straw

AS I watched the scene playing out on the TV, my heart started pounding.

Estate agent Cherry was meeting her boyfriend’s mum, Laura, for the first time – bringing back memories of the real-life monster-in-law who tried to destroy me in ways you wouldn’t believe.

5

5

5

Hoping to make a good impression, she arrived with a beautiful bunch of flowers, but her future mother–in-law callously tossed them on a table, dismissing them as rubbish.

It’s a tale as old as time: son introduces the woman he loves to his mum, who instantly feels jealous that a new female will take her place.

So she makes her life HELL.

The reason The Girlfriend had such a strong impact on me was because, in many ways, I’d been there myself.

My ex’s mum hadn’t just disliked me, she’d hated my guts from day one.

She too had thrown down the flowers I’d given her the first time we met – not onto a table, but on the floor.

And the memories of the awful things she did while I was with her son still make me shudder.

Courteous to my face, but nasty behind my back, my monster-in-law, Jackie, constantly bad-mouthed me to friends and family – even my own neighbours.

She regularly told her son, Simon, that I wasn’t good enough for him and urged him to leave me, despite us having a child together.

Eventually, she succeeded and we split up. I simply couldn’t cope with her twisted games anymore.

Thankfully I’ve had no contact with her since the split, but I still have nightmares about it – and watching TV show The Girlfriend brought them all back.

I won’t spoil the story for those who haven’t seen it, but although Cherry isn’t all that she seems, Laura’s actions beggar belief.

For me, though, there’s one big difference.

Courteous to my face, but nasty behind my back, my monster-in-law, Jackie, constantly bad-mouthed me to friends and family – even my own neighbours

Cherry

While Laura’s awful behaviour pushes her son into his lover’s arm, the same could not be said for me and my ex.

His mother’s constant interference created a crack so wide that we still don’t talk to one another, despite sharing a six-year-old.

‘Overbearing’

I’d hoped the unappreciated flowers might be a misunderstanding, but soon I was being subjected to constant put-downs.

Sometimes we’d pop to her house for breakfast and if I asked for a bit of fruit instead of bacon and egg, she’d tut and mutter that I was ‘strange’.

She’d also get in a huff if Simon chose to spend a Saturday night out with me, instead of going round to see her.

He’d tell me his mum was ‘in a mood’ because he wasn’t paying her as much attention now.

I thought he was joking – at that point I had no idea how bizarre their relationship was.

5

5

Just like obsessed Laura in The Girlfriend, Jackie had to know where Simon was at all times.

She’d call and text him multiple times a day, despite only living around the corner.

On one occasion, we were having sex at 11am when she messaged him six times in a row.

“Can you turn it off?” I pleaded as Jackie’s impatient alerts threatened to kill the moment.

I’m not alone in having a difficult relationship with my partner’s mum.

A two-decade study by Dr Terri Apter, a University of Cambridge psychologist, found that more than 60 per cent of women admitted their relationship with their mother-in-law caused them long-term unhappiness and stress.

Two-thirds of daughters-in-law also believed that their husband’s mother frequently exhibited jealous, maternal love towards their sons.

This was definitely true of Jackie.

She relished standing in front of me with her arms wrapped around Simon’s waist or shoulders.

And she had a key to his flat, so would often turn up unannounced.

One morning I plodded, half-awake, into the kitchen wearing nothing but a pair of knickers, only to find Jackie casually washing his dishes.

I complained that I found her actions overbearing and gently tried to explain to Simon that it wasn’t normal for a mum to be so involved in her adult son’s life.

But he responded saying she only did so because she “cared about him so much” and wanted to help.

Two-thirds of daughters-in-law also believed that their husband’s mother frequently exhibited jealous, maternal love towards their sons

During the three years we were together, Jackie would constantly gaslight me, telling Simon she’d sent texts inviting me to the cinema, or out shopping, and that I’d ignored them.

And if he dared take my side, she’d burst into tears on the phone so that he’d have to go round and console her.

Her words were vicious, but her actions were even worse.

If I invited her and her doormat of a husband round for dinner (yes, she controlled him too) she’d politely accept, then not turn up, secretly texting Simon afterwards to say she felt my invite was “fake”.

About a year into our relationship, I found out I was pregnant with our son, Josh.

For a while, Jackie softened – but within minutes of his birth, she reverted to type.

I had a terrible labour which culminated in an emergency c-section. Josh then had to be rushed to intensive care.

I felt exhausted, broken and bloody, so we requested that loved ones give us time to rest.

Everyone respected our wishes – except Jackie.

An hour after I’d got off the operating table, she burst into the room armed with balloons and a giant teddy bear.

“We’ve all been through it, you know,” she crowed as I burst into tears and begged Simon to get her out of there.

She even insisted on sneaking into the intensive care unit to see our newborn, even though I hadn’t been able to see him yet.

Jackie’s treatment only worsened when we finally brought Josh home.

She would message me constantly, telling me which wet wipes to use and what kind of vests I should be putting on him.

I even saw messages on Simon’s phone telling him to hide clothes I’d bought for the baby and replace them with ones she’d supplied instead.

The bullying was so bad, I even went to see a counsellor.

Jackie’s interference caused countless arguments and at one point, I even left Simon after she texted him claiming that I was “lazy” and “a useless mum”.

What hurt even more was that he never defended me.

That’s when I realised the level of control she really had over him.

It was relentless and in the end, I left for good.

I realised I would never be able to have a healthy relationship with such a mummy’s boy and that Jackie would never change.

Thankfully, I have little to do with her now, although she did try to continue her antics after we split.

She bombarded my friends and family with messages claiming that I was mentally ill, an unfit mother and needed help.

Luckily, they knew what she was like and blocked her.

But I’ve had to write my story anonymously, for fear of any backlash.

As a mother of a son myself, I understand it can be difficult seeing your child growing up, moving on and having another woman take centre stage.

But I’ve vowed never to be like my ex’s mum and to try to love whoever my son brings home.

I know all too well what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a hate campaign from a woman it is impossible to compete with.

NEW YORK — When the White House fired Susan Monarez as director of the premier U.S. public health agency, it was clear to two of the scientific leaders at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the political meddling would not end and it was time to quit.

“We knew … if she leaves, we don’t have scientific leadership anymore,” one of the officials, Dr. Debra Houry, told the Associated Press on Thursday.

“We were going to see if she was able to weather the storm. And when she was not, we were done,” said Houry, one of at least four CDC leaders who resigned this week. She was the agency’s deputy director and chief medical officer.

The White House confirmed late Wednesday that Monarez was fired because she was not “aligned with” President Trump’s agenda and had refused to resign. She had been sworn in less than a month ago.

Trump’s health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., declined during an appearance on “Fox & Friends” to directly comment on the CDC shake-up. But he said he continues to have concerns about CDC officials hewing to the administration’s health policies.

“So we need to look at the priorities of the agency, if there’s really a deeply, deeply embedded, I would say, malaise at the agency,” Kennedy said. “And we need strong leadership that will go in there and that will be able to execute on President Trump’s broad ambitions.”

A lawyer for Monarez said the termination was not legal — and that she would not step down — because she was informed of her dismissal by staff in the presidential personnel office and that only Trump himself could fire her. Monarez has not commented.

Dr. Richard Besser, a former CDC acting director, said that when he spoke with Monarez on Wednesday, she vowed not to do anything that was illegal or that flew in the face of science. She had refused directives from the Department of Health and Human Services to fire her management team.

She also would not automatically sign off on any recommendations from a vaccines advisory committee handpicked by Kennedy, according to Besser, now president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which helps support the Associated Press Health and Science Department.

Houry and Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who resigned as head of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said Monarez had tried to make sure scientific safeguards were in place.

Some concerned the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of outside experts who make recommendations to the CDC director on how to use vaccines. The recommendations are then adopted by doctors, school systems, health insurers and others.

Kennedy is a longtime leader in the antivaccine movement, and in June, he abruptly dismissed the entire panel, accusing members of being too closely aligned with manufacturers. He replaced them with a group that included several vaccine skeptics and then he shut the door to several doctors organizations that had long helped form vaccine recommendations.

Recently, Monarez tried to replace the official who coordinated the panel’s meetings with someone who had more policy experience. Monarez also pushed to have slides and evidence reviews posted weeks before the committee’s meetings and have the sessions open to public comment, Houry said.

Department of Health officials nixed that and called her to a meeting in Washington on Monday, Houry said.

When it became clear that Monarez was out, other top CDC officials decided they had to leave, too, Houry and Daskalakis said.

“I came to the point personally where I think our science will be compromised, and that’s my line in the sand,” Daskalakis said.

Monarez’s lawyers, Mark Zaid and Abbe David Lowell, said in a statement that when she refused “to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts, she chose protecting the public over serving a political agenda. For that, she has been targeted.”

Stobbe writes for the Associated Press.

Gary Lineker is reportedly set to step down from the BBC on Monday following growing backlash over a controversial social media post that sparked accusations of anti-Semitism

Former England footballer and Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker is expected to leave the BBC by mutual agreement, amid escalating criticism surrounding his recent social media activity.

The fallout began last Monday after Lineker, 64, shared a pro-Palestinian video on Instagram that included a rat emoji which is a symbol historically used in Nazi propaganda to dehumanize Jewish people. The post drew widespread condemnation and was quickly deleted. Lineker issued an apology, but the controversy continued to intensify throughout the week.

Pressure on the broadcaster increased on Thursday after The Telegraph published a revealing interview in which Lineker expanded on his criticism of Israel’s actions and appeared to take aim at senior figures within the BBC.

According to sources, plans for Lineker to lead BBC coverage of the 2026 FIFA World Cup have now been scrapped. His early departure from the broadcaster is expected to be confirmed today.

The Match of the Day star, who is the highest-paid presenter at the BBC apologised for sharing a video an anti-Zionism video. The post featured a picture of a rat, which has historically been used as an antisemitic insult, referring to language used in Nazi Germany to characterise Jews.

Gary immediately deleted the post after realising the significance of the symbol, according to his agent. Last Tuesday afternoon, he also issued a statement in which he “apologised unreservedly” for his “mistake”.

“On Instagram I reposted material which I have since learned contained offensive references,” he said in a statement. “I very much regret these references. “I would never knowingly share anything antisemitic. It goes against everything I believe in.”

The Match of the Day presenter said he deleted the post “as soon as I became aware of the issue. Whilst I strongly believe in the importance of speaking out on humanitarian issues, including the tragedy unfolding in Gaza, I also know that how we do so matters,” Lineker continued.

“I take full responsibility for this mistake. That image does not reflect my views. It was an error on my part for which I apologise unreservedly,” he concluded.

Gary had been due to leave the BBC after the 2026 World Cup but the long-standing Match of the Day host appears ready to bring an early end to his time with the broadcaster. The seasoned presenter has quit amid the backlash to a social media post on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

He reshared content from the group Palestine Lobby, prompting claims from Campaign Against Antisemitism that they would be lodging a complaint.

Tim Davie, director general of the BBC, previously issued a response to the backlash. “The BBC’s reputation is held by everyone and when someone makes a mistake, it costs us,” he said.

Back in 2023, Lineker was taken off the air for an episode of Match of the Day following comments about Conservative government language.

“We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries,” he wrote. “This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?”

In a recent interview with the BBC’s Amol Rajan, Lineker questioned the Beeb’s social media guidelines. “The impartiality rules were for people in news and current affairs. They have subsequently changed,” he said.

“But that left people like me, who has always given his honest opinions about things. Then they suddenly changed them and you have to go, ‘Oh, I’ve got to be impartial now’. It doesn’t make any sense.

“Why worry about the people who don’t like you. This is the mistake the BBC makes. The BBC tries to appease the people that hate the BBC. The people who always attack the licence fee. They worry far too much about that, rather than worrying about the people who love the BBC.”

“Why shouldn’t I have an opinion on things?” Lineker asked in the same interview with Rajan. “I’ve always been strong on humanitarian issues and always will be, and that’s me. The goalposts were massively moved because it was never an issue until, suddenly, this point.

“It was always stipulated in the BBC guidelines that in terms of impartiality, it was for people who work in news and current affairs. I am very, very thoughtful about what I say. They took me off air and it was a silly overreaction.”

Follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.