Yes, it's that vile sow Pearson again, I'm afraid, and the headline once more - wrongly - says she is in some way sorry for attacking another woman in public.
You may remember that Pearson (or more accurately the sub-editor who had to wade through the torrents of foaming shit coming out of her glib little lips) claimed she was 'sorry' for attacking Fiona McKeown - but went on and did it anyway.
I think if you tried to assign a mission statement to Pearson it would be 'to slag off women in as nasty and ill-thought-out way as possible'. Anyway, the back story is that people like Pearson have slagged off Sarah Ferguson's kids and Sarah Ferguson has said that she doesn't like people slagging off her kids. And now Pearson counters with:
Sorry Fergie, I can't stomach you or your porky pies
Do you see? Do you geddit? Eh?!
Although here's Pearson advocating a socialist redistribution of wealth:
Not once did she really look at the Sargersons and ask herself the painfully obvious question: 'Why have they got so little when I have got so much?' It would have been kinder if Fergie had simply slipped the family a few quid for some fruit.
Not really, of course, but any intellectual argument will do when you're trying to attack a woman. That's Pearson: attack women, by whatever argument you can find. Just crucify them, it doesn't matter how. What's important is that you slag them off.
Anyway, here comes a miserably inept attempt to justify her attack on Sarah Ferguson's daughter Beatrice.
She claims that I, and other journalists, called her daughter fat, which I didn't, though I did express a less-than-flattering, if widespread, thought about an unfortunate bikini her daughter wore on holiday (a garment, incidentally, which Beatrice herself admitted had been a fashion error).
Mm. Maybe she meant this?:
It would probably be kindest to draw a veil over the photograph of Princess Beatrice and the rest of the Yorks at the Princess's 18th birthday party. A veil is, in fact, the only thing they're not wearing.
Did anyone else look at the portrait of the family posing in their eye-wateringly expensive, over-upholstered 19th-century costumes and think of Miss Piggy's relatives going to a ball?
See, Miss Piggy lol rofl lmao!!?!?!!
No, to be fair, Allison didn't mean that fat insult, she meant this one:
Pictured in a tiny bikini frolicking in the Caribbean with her hapless American boyfriend, Princess Beatrice may have looked blissfully in love. But can't someone buy the poor girl a sarong? For her sake, as well as ours.
But Pearson claims this is really what she was talking about when she said that:
Conveniently, the Duchess forgot to mention that the main thrust of my remarks arose from complaints by Princess Beatrice's detectives about the level of protection the 19-year-old needed as she gadded from nightclub to nightclub, from foreign jaunt to foreign jaunt. The public pays for that vast security bill, and we are entitled to express an opinion about whether such ostentatious behaviour is a proper use of taxpayers' money.
But that is simply not true. That wasn't what she was saying at all. Because the only other words in her comments about Beatrice are these:
And what a hard life this Gap Year has turned out to be for the Princess.
It might make a slightly better impression if the fifth-in-line to the throne was in the deep end at St Bart's the hospital, rather than in the shallows at St Barth's, the exclusive holiday island.
I fear that Bea is in danger of combining her mother's toe- curling excesses with her dad's physique.
Can someone please have a kindly word with her before it all goes pear-shaped?
Maybe Pearson, when she originally wrote the story, was trying to make a valid and insightful point about it being a waste of taxpayers' money, but that bit got cut out and all the stuff about 'Look at this fat bitch!' got left in.
For fuck's sake, Pearson, if you get called out - take it. Don't make up some stupid story about your real story being about the taxpayer footing the bill when in fact it wasn't - unless we were magically supposed to read between the lines and see words that weren't there.
You were slagging that girl off for being fat. Her mum told you off. So instead of taking it like a professional, you pretended you hadn't done it, or if you had it was because of some journalistic integrity.
Which you clearly don't have. And tell the subs not to put 'sorry' in headlines in future, it's not you at all. Because the only 'porky pies' I can see are your words.