Judging by the Mail Online comments, most people seem as shocked and appalled as we are re the animals situation. But it's depressing to see how many people are falling for it too (...assuming those comments are genuine, that is). Amid all the justified criticisms, there are some gushing comments saying "Aww, her heart's in the right place, anyone who cares so much for animals deserves respect, this has made me see her in a new light" etc.
....Do these people not read what she's actually written? All the shocking irresponsible behaviour that has allowed these animals to get into such a state?....Do they just see the nice pictures of ickle fluffy animals, think "Ahh, she loves animals," and form their opinion based on that?
Increasingly, she seems to be using her animals in the same way she uses her family: by filling her column with stories of their
illnesses, accidents and tragedies, thus gaining sympathy for herself
. And, of course, distracting readers from when she's been especially nasty and spiteful. Because hey, you can't criticise an animal-lover, can you?
A lot of the Mail Online posters seem to have been mentioning the RSPCA. Some of her descriptions of the animals' suffering have been so extreme, it's genuinely shocking. But because she's writing about it all purely in terms of how it affects her, she seems to have completely overlooked the fact that she's making people aware of something that shows her in such a bad light.