Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

A Girl Called Jack... time for action?

Ah, I ve found the quote about the Lady Bountiful during WW2, it was Lady Astor addressing an wartime austerity meeting in the East End, she was describing how "a nutritious soup can be made from the head and tail of a fish" when a voice from the back retorted, "Who ate the fish?"..":D
 
Fuck the enemy. I will lead you. A bow and arrow and I will tread all over them.They hate us so lets fill them with bullets.
 
Special bullet arrows?

How to get justice without becoming like those I hate?

I ain't one for internet revenge fantasys and that. Things are messed up plain to see.
 
Last edited:
i don't like it when people respond to criticism of people on benefits having tattoos / tellies / whatnot by saying 'but yeah, i got them when i was working'.

it seems to me that it still plays into the idea that there is hardworking families, down on their luck due to economic circumstances, and grasping skivers who spend their benefits on tattoos & tellies.
 
Jack's riposte to littlecock was great reading. The comments thread on littlecock's hatchet piece was, largely, depressing reading posted by the usual cavalcade of bitter arseholes commenting on any right-wing rag piece. Luckily these days I don't read beyond the first post or two lodged by these knuckledragging mouth-breathers...
 
It's a mistake to respond to the article at all tbh, as if it was some sort of reasoned debate and he wasn't just pulling out every stereotype in the world (somehow she manages to be a Guardian luvvie as well as a feckless single mother and a scrounging doley). He doesn't care and his audience doesn't care and replying to the "points" just puts you on the defensive.

The only response Littlejohn needs is a slap round the chops.
 
killer b said:
i don't like it when people respond to criticism of people on benefits having tattoos / tellies / whatnot by saying 'but yeah, i got them when i was working'.

it seems to me that it still plays into the idea that there is hardworking families, down on their luck due to economic circumstances, and grasping skivers who spend their benefits on tattoos & tellies.
Click to expand...

Tbf if you read his article he was having a go for having spent money on tattoos at all, not because he thought she'd spent benefits on them. If she hadn't spent her wages on tattoos she'd have had money to pay for non-existent overnight childcare I suppose? I don't think he really does joined up thinking.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
It's a mistake to respond to the article at all tbh, as if it was some sort of reasoned debate and he wasn't just pulling out every stereotype in the world (somehow she manages to be a Guardian luvvie as well as a feckless single mother and a scrounging doley). He doesn't care and his audience doesn't care and replying to the "points" just puts you on the defensive.

The only response Littlejohn needs is a slap round the chops.
Click to expand...

As she points out, he's done her a favour really because every time someone shares her blog she gets advertising money.
 
I haven't read his article, but I got the gist from hers. I dont think what he says affects my point though, which is that the narrative Monroe is pushing still allows for the skivers/strivers divide - she's just putting herself on the side of the strivers. its the narrative that should be challenged, not where you are in it.
 
killer b said:
I haven't read his article, but I got the gist from hers. I dont think what he says affects my point though, which is that the narrative Monroe is pushing still allows for the skivers/strivers divide - she's just putting herself on the side of the strivers. its the narrative that should be challenged, not where you are in it.
Click to expand...

Sure. But she also exposes the lie that you can escape this kind of judgemental sneery bollocks by getting a job. You can't, you'll always be a feckless single mum. See that wee lassie who had a hatchet job done on her in a Newsnight interview by Allegra Stratton.
 
killer b said:
what i mean is, her defence seems to be "but i'm not one of them - here's why" rather than a defence of them, which is what is desperately needed atm.
Click to expand...

I'm currently crediting her with having made points that convey the message that no-one is like the stereotypes Littlejohn chucks around.
 
killer b said:
I haven't read his article, but I got the gist from hers. I dont think what he says affects my point though, which is that the narrative Monroe is pushing still allows for the skivers/strivers divide - she's just putting herself on the side of the strivers. its the narrative that should be challenged, not where you are in it.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but I can also see why some writers, especially partisan ones, might be wary of deviating too far from their party's narrative.
 
weepiper said:
Littlejohn's had a predictably loathsome pop at her in the Mail yesterday

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2482111/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Ah-Pesto-Meet-poverty-poster-girls.html?ico=home^headlines
Click to expand...

Does Littlejohn think his readers have the attention spans of mayflies? In the space of a couple of paragraphs he goes from this,

Presumably, the lovely Cait Reilly wasn’t available, on account of the fact that she was in the High Court complaining that being made to work in Poundland in exchange for claiming benefits was ‘slave labour’. She thought she should choose what kind of work she was out of, while continuing to receive the Jobseekers’ Allowance. The court didn’t agree, but did decide that the Government’s initial measures to encourage people into work were legally flawed. The rules have since been changed.
Click to expand...

to this

Incidentally, you may recall Cait Reilly initially claimed that working in a supermarket was an affront to her dignity. So you will be amused to learn she has now got a job — on the check-out in Morrisons. It would appear that Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms are working, after all.
Click to expand...
 
 
Last edited:
weepiper said:
Tbf if you read his article he was having a go for having spent money on tattoos at all, not because he thought she'd spent benefits on them. If she hadn't spent her wages on tattoos she'd have had money to pay for non-existent overnight childcare I suppose? I don't think he really does joined up thinking.
Click to expand...

And yet when I worked on Fleet Street (mid '80s), Littlejohn was well-known for enjoying the company of tattoo'd men (not an insinuation of homosexuality, by the way - he was attracted to being in the company of "hardmen", and was roundly mocked for it!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Voley
What next for Ed Davey, Action Man?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
153
Views
5K
magneze
magneze
danny la rouge
Time is Up for The Times, which is going down the pan, and doesn’t rhyme with pie.
Replies
1
Views
200
SpookyFrank
SpookyFrank
hash tag
Starmergeddon time
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
hash tag
hash tag
D
Kemi Badenoch’s time is up!
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
156
Views
5K
brogdale
brogdale
tim
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's time is up.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
3K
Dom Traynor
Dom Traynor
Back
Top Bottom