to think Liz Jones is JUST an odious person with no redeeming qualities?

[TalkinPeace2]

I caught this programme while driving today
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01mw2d8
and she just came across as unpleasant, self pitying and vindictive.

And said that if the Mail fired her she'd not be worried.

Personally having listened to her - but never read one of her articles, the sooner they do, the better for the planet.

let's presume that the editor can see the hypocrisy. should he sack her?

Is she the one that writes nasty little collums for the daily mail? - If so YANBU, she is a nasty piece of work and she seems to enjoy being as ignorant and offensive as possible.

I am not talking about helping her family out Nancy66, we know she does that, she repeatedly tells us ! I am saying, as they have to bear the brunt of her indiscretions, nastiness and having there every word printed, surely they should get a substantial percentage of the income she derives from it.
I dont work for the paper, but one can see tomorrows copy through a N Ireland portal.
In terms of self pitying tripe it has hit new lows, in spite of being told her sister is seriously ill she manages to turn it into a poor me " fest ", in spite of being well paid and spending £600 on make-up she states she cannot afford to visit her !! She , it seems , owes money every where and to everyone, any one would be in debt after the ludicrous monies she has squandered.
I wonder if she will try for another " let the readers send me their money, they can afford it " punt.

I can't say I've ever liked Liz Jones but in the past I have felt sorry for her because she seems to have some genuine mental health issues and I thought that must be the cause of a lot of her problems.

Two things really turned me against her though. One was that awful, awful article she did ranting about the local GP practice (of which she wasn't even a member) refusing to give her a same-day appointment for vaccinations before she travelled to Somalia. The bastards said they couldn't give her vaccinations without seeing her medical records from her private GP first! I mean, how dare they!

The second was hearing her on that radio programme this week. She was so self-pitying and unlikeable. I certainly heard the comment about "publishing a novel at 16" as a dig at Caitlin Moran. And then when the interviewer said to her, "But you're immensely successful," she replied, "Yesterday was my birthday, and I spent it alone. I have no friends, and my family won't speak to me." And I thought, anybody with a teeny-weeny bit of self-awareness might ask themselves why they had no friends and their family wouldn't speak to them. Just horrible.

i did wonder why the Rock Star, the one who keeps asking her to marry him, didn't bother to pop by on her birthday...

I've just found this to ask about the RS? Last week someone threatened to expose them with photo proof, am I right? I can't believe it's still going on.

I also read one entry saying that her sister is ventilated in ITU and she didn't bother to get on the plane to Australia. I really hope she exaggerates that diary.

How dare she liken herself to Bridgette

and blow your nose woman !!!

I thought she came across very well. She doesn't brag or big herself up, she is just real. She writes with a detached observation as an observer about things that others think are not important. Safraz implied that he chooses subjects or items that might show or demonstrate some sort of thing that might be useful to others and she implied that that was arrogant like a man. He denied it was arrogance but just felt it was important to do. I think she has a good point. She doesn't write in order to make propaganda or be politically correct or be a role model or be anybody other than who she is. She doesn't care if Safraz or anyone else feels that the topic is important. She writes about things to entertain and observes things with a detached eye. She offers a different perspective to those who aggrandise themselves and believe that they have points to convey. She doesn't actively try to convince, she passively observes and has the more real voice for it.

She admits her flaws, says she is shy and unconfident, but deep down she is more confident that the bragger, the point scorer and serious, earnest writer.

Obviously she does need to find topics to write about and it is possible that she embellishes reality slightly in order to create output. But the purpose is to entertain rather than lecture.

She is not holding on to her job by her claws, and says that if it ends, so be it. She will move on. That's life and is another story to write about.

In fact it was a profound interview. She mentions that men can't write in her style. She mentions Roth and someone else who are close. But she is very perceptive when she implies that the reason that they can't is because they are too busy projecting an image, whereas she bares all and strips the image to reveal what is underneath and what is real, even if it is sometimes harsh and unpleasant. It is the difference between someone who is creating and fabricating an image, a role, a point, a role model and someone who just is. It is the difference between trying and being, between striving and being, between going somewhere and being somewhere.