I must say, I’m rather surprised by the less than sympathetic response to John Prescott’s revelation that he has been suffering from bulimia for many a long year (see, for example, here and here).
Could it be that one man can inspire such loathing that even the revelation of his deep suffering fails to invoke the normal human sympathy people take for granted?
Or could it be that it is not so much Prescott that is loathed, but rather all that he stood for in his time in office? Perhaps Prescott is a convenient focus for the anger and helplessness people feel as a result of the policies of his Government?
Whatever the answer, sympathy for Prescott appears to be a rare thing today. I hope, for his sake, that he doesn’t read those comments.
April 20th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
the man has the morals of a pimp and the sencitivity of a brick he’s part of a government that has sold out the little people. why should we feel sorry for the FAT FOOL
April 20th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I sympathise, because I must admit, well have done so on my blog, to having had borderline Bulimia for years. It is, as you say, something normally associated with women, and I’ve never felt comfortable admitting the scale of the problem in real life.
April 20th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Probably because you don’t get to be that size and stay that size by vomiting up all you eat so his story is just a tad improbable.
April 20th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
When I heard the item on the nwws this morning all I could imagine was the Have I got news for you? team and what they’d say.
April 20th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Having cared, for more than a year, for a sufferer of both anorexia and bulimia I am shocked at the lack of sympathy for Prescott. Any sufferer - even my worst enemy, if I had one - would have my sympathy but I suspect that there is a bit more to the reaction than mere “hatred” of the man himself and his party.
My experience is that that anorexics and/or bulimics are seen as having made a choice to be so and thus are not worthy of sympathy and support in the way that a cancer sufferer would. I had hoped to post a few days ago about this subject but the post got lost in a carer’s life. I may still post.
Forget about Prescott’s morals or life - I don’t support them - and see a man who has suffered an illness.
Imagine how you would feel if your son, daughter or partner suffered.
Imagine how you would feel at the lack of sympathy and support.
Imagine seeing a loved one’s life drain away.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:19 am
I’m not surprised by the lack of sympathy.
Not at all.
Politics has become increasingly poisonous. We’re returning to the era of Pope.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:36 am
Re ”Could it be that one man can inspire such loathing that even the revelation of his deep suffering fails to invoke the normal human sympathy people take for granted?”
I think you have hit the nail on the head there – Except it is not just Prescott, one suspects the reaction might be quite similar if it were many of his colleagues. He may or may not be pleasant enough personally, I don’t know. But what he has done and attempted to do to the rest of us and his party in parliament continues to do means he, or they, will have little sympathy.
What makes Prescott particularly notable is that apparently he could not even manage to ‘succeed’ in being bulimic enough to actually appear slim, surely what those suffering from it aim ultimately for.
So the natural thought is that; if he is actually bulimic, then he is not very bulimic and looking at him, the claim would appear to want a certain degree of credibility - again typical of the man and his government.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:58 am
Do bulemics normally make themselves sick by eating everything on the menu? Surely not, thats just gluttony in the style of the Romans?
Plus as others have alluded, as a previous member of our illustrous govt, could it be that the people no longer believe one fucking word which vomits out of their mouths?
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
it is very simple…. john prescot in this instance is not liked because he does not comfotably fit with what we expect or are familiar with..
For the same reason women who choose not to reveal more of their face than their eyes are vilified while many other women feel naked if they do not cover their faces in grotesque makeup and everyone else walks around in sunglasses…….or gay men used to be arrested while if a child complained about being abused by an adult of the opposit sex they would fifty or so years ago be put into care and not let out again until the 1980’s..
However, what we have become familiar with has become entirely acceptable ie using explosive devises that kill women and children in foreighn countries …stockpiling weapons of mass destruction that can kill millions more that have already been please do not forget fully tested in japan in 1945 (after the government there had already offered to surrender - we are so used to hearing otherwise …that we would be most scared of finding out the truth)…
April 24th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Just to correct a minor point the Japanese offer of surrender was conditional on maintenance of the status of the Emperor rather than the unconditional surrender required by the Potsdam declaration.
Had the Japanese accepted the Potsdam declaration the bombings of Nagasake and Hiroshima would not have taken place, they didn’t.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
reply to reply 10… you have not “corrected me” ..you have confirmed that the inhabitants of the two targets were irradiated on an entirely erroneous excuse.. as the Emperor was left in place anyway…
You could equally say had the uk government come to some kind of agreement with hitler, he would not have blitzed london… actually not only that churchill might have been in a position then to save the lives of 6,000,000 people.. but now that thought is so far out of what is familiar…
May 1st, 2008 at 9:40 pm
true the emperor was left in place but his status was considerably reduced.
Now don’t get me wrong I think that using nuclear weapons was wrong - but not for the insignificant reason you suggest, it was wrong because using weapons of mass destructions is wrong full stop.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Prescott’s autobiography reveals him to be a GLUTTON not a sufferer of a tragic mental illness with serious physical ramifications. He threw up so he could eat more; not due to an obsessive-compulsive disorder linked to low self-worth. Very disingenuous to claim to have bullimia and not helpful to men with the condition.
It is worth comparing the sympathy and respect expressed by voters of all stripes for Charles Kennedy’s brave and dignified public admission that he was receiving treatment for alcoholism.
One of them succumbed to a mental illness. The other one is a greedy git.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Hi Gina, welcome to the blog.
You make a very good point about the difference in response between Charles Kennedy and John Prescott. However, I think that is down to the fact that the one is generally liked, and the other, not so. Consider: if it had been CK with the bulimia and JP with the alcoholism, would the public response have been different? I don’t think so. Perhaps you are being a bit harsh on Prescott? I know he doesn’t engender much public sympathy, but what if he is really telling the truth, and did actually suffer from bulimia?
I didn’t know how to react to the Prescott story. I dislike him as a politician, with all his class-based prejudices, and all he has done to wreck this country. However, I felt a bit bad for him when he spoke about the eating disorder. All said and done, he’s a human being, and I can’t imagine how he must have felt when he realised the public’s reaction to the story.