Breaking news from the Mail: apparently, as people get older, their appearance can change from what it used to be. The startling evidence of this hitherto unknown phenomenon is contained in these exciting photographs of Richard O'Sullivan, which aren't long-lens pap photos intruding into someone's privacy at all because, you see, they reveal an important insight into a public figure which is therefore vital to our understanding of the world in general.
Here comes the cuntery:
Old Man About The House: Frail 70s heart-throb Richard O'Sullivan looks unrecognisable
Bastards. Does he really look frail? To me he just looks like he's older than he used to be. He's 64, for heaven's sake. What did they expect - for him to come tap-dancing down the street when he was buying his daily paper of choice (which is, interestingly enough, The Sun, judging by that photo, and certainly not the Mail)? Look, not everyone's Brucie. It would be great - nay, magnificent - if everyone could be like Brucie. But sadly no. Some of us age more quickly than others. Some of us have health problems, while others sail through life. But pointing at someone and calling them 'frail' is just being a total arse.
I wonder if this story is in the dead tree Mail? Given that the median age for readers readership of that esteemed organ is surely in its autumn years, what would they think about publishing a photo of an older geezer and saying "Ooh, doesn't he look frail? The bastard!" - probably very little. Which is what most of the commenters think of the Mail's article:
For God's sake! Let the man age gracefully. I don't know the guy at all, never heard of him (I'm originally from Germany), so it's not a personal thing, but people do change physically in old age and to say he's unrecognisable seems really inappropriate! Note that he's really quite smartly dressed, and almost fashionably (no tweed in sight), so he can't be that unwell and badly off.
Sums it up quite nicely. Interesting that the overwhelming views on most of these Mail paparazzi stories are completely negative against the paper and its stance, often questioning the value of the story even existing in the first place. But as I've said many times before, the Mail doesn't give a shit if people are still clicking on the website.
Bonus points for this commenter, though, who wins my 'cunt of the day' prize.
Unrecognizable is an understatement, I am gobsmacked his appearance has gone to the dogs. He looks like he has given up on life & is waiting to buy the farm, it's a real shame.
The prize in question is a punch in the face. Winner to collect.