Jack Monroe #583 She didn't retire from public life, she had no choice. Public life retired her.

[SleevelessSlopSlinger]

I think he did over dramatise it a bit but she seems to have done some crappy behaviour.
Can I just check as maybe I missed it but is this guy the Pokémon guy? I thought they were two different squiggs .

I’m not a huge fan of Pokémon squigs behaviour online but I still fail to see how exposing someone claiming to boil soap and have no lightbulbs having £157k cash isn't a “gotcha”. Granted I know she might not have actually had it but most people seem to have said that would have been checked?

I’m so confused (it’s not hard though admittedly).

 

[just lurking 99]

Who remembers when she had "LITERALLY ZERO" in her bank account? (and had screen shots to "prove" it)

 

[SleevelessSlopSlinger]

Who remembers when she had "LITERALLY ZERO" in her bank account? (and had screen shots to "prove" it)

Exactly this. She has been saying things like this for months, not even saying that she’s a bit skint or can’t afford something on a particular month. She’s been saying she has NO money at all and “lives in poverty”.

 

[FrumpyCat]

Agreed. And despite the tragic backstory it is also clear they intended to sell to her, and tried to hurry through the sale accordingly, despite it being clear as day she had no idea of the real implications of the short lease. (And this is before they knew who she was to say “well she’s a grifter so…”).

crappy behaviour on both sides here, she didn’t see them as people when ghosting them and they didn’t see her as a person when trying to offload an unsellable property.

I can't see what the vendors have done wrong (apart from trusting a lying grifter). the flat wasn't unsellable.just unmortagable. This was made clear in the listing. it wasn't up to the vendors to assume Jack had no idea how to Google short lease before she made an offer.

I would also assume she would have been told by her conveyancing solicitor the implications of a short lease and Cash only buyers and her right to extend the lease after two years. The vendors would have no benefit about hiding or lying the lease length as it will be recorded on the Land Registry,, and have priced the flat accordingly.

My reading is Jack lovebombed the vendors for reasons of her own, built up a bond, then stopped answering the phone to all parties when she, for whatever reason changed her mind. In the grand scheme of tnings, it isn't the worst thing she has done, but it is indicative of how she treats people.

 

[zetta buttons]

Looks like she’ll be back to wrapping food in a towel soon (thought we needed some light relief ).

https://www.12ft.io/https://www.the...14/jack-monroe-cassoulet-recipe-saving-energy

 

[rage naan]

Obviously pokeidiot presented this in the completely wrong way, and she probably could sue, but personally I still think this is big news being that yes, we have always known she’s lying about the pov, but we could never prove it or say how much money she actually did have.

There are now multiple third-party witnesses who are nothing to do with the weird little Jack Monroe microcosm of Twitter who can verify she had £157k.

Am sorry if I’m just taking it too far because I dislike her anyway but that’s massive for me. Tweeting to tug on people’s heartstrings about being poor while sitting on an amount of cash that would be life-changing to some people is vile.

And what entitlement to stay in the bungamansion. She could have downsized from there still renting, so not only do we now know she has £157k cash, we also know she has enough above that to live on.

I really hope now the last few desperate squigs see the light.

Yes this. the decision not to move out of her current house 18 months ago is still baffling to me. She could have rented and saved £20k or so, which would have definitely allowed her to cash buy an actual 2 bed place like she actually needs ( if you believe her)

As for being happy to buy a tiny place... No way. She thinks she's entitled to the space in her current overlarge house at the least.

Maybe she thought she could rent this new place out, join the family landlording business, and stay in her huge house. It's not beyond the realms of possibility tbh

As much as guest is clearly a truly awful person, every house move has at least one timewasting/fantasist bleep in the mix that nearly ruins things for everyone.

lol yeah sadly in my case it was a mortgage broker. I can laugh now but oh my god.

 

[YerDa]

If that account is true they didn’t try to take advantage of her. They told her about the lease up front but she clearly didn’t understand the implications. They wouldn’t be pushy for believing that a cash buyer with no chain would be a quick sale either.

 

[Grifty Mc]

I can't see what the vendors have done wrong (apart from trusting a lying grifter). the flat wasn't unsellable.just unmortagable. This was made clear in the listing. it wasn't up to the vendors to assume Jack had no idea how to Google short lease before she made an offer.

I would also assume she would have been told by her conveyancing solicitor the implications of a short lease and Cash only buyers and her right to extend the lease after two years. The vendors would have no benefit about hiding or lying the lease length as it will be recorded on the Land Registry,, and have priced the flat accordingly.

My reading is Jack lovebombed the vendors for reasons of her own, built up a bond, then stopped answering the phone to all parties when she, for whatever reason changed her mind. In the grand scheme of tnings, it isn't the worst thing she has done, but it is indicative of how she treats people.

Yeah, tbh they probably never thought about the lease issue until the tragic issue so I get that they probably should have done an extension years ago but maybe they weren’t financially savvy. I assume if it did have a longer lease it would have been on the market for far more even though it is just a one bedroom. They were probably plodding along happily in their flat for years not realising. Many people are severely uneducated about these type of things. If the story is true then guest strung them along until someone told her it was a bad idea.

if guest had been thinking clearly she should have bought it and then grifted for the price of the lease extension claiming she had been scammed!

 

[Bugger13]

Looks like she’ll be back to wrapping food in a towel soon (thought we needed some light relief ).

https://www.12ft.io/https://www.the...14/jack-monroe-cassoulet-recipe-saving-energy

Shouldn’t that be a flannel, not a towel?

(remember the thrifty tip about drying yourself with a flannel? Or did I dream that-it sounds batshit even from Jack)

 

[Seaford Haggington]

Shouldn’t that be a flannel, not a towel?

(remember the thrifty tip about drying yourself with a flannel? Or did I dream that-it sounds batshit even from Jack)

Don't wash at all. Save even more. Won't need to convert so much soap into soap.

 

[streby]

It will be interesting to see what she does going forward. She can't ever beg for money to buy real soap again without explaining away the £157k, and she won't be able to base her pov cosplay books on being a genuine poor person now either. She might have to *gasp* get a real job.

Some of us here don't believe the story (or at least parts of it) and Pokemon Squig is, judgements aside, clearly not a disinterested third party at this point, so I think we may be overestimating the effect this will have on Twitter. JM's must by now have encountered some mention of the grifting/lies but they've stuck with her and this is just another unsubstantiated claim. One or two might finally cancel their monthly Thanks For All You Do offerings, but I don't think this housing revelation by itself is a PR disaster for Jack of the Beanslops.

If she begs publically again it'll come up on Twitter, but then JM can just slide into her followers DMs and explain that she's been TROLLED by TORY BOT-FARMS attempting to ruin her reputation as revenge for her bringing about Labour's election victory. Oh no, she suffers so much, she is EXHAUSTED, better send her a few tenners so she can treat herself and SB in this freezing, solar-bulb-lit summer.

If that account is true they didn’t try to take advantage of her. They told her about the lease up front but she clearly didn’t understand the implications. They wouldn’t be pushy for believing that a cash buyer with no chain would be a quick sale either.

I'm going to bravely admit that as a Scottish frau who RENTS I don't understand the implications of a leasehold either. Is this basically like paying decades of rent in advance, and your landlord (leaseholder) still owns the building at the end? (So banks won't provide a mortgage as there's no property for them to keep hold of if your mortgage payments stopped, if I've understood it right?) If so then £157k seems like an awful lot of money for a one-bedroom flat you don't even really own! That'd buy you a house here!

 

[Florid Language]

Agreed. And despite the tragic backstory it is also clear they intended to sell to her, and tried to hurry through the sale accordingly, despite it being clear as day she had no idea of the real implications of the short lease. (And this is before they knew who she was to say “well she’s a grifter so…”).

crappy behaviour on both sides here, she didn’t see them as people when ghosting them and they didn’t see her as a person when trying to offload an unsellable property.

Why is it crappy behaviour on the vendor's side?
The very fact that they were selling their property on Bettermove should have been obvious that it wasn't going to be a straight forward purchase. The vendor disclosed to guest that it was short lease.
I agree that as a purchaser you can withdraw from the sale at any time. If you believe the vendor's account of the viewing, they were very honest and open about their reason for moving.
Are you suggesting that their behaviour is crappy because they disclosed their frustration on SM through someone with a larger platform?(I think LG is dodgy but what would I know)
If guest can monetise every brain fart that she's had for over a decade then the vendor is within their rights to vent their anger with their version of events. Twitter is full of long threads from people who have been butt hurt by friends/family/companies.
Does guest get a pass because she's 'famous'?
She's getting a taste of her own medicine. If she hadn't ghosted and bullshitted the couple it would have been just another sale that had fallen through.

 

[rage naan]

some great points being made here

re the vendors' sob story; normally I'd agree that it's completely irrelevant, but in the case of this person:

I guess it's fair enough.

re the conversation about the short lease: my initial reaction was that they must have been so gobsmacked by her stupidity that they didn't have presence of mind to correct her. If I wanted to interpret it instead as them thinking "finally, a real thick mug we can finally offload this place to, let's hope her solicitor doesn't point out her mistake" then nothing in the text contradicts that.

re her refusal to move to a cheaper area; I've never been to Southend, what's so compelling about it? there must be places still near enough to her parents' house but less expensive? The houses available don't look that great, in fact there's mostly retirement homes. There's seaside elsewhere too ( I personally once I lived by the sea never wanted not to again, so much do understand that part)

re her fans - yeah the fact is everyone's the hole when it's guest Vs pokécnut so it's basically pick your favourite rather than any moral reason for choosing

 

[ThePickledCrab]

I’m not a huge fan of Pokémon squigs behaviour online but I still fail to see how exposing someone claiming to boil soap and have no lightbulbs having £157k cash isn't a “gotcha”. Granted I know she might not have actually had it but most people seem to have said that would have been checked?

I’m so confused (it’s not hard though admittedly).

It's because there is no proof of where the money came from. People come into money all the time, there's no way to prove that it came from the grift. She could easily say that Big Choc gave her the money, end of story. Without that integral piece, in journalist terms, it's still a non-story.

 

[zetta buttons]

If so then £157k seems like an awful lot of money for a one-bedroom flat you don't even really own! That'd buy you a house here!

It would buy you 5 houses in Redcar (admittedly it is a guide price but that means tit up here most of the time.)

Check out this 2 bedroom end of terrace house for sale on Rightmove

2 bedroom end of terrace house for sale in 56 Britannia Place, Redcar, Cleveland, TS10 5LT, TS10 for £30,000. Marketed by Auction House London, Hampstead

www.rightmove.co.uk

 

[SleevelessSlopSlinger]

It's because there is no proof of where the money came from. People come into money all the time, there's no way to prove that it came from the grift. She could easily say that Big Choc gave her the money, end of story. Without that integral piece, in journalist terms, it's still a non-story.

Even if big choc gave her the money, that still means she has a father with £157k he will willingly give to her when she has been claiming to be battling on her own with “poverty”. It doesn’t matter where the money comes from to me. She can get it. She can access it. And she’s been telling people she doesn’t have a single penny. I cannot access £157k at the drop of my hat from my father, and I’m guessing the majority of people who chucked her a fiver cannot either. She’s abhorrent, regardless of the funding source.

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

I’m not a huge fan of Pokémon squigs behaviour online but I still fail to see how exposing someone claiming to boil soap and have no lightbulbs having £157k cash isn't a “gotcha”. Granted I know she might not have actually had it but most people seem to have said that would have been checked?

I’m so confused (it’s not hard though admittedly).

He was claiming it was directly from patreon/sue lee so I think the problem is not the gotcha he was claiming.

 

[SleevelessSlopSlinger]

He was claiming it was directly from patreon/sue lee so I think the problem is not the gotcha he was claiming.

I see, I didn’t realise he had outright claimed that’s where she got the money so apologies on that one. I try to avoid that little JM inspired corner of X.com as much as possible, very odd place that

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

Why is it crappy behaviour on the vendor's side?
The very fact that they were selling their property on Bettermove should have been obvious that it wasn't going to be a straight forward purchase. The vendor disclosed to guest that it was short lease.
I agree that as a purchaser you can withdraw from the sale at any time. If you believe the vendor's account of the viewing, they were very honest and open about their reason for moving.
Are you suggesting that their behaviour is crappy because they disclosed their frustration on SM through someone with a larger platform?(I think LG is dodgy but what would I know)
If guest can monetise every brain fart that she's had for over a decade then the vendor is within their rights to vent their anger with their version of events. Twitter is full of long threads from people who have been butt hurt by friends/family/companies.
Does guest get a pass because she's 'famous'?
She's getting a taste of her own medicine. If she hadn't ghosted and bullshitted the couple it would have been just another sale that had fallen through.

Sharing the story is irrelevant.

Personally I think it’s as crappy to try to put a sale through, and push to do it quickly, knowing your buyer doesn’t understand the lease implications as it is for a buyer agree to it and then back out when they realise the implications.

Therefore if that was crappy of Jack as people say it was, then it was crappy of the buyers to try to push a quick sale of an unsellable property.

Both things happen regularly in home sales though so nothing unusual on either side.

ETA: and if you are trying to sell to someone who clearly doesn’t understand the lease it shouldn’t really come as a surprise to you that if they find out they probably won’t want to proceed with the purchase.

 

[Veronicaaa]

It's not an unsellable property - it's an unmortgageable property, at present. Which is precisely why it suited Jack down to the ground, she's got cash to burn and she needs to bypass mortgage checks. We have no idea whether Jack understood the 'implications' of the short lease, and nor do we have any idea whether the seller assumed she did. She's a fully grown adult, not some vulnerable person with learning difficulties or whatever - why would they assume she wouldn't understand? Besides which, she did it through a solicitor, didn't she? They haven't tried to take advantage of her.