[Fflaps]

So has anyone spotted any possible April Fool stories in the Mail or Express yet? I'd like to think it was Littlejohn's column but of course it's not.

[Messianic Trees]

I was tempted to start posting comments more or less at random saying "this must be an April Fool", but really couldn't face the horrors of the DM website this morning.

[satnav]

On the paper review on Sky News last night the reviewers reckoned the story about Kate Middleton looking at baby clothes was the Mail's April fool because the woman in the picture doesn't even look like Kate.

[Sodpenguin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... eiled.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hilarious.

[mattomac]

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/steve ... nned-story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Amusing little blog from the New Statesman

[Killer Whale]

Good editorial in the Guardian today announcing that from now on it will be supporting the monarchy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... yal-moment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Son Of Hand]

We will be recalling correspondents from some less newsworthy parts of the globe, such as north Africa and south-east Asia, so they can focus on palace matters instead. And we will shortly be making available to readers a range of attractive commemorative crockery.

[satnav]

Given the papers reputation for stealing stories from other papers and website, April 1st must be a real nightmare for reporters on the Mail.

This story has been lifted from the Sun but surely it must be a prank!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ALLOW.html

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Probably not - it's an odious little arsewipe of an article. I made this comment:

Read the story. This was part of an ongoing series of incidents - probably bullying. This sort of story makes it less, rather than more likely that victims will report bullying, so it does a great service to kids, doesn't it, in the puerile drive to get a 'controversial' headline. Well done...
Roger Annout

Quite seriously - this story downplays what is clearly a string of bullying incidents. In this case the victim is pelted with sweets. The intention is not to injure, but to humiliate.
This story then adds more humiliation to that which the victim has already suffered.

And people ask me why I believe all journalists are scumbags...

[Tubby Isaacs]

Good work, Malc.

Unfortunately, this is what you're up against:

If this is true, then the "assaulted" boy,his parents and the police should be taken to court for wasting police time and taxpayers money. The mind boggles.
- robbo , notts, 1/4/2011 11:43

Yep, punish the boy for being bullied. Idiot.

[storygirl]

Good editorial in the Guardian today announcing that from now on it will be supporting the monarchy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... yal-moment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought that was a spoof until I read the Melanie Phillips comment,which is surely lifted straight from her latest column?

[Tubby Isaacs]

The boy's family called the school and police, who were forced to intervene by taking Nathan home the same day.

Nice "forced" there. Forced by whom or what? David Cameron? Harriet Harman?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Interesting as well, that the perpetrator's father went straight to the press to get his retaliation in first.

Like I often say, there aren't any born-evil kids, they learn it from their parents...

[Tubby Isaacs]

Do you think Mail readers would like marshmallow chucker if they met him?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Do you think Mail readers would like marshmallow chucker if they met him?

Don't forget his gang of friends. Surely that counts as feral yoof?

But 'dad found phone number of the Sun' trumps all.