Jack Monroe #443 The person who swears and hurls abuse is Jack herself

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
Falkor

Falkor

VIP Member
Thread title by a squig, nominated by @hiyaaaacath - your prize is all the leftover jellied eel you can eat!

Jack has been planning a Renegade Christmas of pie, mash and eels. The only evidence of slop seen so far is a parsley liquor the colour of Shrek. She has also promoted the BillyChip scheme which may or may not be about to cause a Greggs chaos.

Tattle on, dear hearts!

(Wiki is the pink button up top, please use the words 'thread title' when nominating one.)
 
Emmapism said:
Just caught up. Jack didn't bother to check something out before she retweeted it? No! But she has half a million followers. That would be irresponsible at best if true. Can't be her. She's forensic. She doesn't call herself forensic of course, all her friends do.

Click to expand...


The only reason she calls herself "Forensic" is because she misunderstands the word. She thinks it means she's from a more exotic country...
 
Emmapism said:
Just caught up. Jack didn't bother to check something out before she retweeted it? No! But she has half a million followers. That would be irresponsible at best if true. Can't be her. She's forensic. She doesn't call herself forensic of course, all her friends do.

Click to expand...


I don't think she retweeted it, she just replied to it 3 times and had a minor argument with somone who talked about low welfare meat.

The Billychips scheme has done a trial with certain branches of Greggs (I think in Bristol?) but it was only about 7. The person who tweeted about them said that the chips could be used in any branch which is not currently the case. Whilst she didn't retweet it, she bought into the false information that the tweet contained. I bet that if Greggs now roll (pardon the pun) it out over all their stores, Jack will claim it as a campaigning victory for herself :rolleyes:
 
Onestorytoomany said:
I dont know why people dont just buy a greggs for a homeless person the conventional way. Why do greggs or charities need to make money off a homless persons lunch.
Click to expand...
Entirely normal conversation: I'm just going into Greggs, would you like anything? Oh, okay, well here's a fiver, maybe get yourself something later.

Same conversation, Dickensian edition: Here, street urchin, take this poker chip I got on the cheap, I think you can exchange it for food in participating retailers.
 
Why is anyone buggering about with bloody chips? Ask a homeless person if they want something to eat, then go and get it for them or give them actual money. Why does it have to be a song and dance complicated procedure? Are people that desperate to come up with something unique and quirky to feed the homeless? It's all performative? I don't understand
 
Country Bumpkin said:
Why is anyone buggering about with bloody chips? Ask a homeless person if they want something to eat, then go and get it for them or give them actual money. Why does it have to be a song and dance complicated procedure? Are people that desperate to come up with something unique and quirky to feed the homeless? It's all performative? I don't understand
Click to expand...

Because otherwise people like Jack would have to, gasp, speak to a homeless person. What if she’s forgotten her stab vest that day? What if they don’t even recognise her as povertycampaignerjackmonroe?

Much easier to throw a chip at them and shuffle off, then make up a pretend conversation for social media asspats.
 
Homeless people, in Manchester at least, don't need to be given food. Through knowing a homeless man in my local area, I know he's overrun with food. He's given far more food than he could possibly eat, without a heroin addiction. He wants money to buy heroin and crack.

I went to a talk with Cressa, a former dancer with the Stone Roses, he said he never once went hungry, there were so many schemes such as soup kitchens and canteens set up that no one ever needed to give him money for food and people gave him food multiple times a day. He also wanted money for heroin.

Now, I'm not saying every homeless person is a heroin addict but just give them the money and if you want to help with the issues that cause homelessness, give to charities for that and lobby your local council to provide proper services.

Schemes like the Billy chip are well meaning but they are unnecessary and ultimately unhelpful
 
LadyGarden said:
I don't think she retweeted it, she just replied to it 3 times and had a minor argument with somone who talked about low welfare meat.

The Billychips scheme has done a trial with certain branches of Greggs (I think in Bristol?) but it was only about 7. The person who tweeted about them said that the chips could be used in any branch which is not currently the case. Whilst she didn't retweet it, she bought into the false information that the tweet contained. I bet that if Greggs now roll (pardon the pun) it out over all their stores, Jack will claim it as a campaigning victory for herself :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ah, apologies. I didn't read back forensically and have myself done a Jack 😳 I just assumed she'd retweeted because of her history of nonsense.
 
Lizzie Mintdrop said:
Homeless people, in Manchester at least, don't need to be given food. Through knowing a homeless man in my local area, I know he's overrun with food. He's given far more food than he could possibly eat, without a heroin addiction. He wants money to buy heroin and crack.

I went to a talk with Cressa, a former dancer with the Stone Roses, he said he never once went hungry, there were so many schemes such as soup kitchens and canteens set up that no one ever needed to give him money for food and people gave him food multiple times a day. He also wanted money for heroin.

Now, I'm not saying every homeless person is a heroin addict but just give them the money and if you want to help with the issues that cause homelessness, give to charities for that and lobby your local council to provide proper services.

Schemes like the Billy chip are well meaning but they are unnecessary and ultimately unhelpful
Click to expand...
I would rather do that. Give to established charities and talk to the local council. I get a bit irritated with people trying to set up this that and the other. It may be well meaning but it also smacks a little of "look at me doing good". Whatever happened to giving without a social media post about it? Whatever happened to anonymous donations? We had 2 homeless guys who used sit regularly on a park bench in my local town. One Christmas a woman posted on a local fb page a picture of her husband carrying a tray of food over to them. It unleashed a barrage of stuff being given to them and posts all over the place about it. I used to see them in the local Tescos doing their shopping. They didn't need any food given to them or any stuff. They knew what services they could access but they said they didn't need them. They chose to live that way. In the end they just left town because it was too much for them. They hated it. All the social media posts from people giving them stuff was sickening. It's a trend across the board that only seems to have gotten worse. It's not about the action of giving any more, it's about the person needing recognition from strangers on sm for their good deed. The person or people perceived to be in need are a means to that.
 
Lizzie Mintdrop said:
Homeless people, in Manchester at least, don't need to be given food. Through knowing a homeless man in my local area, I know he's overrun with food. He's given far more food than he could possibly eat, without a heroin addiction. He wants money to buy heroin and crack.

I went to a talk with Cressa, a former dancer with the Stone Roses, he said he never once went hungry, there were so many schemes such as soup kitchens and canteens set up that no one ever needed to give him money for food and people gave him food multiple times a day. He also wanted money for heroin.

Now, I'm not saying every homeless person is a heroin addict but just give them the money and if you want to help with the issues that cause homelessness, give to charities for that and lobby your local council to provide proper services.

Schemes like the Billy chip are well meaning but they are unnecessary and ultimately unhelpful
Click to expand...
Tameside, where I live, has excellent support for the homeless. There is provision for anyone to have a bed somewhere safe if they want it.

Unfortunately, giving cash often (I'm not saying always) feeds habits and prevents people from accessing these services. It also funds the dealers and people who take advantage of homeless and vulnerable people.

It's not easy to know what to do for the best, but I know that the best thing I can do locally is donate money to the organisations who do so much to help. There's a lady in Ashton who feeds about 100 people a day with packed lunches with no judgement and provides emergency food, fuel credit etc. for people who need it.

I donated some things that I had that were needed last year and gave £20 that I had in my purse and was absolutely delighted to find out later that she'd used the money to buy books and colouring things for a family who had found themselves in emergency accommodation.

I won't be buying any silly chips.
 
Country Bumpkin said:
I would rather do that. Give to established charities and talk to the local council. I get a bit irritated with people trying to set up this that and the other. It may be well meaning but it also smacks a little of "look at me doing good". Whatever happened to giving without a social media post about it? Whatever happened to anonymous donations? We had 2 homeless guys who used sit regularly on a park bench in my local town. One Christmas a woman posted on a local fb page a picture of her husband carrying a tray of food over to them. It unleashed a barrage of stuff being given to them and posts all over the place about it. I used to see them in the local Tescos doing their shopping. They didn't need any food given to them or any stuff. They knew what services they could access but they said they didn't need them. They chose to live that way. In the end they just left town because it was too much for them. They hated it. All the social media posts from people giving them stuff was sickening. It's a trend across the board that only seems to have gotten worse. It's not about the action of giving any more, it's about the person needing recognition from strangers on sm for their good deed. The person or people perceived to be in need are a means to that.
Click to expand...
Jack has many years of form on this. She gave an old bicycle to a kid whose bike had been nicked and reposted a long post about what a saint she was across all her socials.

She‘s a leading part of a trend which actively harms people
 
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