In her billowing white dress, it looks like Big Brother 11 winner Josie Gibson was dropping wedding hints to her boyfriend John James Parton.

But in fact the reality TV star was actually dresses as a princess for her royal-themed fancy dress party to celebrate her 26th birthday.

The Bristol blonde was joined by her Aussie boyfriend and a host of Big Brother stars at the Jewel bar in Piccadilly Circus.
After the party wrapped up at midnight, Josie was seen wondering around the street of London in her fancy dress outfit - which consisted of a corseted white dress and fuchsia gloves.

It appeared she had also substituted a pair of high heels for some comfortable Haviana flip-flops.

Nowhere to be seen was her Australian boyfriend John James - who she met on the defunct Channel 4 reality show last summer - who had been DJing in the party.

The reality star was clearly a bit merry after admitting the morning after the night before on her Twitter page she was a 'drunken twit'.

Writing on her Twitter page on Saturday, she said: 'I'm cringing today. Remembering what a drunken twit I am. Oh no...

'Oh no I keep getting flashbacks from last night. I'm sorry to anyone that was there.'

She also sent a Tweet to Big Brother 9 contestant Lisa Appleton - who attended the party - admitting she had fallen asleep in her fancy dress costume.

She said: 'Thank you so much for coming. I still got my dress on. LOL. Thank you so much.'

Also in attendance at the party was Big Brother 11 alumni JJ Bird and Mario Mugan, The Only Way Is Essex Candy Jacobs and Mikey Woods and Vanessa Feltz's boyfriend Ben Ofoedu.

Josie's birthday was actually in January, but she only got round to celebrating it now.

In recent weeks she has been promoting her debut perfume Josie.

Gibson won the 11th series of Big Brother last August and went on to appear on Ultimate Big Brother.

But she found it hard to fit in with the other celebrities and was pining for her boyfriend John James so quit the follow-up show after three days.

Since leaving the show, Gibson and Parton have moved in together in London and co-starred in a one-off Channel 5 documentary together last October.

In an interview last month, Gibson admitted the pair have come close to splitting several times.

She said: 'I think we've both considered calling it quits a few times. But I love him. John's really loyal and if he loves you he'll do anything for you.'







Source: Dailymail

World's Ugliest Animals

Let's explore the animal kingdom's darker side. Wince your way through this menacing menagerie of animals that would be more at home in a Bosch painting than any zoo or aquarium.

Monkfish

Monkfish
With its wide mouth and fanglike teeth, this bottom-feeder could easily inspire bouts of aquaphobia. Here are a few of their haunts at home and abroad, just in case you want to steer clear.

Naked mole rat

Naked mole rat
Armies of these hairless, yellow-toothed rodents are now burrowing in the grasslands of this region. The thought makes your flesh crawl, doesn't it? Even odder than their looks is their peculiar superpower.

Star-nosed mole

Star-nosed mole
That stomach-turning snout is made up of touch-feely tentacles that help these moles overcome a common shortcoming. You can find those icky pink noses rooting around in marshes up down the Atlantic coastal states.

Blobfish

Blobfish
The name may sound unimaginative, but how else would you describe a fish with this kind of physique? Fortunately for us, this sad sack is rarely seen by humans. Their deep-water dwellings can be found here.

Marabou stork

Marabou stork
Thanks to its lumpy, bumpy mug, you'd want to keep this stork as far from newborn bundles of joy as possible. "You are what you eat" could explain its looks. Which area does this homely bird call home?

Anglerfish

Anglerfish
These deep-sea fish have built-in bait that helps them lure unsuspecting dinner into a pair of jagged jaws. So, a word of advice to fish swimming at the bottom of the Atlantic: Stay away from the light!

Aye-aye

Aye-aye
Not only do these primates have nightmarish looks, they also go bump in the night. When the aye-aye comes knocking, it's the end of the road for their insect prey. You can find them being creepy here.

Chinese crested dog

Chinese crested dog
At its best, this hairless breed -- which comes in two varieties -- can be found among the cream of the canine crop (see pictures). But the pooches' looks can go south as they age, especially if their high-maintenance skin is damaged.

King vulture

King vulture
Despite its vibrant rainbow of colors, the vulture's wrinkled visage is anything but lovely. But apparently beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Those beady eyes survey this vast territory.

Fangtooth fish

Fangtooth fish
This sea monster may be miniature (how small?), but it holds this oversized distinction. Unless you're a tropical deep-sea dweller, there's no need to fear.

Sumatran rhino

Sumatran rhino
In the case of this redheaded rhino, ugly things come in small packages. They spend most of their time indulging in their favorite putrid pastime. Here's a map of their home turf.

Warthog

Warthog
Think of the bumps on this wild pig's face as a kind of hideous helmet. They trot their sharp tusks all around sub-Saharan Africa. Built-in skewers aside, their diet may surprise you.

Sphynx cat

Sphynx cat
This mostly hairless, big-eared cat has devoted fans, despite its sinister looks. They have wrinkled roots that span the globe, but the modern-day version is reported to have started in the States.

Predictions: Who Will Take Home an Oscar?

The template for this year's Oscar race was carved in stone in September when "The King's Speech" premiered at the Telluride Film Festival and "The Social Network" opened the New York Film Festival. In one corner, you had a film that had seemingly checked off every box in its appeal to Academy voters -- Royals! Period piece! Lofty British drama! Triumph over disability! Triumph over Nazis! -- and, in the other, you had a movie with an unlikable, socially awkward genius protagonist directed by David Fincher, an unlikable, socially awkward genius director.

That dynamic -- young vs. old, Facebook vs. Mr. Darcy -- hasn't changed in the ensuing four months. And even with the late entry of three critically acclaimed box-office successes -- "True Grit," "Black Swan" and "The Fighter" -- this year's best picture trophy will recognize either the emotional uplift of "The King's Speech" or the exhilarating immediacy of "The Social Network."
And, from all appearances, it looks like voters are going with their hearts and not their heads.

Here's how the top races will go:

BEST PICTURE

The nominees: "Black Swan," "The Fighter," "Inception," "The Kids Are All Right," "The King's Speech," "127 Hours," "The Social Network," "Toy Story 3," "True Grit," "Winter's Bone"

The winner: "The King's Speech"

Possible upset: "The Social Network"

Why limit the 10 picture race to just these two films? For starters, no movie wins Best Picture without a nomination for its director, which eliminates half the field. And you're out, too, if you don't have a screenplay nomination. That leaves four films, with "The Fighter" and "True Grit" joining the two favorites.

One month ago, everything pointed to "The Social Network" winning. The film had taken every critics prize and the Golden Globe for drama. It's only the third movie since 1975 to win the top awards from the Los Angeles and New York film critics groups, the National Board of Review and the Globe. The other two, "Schindler's List" and "Terms of Endearment," went on to win the Best Picture Oscar.

All that history was wiped out when "The King's Speech" swept the Producers Guild, the Directors Guild and the Screen Actors Guild. These people vote for the Oscars. Critics do not.

So what happened? It'd be easy to chalk it up to another one of Harvey Weinstein's scorched-earth Oscar campaigns, where his minions wheedle Academy voters and Harvey himself calls in the heavy ammunition. (If Queen Elizabeth loved "The King's Speech," it must be terrific!) But, simply put: Academy members like Harvey's movie best. They feel an emotional connection to "The King's Speech." As for "The Social Network" ... well, it's just not that kind of movie.

Time will tell whether a win for "King's Speech" will be a source of embarrassment to the Academy akin to, say, "Ordinary People" beating "Raging Bull" or "Dances With Wolves" prevailing over "Goodfellas." I'd argue that Fincher's movie is nowhere near as accomplished as the two Scorsese films and that naysayers undervalue all the ways "Speech" goes against conventionality. But "Social Network" supporters tend to stamp their feet when differing viewpoints are offered, so my reasoning would probably fall on deaf ears anyway.

BEST ACTRESS

The nominees: Annette Bening, "The Kids Are All Right"; Nicole Kidman, "Rabbit Hole"; Jennifer Lawrence, "Winter's Bone"; Natalie Portman, "Black Swan"; Michelle Williams, "Blue Valentine"

The winner: Natalie Portman

Possible upset: Annette Bening

Not much of a contest here. Yes, Bening delivered a fine performance (though "Kids" co-star Julianne Moore one-upped her in terms of range), but Portman goes to another stratosphere in "Black Swan." Plus, it's a movie that speaks to the sacrifices performers make for the sake of their art.
You don't think that's going to resonate with this crowd?

BEST ACTOR

The nominees: Javier Bardem, "Biutiful"; Jeff Bridges, "True Grit"; Jesse Eisenberg, "The Social Network"; Colin Firth, "The King's Speech"; James Franco, "127 Hours"

The winner: Colin Firth

Possible upset: Firth doesn't deliver a witty and gracious acceptance speech.

Firth could well have won last year for "A Single Man." In fact, if he had bested Bridges, who prevailed for playing the boozy country singer in "Crazy Heart," it would be Bridges' turn to win the Oscar this year. And, one could easily make the case that Firth delivered a more nuanced, affecting performance for "A Single Man," and that Bridges' Rooster Cogburn was a superior example of a redeemed drunkard.

But that's just rummaging through apples and oranges in a race that, because of the way the Academy votes, belongs to Firth and Firth alone.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

The nominees: Amy Adams, "The Fighter"; Helena Bonham Carter, "The King's Speech"; Melissa Leo, "The Fighter"; Hailee Steinfeld, "True Grit"; Jackie Weaver, "Animal Kingdom"

The winner: Melissa Leo

Possible upset: Hailee Steinfeld

Leo ruffled a few feathers recently when she had the gall to buy her own glossy (i.e. tacky) trade ads featuring a glamorous shot of the 50-year-old actress along with the word "Consider." And, with the Academy Awards, you just don't do that kind of self-promotion because, as we all know, nominees don't actually campaign for the prize. No, they just hit the talk-show circuit and attend awards shows and press receptions and Academy screenings to promote the movie, not themselves.

"She just lost my vote," one Academy member reportedly told The Hollywood Reporter, a comment that concisely sums up the inane logic some Academy members use in marking their ballots. God forbid they actually vote on the work and not the sideshow.

That said, there's always a backlash to the backlash. The sniping might actually cement the win for Leo, who has long been the frontrunner in the category (a status that makes her ad purchase a doubly curious choice.) But if she loses, don't blame the misguided self-promotion. Having fellow "Fighter" cast member Adams in the category could split the vote, giving newcomer Steinfeld the win.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

The nominees: Christian Bale, "The Fighter"; John Hawkes, "Winter's Bone"; Jeremy Renner, "The Town"; Mark Ruffalo, "The Kids Are All Right"; Geoffrey Rush, "The King's Speech"

The winner: Christian Bale

Possible upset: Geoffrey Rush

The one nominee who didn't glad-hand this year was Bale, proving again that you don't have to make the rounds on the rubber chicken circuit to win an Oscar (Mo'Nique sure as hell didn't last year). Of course, you can afford that luxury only if the work makes voters' teeth drop from the get-go, and Bale's did. From the moment you glimpse his hollow cheeks and wiry frame, you know Bale has done another full-bore freefall in the name of art or insanity or some irresistible combination of both.

At any rate, there's no way he loses. Unless the Academy, really loves "The King's Speech" in a way that transcends categories and common sense.

BEST DIRECTOR

The nominees: Darren Aronofsky, "Black Swan"; Joel and Ethan Coen, "True Grit"; David Fincher, "The Social Network"; Tom Hooper, "The King's Speech"; David O. Russell, "The Fighter"

The winner: Tom Hooper

Possible upset: David Fincher

And, circling back to transcending categories and common sense, look at the nominees in this category. The Coens. David O. Russell. Aronofsky. Fincher. Four (counting the brothers as a two-headed single entity) of the greatest filmmakers working today. You could program a wonderful week-long film festival with their work and still have movies left over for, as they say, further viewing.

And then you have this year's likely winner, Tom Hooper, a Brit who spent most of his career working in television before making "The King's Speech."

You could argue that each of the indisputably great directors has made better films. And you could also note that Hooper invested his movie with plenty of interesting, intelligent visual touches. He moves the camera elegantly and his sense of composition is flawless. He also seems to have a way with actors. But that doesn't make it feel any less ... wrong (there, I said it) to be giving Hooper the Oscar over four equally deserving candidates, directors who have contributed so much to the past quarter century of cinema.

Fincher could still sneak in and win this. But chances are he'll get his Oscar 20 years from now for some halfway decent movie starring Brad Pitt, who will, by that point, have assumed the elder-statesman mantle from Jack Nicholson and be sitting in the Kodak Theatre's front row, applauding with gusto.
Read More: MSN