isn’t going for the same technique of making lonely young men/slightly pervy older men masturbate themselves into oblivion, she is still trying to ruin lives through the power of her actions alone.

And while Michael Bay wants her to be a fatty fighting the good fight alongside Shia LaBeouf, the Fox isn’t having any of it. Confessing to something of a ’sweet tooth’ – which, in Hollywood language probably means she eats some things sometimes – she who likes to ruin your day by appearing in some suggestive poses on a normally decent website (usually when you’re innocently looking for celebrity news) has decided she will drink vinegar to help her keep in shape.

Speaking to someone who was apparently writing this stuff down – or recording it – the bushy-tailed one said:

“”It’s just water and raw apple cider vinegar, and it just cleans out your system entirely. It will get rid of, for women who retain water weight, from your menstrual cycle and all that, it gets rid of it really fast (sic). I’m not one for dieting or exercising, ’cause I’m lazy and I have a really big sweet tooth, so I have to do cleanses every once in a while ’cause of the amount of sugar I take in.”"

That just happens to sound utterly disgusting in every way shape and form – even the wording of the sentences brings up the bile. But it would seem the (possibly) evil Megan Fox doesn’t care how much bile we bring up, and she wants to ruin the health of teenage girls around the world (maybe), who are sure to copy her (possibly) in their never-ending quest to look like all the people they see in the magazines.

Just like all the boys want to copy Shia LaBeouf and crash their cars, thus messing up their hands.

We would go on to say something about how the Fox needs some (La)beef in her diet, but even hecklerspray isn’t that cheap. Even if we are struggling with a slow news day, and are resorting to the Charlie Brooker-approved ‘fit as many dodgy keywords into an article as you can’ technique. Professionalism right there, baby.

The way he went about this was to go on stage and get his penis out. It’s a classic technique, and one we’ve surely all practiced at some point in our lives. If we have the necessary equipment, of course.

But what happens when you’re pottering about (PUN!) getting your bits out on stage around the same time that the new chapter in a kids film, in which you star, is coming out? Well, kids, Harry Potter 6 gets pushed back eight months, if the wild, rampant and ker-azy speculation is to be believed.

Yes kids – Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince isn’t coming out because of Daniel Radcliffe’s penis. That is one of the greatest sentences we’ve ever had to write, even if it isn’t actually definitely true.

It would appear to be a tale of tail that rings somewhere in the realms of believability, with the original release date for the new Potter film falling smack-dab in the middle of Radcliffe’s run on stage in Equus. Which is, of course, the stage play in which he gets his knob out and has sex.

While it probably isn’t a proper porno – we don’t want to say for definite, we haven’t seen it – it still doesn’t sound like the kind of thing that Warner Bros. would want to associate with the actor on Harry Potter’s release. So it would make sense that this the reason why the film has been put back.

That is along, of course, with the ridiculous money-grabbing notions of the company, who clearly know they can get more money from a summertime cinema release when the kids are off school, bored and parents don’t want to be endlessly pestered so they’ll give them anything – even money for the cinema – to shut them up. The crafty studio berks.

So basically, Harry Potter fans are being shafted non-stop with all these reasons as to why they have to wait for the next installment of the kids film-cum-thing that grown idiots love. Just as there’s some horse-shafting in Daniel Radcliffe’s play. Doesn’t it just make you angry?

At least it means the armies of insane Potter fans have somewhere tangible to aim their anger – right in the face of Radcliffe, though to be honest it’s not really his fault. But we do like to blame people, so let’s all go and burn down his house.

Actually, don’t go burn down his house. We don’t want him running naked through the streets, and that would probably push the release of the film back even further.

But, of course, the main reason for the delay is still clearly money, and it’s one that should make the most ardent fans awaiting Harry Potter 6 want to vomit fire in the faces of the studio execs that made the decision. So, yes – go and do that. That would be something funny to fill hecklerspray’s day.

If a 23-year-old male singer were to say that they wanted to kiss a 15-year-old pop sensation on Sunday, they would rightly be chastised. Probably shot or lynched too. Or just looked down on a lot. They’d probably write a book about their experiences a few years down the line, when the dust had settled.

But when it’s a 23-year-old female singer saying they want to play tonsil hockey with a child this Sunday then it’s just laughed off… Hang on – what? That’s not funny. That’s just dodgy.

Yes kids, everyone’s favourite possible condom saleschild and she who makes frankly incomprehensible videos especially for our new editor’s birthday, Miley Cyrus, has come out and said she will not be engaging in some same-sex-underage-dear-god-that’s-just-plain-weird smooching with Katy Perry.

‘Who the hell is Katy Perry though?!’, hecklerspray hears you cry, and frankly, we’re not sure either. Apparently she’s had some hits with some songs that seem to hint at a fondness for homosexuality – her two biggest hits of ‘UR So Gay’ and ‘I Kissed A Girl’ would seem to attest to this. No big deal, the girl can like who she wants to like.

But when you’re blatantly trying to fire up some kind of media frenzy by offering to publicly snog a kid then, well, you need to be told when to stop. Last time hecklerspray tried something similar we were subjected to beatings on a nightly basis by a man with tattoos on his eyeballs, whose nickname included the words ‘nonce’ and ‘basher’.

After being informed of Katy Perry’s apparent wish to take advantage of an underage girl, thus recreating the Britney Spears and Madonna ‘hot’ action of sharing a smooch on stage, young (emphasis on young there) Miley told E!:

“No thanks. She sang on my record. So I think she’s kind of getting back at me, because she was doing harmonies and backgrounds.”

Is that bitchy? hecklerspray doesn’t understand Ameri-child speak, much as we are forced to put up with it. It would fit in with Miley’s apparent new character of pure, unadulterated evil that she seems to be cultivating, so yes – we’ll go with ‘bitchy’.

We just have one real question about all of this: why does no one seem to realise that Miley Cyrus is still a kid? She certainly doesn’t seem to, the constant stream of unsettling news about her possible nudity/semi nudity in showers doesn’t seem to want to do anything but appeal to the dodgy among us and things like this don’t really help.

So Katy Perry, please, in future keep your hands, lips and everything else to yourself. At least until Miley’s over the age of consent, then knock yourself out.

However, we were proven wrong when we were told that a couple can prove their love for each other by ‘creating a baby’. This literally knocked us back, throwing into disarray our previous notion that a child is created using flour, the tears of an orphan, vanilla extract, nail clippings and the sweat from a man/woman depending on what sex you wanted the child to be.

In days gone by, people would takes months to even kiss each other – never mind engage in any sexual goings on. Having a baby would only happen a good few years after marriage, under the eyes of God and surrounded by an approving society. However, we now live in a culture where a girl will flash her tits for half a pint of lager or for a couple of cold chips.

So just imagine our disgust when we found out our number one celebrity fan and all round grasper of swear words Lee Ryan has left his pregnant fiancée of eight months.

Ages ago, Lee Ryan called hecklerspray scribbler Chris Laverty a “cunt” after reading a story about pop-demigods Blue being mime artists on stage. A pop band not singing live? That’s like saying they don’t write their own songs. When will the lies stop?

We decided to stick by our Lee despite his misspelt messages to the hecklerspray Myspace page and sometimes our personal accounts. From the lows of walking out of Hell’s Kitchen and lamping a taxi driver, we’ve been there for our bruv. Granted, there haven’t been any highs for him yet like a Mercury Prize nomination, but we still have expectations of him.

It’s only recently come to our attention that Lee did indeed find love – hooray! We were just about to crack open some Superbrew to celebrate, but then we found out a few things. His girlfriend Samantha Miller didn’t meet him in a fancy restaurant or nightclub. No, she got her tits out and sent him the pictures through Myspace. Who says romance is dead? Not our Lee of course, who fell head over heels for Samantha. Likely because he didn’t have to pay 35p to see a pair of boobs in The Sun.

More than likely this story will be sold to a tacky women’s magazine, but a source told the Daily Star:

“She is distraught and doesn’t know what to do – it is horrible enough to be dumped any time, but with her pregnancy, and all her hopes they would build a future as a family, it has left her in tears.”

In the interests of fairness, a friend of the elephant man – possibly Laverty – said:

“They’ve only been dating a few months and we didn’t expect him to settle down any time soon.”

Samantha was a fan of Blue in her youth and was said to have pictures of Lee all over her room. These days she’s five months pregnant and all alone in the world. It looks like she may have to sell those much-loved wall coverings to afford clothing for the child now.

We believe this proves that Lee is not actually sexually attracted to humans, but actually elephants. No-one with any sort of morals would do such a thing to a lady who’s up the duff. Remember everyone; this is the bloke who thought 9/11 was a drop in the ocean compared to the plight of the elephants.

Reports that he has moulded his penis to resemble an elephant’s trunk are unconfirmed and we aren’t volunteering to find out. Maybe a fan from Myspace can confirm or deny things for us in a few months. Though, to be honest, everyone knows Facebook is where it’s at these days.

Why? Well, for starters, shoving it in his big, fat chops might shut him up.

Secondly, it could be the only way we can stop him from doing nude scenes.

That’s right – nude scenes!!

‘Nude scenes’ and ‘Jack Black’ – if ever there was four words that should not appear together in the same sentence it’s that right there.

And you’ll be disgusted to know that the Kung Fu Panda star has done them before (In Margot at the Wedding – just in case you are some twisted freak and want to check him out.)

Read the rest of this entry (opens in a new window) >>

That’s right, according to MTV UK, Lindsay Lohan is going to take all of her clothes off. She is going to get completely naked – can you imagine that??

Of course you can. Everybody can. At just the mention of her name your mind’s eye was no doubt engulfed with images of her inflated bosoms hovering around you.

She might as well just put her tits on NASDAQ. The shares would surely rocket faster than her movie career has, or her music career , for that matter.

Her list of sex-related shenanigans stretches further than her labia does during a knickerless stride out of a car door. Recently, we’ve had the sex tape rumours, less recently we had the Marylin Monroe effigies, and a whole host of other tit-related articles.

One magazine claims she will pocket $75,000 for the role in the new film – the character being a sex-mad waitress. Fair play to her we suppose – she's sticking to what she knows.

According to parallel universe theory, the world we live in is just one alongside an infinite number of other worlds. And there are no doubt worlds much fairer and kinder than our one, where she probably actually ended up a sex-mad waitress, a billion times over, and each of them a more successful attempt at a career than this one.

Read More – Lindsay Lohan Strips For Film – MTV UK 

And the latest scrap to break out is between the FCC and Fox. You see, half a decade ago, Fox showed some digitally-obscured boobs on a barely-remembered reality TV show and the FCC has just decided to fine it $91,000 for doing so.  However, Fox is refusing to pay the fine, calling it "arbitrary and capricious, inconsistent with precedent, and patently unconstitutional."

By doing so, Fox has kick-started a hard-fought ideological debate about morals, indecency, ethics, free speech and censorship that could change the shape of American broadcasting forever. Plus it's about boobies. Wheeeee!

We're no experts, but we think that Americans have the right to freedom of religion, the right to bear arms and the right to sit around masturbating to digitally-obscured breasts until they either a) get cramp or b) realise what they've become and stop in an angry fit of self-loathing. And that's a God-given right that the FCC has been trying to take away from them.

If the FCC had its way then the average American wouldn't be able to masturbate to a sudden glimpse of a 1990s pop star's partially-covered breast or brief shots of naked buttocks or Diane Keaton swearing on live TV. The first two are OK, but the last one is a step too far – show us a man who doesn't find saggy-faced 62-year-olds screeching the word 'fuck' at Diane Sawyer completely erotic and we'll show you a liar – which is why Fox is staging a fightback.

Back in 2003, Fox broadcast an episode of reality show Married By America that showed some digitally-obscured strippers and a woman licking whipped cream off a man's nipple. Enraged that Fox was basically sending everyone who watched it to hell for eternity – a place which, ironically, shows nothing by Married By America reruns all day – the FCC hit Fox with a $1.2 million fine.

After four years of appeals the fine was reduced to just $91,000, but now Fox has decided that it won't pay that either. The Washington Post reports:

Despite the sharp reduction, Fox said it would not pay the fine on principle, calling it "arbitrary and capricious, inconsistent with precedent, and patently unconstitutional" in a statement released yesterday… Fox has asked the five FCC commissioners to reconsider the fine without its having to pay, a move that sets Fox in a two-front indecency war: It is battling the FCC at the agency level on the "Married" fine and in the Supreme Court on other indecency fines levied at about the same time.

Part of the reason why Fox is refusing to pay the fine is apparently because of the nature of the complaints that the FCC received over Married By America. Although it received 90 complaints, they were from only 23 people. And all but two of the complaints were virtually identical, meaning that the fine had basically come from three people who were angry at a pixelised tit.

If this is true, then there's a strong argument for Fox to fight the FCC fine. The FCC's war on indecency is wrongheaded at best and dangerous at worst – it can let entire seasons of 24 pass without blinking once at all the relentless scenes of violent torture pass, but as soon as a digitally-obscured stripper covered in whipped cream flits into view for a couple of seconds, fines get thrown about like nobody's business. The FCC really has no right to enforce such heavyhanded censorship in a modern society.

Unless the FCC is just protecting us from Heather Mills. After all, if we're talking cream-covered strippers then Heather Mills is pretty much the queen of that (NSFW), and the FCC needs to make sure that she's never allowed to commit such terrible atrocities again. Keep up the great work, chaps!

Read more:

Fox Refuses To Pay FCC Indecency Fine – WP 

Take the bottom for example. There are tons of alternative words for this piece of flesh. Ass, arse, batty, behind, booty and bum are just some of the brilliant ways to describe it. Sometimes you may have to come to terms with your own bottom while having a shower in the morning. There you see yourself in all your hideous glory. So it’s not like you’d be shocked to see an image of an arse on TV, is it? Apparently so.

NYPD Blue recently showed an episode which depicted a female arse. Not a problem you’d think. Well it is, and there may be some punishment to the network ABC.

America is a glorious nation. It's the frontrunner for telling the rest of the world how to live their lives, a global leader on fighting the war on terror, it won’t let other countries develop nuclear missiles and it's got a leader who won’t sign a piece of paper to cut evil gases emitting into the atmosphere which will consequently see the world imploding. 

With all these serious issues going on, you’d have thought that America would be quite liberal to less serious matters. Of course not, anything that could potentially turn the innocence of a child in to a sex-wielding maniac after seeing a bit of flesh has to be stopped.

Though saying that, Jamie Lynn Spears is probably the perfect example of how a bit of nudity can influence girls into committing acts of underage sex with blokes who should know better.

It’s not the first time that America has grinded to a halt after witnessing a bit of flesh. Who can forget Janet Jackson getting her chest pillows out at the Super Bowl? That’s a sight that nobody really wants to see. We’ve had those sorts of problems before, incidentally, although the police officers wouldn’t take our story of our trousers accidentally falling down inside a strip club seriously. What do they know? 

So what exactly upset several American viewers and forced them to gouge their own eyes out? After a repeat of NYPD Blue from 2003 was shown, the BBC reports that 'multiple, close-up views' of a woman's buttocks were broadcast before the US watershed. Oooh, multiple encounters showing something that both men and women have. Could it get anymore offensive? Apparently so:

“The scene in the police drama shows a boy surprising a naked woman as she prepared to take a shower. The FCC said it received several complaints about the sequence, which also showed one of the woman's breasts.”

Hmm, we could see why this may cause a few problems – but if reports are to be believed, a warning was issued before the shows going out: 

“An ABC spokeswoman said that the program was broadcast with parental warnings and that "the realistic nature of NYPD Blue's storylines was well-known to the viewing public". 

We can believe that. When was the last time the police busted a crack den and let the occupants dress appropriately before being sent downtown? Never, that’s when. But because it seems most Americans want to live in a fairytale land which is wrapped up in glittery cotton wool, a fine of $1.4m is going to be imposed on the network that broadcast the scene.

But it doesn’t stop there. The fine will be placed upon all 52 stations that showed the episode. It just goes to show that there's nothing as evil as arses. Which sort of makes hip-hop videos worse than Hitler. We think. 

Read more:

US network faces $1m nudity fine – BBC 

And that appears to be the case with Jessica Simpson. With a straight-to-DVD box office dud stinking up her CV, Jessica Simpson has decided that the only way she's ever going to win an Oscar is if she gets naked. Somewhat surprisingly, though, Jessica Simpson thinks she can achieve this by getting naked in a film, as opposed to the more logical tactic of getting naked, crawling on her hands and knees to the home of every single member of the Academy, capitulating to every one of their humiliatingly deviant sexual whims and then paying them a million dollars each for the pleasure. We get the impression that Jessica Simpson would be more likely to get an Oscar if she did all of those things.

In the movie world, tits equals Oscars. It's true – look at Halle Berry. She's never made a good fully-clothed film ever, but as soon as she slips her bra off, she wins an Oscar. And nobody took Nicole Kidman seriously until she started running around in the buff. And Helen Mirren only won Best Actress for The Queen this year because of the deleted scene where she brings herself off with a three-foot golden dildo.

And Jessica Simpson has been paying attention to this trend, which is good because lord knows she needs the help. Primarily famous for starring in a reality TV show about how great it is to be married that won't ever be shown again because her marriage disintegrated, Jessica Simpson now has to rely on her singing career – hobbled by constant sore throats and the way she keeps crying in public – and acting.

Not that Jessica Simpson's acting career is going especially well either, mind you. Up until now Jessica Simpson has got by starring in a procession of gradually-worse knockabout comedies – which is saying something since the first one of these was The Dukes Of Hazzard – while getting turned down for movies like the Dallas remake, a remake so crappy that nobody even bothered to make it.

But Jessica Simpson has a plan B to get her acting career back on track, and that plan mainly revolves around her naked breasts. According to sources – whatever that means – Jessica Simpson is ready to get naked for a film role that will mark the next stage in her glittering career:

"Jessica is in the running for a role that, if she gets it, will put her right on the map in terms of acting. The only hitch is that the script requires a number of quite graphic scenes including a full-frontal nude scene. Jessica is so desperate to land the role and get the industry's respect that she's ready to go against her better judgement, and her family, by agreeing to bare all."

It's a failsafe plan, really. By getting naked in a film, Jessica Simpson can only go on to do bigger and better things that will see her get taken seriously as an actress. Just look what it did for Heather Graham. And Sienna Miller. And, um, others. Seriously, the world of late-night, low-budget Movies 24 soft-focus erotica will be her oyster after this.

It's also thought that Jessica Simpson runs the risk of falling out with her family if she takes on this naked role. Earlier this year, her father Joe Simpson turned down a potentially Oscar-winning script for Jessica where she'd play a porn star, on the basis that it was too sexual. Leaving aside the fact that it probably wasn't an Oscar-winning script if it was being punted to Jessica Simpson, we can't see why Joe is making such a fuss about people seeing Jessica Simpson naked.

He is the world's biggest fan of those suckers, after all.

Read more:

Jessica Simpson ready to strip naked for Hollywood – AZ Central