She's definitely stuck in her year 9 phase!I feel sad that she needs to make her life sound interesting. She tries so hard to be edgy,quirky, mouthy, vibrant, exciting, talented etc but she's is none of these things and due to this after the initial burst of look at me I did something, she reverts back to the quiet little mouse sitting in the corner. I think during this time the narc in her craves more attention so she goes all out again but either adopts a new persona or goes tits out into a chaos of the highest proportions.
This is very interesting. Also these pics are public and usually got people, I assume friends in the background. Why don't they do more to encourage her not to drink. I don't encourage my mates to drink if they don't want to. Never have.OK, so here we go - the sobriety timeline.
January 2016: Jack does Dry January...and her accounts! Truly a different era.
View attachment 917599
February 2016. Dry January is over, time to celebrate.
View attachment 917600
August 2016. Jack goes sober.
View attachment 917601
...but not for long.
View attachment 917602
September 2016: Jack limits herself to one drink a day.
View attachment 917603
It doesn't last, either.
View attachment 917604
October 2016: Jack has a drinking problem!
View attachment 917605
December 2016: Gin o'clock
View attachment 917606
March 2017: Jack is off the booze for Lent. Notice that last October's sobriety has been downgraded from recovering from alcoholism to just Sober October.
View attachment 917607
7 days later. Lent is not over, sobriety is.
View attachment 917608
April 2017. Jack goes sober again, this time for longer, and celebrates with sexy kumquat pics.
View attachment 917609
View attachment 917610
View attachment 917611
October 2017. She's starting again.
View attachment 917612
December 2017. No she isn't!
View attachment 917613
Then nothing until January 2019 and the infamous Guardian column:
View attachment 917614
View attachment 917615
Had to share this, I think it may be the least appetising thing she's ever cooked.
View attachment 917616
The Kumquat origin post is my fave - she dyes it during a bout of insomnia!Thanks all for the nice comments! Wading through Jack's Insta is always a bizarre (and sloppy) experience, although at least most of her sobriety content came before the dreaded hands-clutching-bowls era.
A lot of it feels very much like attention seeking. I've mentioned before that my dad was an alcoholic, and I vividly remember the physical symptoms that accompanied his attempts to get sober. If she was really drinking a bottle of gin a night over a prolonged period, she wouldn't get over it and be skipping merrily around after a few days...
The interesting thing about her Insta is how the various issues du jour slowly fade - for a while she's the most trans person ever, then that disappears. She's a hardcore political activist, until she isn't. She regularly takes up running, commits to a marathon, has a ton of Garmin photos for a few weeks, then quietly gives up. Her vegan period is probably the funniest because she quite clearly gives it up but lies about it. So for years she continues to get comments asking, perfectly innocently, "Ooh, how did you make it vegan?" and her responses are super defensive.
Interestingly the kumquat era was also a thirst trap phase (around the time she was getting together with LJC). There are a LOT of sexy boudoir kumquat shots. I mean, it's a look...
The fuck is that?!!!
Because British people are weird about drink. I’m learning just how weird. I can’t drink anymore and in the last month, probably double figures of people have encouraged me to just have 1/ have a few. We’re on holiday and a friend whatapped me last night hoping I am drinking.This is very interesting. Also these pics are public and usually got people, I assume friends in the background. Why don't they do more to encourage her not to drink. I don't encourage my mates to drink if they don't want to. Never have.
Hello, I know with more application I may be able to figure this out for myself, (emphasis on the may be able to) but could someone explain the turd pudding funding to me?
I have got as far as a grant that Bristol Council are using to ensure children are fed in school breaks, however wouldn't this be separate from Netflix/Aardman funding to promote their movie and wouldn't that be used to pay for Jack? and, hopefully, the contents of the pudding?
The Bristol Sports Foundation seems like an interesting beast. I can't be bothered to look into it in great detail, but I'm not sure what qualifies them to teach kids about cooking and nutrition.
Depressing that Bristol Council chose to spend the money there instead of just giving the cash to families to feed themselves.
This makes me sad. I definitely would have asked for a celeb who would have done the job for the money to go back into the charity. They don't need to take money from kids mouths to find their mansions.Back of a beermat sketch here [caveat - the actual workings may be slightly different, but it's a general overview of commercial businesses and brands going into the social sector because it's an alternative income streamwhen you can't get anymore money out of your target demographics];
The Government gives local authorities an amount of funding designed to be spread over the period in order to ensure that vulnerable children are fed. Some places plough as much as possible into vouchers so that parents can make their own choices and maximise the amount that is actually spent on food, rather than the cut that JM amongst others were screaming blue murder about the school catering contractors taking. Some have also used a proportion to support public transport so that parents in food deserts can access larger supermarkets that have a wider and more affordable selection. But there is potentially scope for some of this to be spent on cocaine and alcohol, according to some Tory MPs and shitrags (JM also screamed loud and long about this IIRC). And it doesn't necessarily allow for physically checking in on children, seeing if they're fed, uninjured, have social connections, etc.
So whilst councils still have discretion in how to spend it - Bristol put a part into £15 supermarket vouchers for half term, for example, as the system was there, the voucher provider is experienced, it's been working well since just after the initial teething problems in scaling up an employee perk system into a nationwide social benefit supplier, getting the supermarkets in agreement (as they don't get the full £15, the procurement organisation/voucher company take a cut to fund the staff, computer system, that it has to be paid up front, etc) - it is possible for authorities to allocate money to external providers; holiday clubs, where one of the key requirements is that the children receive a full, nutritious meal as part of attending. There are limitations in that it excludes those who can't afford to get buses to providers, the most vulnerable are likely to get be allowed to attend, not everybody can book online due to lack of access to the internet, etc. But in itself, the idea isn't so bad.
The devil is in the detail.
Where an authority has decided that no, we aren't spending a penny on giving parents agency (and money) to feed their children over the Christmas holidays - a time when for at least a week, I'm willing to bet that there won't be holiday hubs/clubs open anyhow and the cost of heating is probably more of a concern than getting a kid onto the bus and back five times at a cost each way for the week they are open - they have then in some cases, turned to private companies. Like the one concerned here, which is linked to a very fancy 'this is how to increase brand engagement' marketing company. Those companies cost a lot.
The marketing/brand company may be tasked with identifying avenues for other income streams. Such as approaching media/film/entertainment companies with 'Look, the brand has all this money from Governmentand is taking their cut. If you wanted to, we could tie the promotion of your most current product into this, thus increasing the likelihood thatdeprivedchildren will be aware of your product and demand to see it/their parents take out Netflix/and increase the market for merchandise. It would also,as it targets the most deprived familiesassist with increasing awareness in a broader range of ethnicities.
Netflix goes 'OK, but how do we make this more interesting than ''Netflix have allowed branding/sponsorship''?'
Company says 'We get a celebrity in to cook with somesuitably photogenic and diversechildren, thus enhancing your Social Responsibility profile because you're providing food in your contribution, whilst also encouraging further purchasing of Netflix subscriptions and branded goods'.
Netflix: 'Oh, sounds good. We were thinking that as you're representing a sports brand that maybe we could have Marcus Rashford?'
Company: 'Uh, he's tied to another football team, so that won't be possible, unfortunately. But we will have a sleb. Not too expensive - we don't want to distract away from the Netflix brand/filmor have you too interested in who it is so you don't insist on due diligence.'
Netflix: 'Oh, OK. We don't really need to be dealing with that side, that's operational and not our problem, anyhow. We just want access. So this payment goes directly to the company you're representing, yes?'
Company: 'Absolutely'.
Sports company therefore has Government money and uses some of it to pay for staff, etc. Sports company takes their cut. Sports company has Netflix money. Might use some of it to pay for allergen filled ingredients so that council can't say 'that's not a healthy meal, we want the money back'. But most of it goes into the sports company accounts. It's an expensiveand highly profitablebusiness, this hoovering up grants and sponsorship. But it's all part of sport. It's the Game.
Advertising/marketing company takes large cut in the form of a fee.
The sort of money being talked about is so large that the appearance fee for a minorwhite, middleclass and middleagedsleb is mere chickenfeed. To them - just not to the people who would far rather have had thirty quid per child in order to feed their children a proper Christmas dinner and other meals over the period.
An excellent breakdown there Flaggony D. I’m just actually shocked at Bristol Council, aren’t they particularly left wing? I’ve just looked and it’s a Labour Council where the largest opposition party is Green!Back of a beermat sketch here [caveat - the actual workings may be slightly different, but it's a general overview of commercial businesses and brands going into the social sector because it's an alternative income streamwhen you can't get anymore money out of your target demographics];
The Government gives local authorities an amount of funding designed to be spread over the period in order to ensure that vulnerable children are fed. Some places plough as much as possible into vouchers so that parents can make their own choices and maximise the amount that is actually spent on food, rather than the cut that JM amongst others were screaming blue murder about the school catering contractors taking. Some have also used a proportion to support public transport so that parents in food deserts can access larger supermarkets that have a wider and more affordable selection. But there is potentially scope for some of this to be spent on cocaine and alcohol, according to some Tory MPs and shitrags (JM also screamed loud and long about this IIRC). And it doesn't necessarily allow for physically checking in on children, seeing if they're fed, uninjured, have social connections, etc.
So whilst councils still have discretion in how to spend it - Bristol put a part into £15 supermarket vouchers for half term, for example, as the system was there, the voucher provider is experienced, it's been working well since just after the initial teething problems in scaling up an employee perk system into a nationwide social benefit supplier, getting the supermarkets in agreement (as they don't get the full £15, the procurement organisation/voucher company take a cut to fund the staff, computer system, that it has to be paid up front, etc) - it is possible for authorities to allocate money to external providers; holiday clubs, where one of the key requirements is that the children receive a full, nutritious meal as part of attending. There are limitations in that it excludes those who can't afford to get buses to providers, the most vulnerable are likely to get be allowed to attend, not everybody can book online due to lack of access to the internet, etc. But in itself, the idea isn't so bad.
The devil is in the detail.
Where an authority has decided that no, we aren't spending a penny on giving parents agency (and money) to feed their children over the Christmas holidays - a time when for at least a week, I'm willing to bet that there won't be holiday hubs/clubs open anyhow and the cost of heating is probably more of a concern than getting a kid onto the bus and back five times at a cost each way for the week they are open - they have then in some cases, turned to private companies. Like the one concerned here, which is linked to a very fancy 'this is how to increase brand engagement' marketing company. Those companies cost a lot.
The marketing/brand company may be tasked with identifying avenues for other income streams. Such as approaching media/film/entertainment companies with 'Look, the brand has all this money from Governmentand is taking their cut. If you wanted to, we could tie the promotion of your most current product into this, thus increasing the likelihood thatdeprivedchildren will be aware of your product and demand to see it/their parents take out Netflix/and increase the market for merchandise. It would also,as it targets the most deprived familiesassist with increasing awareness in a broader range of ethnicities.
Netflix goes 'OK, but how do we make this more interesting than ''Netflix have allowed branding/sponsorship''?'
Company says 'We get a celebrity in to cook with somesuitably photogenic and diversechildren, thus enhancing your Social Responsibility profile because you're providing food in your contribution, whilst also encouraging further purchasing of Netflix subscriptions and branded goods'.
Netflix: 'Oh, sounds good. We were thinking that as you're representing a sports brand that maybe we could have Marcus Rashford?'
Company: 'Uh, he's tied to another football team, so that won't be possible, unfortunately. But we will have a sleb. Not too expensive - we don't want to distract away from the Netflix brand/filmor have you too interested in who it is so you don't insist on due diligence.'
Netflix: 'Oh, OK. We don't really need to be dealing with that side, that's operational and not our problem, anyhow. We just want access. So this payment goes directly to the company you're representing, yes?'
Company: 'Absolutely'.
Sports company therefore has Government money and uses some of it to pay for staff, etc. Sports company takes their cut. Sports company has Netflix money. Might use some of it to pay for allergen filled ingredients so that council can't say 'that's not a healthy meal, we want the money back'. But most of it goes into the sports company accounts. It's an expensiveand highly profitablebusiness, this hoovering up grants and sponsorship. But it's all part of sport. It's the Game.
Advertising/marketing company takes large cut in the form of a fee.
The sort of money being talked about is so large that the appearance fee for a minorwhite, middleclass and middleagedsleb is mere chickenfeed. To them - just not to the people who would far rather have had thirty quid per child in order to feed their children a proper Christmas dinner and other meals over the period.
To give an idea of the sorts of figures we're talking about, the going rate for qualified staff to agree to look after children for a week - which included just being there as a qualified first aider for five days in summer, not the Christmas period and not actually having to run the activities or interact with children beyond dealing with injuriesor anaphylaxis due to the ingredients including ground nuts- was a thousand pounds. Then there would be a manager or two, then the admin/finance staff. Add on a sleb performance fee, possibly travel and accommodation, and we're talking yet another five figure sum just on their involvement alone.
Agree completely, but this *is* her well paying job.Especially if you have a well paying job.
Mine did on my bed, shortly after we got home from a long walk in which she peed several times.
As mentioned previously too, her food is family friendly either. She is relying on the fact that children will have a palate that will appreciate blended fish or eggy slop.Agree completely, but this *is* her well paying job.
It’s clear her output is poor, even when she did manage to get a quote in a gov report it was shit. The only reason anyone hires her is to tick a box, what value could she possibly provide to a Tory think tank or a political conference? If they actually cared they’d liase with people currently living in poverty or possibly more ethically universities who are doing proper quantifiable peer reviewed research with those people and other data sources?
Similarly with big brands, they just have a CSR box to tick. The books are sold under the guise of them being a great food bank donation, or for vulnerable/poor people you know. Talking head appearances speaking on behalf of actual poor people, taking the fee that could help heat their homes for the winter. She doesn’t actually have a skill set outside a list of dubious marginalised IDs that she flogs to the highest bidder, even if it’s the Express or the Sun
ETA: dragon thank you for that v in depth explanation, truly stunned.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?