Jack monroe challenged on twitter

[KarlWrenbury]

Maybe by a sock puppet account Etc but yes- how are they still not making ends meet after all this time ?

I’ve no idea why my phone is making everything look French. Imagine I’m writing it in an accent and sound v sophisticated!!

the fact that she might have libelled someone doesn’t make it any less true that’s it’s probably best to steer clear of accusing people of theft / other crimes unless you are really sure about the details and can defend it

Are you referring to my throwaway comment that she nicked the Vimes Index from Pratchett?
Wow, JM supporters REALLY like to threaten litigation.

Bibbety yes it does make sense! - but, I also don't see that the PP did "equate" them at all. The post was:

It’s true, people don’t have to be perfect to do good for others.
Take Jimmy Saville for example. He raised about £40 million for charity.

Clearly stating that Savile is an example of someone who did good works and helped people, but it was wrong to therefore put him on a pedestal and assume he was perfect. An example, and a relevant point - but nowhere does it equate the two 100% or say they are the same.

@BlossomsOnATree I think if you put two things side by side without any further statement then that is suggesting that they are being equated. You don’t have to say things are the same to be doing that.

we can agree to disagree as the ‘as an example bit’ that the PP included could go either way.

Hating the government/thinking Jack is a phoney at the same time is perfectly doable.

I definitely think people can manage both!

I can understand people being annoyed, and not wanting to overlook it, if someone has potentially been misleading or misrepresenting themselves and there's money involved.

Clearly stating that Savile is an example of someone who did good works and helped people, but it was wrong to therefore put him on a pedestal and assume he was perfect. An example, and a relevant point - but nowhere does it equate the two 100% or say they are the same.

Exactly. No one else appears to have misunderstood what she meant.

@Scianel yes I was referring to the accusation of theft.

there is a sea of difference between threatening litigation and saying that something could be libel/ people should be more careful in the accusations that they throw around. In that sea would be a number of very carefully worded legal letters and a letter before action.

@Bibbetyboo very well, I've reported my post and asked for it to be removed. Clearly can't be too careful when discussing certain people, even though it would take a very pedantic interpretation to view it as any more than a throwaway comment. But having seen the discussions on twitter, that seems to be the general approach.

English is my second language and even I got that it wasn't equating her to Saville

@Scianel I genuinely wasn’t threatening you with litigation, though I am a litigation lawyer and I should probably remember that to non lawyers just throwing around legal terms might read like that.

i think we could all do with being more careful and measured in what we say online because words affect people. Goes for me, I daresay JM too and I think she acknowledges that too.

have a good day everyone, obligations call me!

@Scianel on the pedantic - I always tell clients/ friends and family to consider words being read out in court before you post. Think about how it looks in the cold light of day in 5 years time. And then edit before posting!

It takes 3+ years to get a diagnosis on the NHS as an adult.

Also worth bearing in mind before you post on Twitter, Facebook, SM etc, stop and say to yourself, would I make this comment to out loud to the person if they were standing in front of me? If not, don’t post. This applies just as much to JM as any of us.

I’ve also posted this before; SM is such an open forum - particularly Twitter - that if you tweet anything contentious or even debatable, someone will be all over it very quickly. That’s the nature of the medium. I have no problem with JM trying to robustly defend herself but then to block responding comments seems a bit timorous. Sometimes silence is more powerful than lashing out and digging yourself an even greater hole. If indeed she finds it as mentally draining, get off the whole platform, although I suspect reading some of her responses, she’s actually quite hooked on the obsequious and fawning from her acolytes.

@JohnPrescottsPyjamas agree. I would add though that so much energy and money has been put into making our phones and SM super addictive, so it’s hard to just get off/ put it away.

also if you value some of the positive aspects of community that SM can bring and have a kind of chaotic life then it can be even harder to just stop engaging with it because some of the real life sources of support etc have probably fallen away.

my life is an absolute mess at the moment between young kids, work, stressing about money and mental health issues (frankly, whose isn’t though!) and I dont have time to catch up with friends/ go for a walk etc/ dont have relationships with people that can just be there at short notice. But at silly o’clock there is always SM/ mumsnet forums etc.

So I think when we all say just step away/ leave it we should recognise that it’s easier said than done. Partly that’s cos it’s intentionally built into these platforms and partly becuase it’s harder for some people (whether their fault or not).

Wow, this thread has really been derailed, hasn't it? Interesting...

Anyway, just for anyone who didn't catch it, Jack's Vimes Boots Index doesn't exist, the changes the ONS made were nothing to do with Jack and the person who should be most worried about litigation is Jack who claimed that Tom Kerridge picked her brains for ideas then didn't credit her.

The fact that people are questioning Jack Monroe is not because of any ‘ism’. People posting criticism is not ‘seething rage’. In fact a lot of what I’ve seen is JM followers telling w/c women who are currently living in poverty (and dared to express their opinion) to shut the fuck up.

Jack Monroe does not signpost charities, give her platform to anyone doing genuinely good stuff or even leave her house to visit charities to raise awareness. All her activism is bashing the shit out of her keyboard with lukewarm political takes and her 10 year old woe is me story. Any questions about charity is answered ‘it’s all in my DMs’, ‘I don’t want to make a big thing about it’. Surely part of working with charities is to raise their profile?!

Anyway this poster I’ve quoted has very familiar writing style- nice thread derail but your story about Jamie Oliver is not the same as Jack asking people to donate to her cause she’s claiming to still be poor 10 years later. He may strive to keep a ‘cheeky chappy’ persona in public for his brand but constantly claiming to be poor and asking for money is not a brand Jack should be promoting.

That’s what I was thinking 😂 Amazing derailing skills going on

With you totally.
I’m no saint with SM either. I had to delete FB for quite a few months when I found myself checking it before anything as soon as I looked at my phone. It’s also addictive in the fact I felt I had to comment or add my bit. That’s why I’ve made myself think about whether what I post would be the same as what I would say to someone.

All these platforms are very clever. They appeal to our sense of importance. When we post a success, it’s very satisfying to read all the positive comments and if we post a comment on a forum that attracts negative feedback, it’s incredibly hard not to let it get to you, even though your logical side tells you these people don’t know you from Adam and it doesn’t make you less of a person because they disagree.

If used well, SM is brilliant. It keeps you in touch with friends and family members that might well have drifted in the past. It’s excellent for business promotion and networking. It can be very supportive if you are struggling, as you can form links with others in the same situation.
But if your MH is fragile and you try to use it to boost your self esteem or try to portray yourself as some kind of superhuman when you are completely exposed, it can be merciless and cruel. You are potentially ‘opening the door’ to some very harsh and judgemental groups. That’s why, clearly JM has all sorts of issues and for her own sanity, she needs to pull back completely and stop the online tit for tat.

*then you are completely exposed.

Wow, this thread has really been derailed, hasn't it? Interesting...

@ermagerdabear Indeed 🤔 🧐

Anyway this poster I’ve quoted has very familiar writing style- nice thread derail but your story about Jamie Oliver is not the same as Jack asking people to donate to her cause she’s claiming to still be poor 10 years later.

@Rantypanties Yes, very familiar style. And cleverly dropping in biographical details (breastfeeding, being a lawyer) that mean it couldn’t possibly be JM herself posting, oh no no 🤫😔

How strange. The Herald newspaper has published a piece about JM’s spaghetti hoops recipe being mocked on Twitter. But has completely ignored the grifting allegations even though they must be fully aware of them, given that they’re aware of the spaghetti hoop thing. The media really do protect her don’t they?

www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20606662.issue-day-wash-sauce-off-spaghetti-hoops/

Familiar style? Seems like you think I am JM posting while pretending to be someone else.

I mean I think she is an entertaining and successful writer so I will take that but she also isn’t exactly measured in her writing whereas I like to think I am. Luckily I don’t care enough about the levels of conspiracy thinking involved in that to be offended!

Funny old world we live in.

@JohnPrescottsPyjamas the ‘would I say it’ test is a very sensible one. Maybe we should encourage platforms (incl Mumsnet) to have this on a prompt before you hit post? But it just becomes another pop up to be ignored after a while!

🙄