Daniel Bannister, a 50-year-old man of no fixed address, has been sentenced to 16 weeks in prison after repeatedly stalking Girls Aloud singer Cheryl Tweedy at her Buckinghamshire home. Bannister targeted the pop star on three separate occasions in 2024, leaving her feeling frightened and distressed.
The first incident occurred in January 2024 when Bannister arrived at Cheryl’s home in the Chalfonts area and used her intercom system to announce that he had "come to get Cheryl." The alarming visit led to a restraining order being placed against him, barring him from approaching her property again.
However, six months later, Bannister breached the restraining order by returning to Cheryl’s house in July. During this visit, he bizarrely asked for "a glass of wine," claiming he was "really thirsty." Cheryl, deeply disturbed by his behaviour, hoped this would be the last encounter, but Bannister returned in December.
In her statement to the court, Cheryl, who was able to monitor the incident via her security camera, expressed her panic upon seeing Bannister on her doorstep for a third time. She stated that she "immediately panicked" and "feared for my safety." Cheryl also voiced her concerns for her young son, who was due to return home from the cinema, and made it clear that her primary worry was protecting him from harm.
Cheryl informed the police that she recognised Bannister from his previous visits and was concerned he was attempting to find a way into her home. This incident, combined with the earlier breaches, prompted Cheryl to take legal action once again.
At High Wycombe Magistrates' Court, Bannister admitted to harassment, breaching the restraining order, and attempting to breach it again. District Judge Arvind Sharma, who presided over the case, sentenced Bannister to 16 weeks in prison and imposed a new indefinite restraining order, preventing Bannister from making any future contact with Cheryl.
Cheryl was not present in court but provided a statement that highlighted the emotional impact of Bannister’s actions. The singer explained how she immediately recognised Bannister and feared for her safety. Her main concern was shielding her son from the unsettling situation.
During the hearing, Bannister’s defence barrister, Colin Mackrell, argued that while Bannister’s behaviour was inappropriate, it did not pose a "direct threat" to Cheryl. Mackrell suggested that Bannister had developed an "affection" for the pop star, but the court deemed his actions serious enough to warrant both a custodial sentence and the new restraining order.
JK Rowling’s Instagram story mocking Pedro Pascal’s criticismInstagram Screengrab
A scene from The Thursday Murder Club, where four retirees turn amateur detectives in a quiet British village shaken by a real murderInstagram/NetflixUK
Stills from Andaz Apna Apna
Stills from Andaz Apna Apna
Vinay Kumar Sinha
Rahul’s casual dismissal of that controversy has added fuel to the fire
Rahul Bhatt sparks controversy over 'insensitive' remarks about sisters Alia and Pooja Bhatt
Rahul Bhatt, fitness trainer and son of veteran filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt, has found himself at the centre of a social media storm following controversial remarks about his half-sister, Alia Bhatt. In a recent interview, Rahul drew comparisons between Alia and their older sister Pooja Bhatt, calling the latter more talented, attractive, and principled.
The comments, which many have labelled inappropriate and insensitive, have sparked widespread criticism online. During the interview, Rahul stated, “In my opinion, she (Alia) is not even half of what my real sister Pooja is. Not in talent, not in looks, not in terms of being sexy. In front of my sister, she is ‘paani kam chai’ (watery tea). Amongst the siblings, the most talented and the most moralistic is Pooja.”
Social media users reacted strongly, questioning why Rahul would compare his sisters in such personal terms. Several users were particularly disturbed by his reference to their appearance and sex appeal, pointing out that such comparisons within a family cross boundaries of propriety. One comment read, “This is disturbing. Why talk about your sisters like that? It’s not just weird, it’s wrong.” Another post said, “There’s nothing respectful about comparing your siblings’ attractiveness in public.”
The backlash also reignited conversation around a decades-old controversy involving Mahesh Bhatt and Pooja Bhatt. Rahul was asked about the infamous 1990s magazine cover where the father-daughter duo shared a kiss, which had stirred public outrage at the time. Dismissing the criticism, Rahul said, “It doesn’t make any difference. It’s like water off a duck’s back. We know the truth, and we’ve seen everything since childhood.”
Rahul’s casual dismissal of that controversy has added fuel to the fire, with critics saying it reflects a broader issue of the Bhatt family being insensitive to public perception and boundaries. Many users questioned the need for bringing up old incidents in a bid to defend new and equally questionable statements.
As of now, neither Alia Bhatt nor Pooja Bhatt has issued any public response to Rahul’s remarks. Both actors, known for their significant contributions to Indian cinema, have typically kept family matters private despite living in the public eye.
This episode has also sparked debate over the role of public figures in maintaining respect when discussing family matters in the media. Observers say such comments, especially when involving women’s appearance and personal qualities, reinforce problematic attitudes and fuel unnecessary controversies.
While Rahul Bhatt is not as prominent in the entertainment industry as his father or sisters, his comments have made headlines and placed the Bhatt family in the spotlight for reasons beyond their creative work. For many, this serves as a reminder that public platforms come with responsibility, and that family ties should not be trivialised or dissected for attention or comparison.
The backlash is unlikely to subside soon, especially as fans and followers of Alia and Pooja continue to express disappointment over the way the situation has unfolded. Whether or not Rahul chooses to clarify or apologise remains to be seen.