Stella McCartney is not a vegan but a lifelong vegetarian, inherited from her mother, Linda. It is difficult to call-her-out (as a vegan ‘influencer’) as it’s well known that vegetarians consume and wear animal derivatives, and in reality they may be saving the meat animals, however, in essence, they are not. Veal calves are a direct result of vegetarianism, as are the calves and male chicks killed because the animal-ag industry considers them as waste. And last time I looked, fish are animals, so vegetarianism is a conundrum. Some people use vegetarianism as a stepping-stone to veganism, some use it as a diet, which should never be the case. Veganism is a way-of-life, not a fad.

The problem with Stella McCartney’s fashions are that she uses many man-made fibres, responsibly-sourced as such, yet uses silk, which is a most barbaric practice perpetrated on the worms. Boil a kettle and tip a minute drop onto your hand, and then understand that silk worms endure boiling alive over a period until they are dead.

Billie Eilish, singer. Claims to be vegan since 2014, yet wears ‘trainers’ suspiciously leather, and poses in luxury leather-trimmed cars. She ought to know how leather is sourced and no amount of her adjustment of veganism is going to be acceptable, the rules are clear: no animal derivatives in any-way-shape-or-form Most fans (in her case) will only be interested in her singing and fashion-sense, not what she is eating. I doubt many fans have converted to veganism and if they have, she should show checkable-data. Even if she has managed to ‘convert’, fans will believe leather is vegan on the basis of her wearing of it. It is very poor ‘influencing’ at best, diabolical at worst.

Lewis Hamilton. ‘Celebrity vegan’ that has his own ideas on veganism. It seems his partnership with Hilfiger includes silk and wool items. I don’t know what Hamilton’s idea of veganism is, but abuse of silk worms and sheep/goats/alpacas’ is not a part of the movement. All he is doing is sending out the wrong message to anyone ‘influenced’ by his bullshit rhetoric. He may have a plant-based diet, but he is not a vegan, despite the misleading memes. Hamilton, stick to racing cars, leave the ethical minutiae to real vegans. If you do read this, skip to the page where silk worms are boiled alive, you’ll get an understanding on why silk is not vegan.

This lady trades under the name ‘VEGAN GAZE’ @theflemface on Twitter. She has already been exposed in an interview where she admitted she was a con-artist once she knew the game-was-up. Vegan Gaze assures me that it is a ‘parody’ about ex-vegans and I don’t know how I missed that in the title and credits of the film. It begs-the-question: why? Why is it necessary to make a spoof on corrupt fake vegans? It only serves to bring veganism into disrepute. As for ‘spending so much money on her channel than she earns,’ is that why she has a ‘Patreon’ account? Either way, she is poncing. What’s really amusing is the cronies hoping to park their shoes under her bed. She and they are so triggered they are retweeting and ‘liking’ giving more publicity to the post.

The laughing emojis have now disappeared from her tweets. How expensive is it to operate a ‘You Tube’ channel? It seems the cost is prohibitive enough to hold out the begging-bowl of ‘Patreon’ to support one’s ‘art,’ ‘writing’ and ‘parody’ films. Is it the general malais of the technological-age that poncing to support one’s ambitions is the-done-thing rather than achieving a notable status of recognition by one’s talents in a stand-alone initiative? Sometimes ‘parody’ turns into dangerous self-parody, no matter how self-important one believes they are. Hurling juxtopositional verbiage at this PO is both jejune and solipsistic, thereby reinforcing the failings of the ‘Patreon Ponce’.

As the was-it wasn’t-it saga continues, the lady in question rallies her sycophantic minions for moral support and decides to do a ‘live stream’. This includes a petty tete a tete on FB in which her inarticulate ranting along with wild accusations and convoluted drivel takes precedence over facts. The question is: is the film ‘parody’? If it is, it’s in bad-taste. Why would anyone demean the vegan movement with third-rate arty-farty nonsense. There has been vegan influencers caught-out and exposed. There has been ex-vegans denigrating the movement. It’s best to leave them to their own devices. To parody them for some obscure ’15 minutes of fame’ is irresponsible. It brings attention to the vegan movement and is used by anti-vegan detractors to subject the movement to ridicule. I’m told that is speculative thinking by someone that can’t show a reference point for their assertion.

I look forward to the future ‘parodies’ by this erstwhile ‘artist’ (who says poncing money is correct because nothing should be ”free”) especially ‘seal clubbing,’ ‘farm animal slaughter,’ (pigs being gassed would be interesting) and well, anything to do with animals in general. Some things are taboo and egotistically using one’s influence to orchestrate cheap laughs among dilettante brown-nosing lickspittles is insecure and a cause for concern. ‘Parody’ or no, ‘VEGAN GAZE’ has shown herself to be insidiously unworthy of being taken seriously. In answer to one of her more stupid tweets, yes, it is fine to make a film concerning fake vegans. It’s called an expose, especially when the film is made not by me but the transgressor’s sordid hands. Making a ‘parody’ film for viral hits, and ego is not worth the bandwidth.

In her incandescent rage at ‘Dave’ she claims her ‘parody’ is ‘parody’ and should be viewed as ‘parody’. No-one has ever said anything about her ‘parody’ other than her and her gang. Anyway, she promised a live-stream in order to ‘get-to-the-bottom’ of things and so with the gallery watching, waiting for the big moment when the ‘artiste’ would arrive with a fully prepared script to deliver the mother of all rational explanations the result was a damp-squib. Her FB comments were incoherent, inarticulate and incomprehensible. and frankly, gibberish.