- This topic has 51 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Just wondering: in what way has Jade been ‘brave’? and are people who die of cancer in private, and don’t have pictures of themselves looking brave in newspapers – ‘cowards’?
I’m also suprised that nobody has made the point that, for all her raising money for her children – her children are millionaires anyway! How much do they need? More importantly did she give anything to cancer charities?
I know there are probably more appropiate days for making these points but asdfghjkl. She wasn’t Jane Tomlinson.
Well, you miss the point completely in your first paragraph. What a silly question to pose.
1. Her children are not millionaires.
2. She has donated to a cancer charity.
3. Was Jane Tomlinson a better person than Jade Goody?Exactly what is it with people like you?
She died at 5:30am on Mother’s Day, we could start calling it Jane’s Day.
Or we could pass Jane’s Law and make the cervical cancer jab compulsory.
She died at 5:30am on Mother’s Day, we could start calling it
Jane’s
Day.
Or we could pass
Jane’s
Law and make the cervical cancer jab compulsory.
Isnt her name jade?
Just wondering: in what way has Jade been ‘brave’? and are people who die of cancer in private, and don’t have pictures of themselves looking brave in newspapers – ‘cowards’?
I’m also suprised that nobody has made the point that, for all her raising money for her children – her children are millionaires anyway! How much do they need? More importantly did she give anything to cancer charities?
I know there are probably more appropiate days for making these points but asdfghjkl. She wasn’t Jane Tomlinson.
Well, you miss the point completely in your first paragraph. What a silly question to pose.
1. Her children are not millionaires.
2. She has donated to a cancer charity.
3. Was Jane Tomlinson a better person than Jade Goody?Exactly what is it with people like you?
We’re bored of hearing about it?
If she has donated to charity, then that’s great. I’d rather the charity gets the money and I’m proven wrong on an Internet forum than the charity not get any money.
The way that newspapers have been writing about it is counter-productive in a sense – it’s changed a real-life tragedy into a Hallmarks weepie, about a perfect, charming princess who was brave to the end, which is going to make the cynical (or less-easily-manipulated) react against it. The clichés, the Stalinist revision of history – it requires a bit of balance.
And one ‘TV star’ is not equal to 150,000 civilians – that requires a bit of balance too.
I hate to play this card but I’ve known two people who have died of cancer, and another one who is recovering from it. It’s hard to care about this; but then, does anybody care about it really (who didn’t know her personally)? It’s an abstraction: someone people have seen on
TV
has died – people are paying their respects over the
Internet
– all these emotions that have been provoked by, and are directed at, nothing real (to them), floating in an overlit, florescent World – the unreality is near-poetic.
And this isn’t to say that I haven’t felt sad when reading particular books; but the characters were more sympathetic, and the story was told better.
I still don’t believe it and am expecting her to rise on the third day – live on Sky News….
Dave, I think the plan is to have her Canonised and she will become the Patron Saint of the United Kingdom – and we can all celebrate our ‘Britishness’ once a year together.
(expect the Paki’s of course)
I still don’t believe it and am expecting her to rise on the third day – live on Sky News….
Dave, I think the plan is to have her Canonised and she will become the Patron Saint of the United Kingdom – and we can all celebrate our ‘Britishness’ once a year together.
(expect the Paki’s of course)
This just goes to show – I could have
really
done with the Internet when Diana died.
Hang on… Candle In The Wind ’09 anyone?
could not care less….and the fact that the prime minister has to comment on it just shows what a mess this country and this parliament are currently in….
NWRA – I admire your firm stance but i’ll just remind you of some of the comments you made on my thread about "unwanted" and "ungifted" celebrity’s (as I thought you commented on that so read through it and it turns out you did."
"I have a 15-year old cousin who is intrigued by the lives of the famous, finds the spectacle of it all rather amusing – but ultimately know that it’s abstract, far removed from her and her world, and instead concentrates on getting an education. Not every person who passively watches Pop Idol on a Saturday night wants to be famous."
So does your 15 year old cousin think Jade Goody’s illness is "far removed from her and her world." I’m not saying your a hypocrite here, but do you understand how one single person with one single set of views can’t really be "right" on stuff like this – I do now anyway…
"I don’t agree. Nearly every celebrity helps charities, so if that’s a barometer for what makes a celebrity ‘deserving’ or not – then nearly all celebrities are deserving!"
I hope you now see this paragraph for this bollox it was – the only charity dear old Jade helped was the Jade Goody charity…
Bless her all the same.
Regarding the first quotation: I almost wanted to agree because I was too confused to argue otherwise but, no, I think you’re trying it on here!
I said originally that my cousin is not influenced by celebrities (i.e., copying their behaviour, fame-hungry) because ultimately she sees the celebrity World as far removed from her own – like hopefully many teenage girls do though patronising folk believe that all teenagers are idiots without the capacity for independent thought. And you seem to be implying that this must mean (following my logic) that my cousin
doesn’t believe in cancer
(its removed from her World)… because Jade had cancer and she doesn’t believe in Jade Goody
… and its impossible that she was aware of cancer before Jade got it. Also she can’t believe in the colour pink too as that was Jade’s favourite colour. Or something. What?
You have a point in the next quotation. I said that it was stupid that people were making out how great and admirable Jade was for raising money for her sons when it would be far more admirable to raise some for charity too. But in that old thread, I said that, in general, celebrities who raise money for charity aren’t unquestioningly wonderful people – the merest mention of words like ‘mum’ and ‘charity’ makes people too pious. Yes, following this logic, it seems like Jade can’t win. But both of those are rational opinions – and the latter is a generality. I was thinking more of David Beckham being thought of as a saint because he clicked his fingers in an advert.
And yeah it’s absolutely true that ‘one single person with one single set of views can’t really be "right" on stuff like this’ and it’s fine to make that point. But what’s the consequence of that? Posting that at the beginning of every debate thread and then asking the moderator to close it down? Qwertyuiop! Arguing is one of the great joys of the Internet.
One thing that’s disturbed me in all of this is how people involved in palliative care must have cringed at all the overdramatic phrases such as "writhing in agony" and "intolerable pain" that have been bandied about before she died. They’re always reassuring you that they can take care of pain, yet this palava would appear to show that that’s not the case. Can’t have done their PR much good.
I give up , saw yesterday on a magazine rack of tesco a "special" memorial issue of jade goody’s life,could only have had 1 paragraph in it, born in essex, went on tv ,had 2 kids,died.
max clifford deserves a knighthoodOne thing that’s disturbed me in all of this is how people involved in palliative care must have cringed at all the overdramatic phrases such as "writhing in agony" and "intolerable pain" that have been bandied about before she died. They’re always reassuring you that they can take care of pain, yet this palava would appear to show that that’s not the case. Can’t have done their PR much good.
You may have a point Burroughhill, however you could look at it two ways. Being aware that in this case regular checks could possibly prevent or at least stand a better chance of surviving longer could be classed as positive PR whilst as you point out the overdramatic phrases that were reported could possibly be a tad negative. However whichever way you look at it the bare truth is that when the decision is made that there is no more to be done for the cancer then on the whole "intolerable pain" comes with the territory. Yes you can treat the pain but from my experience there are for want of better words side effects that can occur. Hallucinations, not remembering people or where you are, less and less lucid moments etc etc. You don’t want to see loved ones in pain, but neither do you don’t want to see them like a stranger if you know what I mean. Its a lose lose situation. When it gets to that time all you want is for it to end as quickly and as peacefully as possible.
Just a note with regard to those who are involved in palliative care, the nurses who visited my mum every day have my complete admiration and appreciation. They are some of the most cheerful people I have had the pleasure to meet and their positive attitude when they are dealing constantly with death is something to be commended.
Isnt it amazing how 2 years ago people were burning effergies of her and calling her Racist and all names under the sun and now its as if a world leader or a member of the Royal Family has died.
When Kylie and Anastacia had cancer they went away and dealt with it in their own way without selling out to media intrusion.
Now Sky are covering the funeral on Grand National Day, wont be surprized if a Jade related horse wins the race now and the course shows it live on the big screens.
It is a sad of thing of anyone dying of Cancer but the way its been covered in the papers is way OTT, even Mother Theresa didnt get as much coverage.
The problem is at the moment, every newspaper and every magazine is desperate to make sales so they’re all trying to outdo each other with their tributes/photos/interviews. It’s meant that they’re having to outdo each other with their devotion too, trying to make the Jade fans of this World buy THIER tribute issue. It’s just too tacky for words. Celebrity at its worst.
Now Sky are covering the funeral on Grand National Day, wont be surprized if a Jade related horse wins the race.
Afistfullofdollars finishing alone would be the most appropriate winner
I suppose that, as Princess Diana was the patron saint of dysfunctional people everywhere [and I, for one, loved her for it] Jade Goody has now become the patron saint of wannabie celebrities …of which there are many….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.