And the really hilarious thing is, people like the fragrant Sandra never seem to quite get that Hyacinth Bucket was not meant to be an admirable character. Nor that the over-anxiousness of a Margaret Thatcher is less desirable than the general I'll-do-what-I-like attitude of genuine toffs like the Camerons. If the lower middle class (ie Mailites) had their way we'd all still be curtsying to our betters and knowing our place, because God forbid anything would ever change. In fact, I have just had a road-to-Damascus moment and realised that that, of course, is why Mailites hate the Middletons so much - because they have had the temerity to think they're as good as anyone else and because Prince William clearly agrees that they are good enough for him. Which tends to prove that the fine disregard of the upper class for what anyone else thinks, because they're confident enough not to need to care, does have its uses from time to time.

God, I hate lower middle class, 1950s-70s, net-curtain twitching, what-will-the-neighbours-say, who-does-SHE-think-she-is snobbery. Kind of sums up Mailite attitudes in a nutshell, though. Along with the fawning attitude to Earl Spencer's youngest daughter. Now she was a REAL lidy, Gawd bless 'er.

Her incisive and comprehensive grasp of the referendum certainly changed my mind.

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
GOD made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.

Cecil Frances Alexander 1848, and still alive in Mailland.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... -mist.html

Oh, this is hilarious. Years of vitriolic Waity Katy stuff (not just from SP, all the slagettes did it); then three days of God Save Kate, because her sister's bum is worth looking at; now it's back to the vitriol. I get the distinct feeling that somebody, and I really hope it's Kate herself, backed up by William, is refusing to play the Diana game with the Press, and they don't like it one little bit. They're reduced, today, to a blurred long-lens shot of William arriving at the RAF base and no sign whatever of Kate. I forecast that the vitriol count is going to rise day by day.

They didn't believe a word of what they said about Kate when they were been nice, they only praised her during the wedding period because they knew people would hate them for it, so they resentfully bit their tongues for a day or two, then straight back to work.

As for the adoration her sister got, it's almost as if it was the only thing they could do.
Sneakily make out that there was someone even prettier than Kate on her wedding day (see, she's not that great looking) to make themselves feel better about having to be nice about her.

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"

It would definitely fuck them up. She was Irish

_________________
The trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts.

My random blog!http://www.princevulpine.blogspot.co.uk
My non-random blog!http://princevulpinelondonchurches.blogspot.co.uk/

I thought she was related to Wendy and Douglas Alexander - great-aunt or something?

edit - yep, she was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Alexander

And born in Dublin.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... grace.html


Halfway down the column, much breast-beating about how 'we' do teenage girls a disservice by constantly telling them they're not good enough. In the same column, admiring comments about the bodies of Jane Fonda and, surely not, who'd have thought it, Pippa Middleton. In the same issue of the DM, article upon article criticising assorted women's tits, faces, figures, achievements and attitudes. Have these Glenda Slags ever heard the word hypocrisy?

And I don't think much of her feeling the need to flag up the dirty secrets of Milly Dowler's parents either. I very much doubt they *wanted* them aired in court and splashed across the tabloids of Britain and the last I heard, having porn magazines and difficulties with your teenage daughters wasn't a crime. Of course this bit



is what it's all about. And I think anyone who would actually say that to parents who lost a daughter in circumstances like that is pretty low in the evolutionary scale.

The first part about 'hubristic' men is total waffle and generalisation. For Parsons and the Mail, there's no difference between having an affair and (alleged) sexual assault — basically, all sexuality is bad unless it's conjugal and procreative. Parsons' concern for fragile teens doesn't extend to the kids of any of the lotharios in her article (if they have any), but that's okay because they're in politics or, in the case of Clarkson, "wealthy". I guess that's also how the Mail justifies keeping the paparazzi in business.

PS: how does a man "use" porn?

Er...

Malcolm! You're a teacher. Need some help here.

_________________
The trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts.

My random blog!http://www.princevulpine.blogspot.co.uk
My non-random blog!http://princevulpinelondonchurches.blogspot.co.uk/

It helps if you're ambidextrous, then you can type comments to the Mail at the same time.

He uses it to oil his trampoline. Ask again in Year 12...

Sandra Parsons, everywoman:


Snap! It was obvious that Brown and Clegg hated their children, and frankly Sarah's rather pale.


Little-known fact: politicians are born of goats and hermaphrodites.

But there is crisis in Parsonsworld:


The saints!
Fathers, of course, don't give a fuck.
Childless women — well, they're freaks anyway.


I know what you're saying, Sandra. I used to feel a real connection with the viscountess's daughter and Old Marburian whom I'd never met. Until she flew Ryanair.

Apart from the appaling motherly cross she is nailing herself to (whilst acting as if only a mother can truly understand -or care- about certain things), her comment about voting for Cameron makes me so enraged.

Essentialy, she is saying that she voted for him purely because she felt he loved his wife and family (obviously she was party to some highly secret information about the other MP's families, they must hate their wives and we simply weren't aware of it).

Then -even worse!- she seems to be saying that it's the reason why so many other women voted for him.

One, how would she know? And two it is patronising and even horiffingly sexist, to suggest that all women (or at least happily married mummies like her who REALLY care) choose who to vote for based on such flimsy and ludicrous criteria, like they are picking favourite characters in a soap opera.

I hate this woman, I don't know where she came from, but she needs to go back there.

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"

There's a flaw in that logic, but I can't quite put my finger on it....