Your daily adult tube feed all in one place!
JAN MOIR: Just who is best at dragging the royals into the gutter... the Shameless Yorks or Sulking Sussexes?
Sometimes you must carve the mould off the cheese, remove the worm from the heart of the berry, purge the boil, suck the poison, skim the scum – you get the drift.
But what if the black pip in the rotten apple is Prince Andrew – and he refuses to be squeezed out of the barrel?
It would appear that King Charles is trying everything to downgrade his disgraced younger brother and finally boot him out of his Royal Lodge, Windsor, residence. Yet so far, the King has been unable to shuck the fraternal oyster from his luxuriously appointed shell.
Why not? Principally because the Duke of York has no shame – and neither does his ex-wife, best friend and Royal Lodge co-habitué, Freebiana Fergie, the once and always Duchess of York.
This pair of liggers are not moving anywhere without a fight and so the siege of Royal Lodge rolls on. And it is giving the Royal Family – and all of us – a bad name in the process.
It is all so dreary and sordid, just like most family battles over homes and property.
It would appear that King Charles, here with Andrew at a vigil for the late Queen Elizabeth in Edinburgh in 2022, is trying everything to downgrade his disgraced younger brother and finally boot him out of his royal residence, writes Jan Moir
In his latest and most aggressive move to date, Charles is withdrawing funding for his brother's private security at the Lodge, which puts the Duke in a quandary.
When the arrangement comes to an end in October, Andrew will either have to foot the annual £3 million bill for his ten-strong protection unit himself – along with paying for property repairs and upkeep – or leave the grand 30-room mansion in its rolling 98 acres of lush parkland and downsize to a more humble residence in keeping with his reduced status in public life.
Like where, exactly? The Castaway Camp at Windsor Legoland? The Holiday Inn in Slough? Sofa surfing with the friends he doesn't have, staying with his relatives who don't seem to like him very much?
Please, nobody mention jail. We are not at that stage yet, but Prince Andrew's embarrassing rap sheet tells its own story of hubris, stupidity and catastrophic misjudgment, including consorting with a known paedophile, accused of having sex with a 17-year-old, not admitting to this but paying her £12 million anyway and then ridiculed in not one but two major TV dramas after his disastrous Newsnight interview.
It is just as well Andrew is incapable of exuding perspiration, else he'd be sweating like a slice of salami on a pizza. Yet, instead of contrition and shame and acceptance, the royal blimp is rattling around the Grade II-listed Lodge, crying into his Sevres teacup and tying himself to the furniture with tasselled curtain cords.
From October Andrew will either have to foot the annual £3million bill for his Royal Lodge protection unit himself – along with paying for repairs and upkeep – or leave the Windsor mansion and downsize to a more humble residence
Still, what clearer indication do we need that Charles has utterly lost patience with his discredited brother and would like him to move out, preferably to the more modest Frogmore Cottage on the Crown Estate. Famously, this is the residence that was gifted by the late Queen to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex who spent £2.4 million doing it up, then relocating to America before the paint was dry.
However, if Prince Harry's status and security as a royal had to be downgraded in the intervening years, then surely the same must happen to his errant uncle?
Sarah Jessica Parker at Kensington Palace in September 2023
It's too sad. Sarah Jessica Parker has closed down her SJP shoe line – it seems that even in the world of expensive shoes, hers were simply too exorbitant.
Made in Italy by 'third and fourth generation Tuscan shoemakers', SJP prices included £650 for a pair of flat-heeled Mary Janes and some pink silk mules for £750.
Everything on the SJP site is now on sale, so hurry, hurry to pick up a bargain, like a pair of suede courts for only, ahem, £480.
Frogmore Cottage is just over four miles to the north of Royal Lodge, but it is not a journey the Duke of York is willing to make any time soon. He apparently sees it is too much of a 'demotion' and is digging in for the long haul – or to see out his lease at least.
This says everything about Prince Andrew, about his entrenched sense of entitlement, about how he sees himself and his superior position in society – which he feels he deserves, the deluded fool.
Any man with a shred of decency and an ounce of morality would accept his fate of diminished status and slide down the property ladder without a murmur of complaint.
Meanwhile, most of us would be utterly delighted to move to Frogmore Cottage – mortgage free, no stamp duty, four bedrooms, no neighbours, lovely garden, can you just imagine? Yet the Yorks cannot see it that way.
They are so used to their privilege giving them a free pass in life that reality passes them by, like a puff of cloud on the distant horizon.
In an interview this week, the Duchess of York said she had no idea what was happening, property-wise. She told a reporter: 'I don't know. I take every day as it comes.' And she takes every house as it comes, too – the bigger the better.
Sometimes I wonder who is best at dragging the Royal Family into the gutter – the Yorks or the Sussexes. It is a close competition. Almost impossible to say, like picking your favourite plague or choosing between high-risk pathogens – ebola or zika fever, what is it to be?
You've got your sulking Sussexes, with their perpetual veiled threats of more damaging accusations to come, then your Yorks with their misguided belief that they are still worthy of the nation's respect and affection.
What a shame sending them all to the Tower is no longer an option. Yet King Charles must take a firm hand with this dread quad of frauds, who are so ghastly in so many different ways, but also so very, very alike in others.
Labour Minister for School Standards Catherine McKinnell was on LBC radio yesterday morning, sounding chipper despite the shocking news that one in three children fail their English and maths GCSEs.
I have scant faith in her ability to do anything about this. Not only did she start every sentence with the word 'so' – a dim and modish affectation that puts her at the bottom of the class right away – she had very little to say.
'So, I am not aware of any plans,' she said. 'So, not that I am aware of,' she added later. 'So, I am not aware of any change in Opposition,' she repeated, when asked if Labour would consider deferring their public-school tax changes until the end of the school year to minimise pupil disruption.
'So, as I said, I am not aware of any plans,' she repeated. 'So, there are no plans to delay it,' she said finally. Ms McKinnell is supposed to care about the welfare and progress of all pupils but that is clearly not the case.
So, the ones who go to private schools? So, they can take a hike.
Clueless thing to do, Alicia
American actress Alicia Silverstone wondered if the unidentified berry on an ornamental plant was safe to eat – so she did the sensible thing and took a bite.
What an idiot. It was a poisonous Jerusalem cherry, which can cause fever, sweating, vomiting, stomach pain, headache, increased heart rate and in some cases, death.
'Don't worry, I didn't swallow,' the Clueless star chirped afterwards to her millions of TikTok followers.
US actress Alicia Silverstone took a bite of a poisonous cherry plucked from a garden while walking down a London street, then posted it on TikTok
What makes it worse is that Alicia is a vocal anti-vaxxer ('there has not been a conclusive study of the negative effects of such a rigorous one-size-fits-all, shoot-'em-up schedule').
Yet she thinks it is OK to put a random berry in her mouth, plucked from a stranger's garden when walking down a London street.
The 47-year-old is a dedicated vegan who has previously suggested tampons cause infertility and veganism can reduce the risk of miscarriage.
She has also written a book called The Kind Mama: A Simple Guide To Supercharged Fertility, A Radiant Pregnancy, A Sweeter Birth, And A Healthier, More Beautiful Beginning.
Clueless health nuts. They are always the worst.
Oh yes, the great Scottish drug experiment is going well. The SNP, always tripping over themselves to be seen as progressives, made it their mission to treat drug addiction as a social disease and remove the 'stigma' by effectively decriminalising drug-taking.
Under the new regime, those caught in possession of class A drugs such as heroin were given police warnings instead of being prosecuted.
Even if you were a heroin addict who stole from your granny's handbag to feed your habit, you would be looked upon kindly in the new national tolerance zone for hard drugs.
The predictable result? Drug deaths are now the highest in Europe while drug use is going up too. Yet the SNP are still pressing ahead with their ridiculous 'suites' where addicts can shoot up in peace and comfort.
Addiction is not a disease and addicts do have agency over their behaviour. Unless they are discouraged rather than actively encouraged by their SNP enablers, the situation will only get worse.
Drama over Baby Reindeer
A Netflix executive told the Edinburgh Festival this week that their hit series Baby Reindeer is a 'drama, not a documentary' amid the controversy over the programme being labelled a 'true story'.
Fiona Harvey came forward claiming to be the inspiration behind the character of Martha the stalker, alleging the story was inaccurate and filing a lawsuit against Netflix.
In the television series, Martha receives a nine-month prison sentence and a five-year restraining order, which Ms Harvey has disputed.
'Baby Reindeer is not a true story at all. I am not a convicted stalker,' she said. Yet from the start, writer Richard Gadd claimed to have changed many details to protect the identities of his characters.
If Ms Harvey wanted to remain in the shadows, wouldn't she be pleased by the scripted camouflage that changed the fictional character's circumstances from her own, thus making identification and recognition less – not more – likely?