Why wouldn’t you have given to the trussel trust?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
To continue from @Lazarus excellent summary, they also refuse to signpost to any other organisations, including in areas that they physically don’t serve - so anyone searching on their website for help isn’t shown any local food banks even if their nearest TT one is miles and miles away. They’re not a business, the other food banks shouldn’t be seen as “competitors” anyway and most other websites do mention others in the area as they realise that anyone searching probably, you know, actually needs the help.
They also don’t operate in some of the most deprived areas, seemingly as a choice. I personally know in one of the most deprived areas in the UK a reputable local bank that has been working with people for 10+ years contacted them willing to pay the £1,600 and the contact was ignored, when chased up they were fobbed off but the vibe was very much “We aren’t interested in helping in that area” - which surely is the very antithesis of a food bank.
Perfectly put by others, putting behind a cut as it’s long and off topic
]the TT don’t provide food to anyone. So the £10 you give won’t feed a family, it goes into “managing” foodbanks 
Their thread is here -
Also worth repeating but Jack Monroe has made food banks/food poverty her personal brand at great financial gain. She has a Patreon account that people can subscribe to donate a sum of money to her monthly in return for nothing. Apologies to link to my own post but I’ve been tracking this on behalf of the thread and running some estimated take home figures for her, last month using a contemporary’s average per subscriber fee as an estimate (as she’s hidden hers) she took home £6k. She doesn’t do any campaigning work or seemingly anything other than sleep and tweet. Link to most recent update here, but people have reached out to the TT concerned and they continue to co sign her. Her latest book had a BOGOF promotion mechanic endorsed by the TT, as if anyone needs a £19.99 book in a CoL crisis above and beyond food? It’s such a patronising attitude assuming people are feckless with money/food and just educating them will eradicate the systemic issues of a low wage high CoL economy.
Their thread is here -
Also worth repeating but Jack Monroe has made food banks/food poverty her personal brand at great financial gain. She has a Patreon account that people can subscribe to donate a sum of money to her monthly in return for nothing. Apologies to link to my own post but I’ve been tracking this on behalf of the thread and running some estimated take home figures for her, last month using a contemporary’s average per subscriber fee as an estimate (as she’s hidden hers) she took home £6k. She doesn’t do any campaigning work or seemingly anything other than sleep and tweet. Link to most recent update here, but people have reached out to the TT concerned and they continue to co sign her. Her latest book had a BOGOF promotion mechanic endorsed by the TT, as if anyone needs a £19.99 book in a CoL crisis above and beyond food? It’s such a patronising attitude assuming people are feckless with money/food and just educating them will eradicate the systemic issues of a low wage high CoL economy.
Jack Monroe #481 The turnip does not pop up far from the swede
Yep. In the Guardian in 2013. Saying exactly what Lee Anderson was vilified for last year, only blaming BIG READYMEAL Lee A Jack M My favourite thing about this little window into the past is that Jack once worried about needing an ice box to safely carry some pies home in. Quite the...
tattle.life
As @Ittybittytittyclub has said (thank you) that has never been confirmed, and if it is true we have no idea of the circumstances.
It’s entirely possible that the children were removed but this will not be allowed to be mentioned during the trial.
Or they may have been removed for a different reason unrelated to anything seen with this case.
Or they may not be alive.
It’s total speculation on tattle based on some photos that someone thinks look like they might be in a supervised contact centre visit, and based on the fact CM follows an anti social services page.
It probably is the case, but it might not be, so it’s not clutching at straws to remember that it’s not an actual known fact.
Obviously this is total speculation as this is just a discussion thread not the jury break out room -
But those photographs of children could also be his children from past relationships and not hers? Which would make total sense as to why there are only a handful of pictures of them, and why some have said that the backgrounds look like contact centres?
I know she’s in anti social services groups but maybe it’s somewhat on his behalf if he has limited contact because of his offending history/DV which feels probable with the v violent nature of his teenage offences?
Idk I just find it weird for someone who has a lot of photographs of their life online and especially as she gets tagged in a lot from gatherings with family/friends that there’s not one of her ever pregnant? Like even if just for her first surely her friends and family would be full of hope that having this child would set her straight and be the end of the chaotic years her mum said she found “challenging” - and there would have been a period of time she was at home with at least the first child so you’d get some of the normal photos of baby life?
Also running with the idea the letters are initials - none of them have either M or G at the end? Which could mean that they’ve taken the birth mother’s surnames…?
But those photographs of children could also be his children from past relationships and not hers? Which would make total sense as to why there are only a handful of pictures of them, and why some have said that the backgrounds look like contact centres?
I know she’s in anti social services groups but maybe it’s somewhat on his behalf if he has limited contact because of his offending history/DV which feels probable with the v violent nature of his teenage offences?
Idk I just find it weird for someone who has a lot of photographs of their life online and especially as she gets tagged in a lot from gatherings with family/friends that there’s not one of her ever pregnant? Like even if just for her first surely her friends and family would be full of hope that having this child would set her straight and be the end of the chaotic years her mum said she found “challenging” - and there would have been a period of time she was at home with at least the first child so you’d get some of the normal photos of baby life?
Also running with the idea the letters are initials - none of them have either M or G at the end? Which could mean that they’ve taken the birth mother’s surnames…?
I can't find her facebook.
Its really weird isnt it?
You'd have to be some kind of person to give birth to your first child in the way she did, even if she didn't plan to do so in a car, she still went unchecked, unmonitored and fled 'home' to have her baby.
And what you guys can see on Facebook is what she wanted the public to see, she might have changed her settings and have thousands of private photos of her children/pregnancy.
But it is really odd that there's just no mention of her other children in the media, maybe there's been a 'gagging order' or suchlike to protect them, which is quite right, poor little thing must've been through a lot.
The angle that their other children have been removed and that they were involved with SS does make sense in most ways though.
If they were their kids, they'd need to be born post-2016 when they met and then she went off the grid so to speak and was isolated with him, so I don't think it's that weird there aren't (public) photos of her pregnant especially as it seemed like most of the comments from her friends on them all were along the lines of how they hadn't seen her in years which lines up.
I know it's not definitely fact that they're their children and they were removed, but it seems by far the most likely possibility.
That’s a really good suggestion.
And an additional reason for him being with her - showing stability and the financial means to support his children (which then clearly went horribly wrong for some reason)
---
I don’t think it’s odd - the media just won’t be allowed to report on any other children. Plus they wouldn’t have access to any details whatsoever to find concrete information, as family courts and their judgements aren’t open to the public are they?
In some cases too the social worker will recommend that a child’s name is changed (especially if very young) where there’s a possibility / risk of a birth parent / family who doesn’t agree with the removal seeking to find the child in future.
Also important to remember that not all cases of children being adopted is forced. Particularly in DV settings it’s not at all rare for a mum to agree to have the children adopted to protect them. This is usually a last resort and done so when a mum works/agrees with SS, so I don’t think it’s what likely happened here (if they even are her kids), but just adding to the discussion.
I keep going back to look as it just doesn’t make sense to me about these other kids. Re us hearing nothing about the children - it sort of makes sense as the press have to be really careful with details of children and especially incredibly vulnerable ones like these LOs are. But that’s what’s made me so suspicious in a way because even in the case of Logan Mwangi his sibling was mentioned from early on, but I can’t remember if that was because he was discovered to be a suspect/perpetrator quite early on…? And his sibling was in the home and under the same care as Logan I suppose, similarly the other child in the home of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes was mentioned from fairly early iirc? But there’s no way of saying I suppose so it’s not comparing apples to apples as all of those cases were far more developed before they hit the scale of press coverage that this one currently has from pre-arrest/discovery of a body so maybe we will find out more about the baby’s siblings in due course. Maybe we won’t especially if these children are under the care of someone else whether it be the state or their bio mums?
Agree re Facebook privacy controls but it’s also very hard to have 100% control sadly, also what made me think ??? again was that some of those commenting were more of her parents’ age than hers, and that generation would mention sensitive subjects like pregnancy or kids on social media? But still, nada.
The whole thing is just so bizarre and beyond comprehension tbh.
do you mean you’d think the commenters on her fb photos would likely have known she was pregnant (because it would have been mentioned before the child was that age) but their comments showed that they were surprised?
It seems fairly certain that whoever the children were, they weren’t involved in being on the run so they won’t be allowed to mention them publicly. Possibly at trial the media may be allowed to report that previously children had been removed from their care (if true ofc) but I wouldn’t expect them to share anything regarding a number or genders etc.
They can only normally mention them in cases where they’re involved, in the Arthur case the other children were in the same house for a lot of the time so it was directly relevant in terms of the difference in treatment between her kids and Arthur.
Poor little loves. It's good that they're protected 
Sorry that wasn’t clear - but just found it odd how some of her older Facebook friends were checking in to hear from her as they hadn’t for a few years, and hadn’t asked how she/the kids were getting on? And this is going back a good few years, none of them at any point have ever made reference to pregnancies or children (that I can see, obvs there may be DMs or private content) which just seems odd. Especially regarding the first pregnancy, I can understand if word had got around about a potential removal etc so people didn’t ask but even so, would your dad’s boating/uni/boarding school chum be privvy to that level of detail and not just vaguely know that Constance had at some point had at least one child?
Idk I just find it incredibly odd. Like I don’t post anything on socials and didn’t post about my pregnancy because it was high risk/I was terrified but even then I had a boomer neighbour leave a comment on my inactive Facebook account about it
I just find it so hard to believe that someone who was so surrounded by friends and family (albeit estranged and estrangement is complicated and there are degrees of and ebbs and flows, imagine even moreso in her social class which is a very small group of people?) wouldn’t have had similar? Not even once? It’s so bizarre.Yes I see what you mean.Sorry that wasn’t clear - but just found it odd how some of her older Facebook friends were checking in to hear from her as they hadn’t for a few years, and hadn’t asked how she/the kids were getting on? And this is going back a good few years, none of them at any point have ever made reference to pregnancies or children (that I can see, obvs there may be DMs or private content) which just seems odd. Especially regarding the first pregnancy, I can understand if word had got around about a potential removal etc so people didn’t ask but even so, would your dad’s boating/uni/boarding school chum be privvy to that level of detail and not just vaguely know that Constance had at some point had at least one child?
Idk I just find it incredibly odd. Like I don’t post anything on socials and didn’t post about my pregnancy because it was high risk/I was terrified but even then I had a boomer neighbour leave a comment on my inactive Facebook account about it
You’d think one of her parents would have shared about the birth of a grandchild - especially a first grandchild - and word would get round from there or something.
Unless they were so estranged that they didn’t know.
Agree and this is always a possibility. And hearing about the areas she was living in (Eltham, Ilford, then choosing to stay around East Ham when on the run) it’s not as if they’d have bumped into anyone from
high society who could have fed back to friends/family and it gotten through the grape vine. And idk how easy that is to do in a social media age? There’s a comment from a girl who seemed to be DMing her at some point, whether that was years and years prior or in the months before that comment who knows. But she’s achieved… something… to keep such a big piece of news (times 3?) completely away from all friends and family. Especially with posting pics of them, not one person said oh wow isn’t x grown or wow how time flies as if they could know for definite they were hers? It’s just so odd.Grandpa was too busy posting about the flat earth and aliens
I wonder if Uncle Maximillian Augustus posted anything about them?
It's as if they never existed.
It's a bloody shame, I have little understanding about how SS works and if it wouldn't be an option but it really does seem like they haven't been placed with family members.
Says it all really.
There’s strict guidelines on who acts as your ‘nearest relative’ in terms of notification and contact for your care if you are sectioned, under a community treatment order, or a guardianship.
It falls to your spouse first, which includes your co-habiting partner if you’ve been living together for at least 6 months…. It’s possible for someone’s parents to have no idea of what’s happening if an adult child is unwell and has a co-habiting partner who doesn’t contact them.
The last few years could be a complete mystery to her parents, if any significant MH situations have occurred.
www.mind.org.uk
It falls to your spouse first, which includes your co-habiting partner if you’ve been living together for at least 6 months…. It’s possible for someone’s parents to have no idea of what’s happening if an adult child is unwell and has a co-habiting partner who doesn’t contact them.
The last few years could be a complete mystery to her parents, if any significant MH situations have occurred.
What is a nearest relative?
Learn what a nearest relative is if you have been sectioned, are under guardianship or CTO, including who your nearest relative might be.
www.mind.org.uk
- Status