The Unthinkable Is About To Happen

Yes, I am about to defend Heather Mills McCartney-Not-For-Much-Longer. After a fashion.

You may or may not know that today The Sun newspaper printed photographs that they claim are from some German hardcore thing which involve Heather, five years before the accident that took her leg, in "depraved pornographic clinches which are bound to sicken her estranged husband Sir Paul and his army of fans."

So far, so mucky. It should be noted that there is a difference between her claims of being a model and doing porn, right? It might not be a thick line and it may be a well-crossed line, but we already know Heather Mills has the same kind of relationship with the truth as I have with, say, quantum physics. ie, naff all.

Now, I don't like Heather Mills. I never have. She's an opportunist, although whether she worships money or fame best is still to be seen. But you know, either version of 'the truth' of her early life leaves a lot to be desired. I have actually been to the shopping centre in Washington, Co Durham where she grew up. You can tell a lot about a town by its shopping centre. It was like going back fifteen years in time, such is the deprivation and poverty up there. In the seventies and eighties, you know it was worse. It's not exactly a leap of faith to see the line between poor childhood and a desperate wish to be rich/famous/whatever, even if that means taking your clothes over and stocking up on baby oil.

HOWEVER, for The Sun to get up onto their collective, Murdoch bank-rolled arses and denounce her is a bit much... when if you scroll down on the 'News' page today, about an inch and a half beneath their vilification of Heather is a female arse saved only from nudity by something  claiming to be a thong, next to another picture of a woman with, in Sun-reader parlance, massive tits.

It is GROSS HYPOCRISY for them to have a go at Heather for something she did a long time ago (and if everyone was willing, everyone was paid honestly and all that, how bad is it?) in sneeringly moral language... and then devote the rest of their newspaper to the sordid nonsense of the Big Brother house, probably some other 'celebrity' sex scandal and the fucking Page Three Girl.

What exactly is the difference between Heather and the Page Three Girl? The baby oil? The bloke? The fact that she had the gall to go and marry a Beatle years later?

It's one thing to mock her for it. It's one thing to say "well, maybe you shouldn't have". It is another thing entirely to get on your moral rocking horse against her and then do much the same thing on a different page. This is the newspaper that helped bring kiss-and-tell stories to the world- horrible, truth-allergic stories by people telling lurid stories of what they did with Famous McRichbloke once in the Novotel, Uttoxeter.

It's hypocrisy and, like the  Sun's writing on any given day, it makes me fucking sick.

The Unthinkable Is About To Happen

Yes, I am about to defend Heather Mills McCartney-Not-For-Much-Longer. After a fashion.

You may or may not know that today The Sun newspaper printed photographs that they claim are from some German hardcore thing which involve Heather, five years before the accident that took her leg, in "depraved pornographic clinches which are bound to sicken her estranged husband Sir Paul and his army of fans."

So far, so mucky. It should be noted that there is a difference between her claims of being a model and doing porn, right? It might not be a thick line and it may be a well-crossed line, but we already know Heather Mills has the same kind of relationship with the truth as I have with, say, quantum physics. ie, naff all.

Now, I don't like Heather Mills. I never have. She's an opportunist, although whether she worships money or fame best is still to be seen. But you know, either version of 'the truth' of her early life leaves a lot to be desired. I have actually been to the shopping centre in Washington, Co Durham where she grew up. You can tell a lot about a town by its shopping centre. It was like going back fifteen years in time, such is the deprivation and poverty up there. In the seventies and eighties, you know it was worse. It's not exactly a leap of faith to see the line between poor childhood and a desperate wish to be rich/famous/whatever, even if that means taking your clothes over and stocking up on baby oil.

HOWEVER, for The Sun to get up onto their collective, Murdoch bank-rolled arses and denounce her is a bit much... when if you scroll down on the 'News' page today, about an inch and a half beneath their vilification of Heather is a female arse saved only from nudity by something  claiming to be a thong, next to another picture of a woman with, in Sun-reader parlance, massive tits.

It is GROSS HYPOCRISY for them to have a go at Heather for something she did a long time ago (and if everyone was willing, everyone was paid honestly and all that, how bad is it?) in sneeringly moral language... and then devote the rest of their newspaper to the sordid nonsense of the Big Brother house, probably some other 'celebrity' sex scandal and the fucking Page Three Girl.

What exactly is the difference between Heather and the Page Three Girl? The baby oil? The bloke? The fact that she had the gall to go and marry a Beatle years later?

It's one thing to mock her for it. It's one thing to say "well, maybe you shouldn't have". It is another thing entirely to get on your moral rocking horse against her and then do much the same thing on a different page. This is the newspaper that helped bring kiss-and-tell stories to the world- horrible, truth-allergic stories by people telling lurid stories of what they did with Famous McRichbloke once in the Novotel, Uttoxeter.

It's hypocrisy and, like the  Sun's writing on any given day, it makes me fucking sick.