[Youngian]

It doesn't really say a great deal for her journalistic instincts does it. Surely a half decent journalist would have checked out the electoral register to see if he was single or not.

Or maybe its made it up and the guy’s a neighbour ‘manda bunged a few quid for his troubles.

[Watchman]

More Liz Jones than Carl Bernstein.

More like she was conned in to thinking it was an opportunity to fuck her self further up the greasy pole (no pun intended)

[Tubby Isaacs]

I don't normally comment on politicians looks, but I'm rather struck by that foxy chick in that photo. In the same way I'm struck by the foxy chick who appears next to Alison Pearson's columns.

Are there any straight-talking choleric columnists about to comment?

[Youngian]

To which a lifelong Conservative like me says, bring back Boris!

The ten red flags I missed that my perfect Conservative was secretly a crooked sociopath full of bullshit.

[satnav]

You do have to admire the resourcefulness of Amanda Platell. Last week she wrote a nasty article about Lauryn Goodyear taking Kyle Walker's love child to the Euro's, today she has now written a second article apologising for the first article. Money for old rope.

[Youngian]

The Mail appears to have a hard on for Walker and Goodman

[Andy McDandy]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... k-out.html

Amanda Platell, tough no-nonsense Aussie taking no prisoners! Dishing it out to everyone, regardless of who they are! Rich or poor, young or old, male or female, black or white!

But particularly the young and female (and if they're black, even better for her).

First off, there's the Strickly saga:

Why didn't the female celebrity 'victims' come forward earlier?

What on earth took them so long?

So we're going back ­several years to disclose unaccept­able behaviour. Yet none of the ­celebrities spoke out at the time.

If someone abused me like that in the workplace, first I'd knock him out, then knock on the door of the boss.

I just hope we're not hearing the echoing thud of minor celebs jumping on the victimhood bandwagon.

One or two comments below the line may give us a clue:

Mid life optimist
Northampton, United Kingdom
1 day ago
Perhaps you could re-read your article Amanda and see if you can answer your own question.

TJCaplan
London, United Kingdom
1 day ago
I imagine that part of what stopped them was anticipating the reaction of people like you.

Onto Maya Jama, castigated for breaking up with Stormzy. This is bad because she ought to settle down with a nice man and have babies.

Then Bella Hadid, who's one of them, getting grief and being linked tenuously to the 1972 Munich Olympics terrorism.

Then it's Kylie Minogue, the old slapper, dressing like a tart or something. Telling quote from Mandy:

One man asked what we were all wondering: 'How do you get into those pants?' To which she replied: 'For starters you can buy me a drink.'

Then it's Adele. Selfish cow, wanting a bit of privacy. Now a proper celeb - Queen Camilla. She shows those young 'uns how it's done! Then a dig at a woman who's claim to fame seems to be having children by a footballer. She, obviously, is the baddie.

She really does fucking hate women, doesn't she?

[Youngian]

She really does fucking hate women, doesn't she?

Especially women who clinch jobs Amanda believes she should have.

[satnav]

There has been lots written at bullying at the Mail over the years, especially under the editorship of Paul Dacre. Platell clearly never witnessed any of this bullying or she did she kept quiet because she didn't want to rock the boat and risk losing her cushy job.

[Andy McDandy]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... ATELL.html

Amanda's still on about Strickly. And as full of shit as ever.

Part of the problem is that it is not just the dancers who have become more and more demanding over the years, the judges have, too.

The original panel – Len Goodman, Arlene Phillips, Craig Revel Horwood and Bruno Tonioli – were a benevolent bunch. Yes, they made great jokes about terrible dancers but it was never malicious and they were full of warm praise for the high achievers.

I think that's still the case...

In the early days of Strictly, scores of 10 from the judges were as rare as hens’ teeth, now they’re showered like confetti on even the most average dancers.

Remember when Top Gear’s Quentin Wilson got two 1s on the first ever series in 2004 before he was eliminated.

Or the time Susannah Constantine’s Foxtrot with Anton Du Beke was given 1 by judge Craig.

Constantine was on the show in that far off distant year of....2018.

So, is the show getting easier or harder? Nicer or nastier judges? If you're not keeping track, don't worry. Neither is Amanda.

Strictly slowly became more woke, more inclusive, more box-ticking.

....

I truly lost my faith in Strictly when they recruited the celebrity Layton Williams last year. I understand the appeal to Beeb bosses of his moving back story: the gay son of an impoverished white mother and an absentee Jamaican dad.

Ah, here we go. Bash the black gay guy. Aside from the fact that stage or troupe dancing is completely different to ballroom, and that funnily enough, most slebs who have been through drama school will have put on their dancing shoes at some stage, what is your fucking point, Amanda? You've already said that you hate these "moving backstories" and obvious pleas to the heartstrings, but...I got nothing. Presumably, "It's a bit stale and I've not been invited on" is not enough to fill a page.

[Bones McCoy]

St summarise:

Bladdy bleks on the television again Apartika!!
Where will it end?

[satnav]

Lazy journalist Amanda Platell returns to one of her favorite pursuits slagging off Meghan Markle.

Having made millions from her nasty narrative about the Royal Family, Meghan is back taking the Netflix shilling.

She's just finished filming a cookery show to complement her jam-making brand American Riviera Orchard.

It's part of her reinvention as a homely mum celebrating the 'joys of cooking, gardening, entertaining and friendship'.

The plan is to sell Meghan as 'a beacon of inspiration and attainability', says celeb website Page Six (which is laugh-out-loud, as there's nothing everyday or attainable about her lifestyle).

Crikey! What a far cry from the fierce defender of women who, in 2019, declared: 'The rights of women and girls is... the cause I have spent the majority of my life advocating.' Now it's cooking lessons. From feminist pulpit to the kitchen stove, flogging a domestic dream to stay-at-home mums – that's quite a switch.


Her image will reportedly be centred on being both 'family-oriented' and 'regal'. Family-oriented? Wonder what the King, Camilla, William and Kate think about that. Or the dad and half-siblings she's jettisoned.

As for regal, what will be first on the menu, the late Queen's favourite chocolate cake? Victoria Sponge? Eton Mess, in honour of hapless husband Harry?

The sad truth is Meghan will do anything to make money from her royal connections, even though they are fast disappearing. Few royals speak to her or Harry any more, not even the King, who refuses to take his calls.

It is a desperate bid to make Meghan seem wholesome as the Sussexes' popularity tanks in the US. But it's also a demeaning retreat from the feminist frontline. And it's hardly inspiring to rely on regal family connections to make a buck.

Two years ago, Forbes magazine reported a speech by Meghan in which she said there was a 'misconception that if you're an ambitious woman you have an agenda, you must be calculating, selfish, or a climber... I still believe being ambitious is a beautiful thing'.

As a proud member of the sisterhood, I couldn't agree more. Which is why I find myself asking whatever happened to Meghan the feminist of old?

So apparently you can't be a feminist and host a cookery show. Who knew?

[Watchman]

The plan is to sell Meghan as 'a beacon of inspiration and attainability', says celeb website Page Six (which is laugh-out-loud, as there's nothing everyday or attainable about her lifestyle).

Unlike the Blessed St Kate

[Andy McDandy]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... ictim.html

This week, Mandy turns her attention to 2 daytime TV people, starting with a faux-apology and admission that she got something wrong about them a while ago. In short, "I said that X was a cunt for all the following reasons. Turns out that Y is actually the cunt, so basically I'll slag ghem both off".

In other news, Meghan is horrible and stoopid for wearing jewellery in Colombia, because there's a lot of crime there. A young and pretty actress isn't as young and pretty as someone who was young and pretty several years ago. Something about shoes. Meghan still smells.

Cunt.

[Andy McDandy]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... s-eye.html

How weird. Once you were a reasonably well known and successful political journalist, a PR advisor to a party leader. Now you're knocking out crap about Instagram kids and sub-Take a Break bollocks.

ODHSNM.

[Youngian]

I assume Tommy Fury is Frank Stallone to Tyson’s Sylvester.

[davidjay]

I assume Tommy Fury is Frank Stallone to Tyson’s Sylvester.

And then some. With any other surname he might, with luck, get as far as an area title fight.

[satnav]

The same Amanda Platell who complained that the BBC were too slow to deal with Hugh Edwards is now complaining that they acted too quickly over Jermain Jenas.

AMANDA PLATELL: Even if Jermaine Jenas did overstep the line, there is something about his sacking that doesn't feel right

The problem with her silly article is that she doesn't actually know why he was sacked or if he had received warnings about his behaviour in the past. If he was on his final written warning then sacking him would have been pretty straight forward.

She also indulges in a bit of victim shaming.

Yes, he was a fool for sexting a woman when he’d been married to former model Ellie, the mother of their three young children, for 13 years. Understandably, she’s kicked him out of the matrimonial bed and he’s struggling to save his relationship.

Yet the ‘colleague’ who indulged in that texting with Jenas must have known the score, and that she was invading another woman’s marriage.

She’d have known he had kids. They worked together. So why didn’t she just refuse to take his texts and not respond to him? Why did she let it go on for 24 hours?

I would go so far as to argue any woman allowing a married man to continue ‘frantically sexting’ for so long could be considered as wrong as he is.

And we might have guessed that Amanda has personal experience of men sending her inappropriate messages.

What worries me most in the Jenas affair, though, is that it once again portrays men as villains and women as the hapless victims.

As I know from my time as a single woman and ‘meeting’ men on dating apps, the moment he sends you anything which crosses your boundaries you have a simple choice. Just block him and delete his number and it’s all over.

We women are not impotent in these exchanges. I’ve been in the workplace for more than 40 years and, like so many others, have had to deal with unwanted attention from males, bosses and colleagues. It’s perfectly possible just to say ‘No’.

Of course that simple fact hasn’t stopped members of the BBC sisterhood from saying they are ‘furious’ at Jenas’s bid to defend himself with his talk about ‘consenting adults’.

One of them said: ‘If someone like that messages you, it’s awkward to say no to them or to ask them to stop... there is a certain element of fear that comes to not replying to them.’

What victim-pleading, snowflake nonsense.

As career women, we all have a choice over whether we engage. And if we do respond to a ‘sex texter’, there is always a danger of ‘sexting’ regret. I hope that is not what is driving Jenas’s demonisation in this case.

Whatever, we are now seeing a man’s career cancelled, his marriage in shreds as he’s hung out to dry, while the anonymous alleged victims are portrayed as some kind of modern-day saints.

[Youngian]

The problem with her silly article is that she doesn't actually know why he was sacked or if he had received warnings about his behaviour in the past.

But doesn’t ‘feel right.’ As Amanda isn’t from a reporter background she probably doesn’t feel embarrassed to write that.

[Andy McDandy]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... thers.html

That Taylor Swift's a slag. That Daniel Craig is playing a gay character because they give you an Oscar if you do. That Prince Harry's going bald. That Starmer is a bastard because he didn't buy every rescue cat in London. That Mrs Starmer is a bit secretive, what's going on there? That Demi Moore's past it, so's Nicole Kidman and Naomi Campbell.

Cunt.