I thought Liz was the ultimate chavvy Essex girl.

Sunday's Dreary was appalling with the rehashed version of Prudence's 'kidnapping' but there was no mention of Liz Jones calling the police in this version. She said Prudence belonged to David despite the fact the cat was Domino Darling's pet. What a disgusting outpouring of bitter insults and sheer venom throughout this entry.

Incidentally, I too noticed that the male illustration was the same one the artist used for Nirpal. In the engagement photo of Jones and the Baker his hair was grey, not black.

It wouldn't surprise me if the house contents are in storage and she's lodging temporarily with Isobel until she can find alternative accommodation.

Her relationship with D. Scrace has never sounded genuine. I think there could be two possibilities for this. The first one might be that he was between relationships and at a loose end when he contacted her. Didn't she appeal for people who knew her in the past to contact her on Friends Reunited or something similar for column fodder? If the Baker has a cannabis habit, maybe he was so laid back and 'stoned' initially that he was impervious to her vile insults. The other (more likely) explanation could be that it was a financial arrangement between them for him to pose as her boyfriend without any come-back from him.

She admitted she used to pick fights with Nirpal for column fodder but I suspect she had darker motives for insulting David based on resentment and also a desire for revenge because he had ignored her in the eighties. This seems to be borne out in her Mail on Sunday column about sexism where she imagined she spoke on behalf of all women about men. ("We women never forget slights"). She referred to being ignored at a party in 1983 and there was a mention about receiving a thong a size too big two Christmases ago.

In a much earlier article she blamed David for wasting decades of her life. It was her assumption that, had they married in the eighties instead of his ignoring her, she could have had a normal life and perhaps even a family. Once again she hasn't shown any self-awareness.

She blamed her advisor for her financial mess but I don't think he was aware of the full extent of her debts. According to a diary entry some time ago she admitted she didn't open bank statements or letters connected with finance but hid them in a drawer as she couldn't face looking at them.

Her new company sounds 'iffy' with out-of-date addresses. I can't see how this will solve some of her financial difficulties.

If she can't accept responsibility for her own actions, nothing is going to change in the future.

From memory the Baker pictures were originally grey-haired. Did she say he had started to colour it - or is that another false memory?

Perhaps they are recyling images!

The insistence - now muted thankfully - that if David had just noticed her in 1983 they would be married now and have a normal life etc etc was always incredibly delusional. I suspect she has stopped with that because life with the Baker has actually turned out to be, you know, realistic.

You could be right, Suzy-Cat, that he's started to colour his hair but that illustration of him resembles the one used for Nirpal. I think the artist could have used a different image for D. Scrace.

She certainly doesn't want to marry him now and I've thought that for ages, long before Prudencegate. The reality hasn't matched her fantasy.

Instead of it admitting to herself it was just a crush she had on him for years (as it was certainly unrequited) she's probably more annoyed with the fact that he didn't live up to her fantasy.

I suppose it's along the lines of "Vogue made me do it". She hangs all her life choices on the fact she was promised an ideal and a fantasy by an industry and a shiny magazine which nobody else really takes as gospel. So David, back then, hung a fantasy in front of her (she thinks - he was just living his life) and it's probably his fault it didn't work, in her head.

But no fantasy ever works.

Agreed, along with Vogue, she's obsessed with SATC in which the male characters have always "to be there" for the female, which means listen to me go on about every trivial thing that happened to me today.
Nobody male or female wants to listen to that, it's the constant me, me, me.
Other weeks though she's saying how powerful she is and doesn't need anyone.

But the thing is, in SATC the male characters were always failing to live up to Carrie etc's expectations.

To be fair, one of them broke up with Carrie BY POST IT NOTE.

Well, compared to some of the men in SATC, The Baker wasn't too bad. Remember the husband of one of the women, the bloke who used to wander around the apartment naked and sit on the white soft furnishings? Eugh! Assume even The Baker never did that.

That's what I mean, they weren't exactly sitting round going "oh my love you are perfection in every way please tell me about the troubles of your day while I cook you organic food".

Half an organic food. Never a whole one.

I have never seen sex and the city so have no idea when she witters on about it.
From past drearies, for some reason I always had an idea that young David was a bit of a gigolo, down to "That London" to sniff out the rich ladies ..so poor LJ wouldn't have had a chance.Now she has him she really really doesn't want him. Gone are the days of frolicking on the stinky cerise sofas or against the living room pillars in the "cupboard".
Speaking of those sofas,gosh a skip will be required asap for the new owners if she is leaving all that smelly tat.
I never did understand the feral cat thing.They live in a family tribe situation so it struck me as cruel if she herded them up to yorkshire anyway,but in other tales they were all rescue cats so who knows.

eta, in response to Fizzycat..I think the a'ight thing means her experience of Yorkshire men is Wally Batty from Last of The Summer Wine.

Oh gawd - it just gets worse! Do people in their right minds really write crap like this to each other and then publish it to the world at large? The only person I feel sorry for in all this malarkey is the cat and I'm amazed David hasn't noticed apparently that Liz and all her animals are no longer living in a large house. Where are the ponies, the dogs, the other house cats and all the ferals? She also says she doesn't foster cats - has it never occurred to the silly bint that you can only ever foster ferals at best. They do truly own themselves. Where are the aspirin!!!

There really are no words to describe today's offering. Apart from the fact I think there is a typo in the last but one sentence.

It should read "I'm off my rocker!"

I see that Nic is back as the Greek Chorus of Approval. Finding pictures of Liz in her pyjamas despite LIz surely not being able to afford to employ her.

GIving DD's initials makes identifying her easier, and to make it worse, amusingly if you type in "J" in a search of DScrace's FB friends list another woman of appropriate age with those initials comes up, so that woman could be misidentified as "Garnier Fructis". Where's the bloody legal team?

I do love David essentially holding Prudence to ransom - I'll give her back if you take me back into your life oh my beloved - and Liz only accepting the possibility because of her fear that Prudence might get cancer from eating Whiskas/second hand smoke.

They're both nuts, Liz is monstrous and Nic is a massive enabler, encouraged no doubt by the promise of many pounds in her pockets.

If the cat is going to "get cancer", it will happen, irrespective of where she is.

Also:

"And no, you don’t get to decide when to bring her to Yorkshire. I will tell you when to bring her back, not the other way around."

Yes, I want the cat back... but not just yet. Vile harridan.

Question: why have we heard no more of the flat in Belsize Park she had apparently committed to, or has it vanished?

Second Question: she did an article very recently where she went to a hotel in Yorkshire (scene of Jeremy Clarkson's vile behaviour) with an old boyfriend. Is that David bringing the cat back to her and making her even more stressed?

She spent 3 years saying she fed all her cats organic prawns. Nothing worse for them as prawns contain far too much fat for any cat, especially on a regular basis.

She is unbelievably disgusting and Nic should be ashamed for encouraging her in her awful behaviour.

I found today's offering unpleasant and uncomfortable to read. Two angry and self obsessed people who clearly cannot even communicate except via abusive texts is not my idea of light reading on a Sunday morning. And a million miles from the light sub-Bridget Jones style diary that was the original plan for this column, or so I imagine.
In her second column, I have not watched either of the programmes, but I find a rehashing of subject matter that previously saw her reported to the PCC similarly distasteful - and irrelevant. I sound surprised. Heaven knows why, given her constant need to drag every single subject upon which she opines back to how it affects her. Even when it doesn't. At all.

I see in this week's farticle she's harked back to the story of poor Jo Yeates. The whole piece just drips with venom for her fellow females, even fictional ones. No sense of sisterhood there. Nasty woman.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...y-reality.html

Yes, Lizzyroz, ''venom' just about sums up her writing these days. Spiteful, vengeful, hurtful and just vile. She just had to put the boot into The Baker once more, with the mention of some court case about paying for his daughter. Doesn't she care even a tiny bit about the hurt she must cause The Baker's family? No, don't answer that - of course she couldn't give a flying whatsit, so long as she's being paid her quid a word or whatever it is.

The original article about poor Jo Yeates was ghastly - exploitive of the dreadful death of a young woman - yet Jones excuses it as ' I should have spelled out that I’d wanted Jo’s last evening to be magical: at Claridge’s, maybe, ferried home by unicorns.' Really? How about 'how tragic and sad for her parents, partner and friends that a young girl lost her life in such a horrible way'. But no, she has to point out that the pub spelled the name of some wine incorrectly and the victim visited Tesco's and bought a pizza (oh, the horror). The girl was murdered, but it wasn't 'magical' beforehand on her last journey... Jesus wept.

Anyway, what's happening with The Great Move? Why is she wanting poor Prudence back if her future living arrangements are so uncertain? Or is this some cliff-hanger, preparatory for The Grand Reunion with The Baker? Where he flogs the car bought by his (late?) mum and takes a greedily eager Jones to Cartier to choose The Ring? Still, nice to see Nic back, with her wit and wisdom and unbiased (!) advice.

Oh yes, another mention of the 'Garnier Fructis' lady - The Baker's ex and the original owner of Prudence. IF it is the lady I think it is, then no wonder Jones is so bitter and spiteful about her - she's gorgeous and comes over as thoroughly nice. And her hair looks great.

Comedy quote of the whole day: David wanting to "return to what (he) thought was a loving relationship and share a life together...". If he thinks their relationship is, or even has been, loving he needs to get someone to read to him what she writes ever week in her Diary!
Surely.
One little detail made me think..she has said in many diaries that Prudence came to her with cysts or boils or something as serious and the saintly Liz has used this from then till now to show David as unfit carer for the poor cat: now we are told it is "stress licking".Surely someone as knowledgeable Liz can tell the difference?.
Thought that the Diary couldn't get any more boring and childish but I was wrong. and the drip-drip of publicising deeply personal details of David's life is despicable. What is she - 12??

"David. The gift that keeps on giving." He certainly does, doesn't he, what with all the money our Lizbot has made from lazy reproductions of his text messages ...

"Gillian Anderson is old enough to know better" Well, Liz certainly doesn't know better, despite being a decade older ...

Just catching up with the fiasco that is Pussygate.

Why does Liz have to be so nasty? Does she just present herself like this to sell copy or is she really such a monstrous person?

I mean, the referance to "mummy" giving David a car? I assume David's mother has either loaned him her car or has brought him his own car (maybe when he went bust)?

Either way an act of generocity and kindness you would have thought... But Liz turns it into something venemous and nasty.

And I've completely forgotten with all the other madness going on in Liz's life but what is the reference to Garnier Fructus supposed to be about (I know it's David's ex but can't remember what it's actually supposed to mean) ?

David needs to take advantage of Pussygate and run for his life (with HIS cat in tow) but I've a horrible feeling they'll be back "on" next week.

In keeping with the Fawlty Towers theme of the week: Theres enough material there for an entire conference...

I think when LJ first went to David's flat his ex-girlfriend had left some shampoo behind. Liz has to get the dig in that it was a high-street brand of shampoo and not made from stolen unicorn jizz or whatever 'superior' brand she uses.

Oh right. What in the world is wrong with using a high street brand shampoo?

Would be funny if the makers of Garnier Fructus served a C&D notice on Liz and the Mail on Sunday!