Today's Daily Mail carries a piece about revelations made about her by her former partner the footballer Dwight Yorke. It made me pretty angry...
"Dwight Yorke has broken his silence on his relationship with Katie Price, describing her as 'vain and infuriating' and confessing that he wanted to 'throttle' her former husband Peter Andre.
The footballer has also admitted for the first time that he cheated on Price during their stormy 18-month relationship, although he refused to give any details about the encounter."
So she's "vain and infuriating" (which incidentally also appears in the title of the piece) while he is unfaithful and inclined towards violence? Why am I not feeling his rage over her vanity? You also have to wonder what is going on when a guy dates one of the world's most successful models and then announces she's "vain". That's her job - to look great all the time. If she wandered around in second hand cardigans she'd make a lot less money. If you want to criticise the system fair enough but not much point criticising her for playing along.
"[He] describes in detail the moment his former girlfriend told him she was pregnant with their son Harvey.
'My reaction was immediate,' he said. 'There was no way we could have this baby. I told her, "Our relationship is too unstable. I don't think it's right".' "
Really? So you weren't ready to have a baby with this woman? There are these great things that've been invented especially for guys who feel that way about their relationships - they're called CONDOMS. And if you're really totally 100% sure there's no way you could raise a child with this woman - don't have sex with her.
"He recalls staying down one night and Katie's crowd were heading off to a big party in London.
He said the crowd came back 'steaming drunk' and made a terrible noise, despite the fact that little Harvey was asleep upstairs.
'I challenged her about this lifestyle. She'd desperately wanted our baby but was this her idea of motherhood?"
I don't understand - was the child left unattended? Was the child put at risk? Or was the child at risk of nothing more than maybe being woken up in the night by a bit of noise? Should we also be condemning mothers who snore or live near noisy foxes? What was his idea of fatherhood? "Staying down one night"? What about the other 364 of the year?
"After a night of 'wild' sex, Yorke describes how he pulled out a £45,000 ring and gave it to Price.
'It was clearly an engagement ring,' said Yorke
They flew home separately - and Price never returned his ring."
Now for me it's not the value of the ring that tells me it's an engagement ring - it's the guy who gives it to me asking me to marry him. No woman accepting a piece of jewelry as a gift should be unspeakingly understood to have agreed to anything. What next? That was clearly a can-we-try-some-bondage bracelet, and now you've accepted the let's-remortgage-the-house-and-move-to-Spain pashmina you'd better start packing? And no, the whole point of gifts is that they are given freely, if it had conditions attached to it's being offered they should have been stated up front.
Seems to me that the first thing Ms Price has gotten right about raising her child is to keep him away from his unpleasant misogynist father.