Perhaps she's got incipent Alzheimers as she never remembered this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...l-make-up.html

And after the Clare Balding backlash, she rewrote history again and claimed she had only criticised CB's stance on horse racing. Yet one swift click could take readers to the original article complete with nasty, spiteful personal insults. Does she genuinely not realise that her past writing is readily available online?

One thing I forgot to add when writing about The Pattern. Like all bullies, when she gets intro trouble for being nasty to someone, she tries to discredit and belittle the victim of her nastiness, implying it's their problem for being "fragile" or "hysterical": both words used in the recent Diary about "X". IIRC, she went one step further and actually put these words into DS's mouth. Whether or not he actually said them, it's abominable of her to write this in her column.

For the record, I only happened upon this thread a few days ago... probably similar to Liv.

I've been posting stuff against Liz's DM ramblings for some time... and then questioning why I bother. I'm just interested in the psychological side of things, from both my/our and her perspective.

I know that Lizard has potentially been an "irritant" in the lives of many people... but I seriously wonder how many have been truly "damaged" as a result. My guess is that the majority of those she's offended have probably read some articles, followed threads and come to the same conclusion as most of us... that she's batty.

But then there's the occasional article that she comes up with - and that the DM chooses to publish - where I read it, take a deep-breath and question why someone would choose to say that... way before I question what editorial management isn't in place over there.

And yes, my example of that would be the time that she walked in the steps of the poor girl down in Bristol, and printed her conclusion that she was 'aspiring to something greater' based upon a pizza... as I remember it.

I love the wit of some postings on here and I'm aware that some of my musings may come across as ham-fisted, but I do also try to place myself in the mind of Lizard from time to time... and empathise. I wonder what she's been through that could cause her to be so antagonistic towards pretty much any social group in the outside world.

I'd agree with all of that, especially about animals. One of my pet hates is people like Liz who anthropomorphise.

She's pretty much attacked every social group at one time or another, and now she's dissociated and given all her 'love' to animals. It's clear to me from the comments on pieces that she's written that most of her 'fan-base' comes from people who have done the same thing.

Let's let animals be animals. They don't need to get their 'scran' from Waitrose.

Mr Curmudgeon, IMO what LJ went through was being the youngest in a large family, and probably somewhat over indulged.

There will be people that she has hurt badly by her witterings, notably her family.
I very much doubt that Clare Balding or Holly W. were weeping buckets over her bitchiness, but the small business owners whose livelihoods have potentially been affected may not shrug it off so lightly.

Mr Curmudgeon, I too wonder why I continue to read her. Other columnists who I dislike - I don't read. I don't read Richard Littlejohn, or Jan Moir to name just a few, and yet I carry on reading Jones. I think it is her complete and total lack of self-awareness that just astonishes me, her faux-naiveté when she is picked up on things ("Who me? Little me?"), and her constant inconsistency - makes nasty comments about people's weight/'champion's plus sizes; a 'vegan' who eats eggs and wears leather and on and on and on. She never has anything of any depth to add to any subject, never says anything novel or thought-provoking, rarely references anything cultural .... and yet, I read her. I'm as puzzled as you, Mr C!

I dislike Lizard intensely but I too find it impossible to stop reading her appalling scribblings. It's the "train wreck" factor I guess. Just when I think she couldn't stoop any lower, she comes up trumps every time. Melanie P and Richard L are vile, but at least they're consistent. It's also fun to spot all the inconsistencies, hypocrisy and lies - especially in the dreary.

I couldn't agree with you more when it comes to why I read her even though I actively hate her and usually avoid people I dislike. Like cathrin, I watch Jeremy Kyle too even though I think the man is one of the most disgusting human beings on the planet who seems to get worse by the day. I just seem incapable of looking away.

I think I'm waiting to see just how far people like this can go. So far, it seems to be however far they like. Twenty years ago both would have been sacked for their behaviour, I'm certain of it. Now this behavior seems to be champoined. It's really horrid but I still live in hope that someone, at some point, will do something (I know they won't though).

I also read it for the sheer incredulity that she earns 500k pa to do it!

Hi Molly,

I hadn't thought about Jeremy Kyle in the same way until now, but I think you have a point. I have a friend, whose husband works on Kyle's production team in Manchester, and he's reviled even by people who are ostensibly earning a living from him.

Both Kyle and Jones are walking, talking egos who appear to have never made any spiritual connection... and nor do they seem to have anything resembling super ego to keep them in check.

May be things have always been this way and I'm just turning into my grand-dad, but it does strike me that society today loves and rewards form over content. The whole obsession with fame thing seems to go hand in hand with it. It doesn't seem to matter why people are writing about you, just as long as you're being noticed.

I re-read the article that Lizard wrote about the girl in Bristol who had died; the one where she attempted to pick up her 'vibration' by walking in her foot-steps... and it's so cringeworthy that it's almost a work of art.

It's like a project given to a CSE-student (remember those days, when failure was allowed at school ? ), and where the student has a vague idea of the structure of the project, but is so lacking in empathy that she hands this in. I can imagine the teacher giving her a C, saying 'good effort, try harder' and then going to his peers in the staff room, "You've just got to read this ! "

It beggars belief that a poor CSE-level English student can be earning £500k from a national 'newspaper'.

The other thing that interests me is how she is held up as a champion by certain 'social-groups'.

At varying times her 'fans' seem to credit her with being:

An inspiring feminist example - even though she attacks so many women, and is a self-confessed sperm-stealer.

An animal-lover - even though she has no idea how to look after her own zoo.

A top British journalist - even though she can't write.

And the list goes on...

One of the few things that I regret about my life is that I don't have a photo of Liz in the bathroom with a turkey-baster.

Sigh.

People who like animals do not think they're human. Whenever someone makes comments that "anthropomorphise" an animal, the intended irony or cuteness in the remark is because another species would not do/feel/need that thing.

"Animal lovers" do not actually have any special feelings for other species - they're indifferent to them, which enables them to see other species for what they are (rather than objectifying them, or thinking they're cute without understanding their behaviours). Liz likes animals simply because she can't possibly be jealous of a member of another species. Also animals will never judge her, or be aware of her flaws. However I doubt she's as caring as she makes out. She wouldn't sacrifice any of her whims to care for an animal. I just think it's part of her public persona, like everything else - she exaggerates a part of her, then blows it out of proportion to get either controversy or a more interesting story. She knows people hate those who like animals, therefore she ticks off every animal-lover stereotype in the book, saying deliberately inflammatory things that no one who truly cared about the cause would say.

To be honest though, the vitriol aimed at those who care about animals is appalling. People like you act like they're caring for imaginary fairies or cuddly toys or something.

She's not as much of an animal lover as she claims.

Squeaky the cat had a huge tumour she neglected until it was too late, her dog suddenly started bleeding vaginally at the age of 16 and she thought it was 'having a period', She lets her horses go around without shoes, then wonders why they get foot and hoof problems, her dogs are allowed to run wild as they're totally untrained, they've worried and sometimes killed sheep, and recently she wrote that one of them tried to bite an unsuspecting member of the public who walked past her house. She also looked after a DM commenter's horse and it died in her care allegedly because it was neglected.

113 animals without conventional veterinary care, only Nic and her untried holistic nonsense. Yes, she's a real animal lover.

I agree with almost everything you say here. The only proviso is that it is not necessarily the fact that her horses are not shod that causes foot problems. Properly managed, and in the right conditions, many horses can go barefoot. Mine does practically all winter and in the summer is only shod in the front except if we are going to do roadwork or ride on rough surfaces. (I do live in a place where I can avoid the roads most of the time and there is a lot of snow in winter.) If Lizard's (or any) horses are not ridden they don't need shoes unless for medical reasons. Shoes that are poorly fitted or left on too long can create plenty of problems. I very much doubt that Lizard understands the reasons for proper foot care or employs the right people to tend to her horses' feet. Holistic care is not what she needs.

I disagree with almost everything she writes, but MP is, believe it or not, really nice and funny IRL. Like a few of these columnists, there's an element of print-provocateur.

I have no idea whether LJ is a different person in person, but I somehow doubt it.

Eh ?

To be fair, I don't think Mr Curmudgeon was criticising real animal lovers, he was saying that Lizard is the sort of person who anthropomorphisises them, INSTEAD of caring for them as they should be looked after.

What's it called when one takes the characteristics of a cold blooded, thick skinned reptile and attributes them to a 'human' I wonder? Insight?

Just a shame she doesn't look after them properly....if at all. I don't think she ought to be in charge of a light switch, let alone living sentient beings

Her description of "caring" for her mother disgusted me.
Her eternal defiance that she won't do anything whether it's model dreadful clothes or provide basic care for a disabled person correctly really annoys me. Lizard is not special, different and superior just a very ordinary person struggling to convince herself and the world she's so much more.
She reminds me of the school children that aren't actually slow learners but really have to put in a huge effort to keep up and will never be top of the class.

As you obviously know what you're talking about, I bow to your superior knowledge PP.

IIRC she's written about hacking on them, so she must do a certain amount of riding. She's always running around here, there and everywhere, so she seemingly has no time to make sure her horses' hooves are in good condition, and just leaves it up to Nic with her crackpot holistic medicine.

How can I put this nicely? She is reputed to have rather weak equestrian skills, definitely not born in the saddle.
(Or as was once said by one of those dreadful country folk, "Couldn't ride a rocking horse")

Yes, I'm sure Mr. C. wasn't criticising geniune animals lovers, just Liz's type who like the idea of owning animals, and lots of them, but haven't got a damn clue of how to care for them. She thinks that having 113 animals that she never sees, makes her a superior human being than someone who has one well cared for and loved pet. I think there was a backlash sometime ago when some readers complained to the RSPCA after yet another sick animal story, which if true, was obviously down to her own neglect. 'Loving' animals also acts as a shield to ANY form of criticism as far as her supporters are concerned.

She's not an animal lover, she's an animal collector.

Thanks Liv and Seabird. I certainly wasn't criticising animal-lovers, I have a dog of my own... but she's well-trained and I don't ascribe human traits to her, much less buy her human posh-nosh. I think Squatch misread what I posted.