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.