Edit: Sorry double post
Hate the buggers G! My point simply is that there are no politicians to blame for the fat one feeding her kids chips, just the braindead useless pleb herself.
Wow you are quite the charmer.
God forbid any of you or the people you care about should find yourself in a bad situation, presumably it would be all your own fault and you should get no help or sympathy.
If it's not Thatcher's fault, who's fault is it that you are such a selfish, vindictive twunt?
mysterymurdoch - Member........... Give her kids a chance by allowing some more intelligent people to look afte them! .................
And where are you going to find these tens of thousands of foster parents? foster parents are in short supply anyway. How are you going to pay for it? Fostering is expensive.
I have deliberately refrained from suggesting solutions because I simply don't know of any. that certainly isn't one.
65 per cent of mums NEVER cook meals from scratch.
I was in Mothercare recently and you can *actually get 'Ice cube tray' style plastic trays with lids so you can cook food and freeze it in baby-sized portions.
*I say 'actually' but they are probably very commonplace but as I am just about to enter the wonderful world of parenthood I was happily oblivious for years.
No newspaper, not even the Scum, can print lies.
RB you have excelled yourself in irony :o) The question is rather "How often does the truth sneak through?". Less than one might hope 🙁
i read it was between 1 and 7 you leant 'stuff' (i.e. your personality, behaviour, social skills, heierachy, etc)
And at 7 your pretty much setup for life and whatever you do your personality is unlikely to change. Makes sense to me, I grew up in the middle of (3 seperate) nowhere(s), and as a result find it much easier to make freinds 15-20 years older. I also can't abide macyD's, BK, KFC etc and have never cooked a microwave meal for myself.
Is it an OK reaction just not really to care that much? I'm trying to summon up some sort of indignation at the state (or perhaps not) of this woman and her brood, but in reality she doesn't really matter to me at all, other that in purely financial terms she probably has an impact on my taxation. Given that that nice Mr Darling wants to rape me for the next half century to bale out his banking chums, I find it hard to get worked up about the couple of hundred she gets each week.
Sorry, not particularly STW, but I don't care that she feeds her kids mushed up Maccy D's, or is fat/stupid/unemployed.
people you care about should find yourself in a bad situation,
But the point isn't that the woman IS in a bad situation. She is in a situation entirely of her own making. If she can afford to eat MaccyDees, then she can afford to eat properly. She lives with her mother and she provides the daughter and grandchildren with salads and things but they won't eat them. She just sees 'convenience' food as an easy solution because she quite simply cannot be bothered to act like a parent should and devote love, time and attention to her children. That could be because she never had any as a child herself so knows no other way, who knows, but there is simply NO excuse to feed/treat children like that.
[img] 
[/img]
I wonder when we are goig to get to the Thatcher event horizon? ie when you can't blame her anymore and have to face up to everybody else having some responsibility
I also don't believe that the underclass were not as separated from what TJ calls "society" as they are now. They have always existed and probably always will, its more that no-one reported on them in the daily newspapers/ TV news.
Or was there a "golden age" pre Thatcher when all was well with the country?
LOL at the Trekky post. Classic and spot on.
Re: Thatcher the event horizon will be when the insidious impact of her rather nasty policies ceases to effect the rest of us in a demonstrable way.
I was in Mothercare recently and you can *actually get 'Ice cube tray' style plastic trays with lids so you can cook food and freeze it in baby-sized portions.
Ha. Reminds me of the evening a fortnight me & the wife would spend cooking butternut squash, sweet potatoe etc, for our two. They probably had no more than a dozen jar meals between them.
I'll bet that heffer & her story has been somewhat inflated for the reading.
If its true then they should be removed, Far too many couples out there that could give little mites like that a loving home, but cant get past the left-wing lesbo-gay social workers who decide on adoption applications.
She is in a situation entirely of her own making.
I disagree. Let's suppose for a second, making some massive generalisations, that she:
Had young, not particularly well-educated parents herself, who fed her crap and didn't have much time for her, and that most of the people in her area/social group eat similarly crap food. Being unemployed, she probably watches lots of daytime tv and reads crap newspapers which are full of adverts for rubbishy food. Her kids also watch lots of tv, including adverts which teach kids to pester their parents for junk food, and are attracted by the toys offered with it.
This rubbishy food is easy, cheap, and immediately satisfies basic desires for salt, sugar, fat etc. Most of the shops in here area sell mainly this type of stuff. She was never taught to cook properly and feels unconfident about making even basic meals from scratch.
Personally I know of quite a lot of people in my area like that.
The concept of 'choice' in this situation is a bit of bogus Thatcher/Blairite doublespeak. Yes she could one day decide to go to the shop and buy lots of fruit and veg, but there are a number of obvious reasons why this is unlikely to happen, and I don't believe for a second that she has the same 'choice' that I did coming from a nice middle class background where we ate brown rice and tofu.
What is the most likely thing to remedy this situation and perhaps hope to improve things for her and her kids? Referral to NHS weight loss help services, initiatives to encourage healthy eating, perhaps some free healthy activities, education on nutrition, perhaps some attempt to raise her self-esteem to help her get out of a cycle of harmful behaviour?
These things are out there but people need to be encouraged to take advantage of them, instead of saying lets all point at the scummy fatty and tell her how disgusting she is.
SFB: No newspaper would be able to print/webify an entirely fictitious story, and pass it off as 'news'. It's against publishing laws. So, there has to be at least some element of truth in this story. The individual slant a newspaper may put on a story is acceptable under 'journalistic licence', but there are still boundaries within which, they must operate.
I believe this story to be at least partially factual.
I find some of the attitudes of some people commenting here, harder to believe.
Big and daft - that certainly is my experience. Of course I have changed over 35 yrs as well but I went to school in Glasgow with kids from Darnley, Arden and Carnwadric - 3 big SSHA estates on the southside of Glasgow. No way even allowing for rose tinted specs were they as grim places then as they are now. There were neds and unemployed and ****less folk - but nothing like as many as there are now. Drugs was not a part of life at all.
It is a simple fact that the underclass has grown and become further from mainstream society over the last 30 yrs.
There are more single parents now, there are more families who have never known regular work over several generations, there are more problems with drugs. this is unquestionable
IMO and that of many social commentators from all parts of the political spectrum the mass unemployment of the Thatcher years and the "me first" society has definitely contributed greatly.
Some would say this has been happening since the 50s. Some would date it from the early 70s, some from the eighties.
Apportioning blame either to particular changes in society or individuals is of no use. What we as a society need to do is find ways out of this situation and find some hope. Otherwise things will simply get worse.
ditto what TJ just said.
I really love living at the pinnacle of modern life. No matter what you do there'll always be someone saying 'It's not your fault it's Society's'.
Regardless of our times, there's always the possibility that this person is just an oxygen thief.
my wife came from a proper uneducated, impoverished background. Funny, her and all her family don't seem to have fallen into the same apparently mind sucking chasm that this lady has. Through her I know a lot of people who have never had jobs, have never been educated about nutrition, have fallen into drug and alcohol driven pits of dispair and yet none of them have the attidue that this woman has.
I think she's a greedy ****er who feeds her children in the same way to hide her own guilt about her own disgusting body (unless of course people think the picture is also a sham) and her constant waddling in the face of the un-ignorable tide of information flowing freely out of her TV about nutrition, healthy eating and parenting. Anyone who hides their own greed behind 'a thyroid problem' has given the game way as far as I'm concerned.
If she's got an eating disorder then so be it but what she is doing to her children is abuse pure and simple. They should give her kids to my sister in law who is a foster parent. She's satan incarnate but at least she knows how to feed people properly.
No newspaper would be able to print/webify an entirely fictitious story, and pass it off as 'news'
Oh, so you mean Saddam [b]DID[/b] have WMDs ready for action in 45 minutes ?? Well I never!
perhaps he did and that woman ate them mistaking them for hot dogs.
These things are out there but people need to be encouraged to take advantage of them
Like when she was pregnant with the triplets with help avaialble at every turn. She was just too damn dim to take any notice as she would rather be eating fat.
the women and her attitude are a product of human evolution: we have aguably worked for labour saving devices from the dawn of man, from the very first tool, the flint axe, the invention of the wheel through to washing machines, vacumn cleaners and ready meals.
She thinks that preparing a home made meal, with real veg is too much effort - as we have worked towards this for the several thousand years. It is only in recently where we have seen what could be the crest of labour saving, we actually need to expend energy in other ways, cycling anyone?, to burn off the calories that we eat other than our days work. It is a difficult place to be in especially when you do not have the mental aptitude to think - actually maybe this is saving a little bit too much energy, maybe i should cook.
and as for not wanting to teach your children "you need to watch what they eat" er yes love you do need to watch it otherwise you will end up with an arse the size of a small city car! 😯
I'm still waiting for someone to identify the "golden age" pre Thatcher
blaming all the massive social changes on her is a cop out. The situation is far more complex than "Thatcher ruined the country".
12 years of a Labour government what social change have they affected? (other than massage employment/incapacity stats)
is social engagement higher or lower, is the underclass more or less embedded? why did we have to import labour from eastern europe?
It is likely that future generations may be talking about the "Brown legacy" in the same way as Thatcher is now. I would argue that we are now more "me first" than ever before.
12 years of a Labour government what social change have they affected? (other than massage employment/incapacity stats)
A Labour government which has largely carried on Thatcher's legacy.
Is that her fault as well?
carrying on the 'It's Thatcher's fault' thing is just like that fat woman.
"It's not my fault I'm screwed up, I've got a Thatcher problem"
"That woman is just a product of Thatcher marketing and poor education"
"this story is just a complete Thatcher of lies"
Big and daft - I very carefully have not said that. Its all far too complex to blame it on one factor. I would be interested to know if you are old enough to have know life as an adult before thatcher tho. I personally am convinced that the mass unemployment she created deliberately and the greed and "me first" society she encouraged have done a lot of this damage.
Golden era? maybe the 50s? Maybe the late 60s early 70s
As for the last 12 yrs child poverty has been decreased greatly as has pensioner poverty. Problem is this has been mainly the "deserving poor" rather than the underclass we are talking about. The very bottom few % have not seen their lot improve at all. The next few % have seen their lot improve a fair bit, the mniddle classes much the same as it was and the greedy rich have well and truely got their snouts in the trough.
There has been a clear redistribution of wealth towards poorer folk - but it ain't reached some at the very bottom of society.
snouts in troughs?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/31/jacqui-smith-expenses
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/06/downing-street-defends-mps-expenses
who was quoting George Orwell?
Animal Farm anyone?
I doubt the story is made-up at all. That would be illegal. No newspaper, not even the Scum, can print lies. I've emailed a mate who works for them, to ask him.
...
No newspaper would be able to print/webify an entirely fictitious story, and pass it off as 'news'. It's against publishing laws. So, there has to be at least some element of truth in this story.
erm...
[img] 
[/img] [img] 
[/img] [img] 
[/img]
[size=1]Pics from [url= http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Sunday_Sport ]uncyclopedia[/url][/size]
Don't disagree with any of that Big and daft. Have a look at the tories who got caught tho - rather bigger figures. Its all a part of the problem tho - political class arrogant and divorced from the people of the country is deffo a part of it
I am no slavish Labour supporter. Occasionally I even meet Captain flasheart somewhere around the back of the allegorical bike shed
Are you suggesting that no statue of Elvis has been found on Mars? I am disappointed.
Presumably the Sunday Sport gets around the publishing laws to which Rudeboy refers by not in fact being a newspaper, in much the same way that not everything in Viz, Razzle or Piers Morgan's autobiography is strictly true. 🙂
The Sunday Sport is [i]not[/i] a newspaper. It is an 'entertainment' periodical.
And anyone who thinks it [i]is[/i] a newspaper, probbly can't read anyway, so no worries.
I haven't read this thread only glanced through it, but the most shocking thing which has caught my eye are RudeBoy's comments claiming that the Sun wouldn't lie because it is 'illegal' 😯
The Sun tells a pack of lies everyday, but the police as far as I know, have never arrested a Sun editor. The Sun can, and does, say whatever it wants, whether or not it's true.
Of course it makes them liable be sued, but they obviously tend to be careful not to tell lies about people who are likely to sue them. Occasionally they screw up, do it to the wrong person and they end up paying substantial damages. But I doubt very much whether they worry about being 'extremely economical with the truth' when it comes to people who haven't a pot to piss in.
And of course they can tell whatever lies they want about, for instance, the Labour Party, in the full knowledge that they won't be sued. One of the Sun's most famous headlines was "Crisis? what Crisis?" which they claimed was a quote from the then prime minister Jim Callaghan, this was a complete lie and of course the Sun was never taken to court over it.
And perhaps RudeBoy you can tell me how the Sun would fall foul of the law if it told lies about the Iranian president ? Bearing in mind that he would be unlikely to drag them through the British courts.
RudeBoy: I can't believe a self-confessed conspiracy nut thinks that the papers never lie!
Is that like an anti-conspiracy or something?
May I commend http://the-sun-lies.blogspot.com
Get a grip, you lot. Of course papers lie. Or rather, they report the news according to the facts that they have. They're not stupid; hundreds of lawyers work for major titles.
But to completely fabricate a story like this, would be ridiculous. Far too blatant. They have undoubtedly embellished this story, of course, but they will have been careful not to have printed owt which could possibly see them in court.
Feel free to prove this story is entirely a work of fiction if you like, I'm really not that bothered.
Anyway, that's not the issue, here.
GrahamS; I prefer to keep an open mind on things, than accept the 'official line' every time. The term 'conspiracy nut' is used by those who don't possess sufficient courage to question things themselves.
The 'facts' of this story are; obese woman does not in any way feed her triplets very well.
The same thing is probbly repeated up and down the land. It's just that this particular story is a bit more juicy than most.
Certainly provided the vultures on here, with a feast...
I belive i have discovered a hidden subtext to the story
Re read the story with the oompa loompa song in your head.
her surname is Salt
She is dressed all in blue and shaped like a blue berry
She needs to go the juicing room!
* off to see what other Sun storys fit, and then to write a documentary called the Dahl Code
I think you may be onto something. Ever see Ronald McDonald and Willy Wonka in the same room at the same time?
I'm touched by RB's staunch defence of truth and honesty in reporting, though on reflection I'm inclined to think it's completely tongue in cheek :o)
RudeBoy - MemberThat would be illegal. No newspaper, not even the Scum, can print lies.
Posted 9 hours ago
RudeBoy - MemberGet a grip, you lot. Of course papers lie.
Posted 12 minutes ago
.
Sorry RudeBoy, I don't know how I came to misunderstand you - I promise I'll try to get a grip in future.
.
BTW, how did the Sun get inside her house to take photos (Copyright News Group Newspaper Ltd) ? Did they pay her ? Did she have to sign a 'disclaimer' before she received her money ?
Still, if the Sun had to pay a tidy sum it will have been worth it, after all, she given them all the 'perfect' answers to their questions.
And everybody agrees that it was a great story - probably worth posting on an internet forum, I dare say.
Most popular story on The Sun website today and caused plenty of chatter, so what ever they paid for it was worth it.
We all get to pour scorn on a jobless fatty and The Sun sell a few more adverts.
Everyone's a winner.
That wom,,,, no that thing looks like it could be responsible for 95% of the total UK CO2 emissions.
fat people are selfish, and they smell.
She obviously has a slow metabolism - that, and a fast f*****g pie arm
Gus, I salute your restraint. 🙂
OK, for the thickies, like GG:
A 'newspaper' has a legal duty to report only those stories which they can back up with facts. They are free to offer opinion, but they cannot legally print what they know not to be facts.
They get around publishing laws, by making statements such as 'the Sun was told that...' and 'our sources tell us that...' etc. That kind of thing. They are very, very careful to always cover themselves. So, if something turns out not to be true, then they can simply say 'oh, well we were given misleading information (WMDs...)', or whatever.
Feel free to engage the services of a lawyer, to clarify this. You're not having mine.
As for lies, no newspaper will ever admit to printing stuff their journalists and editors know to be untrue. That would be professional suicide. They merely defend themselves with 'we believed it to be true at the time. We were given false information'. This happens a lot, but is rarely reported. Have you any idea how many cases are settled out of court? Misrepresentation, factual inaccuracies, defamation of character?
Papers like the Scum see this as 'occupational hazard', and will consider having to pay out, as part of their operating costs. As such lawsuits cost them a mere fraction of their profits, they will see it as a very small price to pay.
There. Got it, now?
Under the Trade Descriptions Act, and publishing law, a 'newspaper' has to operate in a certain manner. So, they're 'not allowed to lie', but do anyway. And certainly give very heavily biased reporting, according to the whim of their proprietors.
I doubt very much, that this story would fall under the auspices of 'journalistic licence' (you can't just make stuff up), and must therefore, in part at least, be true.
Happy now?
If you want to discuss this further, then you shall have to speak to my legal team.
So, if they paid this woman to tell us about the pre-chewed fish and chips and cheesy wotsits, even if it wasn't strictly true and they knew perfectly well it wasn't strictly true and didn't care, where would we be?
It would appear to fall into the category of knowingly printing something which is, at best, wild exaggeration by a woman who can see your chequebook, non? I apreciate that there are moral differences between that and inventing it entirely, but it is unclear to me that they have any practical effect here. 🙂
Maybe she is just misunderstood?
We are all wrong and she and her kin are right? You never know, those who tend to be in the wrong just dont even know it...
Just a parallel-world spin for ya
Likewise the government and parliamentary committees, official enquiries etc are generally not legally allowed to lie to the public - but yet you persist in believing various conspiracy theories.
Incredible that on one hand you apparently consider yourself as one of the few great intellects of our time that can [i]"keep an open mind on things"[/i] and spot the outright lies in the [i]"official line"[/i], while others [i]"don't possess sufficient courage to question things themselves"[/i]; but on the other hand you believe that tabloid papers carefully follow the rules.
but on the other hand you believe that tabloid papers carefully follow the rules.
READ WHAT I WROTE.
Carefully.
Then read it again.
And come back to me, when you've sussed it out.
Alternatively, try this:
[img] 
[/img]
Wasn't the recent story about that baby-faced 12 year-old father that kicked up another massive hand-wringing thread also a Sun story?
And wouldn't you know it, that turned out to be complete bollocks that any journalist who was remotely concerned about reporting the truth would have seen straight through.
I think she's pretty fit.
READ WHAT I WROTE. Carefully.
Dream. On.
LOL
Seldom holds up under scrutiny!
READ WHAT I WROTE.
I did. You indicated that they probably embellished the story (being careful to stay within the law) but you believed it to be basically true:
"I doubt the story is made-up at all. That would be illegal. No newspaper, not even the Scum
...
..to completely fabricate a story like this, would be ridiculous. Far too blatant. They have undoubtedly embellished this story, of course, but they will have been careful not to have printed owt which could possibly see them in court.
..
So, there has to be at least some element of truth in this story.
..
I believe this story to be at least partially factual.
I just find it amusing to contrast your unwavering belief in the effectiveness of law in monitoring the truthfulness of the media with your belief that governments tell massively illegal lies and that only you can see the "real truth".
No, what I've actually said, is that the 'facts' appear to be that she's giving her kids crap food. The rest of it is created by the Scum, and people reading it. So, the actual story is pretty mundane. Fayt woman gives her kids bad food. Wow. Tell us something we don't know.
All the 'she's a bad parent', 'it's Thatclher's fault', 'exterminate all fat people' stuff is in the minds of the readers.
Somewhere, this person probbly does exist. And has sold a 'story', to the press. Like the '13-year old dad' story (on which there appears to be a ban on reporting, so we don't know that he's the dad or not).
It's a carefully constructed piece, designed to gain maximum reaction. Oh look, it's worked!
If you really want to prove it's a completely fictitious story, be my guest. If you wish to challenge the Scum, in court, then go for it.
So, the upshot is, that the Scum are probbly not actually printing stuff they know to be made up, they are reporting the 'facts' as presented to them.
Whether or not the situation is 'real', is not their concern. they've been sold a story, they can offer a reasonable argument as to their belief in it's validity, and are perfectly legally covered. If it does indeed later turn out to be untrue, they will have their corporate arses covered.
What is true, however, regardless of this bit of sensationalist crap, is that too many people give their kids crap food. The Scum is expert in feeding off public hysteria over all sorts of social issues, and has used the flavour of the month, obesity and childcare, to create a sensation, a [url= http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/ ]Spectacle[/url].
And it's worked on us, for sure...
Wow, these threads bring out the geeks who cannot for love nor money keep things simple. Big words and sentences don't make you right...we can all do it if we want but some feel we don't need to.
If we can't blame Thatcher for her-faytness as the event horizon has been reached...
can we blame the Motor Car instead? Without the motor car she'd have to walk....
There's a simple solution to this situation = don't read, and particularly buy, newspapers. Particularly those owned by that Antipodean right-wing manipulator of truth.
Like the '13-year old dad' story (on which there appears to be a ban on reporting, so we don't know that he's the dad or not).
Sun stories on Alfie:
Baby-faced boy Alfie Patten is father at 13
I love Alfie and he took my virginity. There has been nobody else
Alfie 'inspires sex ed rethink'
Parents not told Alfie was dad-to-be
Alfie agrees to take DNA test
I looked in his eyes.. it was so sad
DNA test is for sake of the kids
'I'm the daddy... if I'm not **** you all'
Alfie a victim of Broken Britain?
The tangled web of Alfie and Chantelle
Ant: 'I look like baby dad Alfie'
Lad's sister blames their dad
Feeding, nappies... and PlayStation
Baby shambles... I blame the parents
How sad that biggest victim is little Maisie
Benefit bonanza if pair 'move in'
Meanwhile in the real world:
[url= http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_355356.html ]Alfie not Britain's youngest dad[/url]
[url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5748147.ece ]Media watchdog to investigate payments to Alfie Patten's parents[/url]
these threads bring out the geeks who cannot for love nor money keep things simple
isn't it naive to think such things are 'simple' ?
Whether or not the situation is 'real', is not their concern. they've been sold a story, they can offer a reasonable argument as to their belief in it's validity, and are perfectly legally covered.
I agree with your assertion here by the way. But I don't really think that the tabloid approach of "report anything you like as long as it sells and you can find someone who says it's true" is entirely in-keeping with the spirit of the publications law.
And it doesn't fit with your earlier protest that it must be true because it is illegal for the papers to lie.
OK. I'll re-phrase it; No newspaper can print what they [b]know[/b] to be untrue.
That better?
So, the 'truth' of this story, is that there appears to be a fayt lass who feeds her kids crap. That's pretty plausible, tbh, woon't you agree?
The Sun does still need to try to appear truthful and sincere, in order to keep it's place on the news stands. So, they will at least cover their arses, legally, as I've said. For them to print this, they would have to be able to have a reasonable argument that there is at least some element of truth in this. Which, from what we can see, there does appear to be. HairyBarnes' claim that this is entirely made up, is his own onion. He is of course free to prove it is a fake, however, if he so chooses.
All I was trying to do, was state the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing. Granted, the Sun has been guiltyer than most.
As for the Alfie Patten thing; yes, it appears the Scum were scammed. They won't care; they probbly sold loads more papers 'cos of that story...
Scenario in Scum press room:
'Ear, check this out; fayt bird feeds her kids crap'
'Ooh, that's a goodun! Is it true?'
'Well, looks all right'
'Can we be sued?'
'Shoon't think so. Sources seem to check out'
'Can we embellish it, to whip up public hysteria, and sell more papers?'
'Definitely.'
OR:
'I'm bored. There's no juicy scandalous stuff to write about'
'Why don't we make up a story about a fayt bird who feeds her kids crap?'
'Ooh, nice. We'd need a model. My mate's brother goes out with a right porker, we could get her'
'Excellent. And my girlfriend's hairdresser knows a woman who's had triplets. Treble bubble!'
'Brilliant. Now, we need to get them together, for a photoshoot and that. then make up a story about the bird being on benefits, smokes, not with the kids' dad, etc'
'Succulent'
'Ear, but what if we get caught?'
'Ooh, good point. We could lose our jobs, and get screwed by Murdoch'
'That's not good. I'm struggling with my mortgage enough as it is'
'No, we'd have to be careful. Lets talk to the Ed about it'
'What? You want to run a completely fictitious pack of lies? And if I say yes, I could lose my job/home/marriage/kids/[s]self-respect[/s]/cushy number?'
'Er, yeah. But ittud sell papers!'
Come on. Work it out...
I'm wasted, on here.
('Phones up the Sun...)
Both of those scenarios seem equally likely to me - I suspect the truth is somewhere between 🙂
Sorry SFB et al it appears she does exist.
The [url= http://www.****/news/article-1174210/30-stone-mother-feeds-baby-triplets-junk-food-diet--admits-McDonalds-just-months.html ]mail[/url] have run with it too
And the [url= http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2009/04/29/coventry-mum-leanne-salt-denies-feeding-junk-food-to-triplets-92746-23499758/ ]coventry telegraph[/url] have a follow up, she agreed to appear in closer on a weight loss article and is not happy with whats ended up in the papers.
This has thread was an interesting read until it got to bickering about how much papers [s]lie[/s] stretch the truth.
she does exist.
And judging by the Coventry Telegraph report that is about the only aspect of the story that is true.
And between the Sun and the Mail, she seems to have gained a stone in weight!
RudeBoy - Member
And between the Sun and the Mail, she seems to have gained a stone in weight!
I think between the dates the two stories were run she gained a stone in weight, they are probably still telling the truth!
If The Sun and The Mail both write she does then she does (it's like the Labour and the Torries agreeing).
