Jack Monroe #136 We lived in a house, it had a roof

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
HarderFaster said:
.

I can’t help but compare gobby Twitter sorts with the people I know from all walks of life who run various foodbanks, lunch clubs, temple kitchens, and they just quietly do it week in, week out, year after year, getting little to no recognition and often topping up supplies from their own pockets despite having little themselves.
Click to expand...

Exactly, these are the people she told they can't just copy her recipes, but need to link it to her page because she had worked HARD on it (never mind she was already paid for it by the Express). It's in my current top 3 Jack annoyances.

PS: It was Growing Links in Cornwall that time of the Christmas recipes, but it's not that I know them because she elevated them/highlighted them. She's too busy putting white heart reactions on Twitter under Blue Ticks, so no time to promote the organisations that do the things she only writes about (feeding people).

PS2: Jack if you read this, you can get tae duck with the 'activism' that you call your Twitter rants.
 
HarderFaster said:
Roadside Mum has tweeted today about receiving loads of presents. Combined with her tweets about how she should be given a consulting role off the back of this, I’m worried it’s all gone a bit Jack 2.0: This Time There May Be Some Experience of Poverty.

I can’t help but compare gobby Twitter sorts with the people I know from all walks of life who run various foodbanks, lunch clubs, temple kitchens, and they just quietly do it week in, week out, year after year, getting little to no recognition and often topping up supplies from their own pockets despite having little themselves.

Of course digital campaigning has a part in activism, but it’s much smaller than is made out to be. Way too many people, led by their Povvo Filler Queen Munro, have absolutely no material contribution to allaying any of the issues they wank on about to look liberal.

I can’t believe the Guardian have paid her AGAIN to write the same story they’ve paid her to write endless times. Just cannot with this bleep.
Click to expand...

If she keeps in contact with Jack 😬, though hopefully it's trying to catch the wave to then help others, and if she doesn't try, Jack will try as she listed her "consulting CV" in the gurdian piece.

Twitter is like the squeaky wheel - if you get enough attention, it's like ones that get nudged up some waiting lists (not so much now but know ones that got skipped up) if you make enough calls and\or get the right person, you will get sorted so they don't have to listen to you anymore and people that try to be patient are left behind (I word stuff badly but hope that makes some sense lol)

ETA - or in the case of activism - not praised like crazy in the media - though true activism does not seek out praise but results, if the praise helps draws more positive attention and results that's great! it should be be done for fame alone
 
Last edited:
bladiesla said:
Had started this post in the other thread :)



"Writing letter (not signed by me) is not enough". Nice dig towards THAT MAN :LOL: .

So overall, this piece has:

- Stating the obvious (poverty = tit and years of austery mode a bad situation worse. As you can read in 100s of books written since 2010 and weekly opinion pieces accross all media)
- "Talk to people who it affects (but first give ME the spotlight)", which again is stating the obvious
- "Have I told you about my experiences with poverty"
- A mission statement (I was not aware she had one)
- Even though not in poverty anymore, still saying things like 'what our needs are' (another Cotswolds sideboard is a want, Jack, not a need).

She really thinks she deserves the microphone for statements without really suggesting a plan ('just feed the children'). Which is about as inspiring as me saying 'we should save the whales'. A sentiment none will argue with (apart form whale-haters) but nothing additional to it. No suggestions for a sustainable recovery after the pandemic, not even the suggestion to duck the Tory party (perhaps not to upset her Express audience). No substance (no new insights at least, just the obvious), just more shouting and centering herself.
Click to expand...
It’s all just so puerile, isn’t it?

I don’t think MO, Tom, THAT MAN et al think that writing a letter is remotely “enough”, or that a review should happen before or in lieu of “getting the children fed” right now. Her implication that they, or anyone, think this is frankly scandalous.

What we do know is that reviews can help things not happen again, and letters signed by powerful/popular people have the effect of saying to the govt “we’re watching you, and we expect positive action with longevity”.

OF COURSE THEY THINK MECHANISMS FOR FOOD DELIVERY SHOULD BE IN PLACE IN THE MEANTIME, you whining little child.

Oh, and well done for burning your bridges even further.
 
bladiesla said:
Had started this post in the other thread :)



"Writing letter (not signed by me) is not enough". Nice dig towards THAT MAN :LOL: .

So overall, this piece has:

- Stating the obvious (poverty = tit and years of austery mode a bad situation worse. As you can read in 100s of books written since 2010 and weekly opinion pieces accross all media)
- "Talk to people who it affects (but first give ME the spotlight)", which again is stating the obvious
- "Have I told you about my experiences with poverty"
- A mission statement (I was not aware she had one)
- Even though not in poverty anymore, still saying things like 'what our needs are' (another Cotswolds sideboard is a want, Jack, not a need).

She really thinks she deserves the microphone for statements without really suggesting a plan ('just feed the children'). Which is about as inspiring as me saying 'we should save the whales'. A sentiment none will argue with (apart form whale-haters) but nothing additional to it. No suggestions for a sustainable recovery after the pandemic, not even the suggestion to duck the Tory party (perhaps not to upset her Express audience). No substance (no new insights at least, just the obvious), just more shouting and centering herself.
Click to expand...
I can’t believe she said this (in the article):
“But I can’t help feel that, well-intentioned as it is, writing a letter calling for a review feels like sitting in a house that is well alight and musing over where you should have put the smoke detector.”
She is basically saying that the letter signed by Marcus et al is useless, and it would be better to speak to HER. The phrase “well-intentioned as it is” is particularly patronising (“I’m sure you meant well, but ...”).
And she hints that she’s already done all the work, via her (uncredited, for some reason) collab with Henry Dimbleby on the National Food Strategy report.
She is absolutely FURIOUS that she didn’t get to sign that letter, isn’t she. And that she isn’t getting the credit that, for some reason, she thinks she deserves. To the extent that here she is throwing shade in this article.
Anything to get the spotlight back on her where it belongs.
 
I've really enjoyed catching up this morning and reading all of your considered thoughts. It amazes me that most put more thought into a post on a gossip forum than Jack does with well.....anything.

Can someone help me out on one thing. In the first paragraph of that piece for the Observer, Jack says RM's photo has been 'viewed' more than 28 million times. My question is- how does she know that? Is that accurate? On the face of it that seems insane. I mean just completely ridiculous. Help me Fraus.
 
Does Jack really think this whole has gone full scale just because of her?
I'm going to be honest here ( I might be wrong) but I think that if MR hadn't started tweeting about it and pushing for meetings with the PM, Jack would still be floundering around, screaming into twitter about the time she couldnt buy organic garlic because she was poor and the school food boxes would probably have stayed as paltry as they were originally.

It may well be a case of not what you know but who you know and unfortunately nobody important really seems to want to know Jack
 
Tabitha D said:
I can’t believe she said this (in the article):
“But I can’t help feel that, well-intentioned as it is, writing a letter calling for a review feels like sitting in a house that is well alight and musing over where you should have put the smoke detector.”
She is basically saying that the letter signed by Marcus et al is useless, and it would be better to speak to HER. The phrase “well-intentioned as it is” is particularly patronising (“I’m sure you meant well, but ...”).
Click to expand...

I hope they take it that way (not that they should be bothered) and as far as there was a bridge she has properly burned it (keeping in with the fire analogies).

Emmapism said:
I've really enjoyed catching up this morning and reading all of your considered thoughts. It amazes me that most put more thought into a post on a gossip forum than Jack does with well.....anything.

Can someone help me out on one thing. In the first paragraph of that piece for the Observer, Jack says RM's photo has been 'viewed' more than 28 million times. My question is- how does she know that? Is that accurate? On the face of it that seems insane. I mean just completely ridiculous. Help me Fraus.
Click to expand...

Perhaps RM shared the statistics of the post with her? Or did RM tweet the stats of how often her original Tweet was viewed. Something like that for sure.
 
Emmapism said:
But then wouldn't you say shared because you can't count views? Sorry it's an odd thing to hone in on but I stopped reading after that 😂Because it's not like a YouTube video with views clearly listed, just doesn't make sense to me!
Click to expand...

You can get tweet impressions stats on twitter. So it could be that the original tweet has 28 million impressions (views basically).

Nevermind - @bladiesla got there first and with actual receipts 😁
 
I have a friend who is autistic and has adhd (both NHS diagnosed) in her spare time she helps run a food bank, and a baby bank (where if you have no money you can get baby equipment, not babies lol). I have known her spend all night helping sort stuff out if someone is in crisis, and then go to work next day. She advocates for people too, and works full time.

I have no idea how she does it, but she does, she never boasts about it, just gets on and she has just decided to stand for her local council to try and work from within. Where she lives is one of the most deprived areas in England.

I have never known her do a chaos, beg for sympathy or talk about potatoes. She doesn't claw the floor either.

Compare and contrast
 
I don’t particularly begrudge that Jack was a witness (not sure what the correct word is) at previous reviews. Obviously *we* know (suspect, M’Lud) that her poverty story is mainly based on smoke and mirrors, but no one really knew that at the time.

But I absolutely begrudge that she keeps inserting herself into a discussion about which she has no direct experience for over eight years (if at all). What happened to all the “agency” and “advocacy” rights you wouldn’t dream of removing from those for whom poverty and food insecurity is lived experience right now, Jack?

Is it just that you think you’re better than them?
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top