Thank you for your appreciation, Alexander! Yes, it's absurd, though I'm less finding it terrifying than quite funny these days, because of the absurdity!
Thanks - very interesting. Funny how the super-rich push these narratives. In 2022 the single biggest individual donor to Extinction Rebellion was "Sir” Chris Hohn, ultimate vulture capitalist and former business partner of Rishi Sunak.
Thanks Helen - a very comprehensive report on yet another bloodline family,bought and paid up by the state. Should this make us more tolerant of Ed Plowden as he rubber stamps the wishes of his forefathers to restrict movement of the people? I don't think I would want to swap places, to be honest
I cannot publish here. DM me. If you can from here. I’ve just joined on reading your article. Or if I reply to the email I got from you, will it be private?
Here are my comments. 1. Helen (who, for some cowardly reason, chooses to remain anonymous) has way too much time on her hands. 2. It's really not that great a coincidence that two people with the same surname happen to work in the same field. 3. You do not judge a person on the basis of what other people with the same surname did in the past, rather you judge them on what they are doing now in the present. 4. You cannot apply today's morality to all events that happened in the past, when the morality was not the same. 5. This article is worryingly patriarchal in that it completely ignores the maternal bloodline by only focusing on people with the name Plowden. In short, this is embarrassing, especially when you consider how much time it must have taken. Why not do something productive with your life instead?
It's true that the idiocy of the article did touch a nerve. Shame you didn't address the comments I made, which would have made for a more interesting response.
You're taking this article very personally so I assume you are either a Plowden, closely connected to a Plowden, or just an idiot. The latter being the same as the first two. 75% of writers on Substack are anonymous and it isn't due to cowardice. It's because actual vicious little cowards like you would, if they had the power to do so, probably seek more punitive action against them for producing content they don't like. Is Daniel Winstanley your real name?
The judgement the writer is making is not purely on the basis of a common surname. The judgement is made on the basis of a family history - two totally different things. To characterise an article about a family history as something about ‘common surnames’ is quite a feat of idiotic reductionism.
The writer is not embarrassed and nor are the readers whose comments indicate the content was thoroughly enjoyed. You're projecting your own embarrassment, borne out of sympathy for the Plowden's, onto the author. Get psychological help.
You complain about a patriarchal bent in the article and then you promptly lecture the author to do something productive with her life. So you're being patriarchal, or paternalistic, aren't you?! She's researched a family and its history and shown a firm link between their filthy past and their filthy present. You on the other hand have unproductively written a petulant, personalised, and irrational attack. Where are your articles? Where is your ‘productive’ writing? You can't write at all can you? Why don’t you follow your own advice and write something that someone will actually read, you unproductive little menacing toad. Your profile, such as it is, is pathetic. You have no followers, you subscribe only to this blog, and you've produced nothing. You're a fucking unproductive evil little troll. You are in no position to be a critic here or anywhere else because you haven’t produced anything. Do the world a favour - crawl back under the rock that had, until now, sheltered us from you.
Oh dear, there's a nutter on the loose, his pathetic, angry fingers typing furiously into his overworked keyboard, spewing out (unoriginal) personal insults because he thinks it will be cathartic for him but it probably only makes him more angry than he was already.
My name is as stated. I have nothing to hide. I have just subscribed.
What gives you the authority to know how the author is feeling? Rather presumptuous and patronising.
You would not say the things that you have written to my face, as you well know. And you know what that makes you.
The arrogance, the belief that they have a right to take away our freedom, is just so absurd and terrifying. Thank-you for your work, Helen.
Thank you for your appreciation, Alexander! Yes, it's absurd, though I'm less finding it terrifying than quite funny these days, because of the absurdity!
Thanks - very interesting. Funny how the super-rich push these narratives. In 2022 the single biggest individual donor to Extinction Rebellion was "Sir” Chris Hohn, ultimate vulture capitalist and former business partner of Rishi Sunak.
https://tonyseymour.substack.com/p/about-rishi-sunak
Thanks Tony. That's useful information. It's all so very unpleasant, isn't it?
I also have an interest (obsession) with biography, which started with work on my family history https://tonyseymour.com/
I've posted pieces here about the Starmers
https://tonyseymour.substack.com/p/free-gear-kier-starmer-and-victoria
and
https://tonyseymour.substack.com/p/the-new-labour-background-of-victoria
Fabulous. I may get in touch privately, if that's okay?
Yes please do. I used to work in Keynsham by the way, now retired and Iive in Wells, Somerset.
Brilliant article Helen, great work on all the sleuthing 🧐🧐 very interesting indeed
Thanks Lane2! xx
Thanks Helen - a very comprehensive report on yet another bloodline family,bought and paid up by the state. Should this make us more tolerant of Ed Plowden as he rubber stamps the wishes of his forefathers to restrict movement of the people? I don't think I would want to swap places, to be honest
All correct, and there’s more…
I'm waiting with baited breath!
I cannot publish here. DM me. If you can from here. I’ve just joined on reading your article. Or if I reply to the email I got from you, will it be private?
Yes, the email is private.
Great post, very thoroughly researched.
Thanks Sat!
Here are my comments. 1. Helen (who, for some cowardly reason, chooses to remain anonymous) has way too much time on her hands. 2. It's really not that great a coincidence that two people with the same surname happen to work in the same field. 3. You do not judge a person on the basis of what other people with the same surname did in the past, rather you judge them on what they are doing now in the present. 4. You cannot apply today's morality to all events that happened in the past, when the morality was not the same. 5. This article is worryingly patriarchal in that it completely ignores the maternal bloodline by only focusing on people with the name Plowden. In short, this is embarrassing, especially when you consider how much time it must have taken. Why not do something productive with your life instead?
Well, this has obviously touched a nerve!
Thanks for the paying subscription - definitely makes writing this blog more productive!
It's true that the idiocy of the article did touch a nerve. Shame you didn't address the comments I made, which would have made for a more interesting response.
You're taking this article very personally so I assume you are either a Plowden, closely connected to a Plowden, or just an idiot. The latter being the same as the first two. 75% of writers on Substack are anonymous and it isn't due to cowardice. It's because actual vicious little cowards like you would, if they had the power to do so, probably seek more punitive action against them for producing content they don't like. Is Daniel Winstanley your real name?
The judgement the writer is making is not purely on the basis of a common surname. The judgement is made on the basis of a family history - two totally different things. To characterise an article about a family history as something about ‘common surnames’ is quite a feat of idiotic reductionism.
The writer is not embarrassed and nor are the readers whose comments indicate the content was thoroughly enjoyed. You're projecting your own embarrassment, borne out of sympathy for the Plowden's, onto the author. Get psychological help.
You complain about a patriarchal bent in the article and then you promptly lecture the author to do something productive with her life. So you're being patriarchal, or paternalistic, aren't you?! She's researched a family and its history and shown a firm link between their filthy past and their filthy present. You on the other hand have unproductively written a petulant, personalised, and irrational attack. Where are your articles? Where is your ‘productive’ writing? You can't write at all can you? Why don’t you follow your own advice and write something that someone will actually read, you unproductive little menacing toad. Your profile, such as it is, is pathetic. You have no followers, you subscribe only to this blog, and you've produced nothing. You're a fucking unproductive evil little troll. You are in no position to be a critic here or anywhere else because you haven’t produced anything. Do the world a favour - crawl back under the rock that had, until now, sheltered us from you.
Oh dear, there's a nutter on the loose, his pathetic, angry fingers typing furiously into his overworked keyboard, spewing out (unoriginal) personal insults because he thinks it will be cathartic for him but it probably only makes him more angry than he was already.
My name is as stated. I have nothing to hide. I have just subscribed.
What gives you the authority to know how the author is feeling? Rather presumptuous and patronising.
You would not say the things that you have written to my face, as you well know. And you know what that makes you.