All of the recipes have this on it, which is good for the charity, and I suppose it’s her prerogative to link to herself but it feels off all the same.
View attachment 352059
It might have been nice if she could be bothered to say anything about the charity for example the work they do. But no, she can’t be arsed - she’s just posted the name of the charity and a text donation number, the absolute bare minimum. And what her target audience want to donate something other than £5? Less, for example? Which is fine, especially if they’re on a really tight budget. No information on that!
If she can’t add an affiliate link, she’s not interested.
Never heard the taste of gravy described as "succulent" before. I feel rather queasy.
"If you notice any errors DM me discreetly"
Can I point out that you can't DM any other way?
“Squiggles, please check my work for me.” Cheeky cow.
Well the whole things a fucking mess, Jack, how about that?
It’s absolutely baffling that she has completely re-worked this meal from the version she did for St Giles Trust and the Express only last weekend. Not only that, but she’s done it for a reduced cost per head. I can’t imagine either the charity or the paper are hugely impressed. It’s like she half-arsed the original meal and has now decided she can do a better job. Incredibly unprofessional. And all this just so that she can bolster her income from her website (each of the new version of these recipes now comes complete with ads, affiliate links and a link to the tip jar).
Let’s face it, she was only interested in doing that article because of the me me me interview, in which she graciously devoted merely 2 sentences to the charity. Her ego is absolutely monstrous, it clouds everything she does