Might have just shown her Mediterranean arse there (again). Is she just a useful idiot for these corporations? Thinking about the Google event now.
We know she thinks it's cool to brag about working 'behind the scenes' with various organisations but if she really was involved in some back room dealings with Asda (trips to HO that nobody can vouch for etc.) to the effect that her Asda tweets were #ads she's really stupid to breadcrumb out evidence like this.
I remember in the last thread someone mentioning the 'behind the scenes' government advice will have all been captured, and it also has a retention period as legal requirement, so for Jack to claim she's somehow doing
that off the books sounds kinda... if not illegal then immoral? Just dodgy as
duck? Why does any of this need to be off the table if it's above board?
I just don't understand this mentality of playing up for the comment club to the point she implies or outright states ethical, moral or legal dilemmas. All corporations have mandatory ethics, gift, hospitality, conflict of interest training etc. to protect public image and not step in it but Jack being Jack doesn't have any of that so she consistently sticks her foot in her gob. For example she really doesn't understand why people take umbrage with being hosted by Google and that 'matching money to causes thing' ostensibly for their own PR purposes. I remember one squig pointing out to her that Google are using her 'good name' (lol) for their own benefit and Jack was like "well, no. I looked them in the eye"