Holly Willoughbooby

[EwarWoo]

I hate to link to this but if you've ever read it you'll know she doesn't seem to give a **** about her own kids anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ring-bits.html

I'd disagree. she's clearly not a touchy feely mummy but the fact she as back-up nannies to make sure it's always someone who knows the children and fetches in a regular tutor to give the kids an advantage at their no doubt already high fee school would indicate that she does care.

The way shes phrased it makes her sound like a bit of a witch, but it's almost as though shes trying to get a bite out of it.

The underlying point is a good one. Really, what is she doing wrong? Is she not allowed to be a successful woman with a career?

And why is it her responsibility to look after the kids, and her being neglectful, and not her husband? Surely this day and age the same rules should apply for both parents.

She seems like an utterly horrendous excuse for a human being, but to attack her love of her children for choosing a career is a bit 1980's.

[ChesterDave]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2165804/My-nanny-s-pregnant-I-m-far-happy.html

[ChesterDave]

The underlying point is a good one. Really, what is she doing wrong?

Teaching her children to be a bigoted snob and stopping them from making friends with who they want? Showing that she is not capable of compromising her wishes to give them the time of day herself? Great so she splashes the cash for them. Maybe her kids want a bit of love off her instead of an open cheque book?

Basically the only parenting she seems to bother with is to tell her kids that they can't be friends with someone because they have a 'working class name'. They must hate her. Much like her step daughter seems to.

[EwarWoo]

But the article doesn't state that. The nanny is off duty at 7:30, so clearly she spends time with the kids until bedtime. And for all the article covers she could be with the kids as soon as she arrives home from work and the nanny is spending the last hour or 2 tidying up. And then there's weekends.

Assumptions are being made.

If it's because shes an ugly bigotted person fine, if it's because shes a woman having a career whilst having kids not so.

[5europeancups]

I'd disagree. she's clearly not a touchy feely mummy but the fact she as back-up nannies to make sure it's always someone who knows the children and fetches in a regular tutor to give the kids an advantage at their no doubt already high fee school would indicate that she does care.

The way shes phrased it makes her sound like a bit of a witch, but it's almost as though shes trying to get a bite out of it.

The underlying point is a good one. Really, what is she doing wrong? Is she not allowed to be a successful woman with a career?

And why is it her responsibility to look after the kids, and her being neglectful, and not her husband? Surely this day and age the same rules should apply for both parents.

She seems like an utterly horrendous excuse for a human being, but to attack her love of her children for choosing a career is a bit 1980's.

I tend to agree with these comments. She is looking after number one and the very fact that she even applied to go on Apprentice defines what sort of person she is. A Self Serving, Publicity seeker who yearns to be famous or loved or whatever...
However she also does want the best for her kids, even if she expresses herself poorly, she is also direct and honest. I much prefer people that speak their minds honestly than people who pretend to care but in reality dont give a **** aslong as they are seen to be caring.
Some of her comments like she needs to be like a man to succeed, are now getting outdated. As a single father of four kids we all have to balance out life / work decisions.

She is probably rather difficult to work with, she is smug and certainly self conceited, and rather narcissisistic, but I can tell you now, these days this is the majority of people in business.

[Pablo]

Blatant WUMerchanty. She's basically a female Adrian Durham.

[PTP]

...the bit about naming children after a location...Schofield points out that she has named her own child India haha completely stumps her

Her children will rebel...they will become stoners or goths, have tattoos on their faces and get caught stealing socks from primark

[Subby]

yes, can't say I miss carrying that fukin massive Kays catalogue to the bog

Funniest thing I've read all week

[Icon]

Hopkins is a ****...

[ChesterDave]

But the article doesn't state that. The nanny is off duty at 7:30, so clearly she spends time with the kids until bedtime. And for all the article covers she could be with the kids as soon as she arrives home from work and the nanny is spending the last hour or 2 tidying up. And then there's weekends.

Assumptions are being made.

If it's because shes an ugly bigotted person fine, if it's because shes a woman having a career whilst having kids not so.

No, it is because in her own words she is a Thatcherite female who seems to think employment rights for women are...iffy. Someone who thinks a kid is dodgy because of the name given to it by its parent. Someone with a child called India who thinks geographical names are stupid and someone who can't be arsed to go and watch her own child at sports day because it is too much of a chore and gets in with her own life.

That is not an assumption. It is from the horses mouth.

[EwarWoo]

No, it is because in her own words she is a Thatcherite female who seems to think employment rights for women are...iffy. Someone who thinks a kid is dodgy because of the name given to it by its parent. Someone with a child called India who thinks geographical names are stupid and someone who can't be arsed to go and watch her own child at sports day because it is too much of a chore and gets in with her own life.

That is not an assumption. It is from the horses mouth.

And none of that says she doesn't love or spend time with her kids, it says she's a bitch.

Saying she doesn't love or spend time with her kids just strikes me as an antiquated judgement of a career woman and quite separate to her qualities (or more like lack of) as a member of society.

You don't know what she does after the nanny knocks off and at weekends. You're not privvy to that part of her family life.

The fact that she seems to be putting on a persona to get media attention makes it impossible to even guess.

Do we sit here judging guys like Alan Sugar as a parent? He's clearly a **** too. But no, he's a guy, so we're able to separate that from him as a parent, which is quite right. However it should be no different for this woman.

Some people need to move into the 21st century.

[ChesterDave]

I know she views going to see her kids on sportsday as a complete chore that must be farmed out to an employee.

Can't take one afternoon off from her career to go to sports day?

[EwarWoo]

If every parent who didn't go to things like sports days were unloving and distant there would be a lotta unloved kids out there.

Think you're stretching it a bit there.

[Sconniee2]

Old post I know but still merits a response.

I think it is the fact that she would prefer NOT to go to sports days, i.e. she is putting herself above her children's wishes and desires.

Being a parent is about sacrifice - something she would appear to know little about.

And there are times when you can't be at a particular event. Other stuff like work gets in the way.

But I would expect most parents would not have voluntarily missed something important for a child, let alone labelled it as a "chore" to attend.

[tufty]

I'm of a different generation to most of here but this is a subject that pisses me off

Gabby Logan is another who must hardly ever see her kids