And because of this affinity for controversy, Katy Perry is currently getting the hiding of her life. A couple of days ago The Sun published a photo of Katy Perry posing with a knife accompanied by a headline similar to but not exactly ‘BURN THE WITCH FOR SHE KNOWES MAGICK!’ and now all hell has broken loose.

So, with the sound of tabloid disapproval ringing in her ears, Katy Perry has released a statement saying that she is ‘against all violence’. Problem solved. Now The Sun can get back to the real threat to the nation’s youth – all those pictures of Katy Perry wearing 1940s swimsuits. Seriously, if we start seeing girls dressed as WWII cheesecake models in the street, we’re going to form a mob and burn Katy’s house down.

You know who we feel sorry for? Forks. Over the last few weeks it’s been all knife this and knife that – what with Angelina Jolie buying a knife for her six-year-old son and Kerry Katona throwing a shitty fit about it – and yet the fork, the knife’s humble cutlery partner and perhaps the more versatile implement of the two, has been shunned. Truly, the fork is the four-pronged McCartney to the knife’s pointy Lennon.

And now it’s time for Katy Perry to damage her reputation by association to a knife. Up until now, not much has really been known about Katy Perry, apart from the fact that she once annoyed Jesus by singing a song about kissing a girl and fell onto a big cake the other day. That’s literally it.

Or that literally was it until Wednesday, when The Sun newspaper decided to publish a three-year-old photo of Katy Perry holding a knife quite close to her eye alongside a screaming piece of journalism linking her to the wave of teenage knife crime that’s sweeping the UK at the moment. Because, as we all know, teenagers are easily manipulated and love to emulate their idols.

Incidentally, that’s true – as children we were influenced by everything we saw on TV, which is why we spent six solid months of 1989 dressed as David The Gnome and once tried to kill ourselves because we couldn’t push cuckoo clocks and beachballs out of our arses like Bertha, the mid-1980s animated children’s factory unit. But this is besides the point.

Anyway, astonished that her transparently controversy-baiting photo has actually become somewhat controversial, Katy Perry has issued something of a stunned statement pointing out that death by stabbing doesn’t make her particularly happy. MTV reports:

Her US publicist told MTV News: “Katy Perry is against all violence. The photo in question was taken in 2005 and is in no way related to the current events in the UK.”

It’s just an upsetting coincidence, that’s all, that a photo of Katy Perry wielding a knife has been published during a moral panic about youth-based knife crime.

But if you think this is a storm, just wait until you see the other pictures of Katy Perry from 2005 that happen to eerily echo current news, like the photo of Katy Perry dressed as Sarah Palin skinning a moose, the photo of Katy Perry dressed as a crying stockbroker and the photo of Katy Perry denying that she condones knife crime based on a photo of Katy Perry that was taken three years before that one.

Madonna’s spokeswoman Liz Rosenberg has just issued the statement we’ve all been waiting for – the one that says Madonna and Guy Ritchie were living a hate-filled lie and that their Christmas present to one another this year will be that they both get to legally have sex with other people because, yes, they’re getting divorced.

Notice, though, that the divorce statement came from Madonna’s spokeswoman as opposed to a joint statement from Guy Ritchie and Madonna together. Wow. We’re starting to get the feeling that those two might not actually get along.

It’s a sad day, that’s for sure. We were hoping that all the Madonna/ Guy Ritchie divorce stories from this morning were just rumours, and that this evening Madonna and Guy Ritchie would continue their traditional pursuit of going to the pub in stony silence facing away from each other and visibly bristling whenever they even so much as thought about one another.

But it’s not to be. Because now Madonna’s spokeswoman Liz Rosenberg has finally put an official seal on the disastrously-managed divorce secret once and for all. The New York Daily News reports:

“Madonna and Guy Ritchie have agreed to divorce after 7 l/2 years of marrige,” Liz Rosenberg said in a statement. ”They have both requested that the media maintain respect for their family at this difficult time. A final settlement has not been agreed upon yet.”

Of course a final settlement has not been agreed upon yet. Madonna is one of the richest women in the world, so there’s every chance that the settlement proceedings could go on for weeks. Or months, if Madonna tries to get her hands on any of the unsold Revolver DVDs that Guy Ritchie keeps in the cellar.

Anyway, now that the divorce between Madonna and Guy Ritchie has been made official, it’s time for the postmortem. It’ll all come out in the wash, we’re sure, but we expect that these are among the frontrunners for the the ultimate cause of divorce:

* Madonna being implicated in the Alex Rodriguez divorce.

* Madonna’s disenchantment that Guy Ritchie hasn’t fulfilled his hotshot movie director potential.

* Differing opinions on Madonna’s adopted son David Banda.

* That one time when Madonna put her hand upon Guy Ritchie in his sleep and Guy Ritchie got scared because he thought it was the hand of a corpse.

* Guy Ritchie realising that the “sex with you is incredible” line from Madonna’s newest album was sung in a mildly sarcastic tone.

* A mutual understanding that one of them looks like an angry potato and the other one looks like a test-tube of surgically-removed vagina cartilage.

Still, we’re sure we’ll find out all the dirty secrets of the Madonna/ Guy Ritchie divorce as the news unfolds. And unfolds. And keeps unfolding. And doesn’t stop unfolding for about six weeks after everyone’s got sick of hearing about it. Just a hunch.

Imagining that? Congratulations, you’re now Christie Brinkley. And now, Christie Brinkley, given that your ex-husband Peter Cook has just shown himself to be an egomanical attention-div of the highest order by writhing around in the gutter in front of the world like this, what’s the absolute last thing you should probably do?

That’s right – dive into the gutter with him. But that’s what Christie Brinkley has just done. Christie’s released a statement that further slags off Peter Cook, even though it’s basically just another reminder for her daughter that her parents are no longer capable of rational thought. The poor girl’s already called Sailor, for Christ’s sake. How much more do you want her to resent you?

Peter Cook is that rare breed – an egomaniac with no sense of insight whatsoever. Looking back, it was actually over two years ago that Christie Brinkley threw Peter Cook out for having it off with a teenager he met in a toyshop, and several months since the Christie Brinkley/ Peter Cook divorce was finalised.

Since then, given that the world is swamped with piles of brand new meaningless celebrity codswallop every day, memories of Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook’s messy break-up have faded. So when Peter Cook decided to bitch about Christie Brinkley to Barbara Walters this week, he made two profound mistakes:

1 - Because people don’t care about whatever tiny ephemeral thumbprint Peter Cook left on the world of celebrity, everyone had to think back to remember who Peter Cook actually is. And that made them realise that, oh, he’s the dirty little bugger who spends $3,000 a month on wanking paraphernalia. Urgh, dirty.

2 - Having reminded people that he’s the man who shagged a teenager and wanks a lot, going on TV to blame Christie Brinkley for all that made Peter Cook look like a sort of giant clueless fudgepot who lives so far up his own bottom that his mouth smells like oesophagus.

In fact, Peter Cook’s 20/20 interview seems like such an ill-advised trainwreck that it actually makes us almost respect Christie Brinkley, and given that she painted the nightmarishly awful artwork for Billy Joel’s River Of Dreams album, that’s something we never thought we’d hear ourselves say about the jumped-up hopeless goon.

In fact, all Christie Brinkley needed to do to come out of this muddle looking peachy-clean was keep her mouth shut. That’s literally all she needed to do. Rise above it. Be the better person. Accept dignified silence into her life. And so that’s what Christie Brinkley did.

For about five seconds, anyway. Then she got her lawyer to release this piece of moronic screech just so everyone could be certain that she’s just as much of an arsewedge as Peter Cook is:

“It is a measure of Peter Cook’s character that he has breached the confidentiality agreement that is in the divorce settlement and has sought to present this distorted one sided view of his marriage. Mr. Cook had his days in court, testified on his own behalf and ultimately agreed with the view of the children’s court appointed attorney and psychiatrist that the children should live principally with their mother and that she should be the sole custodial parent.”

It’s disappointing to see that Christie Brinkley has lowered herself to Peter Cook’s level by continuing to fling mud at each other in public like this, but at least they’re square now. This should be the end of it.

For about five seconds, anyway. At this rate we’ll be stunned if Peter Cook hasn’t released a six-volume autobiography entitled Mer Mer Mer Christie Brinkley Smells Like Badger Balls by the end of the day.

That’s a bit strange, isn’t it? Why on one day (yesterday) would someone say: “I’m in the minority that our show does not need stunt casting in order to succeed”, and then one day later (today) say: “As I have said all along, Britney did a great job on the show. She really did. In fact, we are all hoping that she returns rather soon to reprise her role as Abby”?

What could have happened to change Neil’s mind so drastically in such a short space of time? Hmmm…

Let’s delve deeper. Why on one day would someone say: “I mean, viewership is not our game. It’s the network and the studio’s game, you know”, and then the next day say: “Look, that episode garnered our highest ratings of the season — I would never ignore or disrespect that fact”?

It really is just so strange. What do you think might have happened? We just can’t figure it out. To help you decide, here is yesterday’s Neil Patrick Harris quote, in all it’s glory:

“I’m in the minority that our show does not need stunt casting in order to succeed. I worry that if they start `Will and Grace-ing’ us too much, that the show will suffer. And we’re all really proud of the content of the show. I mean, viewership is not our game. the network and the studio’s game, you know. It’s the promotion department’s game… We wish we weren’t opposite an awkward reality dancing competition. But we have no say about that. I just am a real fan of our content. I think we have a great show going, and I hope it’s not screwed up by the desire for 700,000 more viewers.”

And here is today’s Neil Patrick Harris quote, in all it’s glory:

“It seems that yesterday a writer took some quotes of mine and speculated an opinion about their intent. I write to you to set the record straight. As I have said all along, Britney did a great job on the show. She really did. In fact, we are all hoping that she returns rather soon to reprise her role as Abby. Look, that episode garnered our highest ratings of the season — I would never ignore or disrespect that fact. I am just very protective of our show, and its content. I have a high standard of quality, and hope to maintain it on every level. Television is big business, I understand that. I have great faith in our casting department, as well as [Twentieth Century Fox Television] and CBS, to find the appropriate person for every role on our show. I was remiss in speculating otherwise. My job description is to act, and I should really do just that. Britney Spears fits into our make-believe world very well — if she chose to return I can only imagine that Carter [Bays], Craig [Thomas], and the rest of the writers would create a humdinger of a storyline for her. We should be so lucky.”

Wait – shhh! Did anybody hear that? It sounded suspiciously like a corporate whip cracking across some jumped-up actor’s arse. You know the sound we mean? Don’t worry, if you don’t, it was probably all in our heads anyway. Just read on and find out:

At first, the Associated Press stood by their story. AP entertainment editor Jesse Washington said:

“I respect his right to change his stance, but…Neil Patrick Harris told us unequivocally that he did not believe that Britney should be on the show.”

But, a few hours later, the AP had also seemingly changed their mind. Jesse Washington stated:

“We’re issuing a clarification to our story. Harris did not say that he opposed a return engagement for Spears, and our lead said that he did.”

What the hell is going on here? Can’t anyone just say what they mean first time? What kind of a world do we live in if we can’t trust an TV actor and an entertainment editor to get their facts straight? A bloody horrible world! A world run by ‘leads’ who run amok, anonymously stirring up shit and then anonymously taking the blame.

But luckily for you, the editors of this particular entertainment website don’t fuck about. If we say we’re unequivocal, then we will remain that way, so suck on this equivocation you fickle fucks:

Neil Patrick Harris is man who, for a second, believed his bollocks were bigger than they were and, for a second, gained the respect of hecklerspray for speaking some well thought out truths, but ultimately is nothing more than a corporate shill pussy who needs to shut up and know his place in the world – as a rubbish actor in a rubbish TV show watched by rubbish people in a rubbish world.

At least, that’s what our lead told us, before he scampered off with a cheeky grin on his face. We’d like to issue the following statement:

“We’re issuing a clarification to our story. Harris is not a a corporate shill, or a pussy, or a rubbish actor. He is a top, top man and we love him and wish him and his show all the best.”

God, that whip smarts.

Read More – Update: Neil Patrick Harris clarifies his Britney Spears Remark, AP then clarifies its story – Hollywood Insider

Alright, maybe that's an overstatement – Velvet Revolver never having even existed in the first place is clearly better than that – but Scott Weiland being all whiny in public will do for now.

Scott Weiland has put out an angry, confusing statement about his dismissal from Velvet Revolver where, at one point, he tips Johann Sebastian Bach to become his replacement. Which would work – dig up the 250-year-dead Bach, pump him full of heroin, slap a ridiculous Nazi hat onto his mouldy corpse head and he'd be the spitting image of Scott Weiland. Alright, he actually meant Sebastian Bach from Skid Row. But that's less funny so we'll ignore it.

Like many people, we never really saw the point of Velvet Revolver. We never wondered what some of Guns N' Roses would sound like if a skinny heroin addict sang their songs instead of a tubby ginger bloke with dreadlocks, and we certainly didn't want to hear them perform any Pink Floyd cover versions.

But, now that the current incarnation of Velvet Revolver is splitting up, we've finally discovered what the band means to us. Moderate hilarity, that's what. Everything Velvet Revolver did was brilliant. If Coldplay got banned from Japan, for example, or Chris Martin crashed his car on drugs or Gwyneth Paltrow burnt his clothes, it wouldn't be especially funny. But that's only because Chris Martin doesn't dress up as a heroin-blasted Nazi onstage. That makes everything funny.

Funnier still was yesterday's news that Velvet Revolver was sacking Scott Weiland for being weird. Admittedly the news that Scott Weiland was going to reform Stone Temple Pilots in his new-found free time was less funny – the world generally needs a Stone Temple Pilots reunion like it needs to be kicked down a lift shaft by a nun – but Scott's done his best to make up for it.

Why? Because he's responded to his sacking with the most deranged, froth-mouthed statement you're ever likely to hear. Here it is, in full. Thank us later:

After reading the comment by Duff, Matt, Dave and the illustrious "GUITAR HERO," Saul Hudson, a.k.a Slash, I find it humorous that the so called four "founding members" of Velvet Revolver, better known to themselves as "the Project" before I officially named the band, would decide to move on without me after I had already claimed the group dead in the water on March 20 in Glasgow. In response to Slash's comment regarding my commitment, I have to say it is a blatant and tired excuse to cover up the truth. The truth of the matter is that the band had not gotten along on multiple levels for some time. On a musical level, there were moments of joy, inspiration, fun… at times, but let's not forget the multiple trips to rehab every member of the band had taken (with the exception of one member, no need to mention his name). Personally speaking, I choose to look forward to the future and performing with a group of friends I have known my entire life, people who have always had my back. This also speaks to my commitment to my music and my fellow band mates in STP and to the fans who I feel would much rather watch a group of musicians who enjoy being together as opposed to a handful of discontents who at one time used to call themselves a gang.

p.s. don't be fooled by veiled trickery

p.p.s good hunting lads, I think Sebastian Bach would be a fantastic choice.

Oh, paranoid heroin-addled conspiracy theorists, where would we be without you? But still, now that both Velvet Revolver and Scott Weiland have got their sides of the story across, perhaps this means they'll be able to get on with their lives in peace again.

Pah, where's the fun in that? Hey Slash, are you going to sit there and let Scott Weiland insult you like that? You're not going to react? That's rubbish – call him a bastard. Call him an arse-helmet. Call him anything you like, just do it in public. You can't allow something as beautiful as this awkward squabble to die, can you?

Read more:

Velvet Revolver parts ways with singer; Scott Weiland responds - EW 

But, unless Britney Spears will play a massively unstable bint from Nottingham who looks like she might have a bit of a drinking problem in her upcoming How I Met Your Mother cameo, that'll have to change soon.

Which is why Britney has got there first. To help viewers with the unexpected shock of seeing Britney Spears on TV talking full sentences in a normal way, Britney's released a statement about her time on How I Met Your Mother. True, Britney Spears' statement is so unrelentingly generic that it could be about anything, and we're almost completely certain that she had absolutely nothing to do with it, but it's a start.

We're actually warming to the idea of Britney Spears appearing on How I Met Your Mother now. Like many people, we initially had our reservations about sending a mentally unwell megastar to clown around in public mere weeks since she'd been sectioned in a padded room, but now we can see the positives in it, too.

For example, Britney Spears has already been praised by her How I Met Your Mother co-stars – which will help boost her feelings of self worth – plus it's a couple of days off for those poor dancing children. What's more, if Britney Spears is going to make a fool out of herself in public, it may as well be on a sitcom that most sensible people usually do their best to avoid. It just makes sense.

And already the benefits are beginning to show, because Britney Spears has used her How I Met Your Mother cameo to communicate with her fans for the first time in months. No, we don't mean she smashed a car to pieces with an umbrella or wrote a rambling, sense-defying note about Jesus on her website. Britney Spears actually communicated with her fans in the traditional celebrity way – the generic publicist-written statement! E! Online reports:

Making her first public statement on just about anything in recent days, the Blackout artiste announced Thursday that her week of toiling as a guest star on CBS' How I Met Your Mother  beats psych wards and courtrooms. "Working at How I Met Your Mother has been so terrific. Everyone, including the cast, the crew and the producers, has been wonderful, and Abby is such a fun girl to play. I'm having a blast!"

We've got her back, everyone! Britney's back! Yes, we know that this is just a bland statement and that she probably isn't even aware that's it's been created, let alone released – but if Britney Spears is capable of doing this, then what will come next? Handing out pre-printed autograph photos again? Covering her obvious disgust at meeting her fans with a smile? Underwear?

Welcome back, Britney. Welcome back.

Read more:

Brit: Having a Mother of a Good Time – E! Online 

Last week, Morrissey's torrent of alleged anti-immigration codswallop shocked all NME readers – so basically about a dozen 14-year-olds with funny haircuts and cupboards full of skinny ties – to such an extent that Morrissey was forced to sue the magazine. And today on his website, Morrissey is going to explain that actually he's not a racist, that the NME ignored his requests to help out on an anti-racism campaign and – perhaps most shockingly of all – the interviewer fidgeted a bit and laughs like a schoolgirl.

Oh, it's on.

When you're being interviewed by the NME, there are a few things that you absolutely mustn't talk about. Never call the swastika beautiful, never state your deep-rooted love for Phil Collins and never bang on about all the bloody immigrants like an old lady who's just found out that her grandson-in-law is a one-armed Albanian pirate DVD salesman.

Morrissey, though, allegedly hasn't heeded these rules – his favourite song is Invisible Touch and he doesn't care who knows. Oh, and he allegedly hates all immigrants a bit too. That's what came out in Morrissey's recent NME coverstory, where he apparently said:

"England is a memory now. The gates are flooded and anybody can have access to England and join in."

And since then Morrissey has decided to sue the NME for defamation.

So today Morrissey will publish a statement on his official website – we think it's www.kosovansgohome.com, though we're not sure – that will explain his side of the story to his fans. It's long, a bit rambling and contains the phrase "deep in the bosom of time", so we've picked out the relevant bits for you:

"I abhor racism and oppression or cruelty of any kind and will not let this pass without being absolutely clear and emphatic with regard to what my position is. Racism is beyond common sense and I believe it has no place in our society. To anyone who has shown or felt any interest in my music in recent times, you know my feelings on the subject and I am writing this to apologise unreservedly for granting an interview to the NME. I had no reason whatsoever to assume that they could be anything other than devious, truculent and unreliable. In the event, they have proven to be all three."

Morrissey, after a spot of reminiscing about how all of this used to be fields, then goes on to describe the interview with NME writer Tim Jonze himself:

"I do not mean to be rude to Tim Jonze, but when I first caught sight of him I assumed that someone had brought their child along to the interview. The runny nose told the whole story. Conor had assured that Tim was their best writer. Talking behind his hands in an endless fidget, Tim accepted every answer I gave him with a schoolgirl giggle, and repeatedly asked me if I was shocked at how little he actually knew about music. I told him that, yes, I was shocked."

And if there's one thing that Morrissey can't stand it's people who giggle girlishly and fidget. Well, that and probably the Polish.

In all, the most sensible thing here would be for both the NME and Morrissey to shut up about the whole thing until it goes to court, where a winner will be impartially chosen. All this endless mudslinging isn't pretty, and if it carries on much longer it'll end up looking as petty and ridiculous as one of our Celebrity Haiku Competition comment threads. 

And, seriously, nobody wants that.

Read more:

I won't let this pass: Morrissey defends stance in immigration row with NME - Guardian