They could have a totally done that in private without writing books/ giving magazine interviews, knowing full well that they were talking balls. It's not just them, it's all celebs. Just because a publisher asks you to vomit up some fake tit in a parenting book doesnt mean you have to do it.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I think her mate’s talking balls about her being clean for 2 years. She was off her face on it for the Jerry Springer interview ( I know someone who was in the audience) and that was in 1999, she died in 2000.
Yes just because your mates/ enablers say things doesnt mean they are true. All the ' she was teetotal' well you can not drink alcohol and still do drugs, I presume!
I thought tee total was no drugs or alcohol. I know someone who did a sponsored Dry January a couple of years ago but was still off his bits on it every weekend, not really Dry January IMO
Exactly. It can mean whatever you want it to mean!I thought tee total was no drugs or alcohol. I know someone who did a sponsored Dry January a couple of years ago but was still off his bits on it every weekend, not really Dry January IMO
I refused to sponsor him cos it’s definitely not my interpretation
like you say you can bend the rules/definition to justify what you want to do!I’d image it’s possible to be a drug addict in recovery and do AP. Mothers doing AP still get some time on their own occasionally. A friend of mine did it, but went to the gym every day for an hour, and occasionally met up with friends for coffee without her baby. She was pretty hardcore about it and at one point it was all she talked about! I think the babies were maybe going to his parents three days a week after she relapsed. There will have been months when peaches was not taking heroin and possible doing AP by the book. Nobody knows. I do believe that she was probably clean and not using when she was pregnant. I see this happen a lot. It’s also possible to use heroin infrequently. Not every addict uses every day, and heroin doesn’t take over every user’s life. I’ve seen people who, for example, only take it at the weekends, or on special occasions. It’s highly addictive, on the most part, but not every addict or user is the same.
It’s odd that Tom at the inquest said that she had been using for only 2 years. We all know that it’s much longer than that if the story from Reddit user with photos of her naked with track marks are anything to go by. He said that they did heroin together. Those photos were taken a good few years before she was with Tom. Ditto the diary entry by her friend saying ‘peaches is coming over to show me how to use heroin’.
It’s odd that Tom at the inquest said that she had been using for only 2 years. We all know that it’s much longer than that if the story from Reddit user with photos of her naked with track marks are anything to go by. He said that they did heroin together. Those photos were taken a good few years before she was with Tom. Ditto the diary entry by her friend saying ‘peaches is coming over to show me how to use heroin’.
That’s the thing nobody knows what kind of mother she was behind closed doors or her own mother for that matter. Paula had a very emotionally distant mother who spent great periods of time away from home and left her in the care of her ‘father’ who was mentally unwell. I’m sure she tried the opposite approach to parenting. Then with Peaches she lost her mom young and I do think she spent the rest of her life trying in vain to feel close to her again. I’m sure she truly believed in attachment parenting but her addictions got in the way. I don’t think because a woman takes a book deal offered to her or speaks about a parenting style she favours means she’s trying to outdo other women. In that case every mother is in competition with each other!
Sorry, I know everyone else is giving them the benefit of the doubt but I just can't do it. And that's not to say I don't have sympathy for Paula or Peaches. But they were both identical in the crazy mad party girl turned earth mother story that just does not ring true. I think both of them wanted to believe in that story but we all know it's a complete myth. Paula pushed the devoted mother cliche but look at the evidence - she was carrying on affairs throughout her marriage and everyone knows that the nanny was raising the girls. By the time she started a relationship with MH there was no way any parenting was happening on her part. I always felt that Tiger was a bit of a trophy to her - the way she dragged her as a baby around to parties draped in muslin was just an awful spectacle. I honestly think babies and children were a lifestyle accessory to her.
The Peaches situation was even more dire - I really don't know what Thomas was thinking having unprotected sex with her while her heroin habit was as bad as it was. There is absolutely no way she was attachment parenting, no way. She couldn't breastfeed and even the last days of her life prove that her in laws were doing a big chunk of childcare even when the babies were so young. It really pisses me off to think she was in the media presenting the image that she was. I'm not saying she didn't love her children but I wonder if this was just another way to make money and stay in the public eye?
The Peaches situation was even more dire - I really don't know what Thomas was thinking having unprotected sex with her while her heroin habit was as bad as it was. There is absolutely no way she was attachment parenting, no way. She couldn't breastfeed and even the last days of her life prove that her in laws were doing a big chunk of childcare even when the babies were so young. It really pisses me off to think she was in the media presenting the image that she was. I'm not saying she didn't love her children but I wonder if this was just another way to make money and stay in the public eye?
I've never seen anything where Tom said he also did heroin?
It's the Reddit user that did heroin with her, not Tom.
I do agree with lala- many people are poor parents- Paula and Bob were and it seems likely peaches was. Just because they wanted to be good doesn’t make them so.
however, this thread has gone to extremes like SS involvement. You are allowed to be a poor parent, SS will only intervene in parenting in rare and specific circumstances. We all know how many people have crap parents.
however, this thread has gone to extremes like SS involvement. You are allowed to be a poor parent, SS will only intervene in parenting in rare and specific circumstances. We all know how many people have crap parents.
Peaches wasn't just a crap parent though - if the babies were born addicted (again this is just speculation from anecdotes about her use) there would have been involvement.
Don't we all use AP at the beginning? I know I did (I think) but I didn't know the term. I've had "velcro" babies who wouldn't settle with anyone else, probably due to breastfeeding. We really had no routine due to feeding on demand and no cot. God it was exhausting!
I think the tabloid media tried to hint that her lifestyle and parenting wasn't what she said it was, but then you had these parenting magazines who ran interviews on the AP stuff. Peaches reinvented herself somewhat from gobby teenager to earth mother in her head at least. It all leads me to believe she was in complete denial about her reality and possibly had some sort of delusion that she was in control. She appeared headstrong and denied any association with drugs, could she really have faced the truth being exposed? I don't think so.
I think the tabloid media tried to hint that her lifestyle and parenting wasn't what she said it was, but then you had these parenting magazines who ran interviews on the AP stuff. Peaches reinvented herself somewhat from gobby teenager to earth mother in her head at least. It all leads me to believe she was in complete denial about her reality and possibly had some sort of delusion that she was in control. She appeared headstrong and denied any association with drugs, could she really have faced the truth being exposed? I don't think so.
I just asked my cousin who is a midwife and she said that absolutely social services would have been aware of the situation (being on a methadone programme would have triggered it). Re Peaches, she mentioned that the likelihood is the baby was taken to the neonatal unit straight away to be weaned off, he may have been given time with Peaches to bond but that would also be under supervision by SS. She also agrees it’s strange how relaxed the family were with Peaches, taking the son to her alone and leaving the baby for 18 hours with no contact (considering the dad was a social worker). I also work with a school and the safeguarding rules are very strict (rightly so) and we do get SS involved where we’re suspect anything serious that leaves the children in a dangerous situation as we have a duty to do so. I think they are involved (albeit vaguely aware) of a lot.
I think others have said pretty much the same but I don’t think it’s wild to think that SS would have had her on their radar.
I think others have said pretty much the same but I don’t think it’s wild to think that SS would have had her on their radar.
I always remember that programme where I think it was Fearne Cotton? Spent the day with Peaches and she was so out of it..distant...she kept falling asleep wherever they went.
so i was in the shower thinking it’s a bit of a false equivalence to compare peaches to a single mum in a council house on a tit housing estate. we didn‘t grow up with this imaginary woman as a constant figure in magazines and the news. peaches got special treatment for being peaches geldof and to say “would you be as upset over a fictional single council house mum” is a bit annoying because YES i would be sad if a mother died leaving her young children alone in the house.
I agree with the poster that said that with Peaches and attachment parenting, it was perhaps 'fake it till you make it' or it was her own customised version of it. Maybe when she was physically with them she was attachment as could be, and she compartmentalized that separately from when the kids were with MIL or when she was using. She was snapped with her kids a lot by the press (or they were tipped off by her) but I can't really picture her wearing her baby in a sling while taking drug tests. She might have kept her attachment parenting separate from her recovery journey to try and cope. And maybe she thought promoting AP and helping to make it popular, that was somehow her good deed, to make up for not being able to live the AP as much as she wanted the public to believe.
I think Paula talked about, or practiced AP when her kids were small; again Peaches could have been trying to connect with her mum and her mum's way of AP was what she knew. Paula was definitely trying to create the perfect domestic family, and not be like her own mother, and it seems Peaches was the same, trying to be better at motherhood than Paula had been.
I think Paula talked about, or practiced AP when her kids were small; again Peaches could have been trying to connect with her mum and her mum's way of AP was what she knew. Paula was definitely trying to create the perfect domestic family, and not be like her own mother, and it seems Peaches was the same, trying to be better at motherhood than Paula had been.
The more I think about it, the more it seems like such a “fake it till you make it” situation. If she hadn’t tragically died she could have kept up the pretence and actually gotten clean and nobody would have been any the wiser. It’s such a shame, she probably thought she had it under control and was doing the best she could.
Actually I think that's true of her. Maybe it was a bit harsh to say she was lying. She probably was deluding herself and truly believed she was some perfect Attachment parent. ( other ' celebs who arent addicts though, they make a career out of pretending to be things they are not).
- Status