Jan moir: my sympathy for whining cheryl is wearing thin 

By JAN MOIR FOR THE DAILY MAIL 01:15 04 Sep 2015, updated 02:14 04 Sep 2015 SHARE OR COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE: Squeak, squeak. What is that noise? It is the sound of a mouse roaring. The

Minnie Mouse of Pop, to be exact. Cheryl Fernandez-Versini is annoyed at those who have criticised her weight loss in recent months. ‘This body-shaming has to stop. Something has to be done,

changed, even if it’s done in law,’ she squeaked this week.  In fact, she is so darned upset that she wants the law changed so that anyone who comments on her Twiglet frame and tiny waist

can be prosecuted. Scroll down for video  Sigh. I suppose that includes me, as I wrote about her ‘protruding ribs’ and ‘horrifying sparrow-wing shoulder blades’ a few weeks ago. But Cheryl,

in mitigation, only as part of my theory that your gaunt appearance is testament to the extreme commercial and professional pressures female celebrities are under today. Pressures that would

break most women. And that you deserve support and understanding, rather than ridicule. RELATED ARTICLES So under the new Cheryl’s Law perhaps I’ll only get a few months in solitary for my

offence. Hard labour, of course, on bread and dripping rations, at that. But I could do with losing some weight, so it’s win-win for me and St Cheryl of Twiglet.  Or is it? Actually, I still

have issues. In her interview with the London Evening Standard, Cheryl also said: ‘I can take whatever they [the Press] throw at me after 13 years. What worries me is what it’s doing to the

younger generation. And some of the people writing this stuff are women. There is no sisterhood.’ Hold it right there for a second, Minnie. Sisterhood? Don’t make me laugh. This from a

woman who was once charged and found guilty of assaulting a female lavatory assistant.  Whose adoption and promulgation of feminist causes from then to now have been noticeable by their

absence.  And who promoted a L’Oreal shampoo for women while wearing sneaky, lustrous hair extensions. In the end, the Advertising Standards Authority rejected complaints about the campaign

because — in tiny, gnat-sized writing — it had stated that the Girls Aloud star’s hair had been artificially enhanced. Cheryl’s ad may have obeyed the letter of the law, but in spirit many

women felt duped by her appearance. And now this. A law to shut up those who dare to raise a batsqueak of concern or criticise the way she looks. Yes, never mind the people in the world

without security, peace, running water, health or access to education.  Forget the collapse of the Chinese stock market, the iniquities of our battered justice system, migrant children dying

on beaches. Someone has said a Bad Thing about wee Cheryl and she wants it to stop. Actually, all the worst comments I read about Cheryl were on the internet, not in newspapers.  And

everywhere I look there is concern and kindness about her appearance, more than anything else. Speculation about her dramatic weight loss has been made worse by the mixed messages that

Cheryl has been sending out. The 32-year-old X Factor judge first said it was down to one thing, then it was something else.  In no particular order, it was due to the stress of dealing with

a stalker; stress following the death of her father-in-law whom she had known only briefly; because she had a bug; the result of her ‘muscle memory’ because she had been working out. ‘I am

happy and very healthy,’ she insists. Yet she keeps pumping out a series of images on Instagram and other social media outlets that, if anything, glorify her slender frame.  The message is

that whatever anyone else believes, she thinks she looks amazing. Shouldn’t she at least be open about whatever is going on?  For if anything is having a malignant effect on the next

generation of young women, it is the incredibly shrinking Cheryl. I think we would all agree that it is never very pleasant when people make uncomplimentary remarks about your appearance. 

Particularly if you have built a lifestyle and a multi-million-pound fortune on the back of those looks. Let us be frank. Cheryl’s entire career is based on her not inconsiderable beauty.

She has posed and pouted and modelled and invited comment and celebration on her face and figure since she first stepped out with Girls Aloud.  There is no point in bleating about the

attention now, just because it has taken a negative turn. I have sympathy with Cheryl. I hope she gets through whatever she is going through. But she is way off beam on this one. The rules

and laws of this country are not to be messed with by rich and famous people who feel peeved and outraged because all of a sudden they are not getting enough compliments.   NAKED INJUSTICE

FOR A SILLY BOY A 14-year-old boy who sent a naked picture of himself to a girl at school has ended up on a police database. The crime of making and distributing indecent images has been

recorded against the anonymous teen — and, incredibly, it could stay on the database for 100 years. A rather serious outcome for a moment of madness, one for which this boy has effectively

been criminalised. Speaking about the consequences on Radio 4 this week, he said he thought it was ‘just annoying really’ that it could cast such a shadow over his life. The boy, who is from

the North of England, has had to come to terms with the fact that ‘something I did when I was 14 could reflect badly in the future’. He is another teenager who has had to learn the hard way

that images and words you post on the internet can have serious consequences. Details of his record could be disclosed to putative future employers, a black mark against his character

before his life has really begun. It has been officially recorded as a crime although the police decided not to pursue prosecution. Once they had been notified, the police were required by

law to record the crime. There are times when one has to sympathise with today’s teenagers. As if adolescence and the sudden arrival of a bewildering smorgasbord of sexual feelings are not

enough to contend with, they also have to deal with the minefield of social media and smart-phone etiquette.  Modern technology has enhanced the capacity for social calamity by a

thousandfold. Idiot kids read about footballers and models sexting and sending nude photographs of each other, and they want to do it, too, cos it’s cool, innit. They are full of hormones

and chutzpah and hardly any common sense. Even sadder, the boy only sent the photo to the girl because he thought she liked him. He took it by himself, in his own bedroom on an app called

Snapchat.  This automatically deletes images and messages after ten seconds. However, the girl saved it and sent it around to all her friends. So he can add total humiliation to his list of

woes. Her name has been added to the database, too, as has another teenager who was involved. So we can’t complain about harsh treatment on gender terms — even if the Criminal Bar

Association has said the case highlights the dangers of needlessly criminalising children. They are right. This has been a cavalcade of stupidity. The boy was silly to take and post the

picture; the girl was sillier and perhaps even cruel to distribute it; did the teacher who interviewed the boy have to call the police? Did the police have to crack down with the kind of

vigour and determination so often missing when pursuing real criminals? No one comes out of it well. More’s the pity.   STOP MAKING NEW MUMS FEEL EVEN WORSE, MARISSA Once more into the vexed

issue of maternity leave.  Yahoo boss Marissa Mayer has declared she is only going to take a ‘couple of weeks’ leave after she has her twins.  I suppose we’re all meant to think wow, what a

strong and dedicated career woman. Well, come off it. Marissa is fabulously wealthy. She will no doubt have an army of nannies and staff to look after the kids while she makes the odd

telephone call to Yahoo to make sure everyone knows she is still the CEO.  If the real world ever impinges into her cashmere-lined nursery, it will be only by another serf bringing a freshly

ironed five-ply nappy. Or the night nurse knocking off as the day nurse clocks on. It’s not the normal experience of motherhood, so let’s not pretend otherwise.  Most new mothers need the

rest, every single second of it. Not a truncated leave.   CHEERS TO A KID-FREE PUB Pub landlords say that noisy kids are ruining bars. Quite right, too. There is no more dispiriting sight,

while enjoying a quiet drink in a lovely bar, than some harassed parent wrestling one of those giant buggies through the front door.  Complete with bawling infant strapped inside, like a

mini Hannibal Lecter being transported between jails. Gah! Peace shattered. It’s not just that it ruins the moment for other parents who have left their own brats at home.  What I hate most

is that blast of domesticity that shatters the fragile tranquillity, the illusion of escaping from the world’s cares for an hour or so. There is the battalion of plastic bottles, the slurp

of lids being peeled back on Tupperware, the patter of not-so-tiny feet rampaging across the gardens, the constant rebukes to sit down, shut up, behave, don’t spill. And that’s just me with

The Brute. The kids are even worse.   Poor old Taylor Swift. The singer has been criticised because the Out Of Africa theme of her new pop video Wildest Dreams does not feature any black

people.  I haven’t noticed anyone criticising Nicki Minaj or Rihanna for not prominently featuring white people in their videos — but haven’t we moved on from here? Critics haven’t mentioned

Swift is giving the proceeds from the video to wildlife charities, something she did not have to do.  And with the production values of a Hollywood film and the usual selection of fabulous

outfits, it is a visual treat.  Not least because of the scrumptiously handsome leading man — hunky Scott Eastwood (pictured with Swift in the video), the 29-year-old son of Clint.  RAAR, as

the lion loping around in the background might say.  Good old Taylor. She’s got great taste. In everything.    Much as I love claims that Jemima Khan is behind smears on her ex-husband’s

new marriage, can they be real? Slurs have never seemed to be the socialite’s style. Imran Khan has been married for fewer than nine months to glamorous Reham, a former BBC presenter. 

Reham’s been in trouble for suggesting her former husband abused her (strenuously denied) and has been caught making fake claims on her CV.  She seems to be doing a fine job of trashing her

reputation all by herself. SHARE OR COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE: JAN MOIR: MY SYMPATHY FOR WHINING CHERYL IS WEARING THIN