Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Monday, 29 December 2014

Mail Danniella Westbrook Fail


Privacy. A word to strike fear into the obedient hackery of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre. Privacy is something to which nobody is entitled - unless, as Rich Peppiatt discovered, you edit the Daily Mail. Dacre’s privacy is sacrosanct, and not even the creator of One Rogue Reporter got close (for those of a sensitive disposition, be warned that Rich’s assault on Fortress Dacre featured a large dildo). 
What's f***ing wrong with publishing photos taken by following vulnerable single women, c***?!? Er, with the greatest of respect, Mr Jay

So far, so hypocritical, given the Mail’s tendency to stick its bugle wherever it sodding well likes, but there is also slanting and selectivity to go with the flagrant breach of privacy, and all this has come together in a totally unnecessary piece about former EastEnders actor Danniella Westbrook, who has not only fallen on hard times, but visited a JobCentre. You think that’s not news? You’re dead right, but this is the Mail we’re talking about.

The Dacre hacks have excused their actions by pleading that the Sunday People ran something on Ms Westbrook. This is used to justify the use of every Pap photo they can lay their hands on, right down to being able to see the front page of the leaflet she picked up while in the JobCentre, and the make of handbag she was holding. Yes, she “was toting a Mulberry bag over one arm, estimated to be worth around £1,500”.

And what intercoursing relevance does that have to her current status? Can one use a less-then-new Mulberry bag as negotiable currency round the local Aldi? One can’t? So it’s utterly irrelevant to mention it, unless of course you subscribe to the Mail’s leering hackery, who have also told readers that “Danniella, 41, was dressed demurely in a long-sleeved black dress, which she paired with opaque tights and leather boots”.

Er, hello, this too is irrelevant. At least there isn’t a “Mail fashion finder” at the end of the article so readers know where to buy whatever has just been leered over. And still there is no conceivable public interest defence for this exercise. None at all. Zero. Zilch. Not a sausage. Bugger all. Unless, perhaps, someone is trying to suggest that Ms Westbrook is committing some kind of dishonest act by visiting the JobCentre.

And, d’you know, the Dacre doggies appear to be doing just that: “It is not known whether or not she is claiming benefits, but Jobseeker's Allowance should give her a sum of up to £72.40 a week”. Was she claiming JSA, or indeed any benefit? The Mail doesn’t know, it just applies the smear anyway. Oh, and Ms Westbrook “was carrying a leaflet entitled 'Support with arranging child maintenance’”.

Ho yus. Had the Mail bothered to research that one, they would have found that needing this leaflet (see HERE) is a normal activity for someone who is separated, but has children. Doesn’t the Mail have one count on which it can nab her? Oh, hang on a minute - “Just last week, she was spotted searching for a new home in the Liverpool neighbourhood of Walton”. Oh well, that’s bang to rights, innit?

This is a truly desperate and pathetic hatchet job. No change there, then.

4 comments:

Julessn said...

I'm guessing that someone inside JobCentre+ tipped off the local papp that she was due in there for a first visit.

organic cheeseboard said...

I'm pretty much certain that the bag she's carrying is not Mulberry - it's got trim around the usual oval plate on the front, and none of the bags currently for sale on their website have that. It looks like a high street imitation of the Willow bag or in fact might be an Ebay £17 imitation - see http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/300766878279?limghlpsr=true&hlpv=2&ops=true&viphx=1&hlpht=true&lpid=108&chn=ps&device=c&adtype=pla&crdt=0&ff3=1&ff11=ICEP3.0.0-L&ff12=67&ff13=80&ff14=108 for a pretty much exact match. That might explain the article's text reading "carrying what looked like a £1,500 Mulberry handbag". A shame that the captions didn't follow suit.

Arnold said...

Another example. Under the headline "PICTURE EXCLUSIVE The show must go on: Helena Bonham Carter spotted stocking up on groceries for Christmas as she emerges for first time since split from Tim Burton was announced", we read "A spokesman for the couple - who have two children together - told the Daily Mail: 'Tim Burton and Helena Bonham Carter separated amicably earlier this year and have continued to be friends and co-parent their children. We would ask that you respect their privacy and that of their children during this time.'"

Ann Kelly said...

Oh please! The photos are staged! If you don't believe me I will give you a clue: Danniella lived in a house in Kent, which she has lost due to financial problems. She says her local council has put her in temporary accommodation: so if she is living in kent accommodation, why is she "signing on" in Basildon? She is also quite clearly holding the leaflets up to the camera.

And to the person who said it "must be a Jobcentre employee who tipped off the paps."Anyone stupid enough to do that would be instantly dismissed for gross misconduct.