It's so obviously complete and utter bollocks. There is no way that between Jack's benefit income, her parents and SBs family, sufficient food could not have been provided to ensure Jack and SB did not starve. On the one hand she boasts about her parents would always make a jacket potato and space at the table for a foster child at short notice but somehow couldn't afford to do the same for her and her son.
Every time this comes up as a discussion on these threads, I'm reminded of the Guardian article where she thanks SB’s dad and said he is the kindest, most decent man to ever walk the face of the earth.
i remember months ago, during a sabbatical from here, when I closed my old account, there was a post on Facebook (guardian or some other page, I don’t recall). Anyway, I said in the comments her story was full of holes - like that’s literally all I said, and there was such a pile-on that I deleted my comment.
those people think that means they’ve won the argument when in actual fact it means nothing of the sort. They were
bleeping horrible, and one made a comment on my personal appearance.
i literally made one comment and that’s what I got. She stands for this and accepts it, and posts lies which they’re too blind to see, such as the SB’s dad.
which is it? He’s either a saint or he let his child live in a damp, freezing, dark home with no food.