Webchat with Daisy Goodwin, lunchtime, Tues 23 June

[GeraldineMumsnet]

As requested and promised, Daisy has accepted our invite and is coming on next Tuesday (exact time to be confirmed, but probably around 1pm). Get there early to bag your place.

[sallyjaygorce]

Oh - meant to say - I LOVE poetry and my life would be much poorer without it so I do love her for all that. Her anthologies are very twee but with some good content. And any poetry programming is good. Without poetry over the last three years I would probably have had a serious breakdown. Nothing else distills a moment of emotion so immediately and so intimately for me. Except music sometimes. So I have to like her for that.

[AitchTwoOh]

romane writing, not a great programme imo because it was all about her going on a course and tbh who cares about that? but i think it mentioned georgette heyer so scored highly with me for that. nearly called dd2 georgette. lol.

apart from that was she something to do with jamie oliver? and i think how clean your house, house doctor, property ladder, all that grabby but secretly enjoyable pre-crunch shite.

[ahundredtimes]

I like poetry too, v. much. Though I did read it before Daisy

[hunkermunker]

I think it's a good idea to appoint a chief inquisitor.

It gets a bit descendy otherwise, as you say.

Harpsi would be good.

[AitchTwoOh]

yy spark debate, there isn't only one way, i bought books when i had mine and got all neurotic etc etc... Daisy, we don't want to hear that tbh. you said it before, during the furore, and none of us bought it then. so skip it, will ya?

i think a few questioners would be good, 100x. or at least a few agreed questions that must be answered properly, without flannel, composed with the thought that she'll be corresponding with women who are every bit as smart as she is uppermost in her mind.

[morningpaper]

I think I should be tied to a chair with Policywonk

Not generally, you understand, just for the webchat

[ahundredtimes]

And Grand Designs too.

Right I am going to have leave this thread now. It makes me anxious. I also once spent precious hours of my life defending Tony Parsons fgs because I hate the rude live chats so much I need to get over myself. I need to get cross

[hunkermunker]

I've sparked debate before, as have we all and we've not stood back and allowed babies to be abused on television in the process.

[AitchTwoOh]

...even if they're not that great at punctuating long phrases.

[AitchTwoOh]

PW is very cute, MP. you'd make a lovely couple.

[policywonk]

Could we be tied to a large sofa instead? With cake, booze and a box-set of the West Wing? Then you can all ask DG whatever you like.

[morningpaper]

We would be unfortunately I never sleep with people whose thighs are smaller than mine

[morningpaper]

the West Wing now you are talking

[policywonk]

Don't be anxious 100x. We all think you're right about the rudeness stuff. It's not a great way to get people to open up.

I'm sensing that Hunker is still maintaining dangerous underlying levels of crossness, mind. More KoolAid needed.

[AitchTwoOh]

exactly, that's the whole point. i think too often these things become such a slanging match that a. it's mortifying and b. the schleb gets to wriggle off the hook. not good on either count, imo.

i thought tony parsons was a good laugh, actually. his was one of the better chats that i can recall. although i rarely read them now, precisely because of the mob element.

[hunkermunker]

Nah, I'm cucumber cool, me.

But I've been very strict with myself recently - I don't make eye contact once it's dark and I don't comfort myself however loudly I scream at nap time, so I've well and truly broken my spirit...

[sallyjaygorce]

Do you think those parents carried on with all that Auschwitz stuff once the prog was over? Or did they rush over scoop them back into loving arms?

[ahundredtimes]

Okay. My final thought is that she made, imo, a critical professional error in making that programme. I honestly want to know whether she agrees. I don't think this error makes her a bad human being or morally suspect or in any way deserving of being bullied or taunted.

I can see absolutely how a lifestyle programming department would think parenting babies - post supernanny etc - was the next thing to move into, and it was a mistake. People make mistakes. I'd like her to talk about that mistake. Your thoughts please Daisy?

[AitchTwoOh]

i remember that they had a quote on claire verity's website some time afterwards saying how great it was all working... so sadly i presume not, sal.

hinker, goingnowhere wanted someoen to confirm the stat for women who want to bf versus women still doing it at one month/six months etc. do you know it off the top of your head?

[AitchTwoOh]

i think supernanny was mistake as well, tbh.

see... apart from the bringing up baby prog and her bitchy breastfeeding articles i'm not much interested in her. she was just a jobbing producer who got picked to be some tv totty, i prefer an expert, by and large.

[hunkermunker]

Does that help at all?

And 90% of women who stop in the first six weeks wanted to continue.

The NCT website used to have a MARVELLOUS page on it with all the stats, but they redesigned it and it's crap now - you can't find anything useful.

100x, I agree - it was the next logical step. And commissioners aren't the most, er, ethical beasts [ratings are king]

There are too many channels anyway. Bring back the days of having enough fingers on one hand to count the available channels, I say.

[hunkermunker]

Am also not a fan of Supernanny.

Dr Tanya Byron had the right idea when she stopped doing these progs [integrity]

The children in them ought not to have consent given for them by the lunatics who've dragged them to the brink of "delinquency" in the first place, surely? Not the babies, obv, no such thing as hooligan babies.

[AitchTwoOh]

but that's what's interesting, it was the next logical step, esp in light of the commodification of babies.

BUT DG is setting herself up as a parenting commentator with these articles in the DM, she's blethering about the ethics of pretend high heels for little bubs etc, always mentioning her own children.

and imo, with that programme on her record she has no right to do so, because she was complicit in the emotional abuse of very small babies and at the time defended it.

would she have put her own tiny babies forward for television experimentation, i wonder?

[funnypeculiar]

Agree with the idea of a chief inquisitor/inquisitorial team to lead the questions on BUB itself might be sensible - otherwise huge potential for rude shouty vituberance (is that a word?) Like MP's original question.

Assume tiktok/hunker will cover bf.

I will try and think of a nice, friendly poetry question, to give her a little break between vipers.

And will avoid any 'Nigella of Poetry' comments.
Although maybe that's a compliment...

All power to her for entering the lion's den, though.

[hunkermunker]

Very good question.

Beeny might not show houses she's developed herself, but there's a bit of a difference there!

I do agree, 100x, that the pile-on is never a good look - but I hope Daisy realises that there's a difference between an orchestrated attack (which is v rare indeed) and an "oh, look, lots of people have the same opinion as me and I can't know when they're posting, so it might look like we're ganging up".