Roadside Mum #9 Is this normal behaviour for RSM?

1
It's super crappy that Unbound is just sitting on a pile of cash from donors who are never going to get that book.

I think they are the real story here. Along with patreon for JM tho in fairness they do put in their terms that if the creator doesn’t deliver it’s between you and them (aka you’re fucked no refund sunshine) and let you cancel whenever. Unbound promised an actual physical product and won’t let you refund.
 
I think they are the real story here. Along with patreon for JM tho in fairness they do put in their terms that if the creator doesn’t deliver it’s between you and them (aka you’re fucked no refund sunshine) and let you cancel whenever. Unbound promised an actual physical product and won’t let you refund.

The fact that they refund as a voucher (as I understand from this thread) when you've paid for a particular product is absolutely off.
 
The fact that they refund as a voucher (as I understand from this thread) when you've paid for a particular product is absolutely off.
And they'll only issue a voucher within a limited period if the original project is funded and promising delivery at some point, however late that may be. I've been attempting to get a voucher for this
which is running 3+ years late (ironically signed up following a Twitter rec from Trifle Defender, but no hard feelings)
 
Rereading that old thread, I wonder is she back already under a new account? I find it so sinister. Be aware for grifters.

Screenshot_20240821-120640.png
 
And they'll only issue a voucher within a limited period if the original project is funded and promising delivery at some point, however late that may be. I've been attempting to get a voucher for this
which is running 3+ years late (ironically signed up following a Twitter rec from Trifle Defender, but no hard feelings)

TD does like to criticise people (ie Nigella) for platforming Jack when she’s done the same with others who don’t deliver. Those in glass houses etc etc
 
Hmm not buying the media linked person who is very well off…..she may have been getting free school meals judging by the fuss she made on SM (rightly) about how appalling the food parcels weee in lockdown.
Or was she lying about poverty the her local authority as well?
 
Hmm not buying the media linked person who is very well off…..she may have been getting free school meals judging by the fuss she made on SM (rightly) about how appalling the food parcels weee in lockdown.
Or was she lying about poverty the her local authority as well?

I believe the other user said her family were very well off which matches with her allegedly having a very expensive van but also allows for her to potentially have had a low enough income of her own to get free school meals especially as she stated she’d fairly recently stopped working due to the ME.

I also do think she was fully misrepresenting how much RSD was there, likely also to the LA, which would lower the household income obviously.

She’d also apparently completely misinterpreted her parcel and it was for a much shorter period than she stated though tbh it sounded like that was largely due to the school having rubbish comms.
 
I believe the other user said her family were very well off which matches with her allegedly having a very expensive van but also allows for her to potentially have had a low enough income of her own to get free school meals especially as she stated she’d fairly recently stopped working due to the ME.

I also do think she was fully misrepresenting how much RSD was there, likely also to the LA, which would lower the household income obviously.

She’d also apparently completely misinterpreted her parcel and it was for a much shorter period than she stated though tbh it sounded like that was largely due to the school having rubbish comms.
Yeah it wasn’t the “poverty picnic for two” or whatever, it was only either a weeks worth or for one kid. And it was a bit tit but the lockdown w@s unexpected and schools cobbled something together, not great but not an actual personal attack.
 
Yeah it wasn’t the “poverty picnic for two” or whatever, it was only either a weeks worth or for one kid. And it was a bit tit but the lockdown w@s unexpected and schools cobbled something together, not great but not an actual personal attack.

I think it was both, 5 lunches for one kid. Two baking size potatoes, beans and a loaf of bread for beans on toast with cheese for sandwiches along with fruit, and some yoghurt and snack things. Also some random pasta IIRC which tbf was odd, but there you go.

It wasn’t going to win any awards but was perfectly acceptable when you took it as that, not as the 2 weeks for 2 kids she claimed it as.
 
I think it was both, 5 lunches for one kid. Two baked potatoes, beans and a loaf of bread for beans on toast with cheese for sandwiches along with fruit, and some yoghurt and snack things. Also some random pasta IIRC which tbf was odd, but there you go.

It wasn’t going to win any awards but was perfectly acceptable when you took it as that, not as the 2 weeks for 2 kids she claimed it as.
And also the schools weren’t getting any government support for it, although in the end I think they did.
It was absolutely a failing of Government, but I felt sorry for schools trying to feed kids over the holidays and being slammed for it like they were fatcats sitting on profits.
 
And also the schools weren’t getting any government support for it, although in the end I think they did.
It was absolutely a failing of Government, but I felt sorry for schools trying to feed kids over the holidays and being slammed for it like they were fatcats sitting on profits.

She went after Chartwells for it but it actually wasn’t, in that case, Chartwells fault that the school hadn’t managed to make it clear to her exactly how long the parcel was meant to last for. They’d clearly not sent the stuff to the school saying it was for two weeks for two kids.

I did also wonder why she only had one when she had two kids. Either another school duck up she didn’t raise with them for whatever reason or only one qualified… can’t remember how old her youngest was/is but in hindsight I wonder if that indicates actually she didn’t qualify financially for FSM… the infants of course get them automatically.
 
I believe the other user said her family were very well off which matches with her allegedly having a very expensive van but also allows for her to potentially have had a low enough income of her own to get free school meals especially as she stated she’d fairly recently stopped working due to the ME.

I also do think she was fully misrepresenting how much RSD was there, likely also to the LA, which would lower the household income obviously.

She’d also apparently completely misinterpreted her parcel and it was for a much shorter period than she stated though tbh it sounded like that was largely due to the school having rubbish comms.

She definitely gave off spoiled little rich girl vibes.

Much like her inspiration, Guest.
 
Back
Top