Mark this in your diaries, but for once, I agree with the basic premise the old bat is peddling. I once endured a trans-atlantic flight with a very young (under a year) baby screaming - not crying, screaming - the whole way across. As we were de-planing, the rightly embarrassed mother said to us all in general "I'm very sorry, but she really doesn't like flying", whereupon an smartly dressed elderly gentleman responded "then why the f*** did you bring the brat ?". Cue round of applause from all. I've also had older but still young children kicking the back of my seat for hours, and all the parent will say is "they get bored". Families should have their own cabin. Soundproofed.
I sort of agree with you having endured a one hour flight to Belfast a few weeks ago trapped between two screaming babies. However, travelling for work in the last 3 months alone I have been vomitted on by a drunk woman, watched a couple attempt to have sex in business class and watched a man urinate into a cup because he couldn't wait for the loo so not all adults are perfect flying companions either. I've travelled to the US on 32 occasions with my 3 children starting when the youngest was 3 up to the last trip where the youngest was 14. All it takes is a bit of parental responsibility and some of us parents actually do have that. My 3 have never, screamed, kicked someones seat or misbehaved in any other annoying way because I as their parent saw it as my responsibility to keep them entertained and under control. Unfortunately until they come up with a way to stop the feckless procreating we are stuck with this sort of thing. I was a little amused though to hear a woman on a flight to Orlando say "why are there so many children on this flight?. Em, would Disneyworld being located in Orlando be a clue?. Should I ever have been on a flight with Ms. Jones I would have told my three to annoy her as much as possible and fed pure sugar to all the other children on the flight before telling them to go say hello to the scary lady.
.... Should I ever have been on a flight with Ms. Jones I would have told my three to annoy her as much as possible and fed pure sugar to all the other children on the flight before telling them to go say hello to the scary lady.
:D
LJ probably seized upon that NY Times article with delight!
I think the problem for passengers of all ages is being crammed into a confined space & being unable to move for x hours - making any noise seem more shrill/extreme. Imho most parents do their best, but when things turn bad, there's nowhere for anyone to retreat to.
My most recent noisy travelling experience was sharing a long train journey (where most seats are reserved & you can't easily bag another) with a group of women who talked VERY LOUDLY and screeched with laughter non-stop for the whole five hours. When we finally arrived, the worst culprit cried: "Oooh, didn't that journey go quickly - but then we were talking, aha ha ha ha!!!"
Me (nursing shredded eardrums): Grrrrr :mad:
Reading some of the comments >HERE< (relating to the above NYT article), frankly, I'd be too scared of some of these passengers
to travel with an infant...:eek:
Again it is all fiction just to get her out of the hole she's dug but surely even the most loyal and gullible Lizzy Lover must realised that they've been duped and surely can't condone even a fictional affair - again.
I think the RS may have been faded out of the story at about the time Jim Kerr finally went public with his 'dismay'.
The moan about babies on long-haul flights is all right, if already done a million times, but it is horrible to go on to whine about how expensive her presents for her nephews and nieces are and how relatively mean her brothers and sisters are.
I don't really think there is an answer to the babies-on-planes problem. Personally I think people are mad for taking little children on long haul flights just for a holiday, but no point in taking it out on the individual. For all the cross neighbour knows, the mother might be flying home for a funeral after a horrible bereavement. When my children were tiny they enjoyed modest little holidays about an hour from home; we used to go camping just West of Oxford on a site with a swimming pool, and for a happy week they slept in a tent, ate outside, swam, walked and set up elaborate snail farms; I swear that no holiday to Florida has ever been appreciated more, and it took an hour to get there.
I didn't take my two on a plane until they were old enough to play on a Gameboy!! I remember my friend took her two on a night flight to Florida for the millennium- they would have been 5 and 3 - and she told me they took it in turns to scream loudly throughout the entire 9 hours.... :eek:
Again it is all fiction just to get her out of the hole she's dug but surely even the most loyal and gullible Lizzy Lover must realised that they've been duped and surely can't condone even a fictional affair - again.
Interesting snippet from that link you gave, Seabird:
"6. The MM is a farmer, albeit an organic one. I don’t agree with farming animals, or making any money from them whatsoever. I couldn’t possibly have as a friend someone who raises animals holistically then sends them to slaughter and eats them, which is why I have ruled out Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Jamie Oliver as future suitors."
So what about her new business venture, then? Or does the fact that she says that the money will go towards her animals' "pensions" mean that it's ok to make money from them?
All it takes is a bit of parental responsibility and some of us parents actually do have that. My 3 have never, screamed, kicked someones seat or misbehaved in any other annoying way because I as their parent saw it as my responsibility to keep them entertained and under control. Unfortunately until they come up with a way to stop the feckless procreating we are stuck with this sort of thing.
You are completely right. I and my husband moved to Jersey for work, but all our family are in the UK. When our eldest daughter was born we took her on her first flight at the age of 2 months (for her Baptism - we couldn't have it in Jersey as most of our guests couldn't afford the trip or to stay here, and as there were only the 3 of us it made sense for us to do the spending/travelling instead) and yes, I was nervous as a first-time Mum taking my baby daughter on a plane, albeit for a 45 minute flight. However I took the precaution of (discreetly) feeding her for the take-off and landing (the bit that hurts children's ears the most) and she happily sat on my lap and fell asleep in the middle (the hum of the plane sent her to sleep quickly). As she got older she became a seasoned flyer to the UK at least 3 times a year, and her sister too when she was born 3 years later - often I took them alone in the school holidays (I'm a teacher, but my husband isn't) so that I could see my family and not once did either of them play up or in any other way annoy another passenger (with noise, kicking feet or anything else) because I was firm in my behaviour expectations of them.
I sympathise with the kicked seat problem - I've had that happen to me (and my well-behaved girls!) with children whose parents couldn't give a stuff and I agree it's downright annoying.
Children on flights are not a problem in themselves, it's the parents who make them a problem. If a child is crying, distract it or feed it. If it's annoying other people then tell it off and make it aware that such behaviour is unacceptable - and then give them an alternative which is more productive/positive.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for sharing that splendidly scary vision. But, Lancashire? Does it mean it's safe to go to the Dulverton tip, which is actually Brushford, without fear of fly-by invisible helicopters, broomsticks or any other apparition that springs to mind?
To distract myself from what I should be doing, below is a totally non-scanning verse...
Hubble, bubble, toil and trouble,
With (vegan) milk and yolks that coddle,
Enter my web of great deceit
With made up men lying at my feet;
They say the devil wears only Prada
For which‘ tis known that I pay nada
Thank you, thank you, thank you for sharing that splendidly scary vision. But, Lancashire? Does it mean it's safe to go to the Dulverton tip, which is actually Brushford, without fear of fly-by invisible helicopters, broomsticks or any other apparition that springs to mind?
To distract myself from what I should be doing, below is a totally non-scanning verse...
Hubble, bubble, toil and trouble,
With (vegan) milk and yolks that coddle,
Enter my web of great deceit
With made up men lying at my feet;
They say the devil wears only Prada
For which‘ tis known that I pay nada
Can this go on FB please? Having the crappiest day here and this made me :D:D
Thanks newbaby.
Being slowly asphyxiated in cashmere garments, or drowning in San Pellegrino, or from withdrawal symptoms of Illy coffee deprivation, in sequence like Rasputin.
Can this go on FB please? Having the crappiest day here and this made me :D:D
Thanks newbaby.
Pleased that the nonsensical, non-scanning, non-everything dippy ditty raised a smile during your crappola day...do hope things have improved.
Yes, of course, do with it what you will! It's hardly high literature to which copyright is appended!!!! (And jolly kind of you to ask...so thank you for that).
She's wondering why she doesn't have any friends just because she writes about them !
There are 4 Liz Jones articles in the MOS today - bit of an overkill!
Ah, so I'm not the only one who can't read it now. I'm glad I read it earlier this morning.
It was very odd. She went on about how she has no friends left, and some random glamorous friend tells her its because she writes about them in rude and unpleasant ways. Liz is outraged and baffled by this, and then hurt and self pitying. She refers to her 'husband' in the present tense in one paragraph.
Then she 'suddenly realises that her RS boyfriend may read what she wrote last week about the married man who makes her sparkle. (is this leading to the inevitable break up? Is it?). So she wishes that if only she could take it all back. And she includes an extra sentance about how she means her real live boyfriend whom she has sex with and whom she loves, just to make us all queasy over breakfast. Honestly, there was no need for that gratuitous sentance.
So anyway, there you have it. RS b/f is likely to read her article online and realise she's aiming to try to have an affair with some random Married Man with young kids.
Perhaps the inability to now access it online is make it all look realistic. Or perhaps its due to some caustic comments. I mean, seriously, is the woman so deluded that she a) thinks we believe her stories of imaginary RS b/f. and b) does she not understand that writing nasty things about people makes them upset?
So, there we have the inevitable set up for the big break up of the RS romance. She will be distraught and just unable to imagine why he's so upset with her. There will be months of columns and dreary entries all about why she doesn't understand the end of the relationship. And she'll be able to compare her misery and the relationship with the ex husband.
It was very odd. She went on about how she has no friends left, and some random glamorous friend tells her its because she writes about them in rude and unpleasant ways. Liz is outraged and baffled by this, and then hurt and self pitying. She refers to her 'husband' in the present tense in one paragraph....
.
Thanks DT
The Dreary's still offline. "Wahh! I have no friends left" - how many times has this appeared now?
The Mail should pay LJ (if they really must) a basic repeat fee rather than £1 a word for the regular reworkings of her original cave paintings.
We're not missing a stunning revelation today, then..:p
The Dreary's still offline. "Wahh! I have no friends left" - how many times has this appeared now? The Mail should pay LJ (if they really must) a basic repeat fee rather than £1 a word for the regular reworkings of her original cave paintings.
We're not missing a stunning revelation today, then.
Nope, it was all just rubbish, but she took a great deal of effort over writing about how she spat out a non-vegetarian canape at a party and gargled with the wine and spat that out too - and was shocked/upset/ hurt that the hostess had never invited her to another do. And a few other stories like that.
It appears to have come as a revealation that people might have read the horrible peices she writes about them - and identified themselves. Although, having said that, I'm sure she's done this before too.
I'm intregued as to why it is now no longer available. Perhaps the 4 comments posted (can't see them either) were too harsh to be left unmoderated? Perhaps she is really trying to retract things?
Anyway, 4 LJ articles in the one paper is far too much, so perhaps the DM has realised this and kindly removed one as an act of benevolence - though I think the bizarre 'angels woman' article would have been better removed.
Back now.
There are a couple of comments suggesting that LJ has Asperger's Syndrome*.
She is probably googling in preparation for her next hypochondria special right now.
(*fwiw, I'd disagree, as LJ seems to get a kick out of reporting her social gaffes/negative behaviour - indeed, cranks it up for the purposes of creating column fodder. ie, no inadvertence)
If, and the salt mines are emptying over another vinegary vignette, LJ went to a New Year’s party in 2006 and re-enacted a scene from the Exorcist (not to mention the gargle, spit moment whilst still at the table), then surely it was up to her to talk to the hostess, her friend, afterwards, p’haps sending a large bunch of flowers to apologise for her “reaction”. Not write about it in a diary piece and then remember, 5 years on and only when prompted, why the friendship floundered.
Ms Jones’ attitude to friendship is both inexplicable and spectacularly peculiar: the friends are always very, very, very beautiful and very, very, very successful, which paves the way for a dart of vitriol to emerge from the blowpipe that is her imagination. It just doesn’t wash to say, as if it’s a plea of mitigation, that she doesn’t name people when churning out another chapter of My Life Is Lonely/Horrible And Everybody Is Beastly, and then spilling overcooked beans about things that need not be told. She can’t have it both ways, so I think “cease, desist” is the order of the day.
And it’s a bit late to travel backwards in order to press the delete button.
Comments
I sort of agree with you having endured a one hour flight to Belfast a few weeks ago trapped between two screaming babies. However, travelling for work in the last 3 months alone I have been vomitted on by a drunk woman, watched a couple attempt to have sex in business class and watched a man urinate into a cup because he couldn't wait for the loo so not all adults are perfect flying companions either. I've travelled to the US on 32 occasions with my 3 children starting when the youngest was 3 up to the last trip where the youngest was 14. All it takes is a bit of parental responsibility and some of us parents actually do have that. My 3 have never, screamed, kicked someones seat or misbehaved in any other annoying way because I as their parent saw it as my responsibility to keep them entertained and under control. Unfortunately until they come up with a way to stop the feckless procreating we are stuck with this sort of thing. I was a little amused though to hear a woman on a flight to Orlando say "why are there so many children on this flight?. Em, would Disneyworld being located in Orlando be a clue?. Should I ever have been on a flight with Ms. Jones I would have told my three to annoy her as much as possible and fed pure sugar to all the other children on the flight before telling them to go say hello to the scary lady.
LJ probably seized upon that NY Times article with delight!
I think the problem for passengers of all ages is being crammed into a confined space & being unable to move for x hours - making any noise seem more shrill/extreme. Imho most parents do their best, but when things turn bad, there's nowhere for anyone to retreat to.
My most recent noisy travelling experience was sharing a long train journey (where most seats are reserved & you can't easily bag another) with a group of women who talked VERY LOUDLY and screeched with laughter non-stop for the whole five hours. When we finally arrived, the worst culprit cried: "Oooh, didn't that journey go quickly - but then we were talking, aha ha ha ha!!!"
Me (nursing shredded eardrums): Grrrrr :mad:
Reading some of the comments >HERE< (relating to the above NYT article), frankly, I'd be too scared of some of these passengers
to travel with an infant...:eek:
I think the RS may have been faded out of the story at about the time Jim Kerr finally went public with his 'dismay'.
The moan about babies on long-haul flights is all right, if already done a million times, but it is horrible to go on to whine about how expensive her presents for her nephews and nieces are and how relatively mean her brothers and sisters are.
I don't really think there is an answer to the babies-on-planes problem. Personally I think people are mad for taking little children on long haul flights just for a holiday, but no point in taking it out on the individual. For all the cross neighbour knows, the mother might be flying home for a funeral after a horrible bereavement. When my children were tiny they enjoyed modest little holidays about an hour from home; we used to go camping just West of Oxford on a site with a swimming pool, and for a happy week they slept in a tent, ate outside, swam, walked and set up elaborate snail farms; I swear that no holiday to Florida has ever been appreciated more, and it took an hour to get there.
Interesting snippet from that link you gave, Seabird:
"6. The MM is a farmer, albeit an organic one. I don’t agree with farming animals, or making any money from them whatsoever. I couldn’t possibly have as a friend someone who raises animals holistically then sends them to slaughter and eats them, which is why I have ruled out Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Jamie Oliver as future suitors."
So what about her new business venture, then? Or does the fact that she says that the money will go towards her animals' "pensions" mean that it's ok to make money from them?
You are completely right. I and my husband moved to Jersey for work, but all our family are in the UK. When our eldest daughter was born we took her on her first flight at the age of 2 months (for her Baptism - we couldn't have it in Jersey as most of our guests couldn't afford the trip or to stay here, and as there were only the 3 of us it made sense for us to do the spending/travelling instead) and yes, I was nervous as a first-time Mum taking my baby daughter on a plane, albeit for a 45 minute flight. However I took the precaution of (discreetly) feeding her for the take-off and landing (the bit that hurts children's ears the most) and she happily sat on my lap and fell asleep in the middle (the hum of the plane sent her to sleep quickly). As she got older she became a seasoned flyer to the UK at least 3 times a year, and her sister too when she was born 3 years later - often I took them alone in the school holidays (I'm a teacher, but my husband isn't) so that I could see my family and not once did either of them play up or in any other way annoy another passenger (with noise, kicking feet or anything else) because I was firm in my behaviour expectations of them.
I sympathise with the kicked seat problem - I've had that happen to me (and my well-behaved girls!) with children whose parents couldn't give a stuff and I agree it's downright annoying.
Children on flights are not a problem in themselves, it's the parents who make them a problem. If a child is crying, distract it or feed it. If it's annoying other people then tell it off and make it aware that such behaviour is unacceptable - and then give them an alternative which is more productive/positive.
It's not rocket science!!
Ha ha ha ha
Thank you, thank you, thank you for sharing that splendidly scary vision. But, Lancashire? Does it mean it's safe to go to the Dulverton tip, which is actually Brushford, without fear of fly-by invisible helicopters, broomsticks or any other apparition that springs to mind?
To distract myself from what I should be doing, below is a totally non-scanning verse...
Hubble, bubble, toil and trouble,
With (vegan) milk and yolks that coddle,
Enter my web of great deceit
With made up men lying at my feet;
They say the devil wears only Prada
For which‘ tis known that I pay nada
Can this go on FB please? Having the crappiest day here and this made me
Thanks newbaby.
'She added: “The sad thing is that all Elizabeth really wanted was to be loved. But she went about it the wrong way, and was burned at the stake.”'
Since burning at the stake is not an option nowadays, are the comments on this forum the modern day equivalent?
Or all three combined, I don't mind
Pleased that the nonsensical, non-scanning, non-everything dippy ditty raised a smile during your crappola day...do hope things have improved.
Yes, of course, do with it what you will! It's hardly high literature to which copyright is appended!!!! (And jolly kind of you to ask...so thank you for that).
I missed it! The dogs must have been barking or something.
How do I join the facebook group? I'm not good facebooking anything, but I want to try.
Oh dear god
The nutty interviewing the nutty.
She's wondering why she doesn't have any friends just because she writes about them !
There are 4 Liz Jones articles in the MOS today - bit of an overkill!
It was very odd. She went on about how she has no friends left, and some random glamorous friend tells her its because she writes about them in rude and unpleasant ways. Liz is outraged and baffled by this, and then hurt and self pitying. She refers to her 'husband' in the present tense in one paragraph.
Then she 'suddenly realises that her RS boyfriend may read what she wrote last week about the married man who makes her sparkle. (is this leading to the inevitable break up? Is it?). So she wishes that if only she could take it all back. And she includes an extra sentance about how she means her real live boyfriend whom she has sex with and whom she loves, just to make us all queasy over breakfast. Honestly, there was no need for that gratuitous sentance.
So anyway, there you have it. RS b/f is likely to read her article online and realise she's aiming to try to have an affair with some random Married Man with young kids.
Perhaps the inability to now access it online is make it all look realistic. Or perhaps its due to some caustic comments. I mean, seriously, is the woman so deluded that she a) thinks we believe her stories of imaginary RS b/f. and b) does she not understand that writing nasty things about people makes them upset?
So, there we have the inevitable set up for the big break up of the RS romance. She will be distraught and just unable to imagine why he's so upset with her. There will be months of columns and dreary entries all about why she doesn't understand the end of the relationship. And she'll be able to compare her misery and the relationship with the ex husband.
Thanks DT
The Dreary's still offline.
"Wahh! I have no friends left" - how many times has this appeared now?
The Mail should pay LJ (if they really must) a basic repeat fee rather than £1 a word for the regular reworkings of her original cave paintings.
We're not missing a stunning revelation today, then..:p
Nope, it was all just rubbish, but she took a great deal of effort over writing about how she spat out a non-vegetarian canape at a party and gargled with the wine and spat that out too - and was shocked/upset/ hurt that the hostess had never invited her to another do. And a few other stories like that.
It appears to have come as a revealation that people might have read the horrible peices she writes about them - and identified themselves. Although, having said that, I'm sure she's done this before too.
I'm intregued as to why it is now no longer available. Perhaps the 4 comments posted (can't see them either) were too harsh to be left unmoderated? Perhaps she is really trying to retract things?
Anyway, 4 LJ articles in the one paper is far too much, so perhaps the DM has realised this and kindly removed one as an act of benevolence - though I think the bizarre 'angels woman' article would have been better removed.
There are a couple of comments suggesting that LJ has Asperger's Syndrome*.
She is probably googling in preparation for her next hypochondria special right now.
(*fwiw, I'd disagree, as LJ seems to get a kick out of reporting her social gaffes/negative behaviour - indeed, cranks it up for the purposes of creating column fodder. ie, no inadvertence)
It’s beyond odd.
If, and the salt mines are emptying over another vinegary vignette, LJ went to a New Year’s party in 2006 and re-enacted a scene from the Exorcist (not to mention the gargle, spit moment whilst still at the table), then surely it was up to her to talk to the hostess, her friend, afterwards, p’haps sending a large bunch of flowers to apologise for her “reaction”. Not write about it in a diary piece and then remember, 5 years on and only when prompted, why the friendship floundered.
Ms Jones’ attitude to friendship is both inexplicable and spectacularly peculiar: the friends are always very, very, very beautiful and very, very, very successful, which paves the way for a dart of vitriol to emerge from the blowpipe that is her imagination. It just doesn’t wash to say, as if it’s a plea of mitigation, that she doesn’t name people when churning out another chapter of My Life Is Lonely/Horrible And Everybody Is Beastly, and then spilling overcooked beans about things that need not be told. She can’t have it both ways, so I think “cease, desist” is the order of the day.
And it’s a bit late to travel backwards in order to press the delete button.