Jack Monroe #562 It's a calculator Helen, it's not cocaine

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
W

witchofwestbyfleet

VIP Member
Thread title by @Valiofthedolls from one of guest's old tweets:

img_3039-jpeg.2691065


You win a calculator, not cocaine. No word on whether this was Dusty Aunt Helen, possibly of the toilet-based stash of More magazines.

Recap: Katie Hopkins attacked recently widowed Kate Garraway and has been piled on by some of guest's fans. Shattenstone is up for an award for the bathtub interview with guest, as he "managed to delicately and sensitively handle an encounter with Jack Monroe in which the often troubled chef and campaigner admitted to using money raised from her Patreon account on furniture, rather than on the products she was supposed to have sent to her subscribers."

Guest remains MIA and probably still wandering lonely as a cloud along the streets of Southend. We also had a sip of tea from frau @SleevelessSlopSlinger who was explicitly told by a Daily Mail journalist that they won't publish anything too damaging to guest because of her "mental health" - which doesn't normally stop them with anything else. Does she still have a powerful friend or two in the media?

Meanwhile, the canal awaits the outcome of the 2023 Sloppies. Will Andy sweep the board of honourary frau or will his crown be stolen by "socktopus" Ariel or Lyn who says it's OK? Will the famous poppy seeds win lie of the year? We're on the edge of our seats!

þakka(rými)þér! Wiki on the pink button.
 
Still mithering from the last thread.
When they contacted LJC and her AA sponsor because of guest's no show, why didn't either of them intervene and suggest that perhaps the interview should not go ahead?
Particularly LJC who has tons of journalistic experience, and given her relationship with guest, probably still cares about her well-being?
 
Florid Language said:
Still mithering from the last thread.
When they contacted LJC and her AA sponsor because of guest's no show, why didn't either of them intervene and suggest that perhaps the interview should not go ahead?
Particularly LJC who has tons of journalistic experience, and given her relationship with guest, probably still cares about her well-being?
Click to expand...

I suppose we don’t know whether they did or didn’t. All we know from Shattenstone is that they couldn’t originally rouse her and from Jack they were worried she’d relapsed. Perhaps they assumed that as she’d missed it and everyone had left it wouldn’t go ahead, perhaps they said it shouldn’t and were ignored or perhaps they couldn’t give a duck, who knows
 
Florid Language said:
Still mithering from the last thread.
When they contacted LJC and her AA sponsor because of guest's no show, why didn't either of them intervene and suggest that perhaps the interview should not go ahead?
Particularly LJC who has tons of journalistic experience, and given her relationship with guest, probably still cares about her well-being?
Click to expand...
because there was duck all wrong with her.
i've mithered over this before. jack named her AA sponsor and her ex partner as contacts, probably without their permission. I think she done this because the only other people who could go down would be her parents or SB's dad, both of whom know she's full of tit and would say as much to someone phoning to say how worried they were about her.

I think the whole thing was orchestrated because:
1) She wanted LJC back and LJC said no, and so the 'we're very worried about Jack' call was to worry LJC at a time when she'd already moved on
2) AA sponsor probably has her card marked and Jack knows it, but wants to still play the addict hand. IMO, she added them deliberately so that someone else was contacting the sponsor with a 'we're very worried about Jack' call, reinforcing the point she's hammering into the sponsor that she's not a liar, and she is very vulnerable.

I don't think i've explained this well at all. TLDR: she planned the whole thing to get attention from the sponsor, LJC, and to add a bit of excitement to the story and the day in general.
 
Love that guest’s so dull and irrelevant even the very first page of her new thread is all about Guardian journalists.

Maybe you should tell everyone about a TERRIFYING DECISION again, Jack.
IMG_3350.jpeg
IMG_3351.jpeg
DON’T TAKE MY COTSWOOOOOLLLDS!!!
IMG_3356.gif
On second thoughts, you make a complete twit of yourself every time you open your mouth or publish your latest tedious fantasist brain fart, so best stay quiet.
 
Carefree said:
Going back, ever so briefly, but Tanya Gold remains one of the worst the Guardian ever had. Her articles were pish, her below the line comments were very clearly full of other people who couldn't stand her, and the fact she's now at the Daily Fail is about right. Guest without the grift.
Click to expand...
That's BACK at the Mail, it's where she started.
O/T Journalistic ethics - I
have the utmost contempt for Tanya Gold as when she first worked for the Daily Mail she went undercover to a Climate Camp, cosied up to one of the young Shaws on the basis of shared experience of Jewish youth groups and then used these conversations in her hit piece in the Mail. Pure scum, and those articles were presumably part of her portfolio when she went to The Guardian.[/SPOILER
 
Last edited:
Popping back in to say that if Shattenstone wins that award and if guest wants a way to explain why she has been rarely seen for the past however many months she's got it. All she has to do is read the previous thread and handpick her reasons.

She's been given it on a plate. By us. She never thought of it herself, because if she did she'd have been screaming from the rooftops the day that article hit. This is the one time when I'm not going to congratulate the canal. ❤ you all though.
 
Mrs Peel said:
Popping back in to say that if Shattenstone wins that award and if guest wants a way to explain why she has been rarely seen for the past however many months she's got it. All she has to do is read the previous thread and handpick her reasons.

She's been given it on a plate. By us. She never thought of it herself, because if she did she'd have been screaming from the rooftops the day that article hit. This is the one time when I'm not going to congratulate the canal. ❤ you all though.
Click to expand...

I think it will be difficult for her to go back and do now because she can’t admit she’s wrong and she ignored the lecturer handing everything we’ve said to her on a plate in the immediate aftermath instead cosying up to Shattenstone as she was so thrilled he’d fallen for all her bullshit completely (based on his own words).

And if I’m completely wrong and he hasn’t done anything wrong, and it’s truly just that he saw right through her like you said and wins an award which as you said he wouldn’t have been nominated for if he’d done something unethical, he’ll be able to neatly shut her up when she tries and thus finish his amazing takedown, no?
 
CabalofBolorneaise said:
I think it will be difficult for her to go back and do now because she can’t admit she’s wrong and she ignored the lecturer handing everything we’ve said to her on a plate in the immediate aftermath instead cosying up to Shattenstone as she was so thrilled he’d fallen for all her bullshit completely (based on his own words).

And if I’m completely wrong and he hasn’t done anything wrong, and it’s truly just that he saw right through her like you said and wins an award which as you said he wouldn’t have been nominated for if he’d done something unethical, he’ll be able to neatly shut her up when she tries and thus finish his amazing takedown, no?
Click to expand...
That isn't how things work, and I'm sure you know that, no?
 
Mrs Peel said:
That isn't how things work, and I'm sure you know that, no?
Click to expand...

Not when he’s totally fallen for her act and truly believed she was an alcoholic and there was nothing wrong with her lying about her background, no, it’s not.

If he had been playing her and knew she was lying about everything including being an alcoholic then yes, I’d expect him to have things to back up his actions and choices to be able to defend himself with if she chose to pull the victim card on him. Then with his evidence to the contrary as she’s a laughing stock on X now, people would see what she was trying to do and dismiss it. He acknowledged in both the article and in his why I wrote it that she plays the victim card so I would assume that as an experienced journalist he was sensible and took steps to prevent her doing it to him.
 
Lobster Johnson said:
Missed the cut on the last one. But my least favourite Guardian-trope as a long time reader sometime contributor is that they ALWAYS have one woman on staff who gets a weekly column out of "as a mum...".
Click to expand...

To be fair to them, a bunch of their regular columnists became parents within a fairly short space of time - and that was inevitably going to change their focus. They're employed to write about life from their perspective, and you can't really expect them to ignore such a huge change in their lives just because some of their colleagues are have also had babies!

For me, the really shocking thing about the guardian is their sudden swerve into true-life stories - "How I Met My Dog", "A Sex Position that Changed My Perspective" and the like. It seems like there's now four or five of them every day, and they're all utterly insufferable.

Oh, and that column by the editor's partner, Adrian Chiles - which everyone hates, but for good reason. It feels like a "Leggy letting Jack play at being a chef in the corner"-type sinecure, but they actually go further and expose his work to the public... why?!
 
jordishaw said:
As opposed to say Adrian Chiles and Tim Dowling?
Click to expand...

Dowling is the other side of the same coin. Adrian Chiles has his colum because he lives with the editor.

I almost long for the days when most of their columnists were weird tankies Seamus Milne had met at some conference above a pub. Neil Clark and the like. The weekly "I moved to America and i find it a bit weird sometimes" column from a lady who's name I can't recall now does my head in too. I don't understand who it's for or what I'm supposed to take away from it.
 
Last edited:
Lucky Escape said:
For me, the really shocking thing about the guardian is their sudden swerve into true-life stories - "How I Met My Dog", "A Sex Position that Changed My Perspective" and the like. It seems like there's now four or five of them every day, and they're all utterly insufferable.
Click to expand...

ha I love the ‘experience’ series as it tries so hard not to be a middle class version of Take A Break but totally is!

The ethics aside I was quite surprised to see Jack even mentioned in the round up of Shattenstone’s significant articles. Would this mean that Jack’s grift is indeed well known across the field and a sly way of acknowledging that everyone’s aware even if they’re not actively covering it in their own publications?
 
I dont think guest can come back. Nobody seems to like her much. The only person i can see fighting her corner would be big L and she has invited her to be her guest at anything recently. So i think she has cooked her goose. Maybe, ade will give her alittle job as chief nose wiper of the bbc, judging by the shattenstone video she is a pro
 
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