Why do women do this to themselves? #NancyDellOlio #Rhinoplasty

I find it rather sad. Why don't women see themselves in the way that men do. Of course I know the old story that they don't do it for men and they do it for themselves but do people really see themselves so differently?

Take Nancy here for instance. I recall she took a lot of stick when she split from Sven-Gören Eriksson and during her subsequent affair with Trevor Nunn and I've also seen her on a few panel shows during which she never seemed to take herself too seriously. She's always seemed capable of joining in the laughs even when the jokes were being aimed at her.

Her face was never classically beautiful but it looked interesting, showed a lot of character and, most importantly, humour.

But look at her now - the right hand picture. She's had a £500 nose job See this Mail Online article.

She's also obviously had those ghastly Hi Def eyebrows (or scouse brows as they are also known) and maybe a bit of work round the lips.

Would you seriously want to know the character that is reflected now? I used to find her attractive - I don't any more.

#SCD Good news today! @KirstieMAllsopp will not be appearing on Strictly this year.

There had been a report which said that Ms Allwaysoppy had been banned from appearing by her bosses at Channel 4 because her contract stipulates that she cannot work for other channels.

However in a turnaround which may be political in nature, she now claims that she wouldn't appear without her onscreen partner Phil somethingorother.

Oh whatever! I'm just glad she has ruled herself out/been ruled out. I cannot abide the woman. That cloying voice. The endless breathy enthusiasm and every second sentence claiming something as *amazing*. The only thing worse than having Allwayssoppy on Strictly would be having her and Phil Somethingorother on together. Those really annoying asides to each other and the strange half-hearted pretence that they may be real life partners. I am sure this is aimed at the more half-witted among the viewers.

Thank god she's out for least the next couple of years until the gruesome twosome can clear their respective diaries. But it is sure to happen because I cannot imagine that they can think up enough permutations on the property theme to keep them going to the crack of doom. But here's hoping!

The continuing #Tulisa saga

She has now been convicted of assaulting something that calls himself a *celebrity blogger* and more formerly as Savvas Morgan.

At Stratford Magistrates' Court she was ordered to pay a total of £3020 made up of a £200 fine £2,700 contribution towards the cost of the prosecution, £100 compensation to Mr Morgan and a £20 victim surcharge.

She obviously didn't do him much damage and I wonder what she might do to the annoying little shit (who now appears on Towie with all the other annoying little shits) if I sent her a few quid to help with her dwindling finances.

Interestingly when she departed the court in somewhat of a strop, she remarked to the asembled press:

I am determined to clear my name as I have already done once this week. I repeat - I did not assault Vas J Morgan. I am innocent

Which shows just how far her delusions have reached because, of course, she was NOT found innocent of intent to supply drugs - the trial was halted because the prosecution evidence was found to be tainted. Not the same thing at all.

Anyway perhaps the loss of a few thousand quid will stop her spending any more money on lip fillers and prevent her looking any more like the sulky carp she resembles now.

What crazy people voted Carol Vorderman #RearOfTheYear instead of #RachelRiley

Whereas Vorderman pictured on the left in 2011 when she won the award for the first time may well have deserved the title. As she looks now (right), her bottom seems to owe more to artifice than her natural flesh. In fact that picture makes it look as if she may well have had work done in that area. Certainly super-strength Spanx must be present. Let's face it Vorderman is at least 53 now - of course there's nothing wrong with trying to look good at that age, if you feel you must - but it is suspiciously wrong if the voting overlooks a genuine .contender like Rachel Riley (below)

It's not even as if the idiot voters could plead ignorance of the lovely Rachel because she is, of course, Vorderman's replacement on Countdown. In fact the sheer stupidity of this vote makes me think that it may not be a public vote at all and that there may well be some kind of commercial interest at work. Vorderman is of course an inveterate advertiser and social media whore so a sponsorship deal is not beyond the realms of possibility.

My final comment is that when Vorderman's tight jeans, corset and Spanx are removed, it would be not unexpected if all that flesh sagged to floor level.

Anyone who believes that #Tulisa was actually innocent needs their head examining

Just because the judge has halted the trial on the grounds of "tainted evidence" does not mean she ought to go about crowing that she has been proved innocent.

These were the judge's reported words in the Mail Online article today:

Occasionally - very rarely - circumstances may arise in which a court has to say that whatever apparent merits a prosecution may have, the court cannot allow the prosecution case to be taken forward to trial.

Personally I find it kind of amusing that this Mahmood character has got away with this kind of legally dubious behaviour for so long. After all he operates the kind of "sting" operation which even the police are loathe to use nowadays. So although I am unhappy that Tulisa has managed to wriggle out of a prison sentence (which would have kept her talentless and repellent personality out of public view for a time), I am quite pleased that yet another damper has been put on those morally bankrupt sewage rats in Wapping.

Confusion surrounding #CherylCole marriage

Earlier this week I wrote that it might not be long before Cheryl Fernandez-Versini (as she wishes to be known henceforth) appears in the divorce court. Now it looks like she may not actually be married. Apparently the forms of registration have not been filled in correctly due to some confusion over the groom's multitude of christian names. The pastor responsible for the alleged marriage has now also said that he would not have allowed the ceremony to proceed had he known of Cheryl's previous divorce.
there also seems to be some confusion in the press about an alleged pre-nup that CFV (hereafter known as the party of the first part) apparently refused to sign to "protect her £15 million fortune" as the Mail Online puts it.
But surely if a pre-nup were formulated to protect her money, she would have offered it to JBFV (hereafter known as the party of the second part). and then it would be up to the party of the second part to accept or decline. If the party of the first part has refused to sign something, it must be a document offered by the party of the second part.
Unless of course the Mail Online (hereafter known as the party of the third part) has got its facts confused! (This never happens!)

Yes it's an excuse to show a #RachelRiley pic but also the Daily Mail's abominable writing style

The lovely Rachel Riley is worthy of a published pic whatever the reason and I think there should be a photographer present to record everything she does. But I absolutely detest the standard of English the Daily Mail uses to describe these outings and the clothes worn by celebrities on these outings or photo ops.
Take this description of Rachel's outing yesterday for instance:
Strictly sensational: Rachel Riley shows off her long tanned legs as she steps out in tiny denim cut-offs while out in London
Okay so far. But it goes on to say:

The TV sweetheart was glowing when she stepped out in a pair of pin-showcasing hot pants in London on Thursday afternoon.
Shielding her peepers from the sunlight in a pair of showbiz-ready sunglasses, the Countdown personality looked relaxed as she wheeled a free-standing suitcase through the streets of London.
To combat London's soaring temperatures, the blonde-haired beauty wore a pair of thigh-skimming Daisy Dukes which flashed her never-ending pins.

Pin-showcasing must be one of the ugliest neulogisms ever to be created. I consider it entirely unnecessary to describe legs as "pins" Surely it derives from the American sexual squeamishness of the 1940s and 1950s.
"Peepers" Are they writing for children? Surely this article was written for an English readership (Americans would have no concept of Rachel Riley whatever). Mincers might have been more appropriate.
And what on earth does "showbiz-ready" mean? I could forgive "showbizzy" at a pinch. But what kind of state does "showbiz-ready" imply? Rachel is already involved in "showbusiness" Has she been taking a break from it? We ought to be told!
And everybody knows that Daisy Dukes reveal legs rather than merely flash them - it's implied by the very name. So the last phrase is completely unnecessary as well as plain ugly.
I would re-write this pathetic piece of journalism thus:

"London's already soaring temperatures were sent a degree or two higher yesterday when Rachel Riley stepped out in a pair of denim hot pants. Shielding her baby blues from the attendant glare of publicity behind a pair of showbizzy shades, the TV sweetheart looked relaxed as she wheeled a large suitcase through the streets."

If Rachel would like me to write her publicity blurbs in future, I am currently open to any offer she might make.

#CherylCole Won't be long before her new marriage "pops up" in the divorce courts.

Only yesterday Cheryl's new husband was from a "wealthy" French family although it was "unclear" where their wealth came from.
That sounds strangely like drugs and prostitution to me.
Today his family have been demoted to "believed to be wealthy" together with the news in the Mail Online that Cheryl has declined to sign a prenup although it is "unclear" who offered the prenup in the first place. This sounds to me like this marriage will soon be "popping up" in the divorce courts and Cheryl's money will soon be propping up Jean- Bernard's chain of bloody "pop up" restaurants.
To me Jean- Bernard Fernandez-Versini (JB to his wife and friends) looks horribly like the ex drug dealer husband of Tamara Ecclestone - Jay Rutland (JR to his friends). See the happy couple below. Tamara's father is, of course, Bernie Ecclestone whose wealth is quite clear and quite beyond belief.

Best news I've had all week - Susanna Reid is to leave #BBCBreakfast

According to this article in the Mail Online Reid has been offered a £1m contract to shift herself over to ITV. This means that I will be able to watch television in the morning again without those sloe eyes staring back at me while the other half of the sofa is reading the autocue. Susanna's matronly knees and rather too tight tops are not what I need with my breakfast coffee.

The Mail's article, in its usual appalling English, also gave me a bit of a laugh because apparently an ITV 'source' said that:

She (Susanna) is seen as more highbrow than previous presenters who fronted breakfast shows, which is exactly the direction ITV want to go in.

It went on to say that:

she is tipped to share the sofa with Ben Shepherd, 39, or Dermot O’Leary, 40, as a co-presenter.

Ben Shepherd reminds me of an overly friendly spaniel which keeps trying to 'have it away' on your leg, while Dermot O'Leary is no doubt a pleasant enough chap but was at his true level with X-Factor.

Well that's another ITV breakfast show doomed to fail, leaving Susanna, several million pounds richer, doing hiking shows in the Fells in a graveyard slot.

Now all I need to make my contentment complete is for the Beeb to get rid of that awful weather presenter who insists on saying "gyood morning" every 15 minutes as if she hasn't said it often enough already.

This overcheerfulness is what makes me peevish right from the start of the day. Why do they need a sofa and two presenters anyway? Is it too much work for one? There is only one for the 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock. And who needs this 'chemistry' stuff anyhow? Come in early, read the news, do the papers, interview a politician on the latest way we are going to be screwed, report on how the landscape is going to be blighted in future, bit of sports news and bugger off home again. And that is it really. So why does it take two?

Is it me or is Noel Edmonds utterly stupid?

Having a touch of my usual insommnia I have been sitting up with the TV on. At this hour the choice is limited to teleshopping, business news from Singapore on BBC1 news or the mixed fare on Channel 4. Currently showing is Deal or No Deal. In his introduction Edmonds made the ourageous claim that every show is different because every player plays a different way. No they don't you fuckwit, they just select boxes to open. There is no skill or variety to that. He followed that by asking a contestant of Chinese origin,
"What is a buffet restaurant?" Surely even he knows what a buffet is and also a restaurant? Therefore he must be able to add both together to obtain an answer without asking?
Incredibly he has just enquired of a girl on the panel of cheering idiots what kind of buses and lorries are made in Solihull.
Shish! I'd better go to bed before I throw the telly out of the window.

#SCD #ITT Week 10 of Strictly - Musicals week - not my favourite.

It probably sounds a bit strange but I do not like musicals at all. I think there should either be acting or singing on stage, not both. Of course you could say the same about opera but the difference there is that I love the music so I can shut my eyes and simply listen. Whereas I don't really care for the music or the songs which feature in musicals.
It was also a bit strange when it came to the results. Rather predictably it was Mark Benton's turn to go. He has been excellent value and put a smile on my face every week. Maybe he was handicapped by a rather stupid lion costume. But although Abbey Clancey obtained a full house of 10s for her salsa, she faied to ignite the viewers because she is still languishing at 4th favourite 8/1. Maybe the viewers were as bored as I at the total lack of drama or storytelling. I thought 36 would have been more appropriate.

In spite of a dodgy quickstep Susanna Reid manages to be a close 2nd favourite at 3/1. Why she is such a viewers favourite I don't understand. Personally I've seen all I can stand of her 'mumsy' knees.

Natalie Gumede holds on to favouritism despite being clipped by the bookies down to 11/4. Her American smooth was supercharged with emotion, drama and storytelling although gaining a mere 36 pts from the judges. If I didn't have the horrible feeling that Natalie is being set up by the BBC to lose in favour of the ghastly Susanna, I would have a small punt on her as 11/4 is almost a value bet on a favourite at this stage.

The thing that made me laugh this week was this picture of Natalie which she tweeted herself, denying that the bulky dark patch over her right boob was an extra large nipple and stating that it was a mic pack. Sorry Natalie it looks like a pastie to me. Anyway although I have not got a decent pic of her this week, she wins my award for the best filled celebrity dress. The pic above may give you a clue why!

Ola Jordan takes my award for the hottest pro outfit with this harem girl outfit for her Aladdin routine with ADT

However, what did NOT make me laugh this week was an item in the Mail Online about Tess Daly in which she claimed that she had lactated during a live show and that only the fact that she was wearing a black dress saved her from embarrassment. As far as I'm concerned that falls into the category of way, way TOO much information. If she thought that the colour of her dress successfully hid the milky stain, then she could just have STFU about it and no one would have been the wiser. However I have bad news for her. If the event was during this series, then the black dress did not effectively hide the wet patch because I saw it and thought it was just a shadow from the stage lighting caused by a wrinkle in the material. Now I know better and I really wish I didn't.
In the article she was also complaining about the number of remarks she gets about her nose and her dress choices. Well I don't care about her nose - at least it has character. Nor do I really care about her dress style. I only wish she would keep those scrawny legs covered up. Not too much to ask surely?

Of course it's sad that Rachel Riley has split from her husband

Of course it is! And this isn't a smug grin on my face. Of course it isn't. Rumour, in the Daily Mail, says that her husband was jealous of the time she was spending with her Strictly Come Dancing partner - Pasha somebody or other. Apparently he, the deserted husband, was tired of being left at home to look after their three cats on his own. Seemingly he is allergic to cats. No suggestion has been made that Rachel and Pasha were in any kind of relationship though speculation is rife.

Relationship with Pasha or not, it is still good news for me. I was not looking forward to the inevitable pregnancy pictures as Rachel is one of those girls for whom buns in oven should be legally prohibited. Naturally I have tweeted her my phone number so she can get in touch as soon as she feels able. I really would not mind being a rebound shag for the most beautiful girl in the world.

All my fondest illusions about Nigella Lawson have been shattered

And no, I certainly do not mean anything about her alleged cocaine use. Because, to me, no one looks less like a class A drug user than the lovely Nigella. Rather I mean the report in the Mail Online, concerning the trial of the Grillo sisters for their alleged misuse of company credit cards:

Asked why Francesca and Elisabetta, 41, were expected to buy so much for the household, Mr Gajjar (representing Francesca) said: 'Charles and Nigella didn't generally go shopping like most people do. They would have their personal assistants shop for them.'

Does that mean that all those cutesy VTs of Nigella buying from her favourite shopping outlets which intersperse shows like Nigellissima are staged for the camera? Good grief, Where will it all end? Is there nothing sacred anymore? I am utterly distraught.

Oh and yes I know I hate TV chefs as a rule but I make an exception for Nigella - who could not?

Well known grammatical error arrested for drink driving

I had to stifle a snigger when I saw that Professor Green (commonly and mistakenly) known as 'Pro' Green was arrested for drunk driving outside his home early last Sunday morning. It seems that the 'rapper' who rails against social injustice and poverty in his so-called songs, had his Rolex half inched in an incident after he arrived home in his Mercedes SLS.
No it's no good I can't stifle the sniggers any longer - heheheheheheh!

It's appalling that there has been no resignation at the Department for Public Prosecutions over the Michael LeVell case

Two Years of the Coronation Street actor's life have been taken from him because of the incompetence of Alison Levitt QC, the principal legal adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions for England.

The Crown Prosecution Service had already decided that there was insufficient evidence to form the basis for a trial and they were overuled because of that woman's sinister obsession. How much public money was wasted on a trial that was doomed to fail right from the beginning and had more to do with politics than actual criminality? Although I don't want to see more public money spent, I really think that Michael LeVell should consider taking legal action against the DPP, the CPS and the police, jointly and severelly, for malicious prosecution.

Although Kevin Webster was never my favourite character in Coronation Street I will, nevertheless, be glad to see him back where he belongs.

Cheryl Cole reveals her anus horribilis

Oh no...you didn't really think that she was revealing more than would have been polite. Well in some ways, and certainly as far as I am concerned, she has revealed far too much. Okay I believe that everyone has the right to do what pleases them with their own bodies. I do not like tattoos personally; I think it looks scruffy regardless of the artistic qualities. And I reserve my particular dislike for writing of any kind whether ideograms, fancy script, arabic lettering or English words. I mean ask yourself what do the Chinese tattoo on their arms, fingers, backs and bums? English phrases like 'Where's wally'. I don't think so.

I've always liked girls' skin and much prefer it to be as unblemished as possible. Mark you I have no objection whatever to the odd mole, freckle or dimple. It adds to character and a little flaw is charming and endearing. But I don't like a girl to have the appearance of a lavatory wall. And no matter what Cheryl thinks now, she will hate it when she gets older. When her butt is wrinkled and sagging those roses will look worse than wilted and a quick wipe over with an artist's cleaner won't restore them.

The other matter which concerns me is the influence she may have on her young and impressionable fans. Sorry Cheryl I used to like you and even, dare I admit it, fantasised a little about you. But I couldn't imagine fondling those cheeks or giving them a cheeky pinch. They are an utter turn off and you're now off my Christmas card list.

Tamara Ecclestone starting to pay the price for marrying a crooked drug dealer

You may wonder why I write about Tamara who leads a life so far removed from my own that we might be on different planets. She comes into my sphere of interest largely because of her father, Formula One supremo, Bernie. The opulence of their joint lifestyles is the main reason for my not being able to watch a complete Grand Prix season live on television. Not to mention the chronic ineptitude of the BBC of course.

So, although I feel slightly sorry when either of them come a bit of a cropper - Bernie Ecclestone is currently facing charges of fraud in Germany - I cannot help a certain measure of schadenfreude.

Now it seems that Tamara's new husband, Jay Rutland, is showing the tell tale signs of his criminal nature barely a month after their lavish wedding and several honeymoons in exotic hotspots.
According to the Mail Online Rutland was driving away from a friend's house in Wanstead East London when he noticed that his customised Range Rover was low on fuel. He called into a petrol station for a top up after which he allegedly walked to some bushes to relieve himself. Why he did not simply ask to use the toilets on the premises is a matter which may become clear later. In any case, according to his version of events, while he was returning to his car he was further relieved of his £50,000 Rolex watch and a £20,000 gold bracelet by a couple of knife wielding, hoodie wearing johnnies of a type fairly prevalent in that neck of the woods. Not being content with merely robbing the luckless Rutland they seemingly beat him up as well as if to give further credance to the tale.

The Mail Online have of course turned off comments on the article 'for legal reasons.' An inhibition which holds no fear for someone like me whose life is already scraping along the bottom of the barrel. So I will brazenly state that I believe Rutland's story to be a complete fabrication in order to defraud an insurance company or some other similar scam.
My reasons are as follows:
1) He must be running short of ready cash even if Tamara has been paying for all the nuptuals herself. It's not easy being a drug dealer while in the media spotlight.
2) Why did he not use the toilets on the petrol forecourt? A couple of quid to the cashier would have made the staff facilities available to him in the absence of public amenities.
3) Why did his muggers not steal the car? Beause he needed it to get home of course.

Apparently a 21 yr old man has been arrested but I have no doubt he will later be released due to lack of evidence.

You can read my previous post on the lovely Tamara's intended, at that time, marriage to the horrible Rutland HERE and the Mail Online's complete article HERE so you can make up your own minds.

In yet another publicity stunt Carol Vorderman plans to set off on a solo (?) round the world flight.

According to the Mail Online 'Vorders' plans to undertake a gruelling solo flight around the world during which I hope she will have time to consult a dictionary concerning the meaning of the word 'solo'. Apparently she will be accompanied by support aircraft, one of which will be flown by her partner - experienced RAF pilot Graham Duff.

I'm sorry Carol but being followed by a rag tag assortment of friends even in separate aircraft is absolutely not flying solo within the meaning of the act.

It may well be that the word solo has just been attached carelessly by the Mail in their usual scrupulous fashion and in which case I hope that it is not the only error made by them in this article. Further on in the item it states that Carol STARTED flying lessons in California last year and has yet to get her qualification. This strikes me as odd because people go to California to get qualified quickly in the favourable weather and it is possible to achieve a private licence in a month or so. The extended time Carol is taking suggests that she is not very capable.

And I am fairly certain that a full licence is necessary to fly in several of the airspaces she will need to cross on her trip and flying unaccompanied (in the cockpit) is probably illegal and certainly dangerous bearing in mind the vagaries of the weather.

The Mail also says that Carol will be attempting to emulate American aviation pioneer Amelia Earhart whose attempt at flying the world in 1937 ended in mysterious circumstances when her plane vanished in the Pacific.

How far will La Vorderman be attempting to emulate Amelia Earhart will be a matter of some speculation by those of us heartily bored of seeing Vorderman's mug splashed across various publications, clad in a variety of garments clinging intimately to her rubenesque frame.
Must say I like the look of the plane though. It looks Italian.

#News - Is the law covering up crime?

Under this headline, the Mail Online, tells the story of how an unnamed (for legal reasons) rockstar is being blackmailed by an unnamed (for legal reasons) American freelance journalist for 2 million pounds. she threatens to spill the beans to the singers wife if he refuses to cough up.

Presumably both parties have protected themselves with super injunctions and that is why the Mail is being so coy about their identities. Of course the Mail may just be playing secret squirrels to prevent itself from being the subject of libel suits but if that is the case, both its story and my post here are completely pointless.

On the other hand if super injunctions are involved then they are being used to cover up crime. Surely demanding money with menaces is blackmail within the meaning of the act. Or maybe threatening to inform a marital partner of the other's adultery is not considered a menace legally speaking. I am looking forward to twitter subverting this nonsense.

Final proof that our Royal blood line has been diluted beyond acceptable limits #RoyalBaby

It was bad enough that the Duke of Cambridge married into a family as common and upstart as the Middletons but now it has been revealed that they are connected, even if only distantly, to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and therefore to their weird brood. Even worse is a connection to Bouncy Beyonce and her strangely named partner Jay Zed, or whatever he is called, and their unfortunately named offspring Blu Ray.

I despair! I'm thinking of applying for asylum somewhere far away from the asylum known as Great Britain.