Jack Monroe #543 All her pasta recipes scream ‘run to the bog’ more than ‘come to bed’

[VeniVidiVicki]

New thread!

Title by @SouthendRealEstate nommed by @Lazarus

You both win a pasta dish of your choice from guest.

Jack is being very quiet. Some might say too quiet. So we’re just mithering over her greatest hits. Or misses.

Noobs - wiki up there in the pink button

* Mod edit *

Please keep RB discussion that’s not directly related to Jack to the relevant threads.

No need to ask for someone to make a new thread. Either do it yourself or keep quiet!

 

[Seaford Haggington]

Guest was silent. There was much mithering. There was a minor canal chaos over the work history of the guest after a former colleague identified themselves on the hellsite and ancient Instagram posts were scrutinised. TLDR: nothing she says adds up.

 

[MooBelle]

Well I'm watching SoP for the first time since I was at school.
Greenbelt looks utterly tit.

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

I personally think I believe Jack on the RB thing. Whether he was her official sponsor or not, WFK - I can see them having an unofficial thing as easily as an official one.

For me, she said it too early on for it to be explained away by she got it through LJC working on dispatches, and crucially LJC herself seems very professional so I can’t see her discussing something so sensitive that was in the very early stages with any partner but especially not Jack, if she even knew the details herself at that stage.

There’s just something about Jack’s description that rings very true based on what has come out over the past few days. Yes she’s a liar but bad things can still happen to liars and as I mithered in the previous thread, that in itself gives her a certain level of vulnerability when faced with a higher profile figure.

The final thing that tips the scale for me is that we know RB is like that. If she’s lying, she’s not smearing an innocent man. He is what he is regardless of whether Jack was one of the many targets or not. As it doesn’t affect my opinion of him either way, I’d far rather believe Jack and have it turn out she’s lying and I’m a gullible twit than not believe her and it turns out to be the truth.

 

[MooBelle]

I've not seen Jack on it yet, but just a few observations...
There's a lot of children there, thousands. Children appear to be heavily catered for and it looks to be a fun weekend for little ones. Jack seems to have never taken SB. I can understand a 12 yo not wanting to go but why didn't she take him before? When she was declared a prophet couple of years back? Toddler SB would have had a lovely time but obviously it was all about Jack so he was unnecessary.
There's a lot of guitars and dry pubs.
I can understand now why she thinks her poetry and singing are amazing. Some bloke singing a song he wrote about a foodbank is on a lyrical level with Jack's 'a child with a pocket full of stones 'poem. It is very cringe.
There seems to be a lot of panels of people. Not seen Jack yet but it is the type of thing she thinks she's good at. 'People are poor and we must do these things to help them' type of thing.
Going back in...

 

[People-huv-tae-know]

Just mithering back to the previous thread for a mo.

Thrifty kitchen that's supposed to help poor people during a COL but will hopefully sell enough to make her a homeowner. So bleeping tone deaf.
Also twisting her words again. She's blamed Jonny for her leaving the fire service for years. And hydrangeas do duck all in spring. They bloom in summer. She is a deluded bleep.

However I do believe her story about Brand could be true. The only other thing that naked sense in light of new information is that has regurgitated someone else's experience (did LJC tell her or did guest rilummahe through her notes/work)?
My narc opened and read our post, listened on the ext. phone if any of us had a call, had surveillance cameras in the house, nosed through my possessions and had to know everything I'd done at school. We were not allowed out either. He had to have absolute control. He controlled my mum's finances too. This was pre mobile phones but I know he would have controlled that too. So I can imagine guest snopping through various partners mobiles or laptops.

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

Just mithering back to the previous thread for a mo.
View attachment 2455130

Thrifty kitchen that's supposed to help poor people during a COL but will hopefully sell enough to make her a homeowner. So bleeping tone deaf.
Also twisting her words again. She's blamed Jonny for her leaving the fire service for years. And hydrangeas do duck all in spring. They bloom in summer. She is a deluded bleep.

However I do believe her story about Brand could be true. The only other thing that naked sense in light of new information is that has regurgitated someone else's experience (did LJC tell her or did guest rilummahe through her notes/work)?
My narc opened and read our post, listened on the ext. phone if any of us had a call, had surveillance cameras in the house, nosed through my possessions and had to know everything I'd done at school. We were not allowed out either. He had to have absolute control. He controlled my mum's finances too. This was pre mobile phones but I know he would have controlled that too. So I can imagine guest snopping through various partners mobiles or laptops.

I can see guest snooping but it would be on LJC to make sure nobody could snoop on important work calls etc. All of the women were anonymous on the TV show so at a minimum there should have been no written notes that weren’t locked away whenever she left her desk, anything on her computer should be locked and encrypted etc. It’s on LJC to protect data like that to the strongest possible extent and she seems from what I know of her very professional and like someone who would take that seriously.

To be honest I don’t believe she ever had even a mildly important video call at Jack’s home that wasn’t an absolute emergency/story breaking right then (which this wouldn’t be) or something that was already released to the public anyway (covid stats etc) - it would be too much of a risk that not only Jack but even more that SB could overhear and repeat something. She was the head of news, she’d have been allowed to travel back and forth to the office for work related purposes.

 

[YerDa]

I personally think I believe Jack on the RB thing. Whether he was her official sponsor or not, WFK - I can see them having an unofficial thing as easily as an official one.

For me, she said it too early on for it to be explained away by she got it through LJC working on dispatches, and crucially LJC herself seems very professional so I can’t see her discussing something so sensitive that was in the very early stages with any partner but especially not Jack, if she even knew the details herself at that stage.

There’s just something about Jack’s description that rings very true based on what has come out over the past few days. Yes she’s a liar but bad things can still happen to liars and as I mithered in the previous thread, that in itself gives her a certain level of vulnerability when faced with a higher profile figure.

The final thing that tips the scale for me is that we know RB is like that. If she’s lying, she’s not smearing an innocent man. He is what he is regardless of whether Jack was one of the many targets or not. As it doesn’t affect my opinion of him either way, I’d far rather believe Jack and have it turn out she’s lying and I’m a gullible twit than not believe her and it turns out to be the truth.

She’s probably telling her “truth” (in that there are some aspects of truth in a mangled version of events she’s chosen to publish and partially delete) and it’s truly regrettable that her incessant lies make the reality impossible to discern or to believe if she ever chose to reveal it. Women who are abused always have their past veracity and virtue questioned, as if that should ever be relevant, and this behaviour diminishes the battle against that questioning.

 

[Jelly Bean]

She’s probably telling her “truth” (in that there are some aspects of truth in a mangled version of events she’s chosen to publish and partially delete) and it’s truly regrettable that her incessant lies make the reality impossible to discern or to believe if she ever chose to reveal it. Women who are abused always have their past veracity and virtue questioned, as if that should ever be relevant, and this behaviour diminishes the battle against that questioning.

I know that sadly women's actions around abuse are often challenged as they aren't always deemed logical to an outsider - 'but why didn't you just do xyz?' - and at the risk of doing exactly the same to guest, it is odd she included Brand in her book.
I would not be at all surprised if something inappropriate did happen with him, and horrible for her if so. Just as usual with her it is complicated.

 

[witchofwestbyfleet]

I believe the story about being sexually harassed by the AA sponsor is true especially if indeed it's Brand. I don't believe they were dating/flirting at the time he'd just had his first child, yes he's sleazy enough to do that but that story screams being made up for attention like basically everything else guest posted on MrsGloss&TheGoss

 

[YerDa]

I know that sadly women's actions around abuse are often challenged as they aren't always deemed logical to an outsider - 'but why didn't you just do xyz?' - and at the risk of doing exactly the same to guest, it is odd she included Brand in her book.
I would not be at all surprised if something inappropriate did happen with him, and horrible for her if so. Just as usual with her it is complicated.

If I’m generous it might be a way of controlling the narrative - but I actually believe those people were named in an attempt to get them to feel obliged to publicise the book. She’s as shallow as the non-existent puddle she found the Burberry scarf in.

 

[MavisBeacon]

I know that sadly women's actions around abuse are often challenged as they aren't always deemed logical to an outsider - 'but why didn't you just do xyz?' - and at the risk of doing exactly the same to guest, it is odd she included Brand in her book.
I would not be at all surprised if something inappropriate did happen with him, and horrible for her if so. Just as usual with her it is complicated.

Personally, I can well believe that Brand may have acted inappropriately towards her. It's clear to me that he preyed on vulnerable women, including those he met through AA, and regardless of how much I think guest is a lying narc bleep, she was/is vulnerable as and addict and someone with mental health issues. But at the same time, she's also a total narc famewhore and will do anything to make people think she's in with the celeb crowd, hence the ridiculous namedropping in Grifty Kitchen. It must have been tough for her to discover her famous new best pal was a sex pest. And very distasteful that she still kept his name in the book even after that.

Also, Eamonn Holmes! what a pathetic deluded hanger-on

 

[Jelly Bean]

If I’m generous it might be a way of controlling the narrative - but I actually believe those people were named in an attempt to get them to feel obliged to publicise the book. She’s as shallow as the non-existent puddle she found the Burberry scarf in.

Yes 100%. No doubt it was done cynically. Even if just Lineker and Osman had promoted it to their millions of followers she would probably be laughing all the way to the bank.
They were probably all sent free copies. And as far as I know nobody in acknowledgements promoted it

(ETA she slipped up not naming Sara Cox who actually has promoted her stuff).

 

[Sideboard Bob]

Yes 100%. No doubt it was done cynically. Even if just Lineker and Osman had promoted it to their millions of followers she would probably be laughing all the way to the bank.
They were probably all sent free copies. And as far as I know nobody in acknowledgements promoted it

(ETA she slipped up not naming Sara Cox who actually has promoted her stuff).

Haha, good point, Sara Cox really loves that dhal recipe!

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

If I’m generous it might be a way of controlling the narrative - but I actually believe those people were named in an attempt to get them to feel obliged to publicise the book. She’s as shallow as the non-existent puddle she found the Burberry scarf in.

She may well have thought if she’d put up with his treatment then she may as well use his name and get something out of it.

It’s a tricky one because unfortunately bad things don’t exclusively happen to people who make “good” victims and a lot of predators do prey on that, choosing people who’s background will be questioned for a variety of reasons both within and outwith their control. Someone who won’t be believed for whatever reason is therefore inherently vulnerable and people don’t like to admit that because it brings uncomfortable reality to the “We believe the victims unless they’re not perfect” narrative. Jack isn’t the first to be in this position and she won’t be the last either.

 

[blueorchid]

Is this silence longer than the one in February when she de-activated?

 

[Hunsgraveyard]

Is this silence longer than the one in February when she de-activated?

We must be approaching record timescales now?

 

[YerDa]

She may well have thought if she’d put up with his treatment then she may as well use his name and get something out of it.

It’s a tricky one because unfortunately bad things don’t exclusively happen to people who make “good” victims and a lot of predators do prey on that, choosing people who’s background will be questioned for a variety of reasons both within and outwith their control. Someone who won’t be believed for whatever reason is therefore inherently vulnerable and people don’t like to admit that because it brings uncomfortable reality to the “We believe the victims unless they’re not perfect” narrative. Jack isn’t the first to be in this position and she won’t be the last either.

Yeah, as I said previously about her incessant and incomprehensible lying about absolutely everything: “Women who are abused always have their past veracity and virtue questioned, as if that should ever be relevant, and this behaviour diminishes the battle against that questioning.” Until the day that calling out and punishing abuse isn’t automatically accompanied by judgement of the victims, compulsive, vicious liars are toxic to the whole process. I really hope she keeps whatever she has to say between her and three therapists on speed dial*.

*I know, they don’t exist. It’s yet another torturous pity-me to top up her coffers so she can attempt to fill her empty, friendless soul** with more tat.

**Not convinced this exists either.

 

[Seaford Haggington]

We must be approaching record timescales now?

The last new tweet was on 26 August. The last reply and like were on 27 August.

 

[corneliahosendove]

but I actually believe those people were named in an attempt to get them to feel obliged to publicise the book. She’s as shallow as the non-existent puddle she found the Burberry scarf in.

I agree that they were in there with the expectation that they would tweet about the book as well as to make Jack feel all special. The fact that there was zero acknowledgement from any of them is flipping hilarious.
Reading the rest of the thank you section she also mentions a lot of normals / non celebs too. Some of these would seem to be those (apparently) involved in the complex epic making of the book but no actual job roles mentioned. Usually thanks are 'to my editor - first name last name etc I'm thinking no-one but Jack will admit they 'worked' on this book. . Others indicate personal relationships - the gentle scooper uppers and Jack nursemaids. If they exist wouldn't at least just one of them posted on a public social media? If a mate that I was that close with published a book or released music & mentioned me in the comments I would definitely absolutely show that off publicly.
The promotion and reception that book received was pitiful. I'm off to check the amazon reviews.