To never want anyone to champion Jack Monroe again?

[SuperScrimper]

After what she has tweeted about David Cameron. here

Like him or loathe him to describe the way he talks about his deceased son as 'misty eyed' and used for political gain is disgusting.

The greatest loss any of us can imagine is the loss of a child. Shock horror, even politician have real feeling. It's just awful that she would say that about another parent.

I don't care what she can do with a bloody lentil. Something's are just too low.

I think DC would sell his own mother for the Tories. He is totally genuine in his suffering over his child and he is totally happy to allow that to be known for political gain. he is 100% political animal, he doesn't distinguish, his life is all on and never off. I think, any way.

why does anyone think those two things would be mutually exclusive?

She is also on my list of people I really do not like. Not entirely sure why but she does come across as 'ooh look at me, I'm dead controversial and outspoken' and yes, she uses her family for her own gains, maybe in not the same way , but really, clean up your own garden before trashing someone else's.

Haha at I expect she lives in Islington

I won't Lovecat.

Parenting and losing a disabled child has given him an understanding of what is involved with caring for a disabled child, the value of good healthcare, and how awful it is for your child to die.

But none of this has stopped him systematically and deliberately dismantling the NHS.

Therefore, one of the following three things must be true: he is stupid, he is callous, or he is lying.

I used to love jack Monroe, but I think maybe I brought into the media projection.

I'm a single parent too and have had many times when I have struggled and still do, so really felt what she was trying to do.

I met her not so long ago. I was really disappointed. She couldn't even pretend to be interested in my heartfelt ' well done, hurrah the single parents' her and allegra were awfully drunk and quite rude/smutty in an inappropriate way and when she was cooking she seemed to not have much idea what she was doing. .

I feel a bit sad that she has crossed the line. She might feel that but there are other ways to say it I think.

So it's alright for Emily Thornberry to bang on about how she lived in a council house or Rachel Reeves to tell lies about how impoverished her school is, but if David Cameron points out his family use public services it's wrong?

This is just another example of how vile the left are. They're quick to berate other people for offending them but they thing they have a right to do and say appalling things to people who oppose them politically.

A few weeks ago people were demanding Littlewoods sack Myleene Klass for voicing a political view they disagreed with. This week the same people are saying taunting someone about their dead son is acceptable.

All it boils down to is thinking you have the right to abuse people just because they disagree with you politically.

What I really object to is the whole 'misty eyed' its so patronising, like he's faking the tears. His son did actually die. Whatever she may thing about hi in sure he doesn't have to squeeze them out.

No-one doubts that the tears are genuine. But the point is that they arise in the context of him choosing to introduce the subject of his son into speeches and debates when he doesn't have to. I know that, for instance, talking about the recent death of my father will make me tearful: for that reason I would never, never mention him in a work context.

We all know that Cameron sat down and carefully prepared the speech he made at the Conservative Party conference - indeed he made a point of saying so when criticising Miliband for making a speech off the cuff. He therefore decided to introduce that section about his son to support the (non-valid) point that it must therefore mean that he wouldn't put NHS services for children at risk. He must have known that mentioning his son was very likely to have an emotional effect on him and his wife, that it might well make him cry, but he went ahead. So why did he do that? He could perfectly well have made the point without mentioning his son once. It's very difficult indeed to avoid the conclusion that he and his speechwriters knew that getting emotional about his child would go down well and make an emotional high point in the speech, and would make it hard for anyone to criticise him.

And that is utterly cynical, and is the reason why it is not wrong to criticise him.

No-one has said Cameron is wrong to point out that his family use public services. What is wrong is using them in a very cynical, emotive way to shut down public debate about what he is doing to public services.

'This is just another example of how vile the left are.'

'All it boils down to is thinking you have the right to abuse people just because they disagree with you politically.'

Sweeping statement about all on the left followed by a complaint that people abuse those with differing political beliefs.

'So it's alright for Emily Thornberry to bang on about how she lived in a council house or Rachel Reeves to tell lies about how impoverished her school is, but if David Cameron points out his family use public services it's wrong?'

Who is doing that? Jack Monroe? Has she declared herself a Labour supporter?

MackerelofFact, please can you tell me how he has 'systematically dismantled' the NHS. Last time I looked it was still there. And it was Labour who brought in private companies to run parts of the NHS. Not Cameron. Care to back your claim up?

It's cynical, manipulative and most importantly, it's in the service of Doing the Wrong Thing.

Lego Google Jack Monroe Labour and the first thing that comes up is an interview where she says 'I'm a Labour voter, I've never hidden that.'

I haven't abused anybody.

So she votes for the party who did the exact thing she's complaining about. Nice line in hypocrisy there.

I also think we live in a democracy with a noble tradition of free speech.

I disagree with many people but I agree that they have the right to say things i don't like, I don't agree with, offend me, shock me.

This is free speech and long may it last, it isn't a perfect system but I'd rather live here than anywhere else on the planet.

Loving the UK and her relatively open mind!

I don't see what's comparable between DC's behaviour in the House of Commons, (or indeed calling him on that behaviour) and JM retweeting abusive tweets.

If someone sends you abuse on twitter, you retweet it, to make the abuse public. You don't keep it a secret for their personal benefit. If they're happy to send abuse, surely they're happy for all and sundry to see it?

And surely it is entirely in keeping for person A(in this case Jack Monroe) to call person B (David Cameron) and persons C through Z (assorted twitter trolls) on their behaviour?

YABU. Why do people have this bizarre idea that doing one thing wrong (not that I agree that she did) takes away anything about them thats good? Do you need everyone to be paragons of virtue at all times?

The woman blogs about food. She's really rather good at it. An opinion she gave doesn't change that. Why would you think it would?

And to be so obsessed about this idea that you not only switch to a wholly negative position, you also demand everyone else does too?

Unreal. I despair about people after ten minutes on aibu. So much weirdness abounds.

Privatising part of the QMC in nottingham is the best thing that's happened to the hospital.

As for the "I met her and she wasn't what I wanted her to be, I was disappointed" ...thats so many kinds of wrong its hard to know where to start.

We do not have free speech. People who believe that are misinformed. That's the U.S., not here. We actually have laws which curtail free speech. We neither have the right to free speech or a guarantee of it in the UK. And the most enthusiastic curtailers of free speech are normally on the left wing. The left wing is constantly taking offence and shutting down debate yet they don't feel that people who oppose them politically deserve the same courtesy.

Another day, another Twit-storm. It's a medium that seems designed to push people into gleefully giving and taking offence.

LegoAdventCalendar, yes, she is a Labour supporter. And the phrase 'our NHS' is a giveaway - it's one of the latest Labour buzz-phrases.

Never mind the proliferation of expensive PFI contracts under the last government, never mind the destruction of out-of-hours GP and the availability of NHS dental services. Never mind mid-Staffs. Labour set up the NHS so it is 'theirs' in perpetuity. Never mind what they do, only what they say is important. Labour has become an elaborate con-trick. That is not to say that I agree with any sell-off btw.

I just wonder if she'd have said what she wrote to his face? It's a good rule-of-thumb in theory, not so easy in practice.

Nobody compared his behaviour in the commons to abusive tweets. Taunting someone about their dead child to make a political point then complaining someone has not been very nice to you on Twitter is hypocritical. Complaining about something that was done by the party you publicly and vocally support and blaming it on someone else is hypocritical. Deliberately provoking people then complaining when they get provoked is hypocritical.

What people should talk more about is what it is like living in the USA.
Our NHS is unaffordable at this moment in time given its broad offering.
It perhaps has promised too much over the last 40 years, promised more than the country can afford; I blame the medical profession for that as much as any political party. Specialisms grown into fiefdoms, power centres and funding pools for the drug companies. If the government had real teeth it could wrestle much better deals out of the drug companies than it has now.

My sister worked for a GP once and asked
"why are we doing this drug trial? it's a pretty dubious medication isn't it?" and the GP shouted at her "how do you think I can pay the school fees without these trials!" so she shut up.

The NHS does need to be affordable but then we don't want to ape America where no one can afford to get sick or old (except the top 10%, 15%) and the insurance companies run the whole shebang based on pure profiteering and little else. If anyone thinks it's a good idea you are massively deranged imho. Few people can really afford to get sick or old in the USA. And we shouldn't stagger into their way of doing it if we can help it.