Truth

The star shot to fame later in life but made the most of her time in the spotlight with her unfiltered, outspoken attitude. Here are five times Kim ruffled feathers

The sad news has emerged today that presenter-turned-reality star Kim Woodburn has died at the age of 83. The firebrand, who shot to fame on Channel 4’s How Clean Is Your House with Aggie MacKenzie, passed away on Monday.

Kim had been married to her husband Peter for 46 years, living with her ‘soulmate’ in Nantwich, Cheshire. In a statement, her representative said: “Kim was an incredibly kind, caring, charismatic and strong person. Her husband Peter is heartbroken at the loss of his soulmate.”

From being at the heart of the most explosive row in the history of Celebrity Big Brother to taking on one of the nation’s best-known TV presenters, the star was never one to back down. We take a look back at five of Kim’s most memorable moments…

READ MORE: Kim Woodburn’s real life tragedies that led to call from police with autobiography release

Tensions with Aggie

C4’s How Clean Is Your House? made household names out of Kim and Aggie but the duo famously didn’t get on all that well during the six seasons of the show. Aggie later spilled the beans on their fallout, saying that while the “friction” between the pair had made for good television, appearing on stage together was the final straw.

“We were doing panto in Brighton,” she said. “I was so shocked and upset and angry. I lost my rag with her.” Aggie revealed the pair didn’t speak for the last two series of the show and even said: “Kim was such a big, damaging part of my life. I feel she almost destroyed me”.

Kim, on the other hand, was uncharacteristically silent on the controversy. The star simply said she “never said anything derogatory about Aggie” and was “not going to start now”.

Celebrity Big Brother storm

Kim made a memorable appearance on C4’s Celebrity Big Brother in 2017, when she became embroiled in a heated argument with some of her fellow contestants, including ex-glamour models Nicola McLean and Bianca Gascoigne and former footballer Jamie O’Hara.

Never one to back down, the star warned them: “I’ll cross you so badly and you’ll regret it for the rest of your life!” before famously screaming at Jamie: “You’re an adulterer… you two-timed your wife and she’s got three kids!”.

Kim was removed by the show’s security to calm down the situation and spent the night in the spare room before returning the next day. She finished in a respectable third place in the contest, during the course of which she branded fellow housemates “filthy, dirty scum” and a “chicken livered bunch”.

Loose Women walk-off

Another show to face Kim’s wrath was ITV’s Loose Women. She had fallen out with Coleen Nolan on Celebrity Big Brother after accusing the star and several other housemates of bullying and had been invited on the daytime show with executives hoping for a reconciliation.

Instead, Coleen told her: “You’re a horrible, self-centred, publicity-seeking witch”. Kim branded Coleen “lying trash”, raised her voice and stormed off.

There were a total of 3,000 complaints made to Ofcom accusing the show of picking on Kim. They included model Jodie Marsh, who wrote: “Having watched the Kim Woodburn interview I couldn’t not make a complaint! It was bullying, pure & simple.”

Kim vs Phillip

The TV icon had several on-air spats with presenter Phillip Schofield, who fronted ITV daytime stalwart This Morning for 21 years. At one point, she famously branded Phil a “big phoney” during a heated interview on the show.

The reality TV contestant had taken offence when questioned about her Celebrity Big Brother appearance, insisting to Phil that watching the 45-minute TV edit of the contest was not the same as living it for 24 hours a day. “Don’t think you are going to bully me, I have been around too long,” she told him, with viewers calling their chat “car-crash TV” and the “most awkward TV interview I’ve ever witnessed on This Morning”.

When the presenter wrapped up the chat by telling Kim it had been a delight to interview her she branded him a “phoney”. Six years later, when Phillip left This Morning in disgrace after admitting to an affair with a young colleague on the show, Kim called him “an obnoxious, horrible man”, saying “I don’t know why he’s still on television”.

‘Transphobia’ row

Known for being a gay icon, Kim was accused of transphobia in 2022 when she was interviewed on GB News and asked about unisex changing rooms. Her reply of “a man’s a man, a woman’s a woman” led to accusations of transphobia.

But the outspoken star hit back on social media, insisting her words had been deliberately misinterpreted. “During the show, we never discussed trans people,” said Kim.

“I have always supported the LGTBQ+ community, as you are all aware, and I count each and every single one of you, my friends. I will always be an ally to the community and would never say a bad word about any of you.”

The Trump brand has been used to hawk cryptocurrencies, Bibles, steaks and guitars. Now the US president’s media company is laying the groundwork to sell investment funds.

Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., which is majority owned by Donald Trump, plans to sell offerings tied to his agenda.

The parent of the Truth Social platform, where the president is also a prominent poster, has announced plans for and trademarked the names of a group of financial products under the Truth.Fi banner—investments that will potentially benefit from the president’s policies with bets on energy, crypto and domestic manufacturing. The proposed products include exchange-traded funds, or portfolios that trade like stocks that can be purchased through most brokers.

Details on the products’ structures and strategies are still scarce. ETFs are subject to approval by regulators, and no public filings are available yet. Yet the brand-building has already begun. So have the arguments. Critics see a sitting US president having a financial stake in the success of funds that are associated with his brand and his politics, built on strategies that he can influence from the White House.

“These transactions fly in the face of government ethics standards,” says Michael Posner, professor of ethics and finance at NYU Stern School of Business. “When you’re president, the assumption is that 100% of your energy is devoted to serving the country—not monetizing your public platform.”

The administration says the president is walled off. “President Trump’s assets are in a trust managed by his children,” Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement. “There are no conflicts of interest.” Trump Media did not respond to a request for comment.

US presidents aren’t required under federal law to divest assets, but past leaders have done so or used blind trusts to avoid perceived conflicts. Trump, however, has maintained financial exposure through family-controlled structures. Right before taking office again, he transferred about $4 billion worth of Trump Media shares to a trust controlled by his son Donald Trump Jr. But the arrangement is not a blind trust with independent oversight.

The concern among ethics experts isn’t only the ownership. It’s the overlap between policy and potential monetary benefit. The Truth.Fi funds could rise and fall in line with decisions the president makes in office. Protectionist policies aimed at various sectors and countries could help the proposed Truth.Fi Made in America ETF, which is set to bet on reshoring. Deregulatory moves in favor of crypto may boost a Bitcoin-themed ETF. And so on.

The crypto angle is a familiar one. Trump and his family have already profited from the digital-asset boom, hyping up a cryptocurrency bearing his name. Such so-called memecoins have no underlying value as investments, but creators of Trump’s coin recently held a promotion offering top holders a private dinner with the president. A company affiliated with the Trump Organization owns a large chunk of the Trump memecoins. Another Trump family-linked company, World Liberty Financial, has also issued its own cryptocurrencies, including a dollar-linked digital token called a stablecoin. World Liberty recently announced the coin would be used to complete a $2 billion transaction between a state-backed Abu Dhabi company and the overseas crypto exchange Binance. Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon have said the stablecoin offers “opportunities for unprecedented corruption” because the Trump family can benefit financially from the use of its product.

In its ETF announcement, Trump Media said the proposed products, which include portfolios known as separately managed accounts in addition to ETFs, offer a conservative alternative to “woke” investing. It’s a niche currently occupied by funds including the Point Bridge America First ETF and the God Bless America ETF, among others. Both have gathered only modest assets, as have left-leaning ETFs, thanks in part to a saturated ETF market that’s making life harder for newbie issuers.

There are already about 60 ETFs based on Bitcoin, a tally that’s grown by at least 22 this year. In addition, there are more than 60 funds tied to energy, including coal, and at least three from issuers including Tema and BlackRock Inc.’s iShares based on reshoring and manufacturing, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Trump Media “will be depending on its brand recognition to set its ETFs apart among a crowd of competing products,” says Roxanna Islam, head of sector and industry research at ETF shop TMX VettaFi. “A strong political following may help gather initial support, but in the long run, flows will ultimately depend on ETF basics like fees and performance.”

The company has announced plans to seed the funds with as much as $250 million. It’s working with trading platform Crypto.com and investment firm Yorkville Advisors to help run the funds. Still, its biggest unrivaled asset is Trump himself. Even if he’s not an explicit spokesperson, almost everything he does makes him a potential ad for the company. “What a competing fund doesn’t have is a person who’s in the news literally every day who can then talk about these things,” says Philip Nichols, a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Hal Lambert, who runs the MAGA ETF and has raised money for Trump’s presidential runs, dismisses concerns about conflicts. For one, the president’s views on issues such as domestic manufacturing have been publicly known for decades. There are more direct ways to have a seat at the table than buying an ETF, he says; people can give money to campaigns or political action committees, for instance. “I just don’t know that that stuff would work on him,” Lambert says. “Trump does what he wants to do.”

Hajric writes for Bloomberg

I was never a fan of pleasantries because they seemed like a waste of time. Something that two people said to each other before they could say real things to each other. As years go by, more and more of our verbal interaction has taken the form of extended pleasantries. Little, it feels, that people say to each other is real. It’s about how they wish to look, how they can best position themselves, agenda.

That’s one reason I always loved the character of Norm Peterson on the sitcom “Cheers,” played by George Wendt, who has now cashed out his tab at the age of 76 and left this earthly barroom for one where I hope the kegs never run dry.

Norm was universal from the first time he entered the hostelry — as perpetual student and not-very-effective waitress Diane Chambers would have put it.

There was no more artful ingress in the history of American television than any of the many made by Norm, and they were so good, and had so much room for variability, that we got to witness one in every episode of the show.

You know the gag: Norm comes through the door, ready for a cold beer, someone asks him how he’s doing, and he answers.

But there’s more to it than that, isn’t there? I’m hesitant to even call the gag a gag, because it’s replete with a quality increasingly rare in our world: authenticity.

Norm doesn’t treat the inquiry — “How’s the world treating you, Norm?” — as perfunctory pleasantry. Which is what we almost always do.

In one episode, his response is, “It’s a dog-eat-dog world, and I’m wearing Milk-Bone underwear.” A query of “What’s shaking?” prompts a reply of “All four cheeks and a couple of chins.”

But in real life, when someone asks us how we are, we say, “Good, and you?” The truth is, we’ve just answered automatically, without a single thought, and we’re unlikely to be listening to whatever answer the other person gives us.

But what an amazing idea it is to ask someone how they are and care about the answer. To be invested in their well-being from the start. To jettison pretense and formality. And how subversive it is to treat another’s tossed-off query as though they cared. Maybe that shifts us all toward paying attention.

Norm always answered truthfully. He gave his interlocutor — and the patrons of the bar who enjoyed his quips — a tart response peppered with wit. But he was also willing to go there. And where’s that? To a place of being humble. Of admitting to struggle.

Now, Norm’s life might not have seemed arduous. He owned a house, had a wife who stood by him although he spent his evenings with the gang at Cheers — often dodging her phone calls. He didn’t work that much when he worked at all.

In a world that’s now rammed with loneliness, it’s easy to watch Norm and think, “I wish I had what that barfly had.” Norm has people. He’s both liked and loved.

Times change. I don’t think you could have a Cheers-type setup in our current iteration of life, but maybe you never could have one without sitcom magic. Shows idealize. But there’s truth and wisdom in both “Cheers” and Norm, without whom Cheers wouldn’t have been Cheers. And we can still wish. We must.

In “Crime and Punishment,” Dostoevsky wrote that everyone needs a somewhere. A somewhere can be a someone. It’s what helps us to be ourselves. Naked and open. Emotionally. Spiritually.

Norm never felt a need to embellish. He owned his struggles — what may have been his depression. His failings. He dished out the bons mots with each entrance like he was a thirsty Pascal who paid for his drinks in pensées, which made him an inspiration.

The gag never became less efficacious. It was the sitcom analogue to Conan Doyle’s “the trick,” the term for when Sherlock Holmes would dazzle Dr. Watson by telling him everything about someone just by looking at their walking stick.

I remember watching Norm when I was 8 and even then thinking he was cool. This wasn’t a star athlete. He could have lived across the street. He blew me away — as he made me laugh — simply by being brave enough to tell the truth about where he was at.

With Norm, the quotidian was never just the quotidian. It’s like in baseball: Everyone says in May that it’s early in the season, it doesn’t matter, but all the games still count as much as any of the other games.

That’s how Norm lived, and we have George Wendt to thank for Norm’s example, because you can’t imagine anyone else in the part. As to the question of how the world was treating Norm, I think the answer lies somewhere in how Norm understood what was important in the world. That’s worth a round on the house.

Colin Fleming is the author, most recently, of “Sam Cooke: Live at the Harlem Square Club, 1963.”

In March 2024, I wrote a column about President Biden’s State of the Union speech with a confident headline that made perfect sense to me at the time: “Chill out, my fellow Americans. Your president isn’t cognitively impaired.”

Boy was I wrong. For months, critics and supporters had been raising pointed questions about the president’s physical health and intellectual acuity. Had he won the November election, after all, he would have been the oldest president in American history. (Since he lost, that honor goes to the current White House occupant.) But during his hourlong speech to Congress, Biden had sparred repeatedly with Republican hecklers. He was on his game. Democrats were relieved.

Having watched Trump raise spurious questions during the 2016 campaign about Hillary Clinton’s health —particularly after she was visibly ill at a 9/11 ceremony in Manhattan — I thought Republicans were harping on the issue of Biden’s age more as a tactic than anything else. It was a good distraction, considering that his opponent, then-former President Trump, was only a few years younger and given to rambling incoherence himself.

Republicans may have exaggerated Biden’s issues, but they were, as we soon learned, in the main, correct. By the time the president stood slack-jawed and confused on a debate stage with Trump only three months after his triumphant State of the Union address, it was clear that something was very, very wrong. The debate stage can be a cruel place, and with no prepared speech loaded onto a teleprompter, Biden was suddenly naked in the spotlight. It was not a pretty sight, and suddenly, he was no longer a tenable presidential candidate.

But why are we talking about this old news when we have a president flouting every ethical norm of his office, wantonly violating the Constitution and cozying up to murderous dictators such as Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince whom the CIA concluded had ordered the 2018 killing and dismemberment of Washington Post columnist and Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi?

Biden is back in the news thanks to “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” by longtime CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios White House correspondent Alex Thompson. The book, whose subtitle says it all, has been excerpted in the New Yorker and reviewed by other publications. Its publication date is Tuesday.

I tried to get my hands on a copy, but the publishing house blew me off.

In any case, so much of the book’s insider information has been made available that it is possible to make a convincing case, even from a distance, that Biden’s insistence on running for a second term, despite his promise to be a one-term “bridge,” and his belated decision to drop out, is how we got to where we are today: in the grip of a chaotic, despotic self-dealing president who is turning the Constitution on its head.

Heckuva job, Joe!

I was as surprised as anyone that Biden became the nominee in 2020. I recall watching him stump in Iowa, certain that he was too old for the job. Onstage, he was shouty, his voice rising and falling for no particular reason — “mistaking volume for passion,” as I wrote back then.

And yet, for all his faults, gaffes and frailties, I would still prefer an impaired Biden to the corrupt felon who currently occupies the Oval Office.

Those who have read “Original Sin” say that it does not contain any bombshells. What it offers is a detailed account of the systematic effort by family and advisors to conceal the truth from the American people, and calls out the cowardly Democratic leaders who knew Biden was not up to a second term but were afraid to cross him.

As the Washington Post put it in its review: “The book is a damning account of an elderly, egotistical president shielded from reality by a slavish coterie of loyalists and family members united by a shared, seemingly ironclad sense of denial and a determination to smear anyone who dared to question the president’s fitness for office as a threat to the republic covertly working on behalf of Trump.”

Co-author Thompson, as it happens, was one of the few mainstream political journalists to aggressively report on Biden’s worsening condition and the struggle — you might even call it gaslighting — to keep it from the public.

For that, the White House Correspondents’ Assn. awarded him its top honor in April. In his acceptance speech, Thompson was unflinching.

“President Biden’s decline and its cover-up by the people around him is a reminder that every White House, regardless of party, is capable of deception,” he said. “But being truth tellers also means telling the truth about ourselves. We, myself included, missed a lot of this story, and some people trust us less because of it. We bear some responsibility for faith in the media being at such lows. … We should have done better.”

I take his point. We are now living with the consequences of our failures.

@rabcarian.bsky.social and @rabcarian