Jump to content

Recommended Posts

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> Anyone got a link? I had a mooch on the site but

> couldn't find anything


guys there is nothing in the Torygraph magazine apart from the usual interesting recipes and wine reviews, over-priced 'fashion', interior design and this weekend, an article on 'Big hair, small egos' and the confessions of a monkey smuggler ....


hope russ is having a great 'holiday' eh?

>guys there is nothing in the Torygraph magazine apart from the usual interesting recipes and wine reviews, over-priced >'fashion', interior design and this weekend, an article on 'Big hair, small egos' and the confessions of a monkey smuggler >....


Is the naked woman emerging from the sleeping bag on page 16 of Seven definitely airbrushed? Looks like it to me from the thumbnail, even without my magnifying glass. http://dailytelegraph.newspaperdirect.com/screenprint/viewer.aspx

Oh-kay, now lets talk seriously about this ....


What did people really think about the article on page 56?


I mean, were you surprised that X, Y and Z got a mention or were you expecting it to be more like A, B and C ...?


* yours interestedly *


Katie


(yours discalculia-ly)

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh-kay, now lets talk seriously about this ....

>

> What did people really think about the article on

> page 56?

>

> I mean, were you surprised that X, Y and Z got a

> mention or were you expecting it to be more like

> A, B and C ...?

>

> * yours interestedly *

>

> Katie

>

> (yours discalculia-ly)

__________________________________________________


Actually..



I'd have expected W(**F) X Y & Z



Wouldn't you ?


( i'm so over it now though )



* checks mirror *


" Hold on "



W**F

I bought a copy of the Sunday telegraph at Terminal 5 yesterday, went right the way through the magazines and papers whilst waiting. Nothing, nada, nicht. I texted a friend on here later to see if they had found anything, same result. Unless of course there is a smarte ar$e out there that has found it.

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh-kay, now lets talk seriously about this ....

>

> What did people really think about the article on

> page 56?



I'm confused now. Was there really some article or was it all bullshit?

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> katie1997 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Oh-kay, now lets talk seriously about this ....

> >

> > What did people really think about the article

> on

> > page 56?

>

>

> I'm confused now. Was there really some article or

> was it all bullshit?


oops sorry B, it was all bull (including my post, there's no page 56) :-$

  • 3 weeks later...

Ok, well, I'm now back, a little jet lagged which is why I am posting at a slightly strange hour, but to cut to the chase, the article wasn't published as you all found out when you looked for it (thank you for being interested enough to actually look for it though).


Shortly after I'd set off on my vacation I got a call from my editor saying that the piece wasn't going to be included as originally intended due to another feature becoming more extensive than originally anticipated.


But the good news is that it will now be published in next Sunday's paper! I won't be away that weekend so look forward to discussing it with you lot on the day or soon after.


Sorry for the anti-climax! I know some people were looking forward to reading it. But you don't have to wait much longer now!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Which is exactly why Rayner had to go - don't be the sleaze attack dog and then not keep your own house in order - the really shocking fact is she didn't go the moment this came to light because she knew what advice, and the advice to seek proper tax expertise that was given to her in writing by the very people she was trying to throw under the bus - she clearly thought she might be able to spin her way out of it. When you look at the facts, the advice she was given and when and her behaviour in the last few days it has been scandalous and just shows the contempt for the public intelligence some politicians have. Interesting to see a very unscientific vox pop on BBC News last night but a lot of her own constituents seem to want rid of her as well and to be honest if you have to lose your cabinet role for this breach of the rules then you should probably lose your seat too. That is the hypocrisy here and why a lot of people don't like politicians because they're all the same.
    • Hi all, I’m after a stereo amp in working condition. Not necessarily anything fancy, as long as it works. Thanks
    • You are missing my point, there are a few here who are rabidly anti Labour.  And have lost sight of the many scandals associated with their party.  I've not made excuses for Rayner, rather I am inferring that it is hypocritical to go on about one of the major parties whilst ignoring your own dirty washing.   You are not making sense.  I expect half the country likes a drink and a sizeable number likes a vape.  What is your point?
    • If you read the article posted above, it is all very carefully worded. However I've found this: https://uknip.co.uk/news/uk/uk-news/peckham-rye-park-attack-man-seriously-injured-august-2025/  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...