Sorry - am I missing something? Has Liz Jones alluded to The Married Man before, or is he a new character? And what has happened to the RS? is he still there but on the backburner, or is he out of her life? Have I missed a few episodes of her latest fiction?

I think I saw Liz Jones on Saturday around six O' clock she was sitting opposite me on a tube train. If it wasn't her the woman was her double! She was very well groomed, wearing very expensive looking clothes and had a rather haughty air about her. The designer handbag she had on her lap was certainly worth a fair bit. She was desperately not trying to make eye contact with anyone.

I immediately thought of this thread.

Were that me, I would have leaned forward and said, loudly ('cause she's deaf, you know):

"Jim Kerr ? In your dreams, woman. In. Your. Dreams."

She says she doesn't do public transport hence her myriad vehicles.

I can just imagine what the latest scenario will be. Fictional Rock Star will read her comment about the married man being 'Mr. Right' and will dump her in time for Christmas, giving her loads to moan about in her Diary.

Following this she'll arrange to have a rendezvouz with said married man but he'll send her an e-mail saying his wife has found out that he's been e-mailing her and lots of other women. He'll then say that he's wanting to save his marriage and has decided not to e-mail her and the others again. No doubt this will occur around New Year - cue for more moans about being dumped at New Year.

It won't really matter as both men are probably figments of her imagination. :yawn:

Interesting. To take your point further, from the writing alone, JC at least appears to be consistently a real person, whereas LJ comes across as a composite of a real person who is a bit odd, yet also a construct written by different people; her various utterances and voices don't cohere for me at all. I don't understand why if you're a writer, you wouldn't develop a style.

Oh crumbs! Literary scholars would have a field day with her, if they could be bothered.

"Literary scholars" write for publications aimed at people who wish to read scholarly material. I'm sure they really couldn't give a stuff one way or another about LJ or JC.

LJ & JC write for the populist press.
For people who read tabloids.

They may well both be bonkers, fantasists or idiots. Who really cares.Read them, don't read them.

They both earn massive amounts of money and probably hugely enjoy the outrage and indignation they provoke.

This MM seems to be a new one as the last one two years ago was an innocent local farmer who she appeared to be stalking and it was unrequited.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/...-calls-me.html

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 really do think it was her despite her protests about public transport, the journey was Green Park (Mayfair) to Covent Garden.

I did think that despite the excellent grooming, discreet make up and sleek hair she still has a very hard face.

So amidst her agonizing relationship trauma and equally traumatic cleaning-staff issues, it seems Liz has found time to pop down to The X Factor to look continually startled, stalk the contestants, gain a sudden obession with timing how long people are in rooms for to the exact second and continue the old obession with rambling on without making any sense.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...X-Factory.html

Featuring, as ever, a total lack of research, hypocracy, entirely fabricated stories and the usual vague comments which I assume are supposed to look insightful.

And the hilarity of Liz labelling someone else a "wannabe". The irony.

Discreet make up Did she have that God awful heavy eye liner on her lids sort of 60s style? I don't think I've ever seen a picture of her without it!

If it was her it does sound like she's sorted that horrendous hair out at last as you've described it as 'sleek'.

I'm sure that if it was wor Liz there will soon be an article about it as that can be the only explaination for her slumming it on public transport. She will no doubt have feared for her life as she mixed with ferral children, women with breasts and men who sit with their legs too far apart. I do hope the ticket inspector didn't insult her by a) not having an English accent and b) expecting her to produce and actual ticket.

Well put it this way. I had 2 children with me and she eyed them up rather coldly and clutched her bag very tightly just in case we were going to steal it or be sick on her.

I can't swear it was her but it certainly looked like her.

It must be a tattoo. As for her hair I want to give it a thorough brushing. She should go back to that bob and cut off all the split ends.

What a ridiculous article! How can she possibly make any judgement about how much time the mentors spend with the acts based on a short snapshot of one day? For all she knows, they might have spent all the previous day with them.

And what on earth is the point of this comment about Marcus? "I can't go back to being a hairdresser"...he says in his Liverpool accent." Of course he says it in his Liverpool accent! He says everything in his Liverpool accent....why even comment on it? If she absolutely must make reference to someone's accent, then surely she should at least do it in a way that has some sort of point to it, rather than just "he says in his Liverpool accent."

I wrote:
"Oh crumbs! Literary scholars would have a field day with her, if they could be bothered."


In the same way LJ sometimes makes points that don't make sense with reference to what she's reacting to, you're echoing my own point ("if they could be bothered") in your second sentence while appearing to disagree.

Plus the failure to recognise not just irony but also the conditional tense (I wrote "would have a field day", as in "if pigs could fly", which is conditional, i.e. it doesn't actually mean "pigs do fly") ) reminds me of the rushed and half baked impression LJ's writing sometimes gives, as well as her apparent inability to read meaning, though I understand this makes her a good comic foil as situations supposedly leap unforeseen into her path. If you don't mind me saying, your writing styles are a little similar as are your methods of arguing, so it's no surprise you don't agree with people who find her writing and persona confusing and contradictory.

Saying that, I agree with your last three paragraphs.

....I'm also concerned about these "unpaid interns" who "work from 8 am until 10 pm 7 days a week." Is this legal? Someone should be investigating. Not LJ, though.

As for her comments about Little Mix wanting the privacy to get changed without being watched, which she sees as ironic given their exposure on TV.....I'm gobsmacked at her bizarre attitude! Is it really ironic that four young girls should wish for this privacy? Even four young girls who are taking part in a reality show? The one doesn't negate the other, surely?

I find Liz's most annoying trait to be the use of the word 'aerobicised'. Usually preceded by the word 'over'. I would like to know what is an acceptable amount of aerobics to be evidenced on the body. Seriously did she have some kind of horrific experience at the hands of an aerobics instructor in the 1990s? No one even does aerobics any more Liz, it's body pump and yogalates these days!

I still teach one aerobics class a week (plus step, Body Pump, Pilates, aqua, body conditioning and Zumba). So I must have one of those "over aerobicised" bodies that Liz hates so much...

Sounds it...I can't even begin to make sense of today's article, suffice to say she has a very warped view of physicality in general let alone the female form.

Maybe everything Liz says should be followed by the words "she says in her surprisingly down-market Essex tones" ....

Can't make sense of anything she says!!

So delighted you agree with my last 3 paragraphs and absolutely distraught at my inability to recognise irony and the conditional tense.
However, I really don't mind at all you saying my writing style is a little similair to Ms Jones, half baked or otherwise.
I just wish I had her ability to turn all the vaguely comic situations that leap into my life into a £250K (allegedly) a year column !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ad-locker.html

Hmmm, now as a frequent long haul flyer of 20 years I now dread the misery of crying babies and undisciplined children more than the loathsome flight itself - but, again, Liz marinates the article with so much bile that it just turns it into a general baby/family bashing tirade. I think more people are flying regularly with their families than they used to, maybe because it has become more affordable, but certainly 20 years ago I didn't notice such disruption - maybe children were better behaved then. I don't actually believe the SATC film scenario; but if that had really happened to me (not that I would have been watching the film!) I would have had some strong words to say too.

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.