The Mail's most obsequious defender of Rupert Murdoch yet:


In spite of fluffy Rupert's bunny-wunniness, someone from one of his papers did try to hack Wyatt's phone. (That's how low down the list of z-list celebrities they were prepared to go.)


I suppose Wyatt's just as sanguine about burglary, fraud, or a little light sexual assault — all illegal, but hardly life-threatening. Yet she takes offence at having to put up with a police inspector who seemed determined to, you know, do his job (unlike some of his superiors).

The complacency of the Mail's posh columnists — Wyatt, Hitchens, Letts — with regard to the NI affair is remarkable, almost Vanya-esque. But have the readers noticed, or are they buying the crap about Labour and the BBC being worse?

Given that Rebekah Brooks is married to a racehorse trainer I beginning to think he's been supplying right wing commentators with their own set of blinkers.

_________________
www.newshuddlines.blogspot.com

Murdoch liked your dad, Petronella?

No further questions, your honour.

And of course he does a lot of work for charidee..

It all sounds eerily reminiscent of what serial killers' neighbours say about them when they're caught - 'he loved his mum', 'he always had time to help out', 'he was ever so apologetic about that smell coming from his drains' blah blah.

Does anybody know why she's named after a mosquito repellent?

She's named after her grandmother, Citronella Candelle.

You used to shag serial philanderer Boris Johnson didn't you Ms Wyatt? Why should we give a tuppence for your eulogising of Mr Murdoch as I put it to you your all round judgement leaves a lot to be desired doesn't it Ms Wyatt?

It's weird how she still trades off her father. I seem to remember back in the dim and distant past that there was some publicity around the fact that, when she wanted to go to Oxford, Daddy went off and talked to his friends and wangled her a place; and when she decided after a week that she couldn't hack it, Daddy did the business again and got her transferred to London. All a bit tough on the potential Oxford student whose place she presumably took and who would probably not have walked out as soon as the going got tough.

Lies here from Petronella Wyatt:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... roads.html

She published the same article in 2010

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

(more-or-less, a few words have been changed)

However in 2010 she claimed that her mother had just been run down after dark near her home in North London [St Johns Wood] while crossing the road by a hit-and-run cyclist with no lights, fell on her back and hit her head, and was taken to hospital by a passer-by, and suffered a broken arm.

In 2012 she claimed that her mother had suffered a broken arm having been knocked down by a hit-and-run cyclist who had run a red light on August 16th 2012, while shopping in Regent Street (which is not near her home, and is not North London), and had her 'seemingly inert body' dragged onto the pavement and was taken to hospital by ambulance.

She then claims that her mother was again hit by a hit-and-run cyclist in September 2012 ('twice within a month'), while crossing the road near her home in North London, damaging her previously broken arm, and her eye.

In 2010 she claimed that she had her bag stolen by a youth on a bike riding on the pavement, '2 years ago' (2008 presumably, though 2007 would also be 2 years before publication)

In 2012 she claimed that she had been mugged by 'Lycra Louts' a whole 'gang of youth on bikes', and this occurred in 2012.


The most recent article has 560 comments. I don't know if any part of the story is true, or it is all lies, but clearly she has lied about many aspects of what happened, and perhaps the whole thing is made up.

I call bollocks on the whole thing.

If you hit a person of any size beyond wispy two year old child with sufficient force to knock them over, you're going on your arse, quick-smart. Hit and run my occasionally lyrca-clad hole.

Also, the rant against cyclewear. Much in common with Hit hen's anti-swearing crusade, the various ranting about language/sexy images on telly &c. What is it about fuckwits that they can't tell their aesthetic preferences from moral standpoints?

Absolutely. Cyclists want to get places, and hitting people slows them down considerably, so they try and avoid running into people. If someone were to suddenly step in front of them, the shock would send them off balance at the very least.

Indeed. My biggest and mercifully only major accident was caused by avoiding some numpty* stepping off the kerb. I wasn't bimbling along, but I wasn't going flat out, either. It is disturbing how quickly something like that can drop you.

(*I often wonder if she was really as pretty as I recall, or if it was some kind of adrenaline backwash. I kinda hope she was, as it makes all my semi-concussed "No, you're grand, go on ahead, don't worry about me, are YOU ok?" seem a bit less stupid)

Once again it's the fallacy that because some cyclists are idiots, all of them must be so let's ban it. It's ridiculous (and I've heard similar arguments used about drivers and even pedestrians as well).

Of course you get the odd reckless or stupid cyclist, cyclists aren't perfect; but it takes some nerve to extrapolate from a couple of incidents that every single cyclist must be a 'Lycra lout'.

Can't speak for everyone, but I only go out looking for and deliberately running over old ladies very occasionally

_________________
I disagreed with the burglar’s policy, of tying me to a chair. But I did admire his convictions.