The night I tried to reunite Liam & Noel with their estranged dad & why it's still one of my biggest regrets 29 years on
SOME might say I have zero chance of ever being granted forgiveness by Liam and Noel Gallagher.
I don't deserve it but, for a very long time, I've wanted to tell them: 'I'm sorry.'
7
7
Looking back, I now completely understand why Liam was furious.
He was so angry that he tried to punch me in the face.
But at the time, I really didn't know the truth about what I'd been dragged into.
The summer of 2025 will be the summer of Oasis — the comeback fans have patiently waited years for.
But their reunion is a stark reminder of a particularly dark night in my past.
The night I accompanied their father, Tommy Gallagher, to the Westbury Hotel in Dublin on Saturday, March 23, 1996.
I was a junior reporter based in Yorkshire who, weeks earlier, after just turning 21, was asked to go to Tommy's home in Manchester to see if he'd talk about his world-famous sons.
I was polite, he was friendly. We built up a rapport.
He told me he hadn't seen his three sons since the day his wife left him.
Lonely Tommy often said how much he adored and missed them and was desperate to be back in their lives. I felt sorry for him.
He would get emotional showing me family photos and the guitar he said he had taught them their first chords on.
When I relayed this to bosses in London, they told me I had to play a Cilla Black Surprise Surprise-type role — bringing the family back together.
So, the plan was to accompany Tommy to Ireland, and to stay at the same fancy hotel the band were at while performing in the city.
I was told to stay at Tommy's house the night before the trip to guarantee he made the early-morning flight.
I knew better than to argue, so spent the night where Noel used to sleep.
I say 'spent' — not 'slept' — because, believe me, you don't do much sleeping when in a house with a much older man you barely know.
I was naive, young and inexperienced. It was my first ever solo job for the paper.
7
I was eager to impress my bosses in the tough newsroom down south.
After checking into the hotel, Tommy wrote a letter explaining why he was there, which was handed to Liam.
Minutes later, Liam rang Tommy's hotel room and barked at him: 'If I catch you round . . . walking round the lobby in this hotel . . . you're going to get your legs f***ing broke. Right? See ya later.'
Reign of terror Tommy appeared devastated and said his heart was 'broken'.
But Liam hadn't minced his words — and there would be no tear-jerker Cilla reunion role for me.
We were told to head home in the morning, and the photographer who was on standby for the reunion snaps was told to leave.
It was done. But Tommy wouldn't listen. At 2am, my hotel room phone rang.
Tommy shouted: 'If you want a decent story, you'd better get down to the bar, NOW.'
I begged him to calm down, to go to bed, to stop being ridiculous. He wouldn't listen.
I was bleary-eyed but will never, ever forget the extraordinary scenario I raced into.
There was Tommy, sitting in one corner of the bar, staring forcefully at the band who were at the other side.
He refused to leave. In an instant, all hell broke loose.
Liam swaggered over, bouncing up and down, and screamed: 'I told you I'd break your legs.'
He lunged for his dad first, and then tried to punch me. Bouncers held him back, but Liam snarled: 'I'll break that tart's f***ing legs, too.''
Noel watched on, ready to wade in.
Liam told his dad he was a 'loser', while he was a 'millionaire' who 'can afford bail now'.
Tommy made jibes about Liam's then partner, Patsy Kensit, and called Liam a 'silly boy'. I sat there trembling.
Finally, Tommy stormed off and one of the huge but kindly Oasis security guards 'escorted' me and my luggage out of the hotel, as I fought back tears.
Liam and Noel have since, rightly, spoken out about how appalling this incident was.
What they knew at the time, and I didn't, is that Tommy was a shocking, vile, evil father. And a liar.
Just six months after that night, their mum Peggy set the record straight, revealing she had fled from Tommy because he was a womaniser and a drunk who beat her, Noel and their eldest son Paul.
She said they were all left scarred by his reign of terror.
When I read her words, I felt physically sick. That terrifying night now fully made sense to mje. I had been fed a pack of lies. And used.
I have felt remorse for my part in what happened ever since.
And if Noel and Liam still look back in anger at that night, I really don't blame them.
I do, too. And I'm sorry.
Don't hound Royals
7
THE charity folk at Peta – People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals – have slammed William and Kate for allowing their cocker spaniel, Orla, to have puppies instead of adopting one amid an 'animal homelessness crisis'.
They even said the royals were 'staggeringly out of touch' for 'churning out a litter'.
How ridiculous – and nasty. They went on to openly praise Charles and Camilla, who have 'chosen to adopt from a shelter rather than contribute to the problem'.
Adopting a dog doesn't suit every family.
Sometimes a family really needs the focus and joy of seeing new life come into this world.
Like, for example, when three young children have seen their mum go through an agonising cancer battle.
One of the pups is staying with them, the rest will be guaranteed good homes.
You wouldn't find a children's charity chastising people who have a bouncing baby instead of adopting, would you?
Even though there are thousands of desperate kids in this country who need homes.
Surely Peta must realise Kate and William actually do more for charities in this country than most.
And I hope that they stop for a moment to think about how 'stag-geringly out of touch' they are for thinking it acceptable to attack a family in this way.
Brazen Bezos
7
BILLIONAIRE Jeff Bezos either has very thick skin or zero self-awareness.
On Thursday, as protests around his lavish wedding to Lauren Sanchez hit fever pitch, he gushed to anybody that listened: 'We love Venice.'
Clearly not grasping the fact that Venice really doesn't love him.
Kim's classy collab
7
KIM KARDASHIAN shows off a new bikini for her collection – a collab between her Skims brand and Roberto Cavalli.
She said the lucrative partnership came about because she looked through old holiday photos and saw she was wearing Cavalli, which prompted her to contact the brand's creative director.
Which, to the rest of us, is like contacting the boss at M&S, Primark or Next.
But getting absolutely zero response.
Crumby queues
7
FANCY trying that M&S strawberry-and-cream sarnie?
Yes, me too. They couldn't have pushed it or hyped it up any more than they have, could they?
I burst into my local Marksy's with full enthusiasm on Friday to be told that they only receive 'a few' packets each morning and are 'selling out by lunchtime'.
That will be that, then, because there is zero chance-I'm joining an early-morning Wimbledon-type queue for a sandwich, however wonderful it sounds.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Neil Young, Glastonbury Festival, review: A reverent display of classic rock
To no one's great surprise, there were no explosions, fireworks, articulated platforms, interactive screens, confetti or special effects at Neil Young's Glastonbury headline set. Nor, to give credit to the 79-year-old rocker, were there any of the pre-recorded backing tracks and fake vocals so ubiquitous in modern live productions. There was just an old man and his accomplished four-piece band The Chrome Hearts alternately making a heck of a grungy distorted racket, or playing acoustic campfire ballads with sweet, shaky harmonies. His first song, Sugar Mountain, contained a lovely, wheezy harmonica solo and tender vocals. His second song, Be The Rain, went on for 10 minutes raging about the environment and contained a wildly distorting guitar solo that no one in the band seemed to have any idea where it was headed, including Young who was playing it. The stocky old star in the raggy check shirt and trucker cap switched between these two poles all night, and didn't seem to give much of a damn what anyone made of it. He looked like he was enjoying himself, in any case. This is what all rock festivals used to be like, before modern day screens and blockbuster productions, and it was kind of refreshing: five men (it was usually men back in the day) who've barely dressed for the occasion stirring up an electric storm of distorted guitar stomps, revelling in their ability to conjure wild solos on the spot. 'Rock and roll will never die,' Young wailed during a long, feedbacky version of Hey Hey, My My, but the evidence was very much against him. This is like a last gasp of a fading art form, played to a receptive crowd but not a massive one. The youngsters had dispersed around the festival to see new generation pop heroes. Charli XCX drew a bigger crowd than Young at the overpacked Other Stage, breakout US rap singer Doechi was killing it on the West Holts stage and they were turning people away from camp disco pop entertainers the Scissor Sisters at the Woodsies marquee. Young entertained the faithful but when he was tuning his guitar between songs you could have heard a pin drop. In a rare production moment they summoned a keyboard that descended from overhead to play Like A Hurricane, and acted like they had just broken the fourth wall in an act of outrageous showcraft. It was kind of silly but who cares when you are listening to a band of supreme musicians find their way through one of the all time great rock songs as if they are discovering it for the first time. The staging may have been plain, but the playing was fantastic. Harvest Moon was gorgeous. The Needle and the Damage Done was moving. Rockin In The Free World was an absolute blast. It was a genuinely great Neil Young set, filled with classic songs, played and sung with passion and panache. And lots of distortion. Give me that over Charli XCX miming or the 1975 posturing on stage every time.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE BBC staff in 'open revolt' against top bosses 'out of touch with reality': Channel 4 says it will air award-winning filmmakers' documentary about medics in Gaza that Beeb chiefs refused to show
BBC staff are in 'open revolt' about top bosses meddling with the channel's journalism 'for political reasons', MailOnline can reveal. Yesterday, it emerged that Channel 4 will show a documentary about Gaza commissioned and then scrapped by the BBC. Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, which was made by two Emmy award-winning filmmakers, was originally commissioned by the BBC more than a year ago. However, the corporation paused its production in April following the launch of an investigation into another documentary Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone, which starred the son of a leader of Hamas - a fact that film failed to mention. Now, Channel 4 has announced it will instead be broadcasting Gaza: Doctors Under Attack on Wednesday, July 2, at 10pm. But BBC staff are said to be in uproar over the decision not to show the programme on its channels, which is thought to have been made by director general Tim Davie. More than 300 people have allegedly signed an open letter directed at the corporation's bosses, which raises concerns about 'censorship' at the BBC when it comes to reporting about Israel. The letter also branded the decision not to show the documentary about medics in Gaza as 'political' and 'nothing to do with the journalism of the film'. An insider with knowledge of the situation told MailOnline: 'The people at commissioner level who are experienced journalists and take these decisions on an almost daily basis are being overruled by people who are pretending to be journalists. There's open revolt [at the BBC]. '[Bosses] approved the film multiple times and then delayed it at least five times but confirmed in emails that it would go out and that the delays were not due to the Johnstone report into Gaza: How to survive in a war zone. 'They said this [new documentary] was a vital film that exemplified ''public interest journalism'. 'After these multiple delays over six weeks they then apologised and said, ''Sorry, it is because of the Johnstone report''.' Gaza: Doctors Under Attack is a one off-documentary that examines allegations that Israeli forces have repeatedly targeted hospitals in breach of international law. The programme was made by two-time Emmy-winning journalist Ramita Navai, fellow two-time Emmy-winning director Karim Shah and ex-Channel 4 News Editor Ben De Pear, who is the executive producer of Basement Films, which was commissioned by the BBC to create the film. The source said more than 40 people from BBC Eye, who were involved in the documentary, had signed a letter of protest against the corporation's. They said the open letter had more than 300 signatures. The insider continued: 'We had to handle the duty of care for a dozen doctors and medics we had spoken to who couldn't understand why their interviews - in which they talked about the deaths of their children when their homes were bombed, or colleagues when their hospitals were attacked, had not gone out. 'We made this point repeatedly and at length to the BBC but they ignored these concerns.' Channel 4 said it had fact-checked and compiled the documentary, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, to ensure that it meets its editorial standards and the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. The film reports that every one of Gaza's 36 main hospitals has now been attacked or destroyed by Israel, with people forced to evacuate and healthcare workers reportedly killed, imprisoned and tortured. Louisa Compton, Channel 4's head of news and current affairs and specialist factual and sport, said: 'We are showing this programme because we believe that, following thorough fact-checking and verification, we are presenting a duly impartial view of a subject that both divides opinion and frequently provokes dispute about what constitutes a fact. 'Channel 4 has a strong tradition of putting uncomfortable reporting in front of our audiences. 'In doing so, we know we will antagonise somebody somewhere sometime. But we do it because we believe it is our duty to tell important journalistic stories – especially those that aren't being told elsewhere.' Basement Films added: 'This is the third film we have made about the assault on Gaza since October 7th at Basement Films, and whilst none of them have been easy this became by far the most difficult. 'As ever we owe everything to our Palestinian colleagues on the ground; over 200 of whom have been killed by Israel, and the doctors and medics who trusted us with their stories. 'We want to apologise to the contributors and team for the long delay, and thank Channel 4 for enabling it to be seen.' The BBC announced that it would not be broadcasting Gaza: Doctors Under Attack on June 20. 'We wanted the doctors' voices to be heard,' the broadcaster said in a statement. 'Our aim was to find a way to air some of the material in our news programmes, in line with our impartiality standards, before the review was published. The BBC documentary, Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, was broadcast on BBC Two with the aim of showing a 'vivid and unflinching view of life' in the enclave 'For some weeks, the BBC has been working with Basement Films to find a way to tell the stories of these doctors on our platforms.' But, the corporation added: 'Yesterday it became apparent that we have reached the end of the road with these discussions. 'We have come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect of the BBC. 'Impartiality is a core principle of BBC News. It is one of the reasons that we are the world's most trusted broadcaster. 'Therefore, we are transferring ownership of the film material to Basement Films.' Previously, critics were enraged by the BBC's failure to disclose that the narrator of Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone was the son of a senior member of the Hamas terrorist group. It was originally broadcast on February 17 on BBC Two with the aim of showing a 'vivid and unflinching view of life' in the strip. The documentary was made by two producers based in London who remotely directed two cameramen on the ground over nine months. However, independent investigative journalist David Collier claimed one of the child narrators, Abdullah, was the son of a Hamas government minister and grandson of one of Hamas's founding members. Using Facebook and publicly available data online, Mr Collier claimed the show's young star is the son of Gaza's deputy minister of agriculture Dr Ayman Al-Yazouri. This would mean his grandfather would be the Hamas founder Ibrahim al-Yazouri, who has previously been jailed by Egypt and Israel for involvement in proscribed groups. The BBC apologised for the inclusion of the documentary's young star, with a spokesperson for the corporation saying: 'Since the transmission of our documentary on Gaza, the BBC has become aware of the family connections of the film's narrator, a child called Abdullah. 'We've promised our audiences the highest standards of transparency, so it is only right that as a result of this new information, we add some more detail to the film before its retransmission. We apologise for the omission of that detail from the original film.' MailOnline has approached the BBC for comment. The open letter to the BBC in full An open letter to BBC Management, written by BBC Journalists and signed by media industry professionals We're writing to express our concerns over opaque editorial decisions and censorship at the BBC on the reporting of Israel/Palestine. We believe the refusal to broadcast the documentary 'Gaza: Medics Under Fire' is just one in a long line of agenda driven decisions. It demonstrates, once again, that the BBC is not reporting 'without fear or favour' when it comes to Israel. We understand that a decision not to broadcast the investigation has been taken by senior BBC management despite the film's content being signed off in accordance with BBC guidelines and editorial policy. This appears to be a political decision and is not reflective of the journalism in the film. A recent statement from the BBC said broadcasting the film 'risked creating the perception of partiality'. This illustrates precisely what many of us have experienced first hand: an organisation that is crippled by the fear of being perceived as critical of the Israeli government. We are not asking the BBC to take a side. We are asking to be allowed to do our jobs in delivering facts transparently and with due context. For many of us, our efforts have been frustrated by opaque decisions made at senior levels of the BBC without discussion or explanation. Our failures impact audiences. As an organisation we have not offered any significant analysis of the UK government's involvement in the war on Palestinians. We have failed to report on weapons sales or their legal implications. These stories have instead been broken by the BBC's competitors. This hasn't happened by accident, rather by design. Much of the BBC's coverage in this area is defined by anti-Palestinian racism. The inconsistent manner in which guidance is applied draws into focus the role of Sir Robbie Gibb, on the BBC Board and BBC's Editorial Standards Committee. We are concerned that an individual with close ties to the Jewish Chronicle, an outlet that has repeatedly published anti-Palestinian and often racist content, has a say in the BBC's editorial decisions in any capacity, including the decision not to broadcast 'Gaza: Medics Under Fire'. This conflict of interest highlights a double standard for BBC content makers who have themselves experienced censorship in the name of 'impartiality'. In some instances staff have been accused of having an agenda because they have posted news articles critical of the Israeli government on their social media. By comparison, Gibb remains in an influential post with little transparency regarding his decisions despite his ideological leanings being well known. We can no longer ask license fee payers to overlook Gibbs' ideological allegiances. Since October 2023 it has become increasingly clear to our audiences that the BBC's reporting on Israel / Palestine falls short of our own editorial standards. There is a gulf between the BBC's coverage of what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank and what our audiences can see is happening via multiple credible sources including human rights organisations, staff at the UN and journalists on the ground. Whilst there has been some exceptional content from some areas of the BBC (within documentary and from some individual correspondents for example), news in particular has failed to report the reality and the context of the war on Palestinians. All too often it has felt that the BBC has been performing PR for the Israeli government and military. This should be a cause of great shame and concern for everyone at the BBC. Despite these failings, there has been a major shift within public discourse in recent months. Increasingly the scale of Israel's crimes against the Palestinians are being understood by the public as well as many of our parliamentarians. The BBC's editorial decisions seem increasingly out of step with reality. We have been forced to conclude that decisions are made to fit a political agenda rather than serve the needs of audiences. As industry insiders and as BBC staff, we have experienced this first hand. The issue has become even more urgent with recent escalations in the region. Again, BBC coverage has appeared to downplay Israel's role, reinforcing an 'Israel first' framing that compromises our credibility. We, the undersigned BBC staff, freelancers and industry figures are extremely concerned that the BBC's reporting on Israel and Palestine continues to fall short of the standards our audiences expect. We believe the role of Robbie Gibb, both on the Board, and as part of the Editorial Standards Committee, is untenable.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
The Genius Myth by Helen Lewis: In search of genius? Don't look in East Anglia
The Genius Myth by Helen Lewis (Jonathan Cape £22, 352pp) What does it mean to be a genius? It takes more than extraordinary accomplishments or a high IQ. Being a genius, Helen Lewis argues in her lively book, is as much about the society that has given the label as it is about the person themselves. Tim Berners-Lee, for instance, is too self-effacing to play the role – but his invention of the World Wide Web underpins all the accomplishments of today's tech bro 'geniuses'. The concept of genius has evolved. In Roman times, you could be possessed by a poetic muse, or 'furor poeticus'. In the Renaissance, the idea of 'great men' took hold; the Romantics developed the notion of the genius as a garret-dwelling oddball who coughed up blood as he composed works of towering genius. These days, our geniuses are mavericks who move fast and break things; they are still nearly always male. If every society has their own categorisation for genius, does the concept even exist? Lewis has particular fun describing the lengths some have gone to crack the question. In 1904, the scientist Havelock Ellis came up with a list of just over 1,000 British geniuses. People in East Anglia, he concluded, have 'no aptitude for abstract thinking', while those in south-west England are 'sailors rather than scholars'. Dublin had produced 15 geniuses and poor Sligo none at all. Later, the psychologist Catharine Cox Miles embarked on an eccentric project to estimate the intelligence of past geniuses, doling out an IQ based on the length of their entry in a biographical dictionary. This was bad news for Cervantes and Copernicus, who were given an IQ of just 105; Goethe, meanwhile, scored 210. Shakespeare didn't qualify. In the 1990s, the psychologist Hans Eysenck decided there was enough data for a 'rough portrait' of genius. He (and it should 'clearly' be a he) should have a Jewish background, be born in February and lose a parent by the age of ten. He should die either at 30 or at 90, 'but on no account at 60'. He should have gout. Lewis is such a well-read guide to intelligence that at points you wish she'd been bolder. However, she is insightful on the loneliness of the very intelligent. In the 1980s, high-IQ societies were asked for a name for their members. The most appropriate term they had was 'outsider'.
