to think that she should get out more?

[emkana]

Caitlin Moran that is.

See timesonline.typepad.com/alphamummy/

But then my children haven't really taken to Charlie and Lola, so I'm biased...

oh is cod on holiday?

is Enid back then?

This woman gets paid to write this tripe? Really?

thank yu Kay..thank you!

I would expect a professional to write with the compassion and sensitivity of a mother, and with a good grasp of spelling and grammar.

Apparently these aren't on her employers 'skills needed' list.

I agree with you too Drop Dead. All the Times journos have been a bit doolally recently.

I mean have you read India Knight's piece on breastfeeding? Or that Elinor person thingy's piece on Madeleine?

Thanks Skeletalnanny - I haven't read the peice on madeleine...any links?

Here:

timesonline.typepad.com/alphamummy/2007/08/maddy---the-hor.html

The thing that I object to about this piece of recycled junk-writing is not obvious from the blog. There is some stuff that you do need to know in order to understand why I think it is evidence of general doolallyness.

She evidently wrote it to get some extreme views on the blog. She got two or three defamatory comments that had to be deleted, but not the real venom she was looking for, so she picked out the two most extreme quotes and used them in a follow up article two days later about how venomous people were being about the McCanns. Which itself is an article that had already been written by India Knight a month previously ...

Talk about recycled and slip shod writing ... And that isn't defamatory. That's the truth.

I don't see anything wrong in that article OR the India Knight one

maybe I am going blind in my old age

The India Knight one that called breastfeeding bovine was not good.

This article is just recycled junk for the sake of getting an article out. Nothing new. Lazy.

iirc IK said she felt bovine, not that breastfeeding in general was and she is entitled to her opinion, also this was dissected in a thread that reached dizzy heights

Yes I agree LL...and skeletal nanny if that was the reason for her blog post then i agree it's a disgusting excuse for journalism

and CM evens laments that some people will not find her pathetic findings about LC 'dynamite'...unlike 'that man' dying at Barrymores..so pleased she found some dinner party conversation out of that...

Message deemed not worthy by mumsnet.

The follow up article by Eleanor Mills using the material from the blog-piece

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2240412.ece

and echoing (I don't object to the sentiments - just the echoing) India Knight's piece

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/article1875737.ece

Oh it's so slack.

Just to clarify - I was skeletal nanny - for the purposes of another thread

She used to go out with someone called Soren. A cameraman. I think people here are insane if they read that being uncaring or gleeful. She says the though of her not having a child makes her want to cry ffs.

'BUT GUESS WHAT EVEN MORE WHAT! Apparently, they broke up because he didn't want children, and she did!!!!!!!
I know. I had my head between my legs at this point when I was being told, squeaking "No! No! Am-AAAAAzing!"'

Yeah she definitely sounds brokenhearted for her....

i am obviously insane..

No, you're not. You are right. It isn't nice.

"This, then, means that the literary creation of Soren Lorenson - Lola's invisible conscience - is almost unbearably poignant"

As it happens, I feel that maybe it wasn't very nice to print gossip about Lauren Child who is clearly a hugely private person. But I think the comments here are barking.

aloha..what about the comments re: Stuart Lubbock?

She doesn't say anything at all about Lubbock as a person. She just says that people were galvanised by the story, which they were.