Social influencers threatening legal action

Cria

Over the past few months I have noticed not just on boards but on Facebook groups that when matters that social influencers make very public (even an interview with a newspaper ) are discussed on these platforms they contact these hosts to delete or edit comments so far IMO Rosie Connelly and MUF are the worst offenders by far ... is it wrong to discuss something they made public on forums ect that are designed for these type of conversations ..do these influencers not realise screenshots are taken of these conversations and shared people private message each other the info why are they trying to control what is said .. if it was private information they never spoke about I would completely understand

allym

Cria wrote: »

Over the past few months I have noticed not just on boards but on Facebook groups that when matters that social influencers make very public (even an interview with a newspaper ) are discussed on these platforms they contact these hosts to delete or edit comments so far IMO Rosie Connelly and MUF are the worst offenders by far ... is it wrong to discuss something they made public on forums ect that are designed for these type of conversations ..do these influencers not realise screenshots are taken of these conversations and shared people private message each other the info why are they trying to control what is said .. if it was private information they never spoke about I would completely understand

You see it’s fine to discuss things that are in the public sphere that are positive.

Anything negative, even though it’s things they themselves have put out there, it’s not allowed.

You know love and light and all that bull

Cria

allym wrote: »

You see it’s fine to discuss things that are in the public sphere that are positive.

Anything negative, even though it’s things they themselves have put out there, it’s not allowed.

You know love and light and all that bull

What is the point of a platform that people sign up to to have discussions about things that are up for public consumption it makes me wonder when things are deleted by the request of the person discussed are the right moderators assigned to the correct threads ect like the moderator that deleted my comments concerning Rosie Connelly do they know who she is have they followed her have they seen the interview she did where she misinformed the public about a situation that was publicly corrected by her partners sons mother ,,, this is out there it was put out there by Rosie herself she chose to not tell the truth in public and was called out on it and now it’s being discussed,, there are no legal repercussions to this subject so why edit these posts

heyjude88

I think a certain jewellery *designer* has been the worst culprit so far .

If it’s not positive it’s a legal letter or threat. Bizzare. What’s worse is the hosts bowing to their demands

Cria

heyjude88 wrote: »

I think a certain jewellery *designer* has been the worst culprit so far .

If it’s not positive it’s a legal letter or threat. Bizzare. What’s worse is the hosts bowing to their demands

I just cannot get over how quickly they delete when they are not familiar with the person or what’s out in the public domain ,, it makes these platforms pointless

Emmser

Cria wrote: »

I just cannot get over how quickly they delete when they are not familiar with the person or what’s out in the public domain ,, it makes these platforms pointless

I can't use Reddit! I've downloaded the app and can't find anything on it! Could someone share a link. Many thanks all.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Boards really showing themselves up though of what's lost them thousands of members, censoring reasonable discussion on a discussion board, who'd have thunked it. You're allowed an opinion as long as it's the right one

Cria

Emmser wrote: »

I can't use Reddit! I've downloaded the app and can't find anything on it! Could someone share a link. Many thanks all.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CommentCollector/comments/7dl2ei/rbloggers_irish_bloggers_releasing_products_by/


Try this

dudara

Caspian Disgusting Crowd wrote: »

Boards really showing themselves up though of what's lost them thousands of members, censoring reasonable discussion on a discussion board, who'd have thunked it. You're allowed an opinion as long as it's the right one

The cost of fighting a defamation case in court, for something said by one of your members, is not something that Boards really wishes to bear. Please try to understand why Boards takes the position it does. It's not done out of a desire to shut down discussion, but of a desire to avoid complicated, lengthy and expensive legal actions.

If you want to discuss further, I recommend you contact Boards HQ.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

dudara wrote: »

The cost of fighting a defamation case in court, for something said by one of your members, is not something that Boards really wishes to bear. Please try to understand why Boards takes the position it does. It's not done out of a desire to shut down discussion, but of a desire to avoid complicated, lengthy and expensive legal actions.

If you want to discuss further, I recommend you contact Boards HQ.

So how come it's fine to discuss Al Porter for his alleged sexual assault misconduct however if you mention a company buying goods from Ali express or a public figure discussing intimate (untrue) details of their partners relationship with his other child it's deleted or heavily edited. I can understand boards not wanting to end up fighting a lengthy battle in court but there is nothing being discussed outside of what these people themselves have published. They're being caught out in what they're saying as there's material to contradict them online, but you dare not mention it just because they've paid a private company (not a legal team) 360 euro a year to hush discussion about them or their company. It's absurd. There is no other group afforded the same level of protection.

Boards have found themselves the past couple of years losing a lot of posts and members and have taken huge steps to make the site seem more alive than it actually has. They've lost huge numbers to other discussion sites as discussed to death on multiple feedback threads because of censored discussion and it's no secret it has a reputation as being an echo chamber.

This is a great example of the attitude people have had a problem with for years. Nobody expects you to allow posters run amuck but heavily editing true and accurate and easily proved arguements just because someone doesn't like them isn't how a discussion board works.

And tbh dudara, I take on board what you're saying about boards HQ but I have absolutely no interest as they've never been of any assistance to me in the past when I've had posts swiped from this site and used elsewhere to try unmask me. "The office" and the admins at the time assured others that they'd help a poster who ended up being site banned to keep the unmaskings off public threads. However when I asked privately for help I was told there was nothing youse could do. "The office" never once made any public warnings or brought it to users attention that this was a known issue and left their users in the dark. I don't even care if I'm site banned for this post. I'm almost at 20k posts, I've been an active member for a very long time but I'm past the point of giving a sh1t about boards because I have no desire to have opinions that fit in an echo chamber.

njs030

dudara wrote: »

The cost of fighting a defamation case in court, for something said by one of your members, is not something that Boards really wishes to bear. Please try to understand why Boards takes the position it does. It's not done out of a desire to shut down discussion, but of a desire to avoid complicated, lengthy and expensive legal actions.

If you want to discuss further, I recommend you contact Boards HQ.

While I understand this I find it odd that on other threads boards allowed defamatory comments about individuals by the same poster multiple times and no action was taken other than deleting the individuals name, yet when boards is threatened by people like these drama queens they jump and delete entire threads!
It seems like boards is only interested in their bottom line rather than upholding the law and being anyway fair.

dudara

The Terms of Use outlines things in more detail, but in essence, posters are responsible for the material they post. However, that doesn't stop people from making complaints to Boards or even launching legal action against Boards.

Boards may remove material posted on threads on foot of requests received into the office. This is the reason why some posts have been removed in the past. In addition, Reported Posts often bring potentially troublesome material to the attention of mods, who may make a decision to remove it. You may not see it, but the thread you reference in AH has been subject to extremely heavy moderation already in an effort to avoid issues. We don't get get it all but we do our best.

This will sound like a cliché, but if posters want the right to speak 100% freely, then they can start their own website or other platform. The legal environment in Ireland means that Boards has to protect itself, or else simply, there may not be a Boards in future. Some people will never be happy with how we try to keep the whole site going, but there you go.

dudara

The Terms of Use outlines things in more detail, but in essence, posters are responsible for the material they post. However, that doesn't stop people from making complaints to Boards or even launching legal action against Boards.

Boards may remove material posted on threads on foot of requests received into the office. This is the reason why some posts have been removed in the past. In addition, Reported Posts often bring potentially troublesome material to the attention of mods, who may make a decision to remove it. You may not see it, but the thread you reference in AH has been subject to extremely heavy moderation already in an effort to avoid issues. We don't get get it all but we do our best.

This will sound like a cliché, but if posters want the right to speak 100% freely, then they can start their own website or other platform. The legal environment in Ireland means that Boards has to protect itself, or else simply, there may not be a Boards in future. Some people will never be happy with how we try to keep the whole site going, but there you go.

jimmynokia

Would this be a similar reason to why the indo stopped commets on site, as stated by them for a while "comments removed due to drachonian libel laws favouring claimants" ???

dudara

I can't comment for the Indo. But I personally do think it's somewhat farcical how threats of spurious legal action can interfere with sites.

It's also worth considering that we live in an unparalleled age of broadcast. In the past, people couldn't publish or broadcast their thoughts as easily as they can now. Newspaper editors, journalists etc were familiar with defamation and knew what to say and not to say . That's all different now, as everyone potentially has a voice.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

dudara wrote: »

The Terms of Use outlines things in more detail, but in essence, posters are responsible for the material they post. However, that doesn't stop people from making complaints to Boards or even launching legal action against Boards.

Boards may remove material posted on threads on foot of requests received into the office. This is the reason why some posts have been removed in the past. In addition, Reported Posts often bring potentially troublesome material to the attention of mods, who may make a decision to remove it. You may not see it, but the thread you reference in AH has been subject to extremely heavy moderation already in an effort to avoid issues. We don't get get it all but we do our best.

This will sound like a cliché, but if posters want the right to speak 100% freely, then they can start their own website or other platform. The legal environment in Ireland means that Boards has to protect itself, or else simply, there may not be a Boards in future. Some people will never be happy with how we try to keep the whole site going, but there you go.

Or they'll do what they've been doing for years, so much so, boards had to hide the closed account status so as not to put off new members. They'll close accounts and go elsewhere, and boards will continue to ask for feedback and spend money on new layouts in the hope the site doesn't die

jimmynokia

dudara wrote:

It's also worth considering that we live in an unparalleled age of broadcast. In the past, people couldn't publish or broadcast their thoughts as easily as they can now. Newspaper editors, journalists etc were familiar with defamation and knew what to say and not to say . That's all different now, as everyone potentially has a voice.

dudara wrote:

I can't comment for the Indo. But I personally do think it's somewhat farcical how threats of spurious legal action can interfere with sites.

True it's gone so sensitive now free speech and all that but you can see what direction we are going now.

dudara

My personal blog topic involves reviewing, and I'm always very conscious of what I say and how it could be interpreted. I don't want an aggrieved venue or person coming after me.

This is a very interesting topic to be fair. Many bloggers would be conscious not to cross lines when they post.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Of course and any sort of gossip or defamation should be knocked on the head and not tolerated. However, if someone chooses to market themselves as a public figure and receive thousands of euro to have brands use their platform to advertise, they are opening themselves up to correction.

Speculating or discussing rumours or personal information that hasn't been made public is one thing but discussing something themselves bring to the publics attention is something different

dudara

I don't disagree with you in a way. Once information is in the public domain, it's got its own life.

retro:electro

Can I ask this- once Boards receives a cease and desist or something similar is there any attempt on your end to maybe try and see if their claim is in fact justified? Or is it a case of just folding to their advances and removing everything they've asked just because it's not worth the headache?

Because a lot of the time we are talking about information that is publically available. Only the other day we were discussing an article released online before we were prompted to "keep it civil and remain on topic"..
But surely discussing the contents of the article is okay, right?
I just think it's very easy to send cease and desist letters and threaten everyone into silence, but surely public content is going to be publicly consumed?

dudara

Honestly anna080, I’m not 100% sure of the answer to that. Legal communications are directed to HQ and they make the call on how to proceed.

My thoughts are that just because information is in the public domain doesn’t permit all forms of discussion. Speculation on foot of publicly available information could be problematic. Sticking to clear cold facts is always best. Speculation or personal comments is where it starts to go grey IMO.

bucketybuck

Are the so called social influencers who issue those legal notices permanently banned from this site?

On many websites threatening legal action is grounds for immediate banning, so I assume that they are, yes?

dudara

Boards has a policy of banning access for anyone who threatens legal action. This policy has been in place for many years, long before the advent of social influencers. The basic logic behind this approach is that once matters go legal, all communications need to go through the correct channels.

SeanHarty

dudara wrote: »

The Terms of Use outlines things in more detail, but in essence, posters are responsible for the material they post. However, that doesn't stop people from making complaints to Boards or even launching legal action against Boards.

Boards may remove material posted on threads on foot of requests received into the office. This is the reason why some posts have been removed in the past. In addition, Reported Posts often bring potentially troublesome material to the attention of mods, who may make a decision to remove it. You may not see it, but the thread you reference in AH has been subject to extremely heavy moderation already in an effort to avoid issues. We don't get get it all but we do our best.

This will sound like a cliché, but if posters want the right to speak 100% freely, then they can start their own website or other platform. The legal environment in Ireland means that Boards has to protect itself, or else simply, there may not be a Boards in future. Some people will never be happy with how we try to keep the whole site going, but there you go.

so basically bloggers have you guys on speed dial and the second they see something they don't like they report it and yous bend over to take it down..... alright.....:rolleyes:

ace_irl

Don't know if anyone heard it yesterday on Q102 drive at 5, but there was an interesting discussion regarding social media and websites around the whole defamation suit issue.

Not sure if main stream media is picking up on bloggers and this whole legal action marlarky they're spinning now but it really confirmed it as bullying tactics on their part to try control public opinion.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I just find it funny that these people have made a career out of using social media as a platform to express their opinions, yet pay risk eye 360 a year to shut up other people's opinions on social media. So really, they're the only ones supposed to have an opinion

ace_irl

I think there is an issue regarding an opinion and a statement of fact, and that is where the grey area exists for this company to issue legal action.

If something is factually correct and damaging to an influencer, the influencer has no legal comeback other then threats that would never stand.

If someone is clearly stating an opinion on something, regardless of it being factually based, the influencer should, once again, have no legal comeback other than threats.

If something is worded and can be interpreted as an infactuacual statement (and not simply an opinion) and is damaging to a persons brand or character then they now have a potential legal comeback.

I can only speculate that it is the same suspects issuing the same letters again and again and in my opinion that is legal harresment and bullying in order to control public opinion and censorship, which (IMO) is far more damaging for the influencer then anything else.

I am also of the opinion, that one day, they will instigate this legal action malarky with the wrong person who will be in a position to call their bluff or, take their own action against them. Considering how vast a demographic their viewership is, it's only a matter of time before they try it with the wrong person who has the money and resources to shut them up.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

But that's the thing, with the Ali express news it wasn't incorrect. The lady in question left a "factually incorrect" article up for months stating she designed the items and as soon as it was discovered she didn't she had the article redacted and threatened to sue for discussing it, which left heavily edited posts and an eventual thread closure for stating fact. She was charging 130 odd euro for something from Ali express that she bought for about a fiver

GingerLily

Caspian Disgusting Crowd wrote: »

But that's the thing, with the Ali express news it wasn't incorrect. The lady in question left a "factually incorrect" article up for months stating she designed the items and as soon as it was discovered she didn't she had the article redacted and threatened to sue for discussing it, which left heavily edited posts and an eventual thread closure for stating fact. She was charging 130 odd euro for something from Ali express that she bought for about a fiver

Very smart isn't she - allow the false information that benefits you to stay out their until it's exposed (by boards members IIRC) and then tell the paper to fix the mistake and get the comments removed too.

ace_irl

It is very interesting in itself how she managed to get away with it. I really don't think it's because she was smart enough to spin it that way. It just hasn't caught up on her.

Was a statement issued correcting the article addressing the misinformation or was it simply changed and edited on the original article?

She has left herself massively exposed and liable to false advertisement claims and design theft (IMO).

If something is left in the public forum and not corrected for an extended amount of time then the information is deemed to be accepted as factual by those it relates to (within reason) so in actual truth, by it not being addressed and corrected in a timely manor by the owner of the business, she confirmed it as truth thus making it factual. At least factual for the time it remained uncorrected, so anyone who bought items based on this are technically entitled to redress under false advertisement.

BUT, that's just my opinion on the matter.

SeanHarty

ace_irl wrote: »

It is very interesting in itself how she managed to get away with it. I really don't think it's because she was smart enough to spin it that way. It just hasn't caught up on her.

Was a statement issued correcting the article addressing the misinformation or was it simply changed and edited on the original article?

She has left herself massively exposed and liable to false advertisement claims and design theft (IMO).

If something is left in the public forum and not corrected for an extended amount of time then the information is deemed to be accepted as factual by those it relates to (within reason) so in actual truth, by it not being addressed and corrected in a timely manor by the owner of the business, she confirmed it as truth thus making it factual. At least factual for the time it remained uncorrected, so anyone who bought items based on this are technically entitled to redress under false advertisement.

BUT, that's just my opinion on the matter.

was going to comment something smart about how the admins should ban you for having an opinion, but that will get us no where.

how she got away with it for so long is just ridiculous and she continues to get away with it.

She really is a vile creature for treating followers like that.

BUT that's just my opinion, got your back boards.

ace_irl

SeanHarty wrote: »

was going to comment something smart about how the admins should ban you for having an opinion, but that will get us no where.

how she got away with it for so long is just ridiculous and she continues to get away with it.

She really is a vile creature for treating followers like that.

BUT that's just my opinion, got your back boards.

That would make me very sad :mad:

Public opinion will change though and it will have a huge impact on her sales figures eventually.

In saying that though, there is a massive gap in business ethics on her (and many others) parts.

To be effective, they need to control the narrative by issuing their own that can actually stand up against the scrutiny of the public and media. Instead they aim to control it through censorship and nit picking which does the opposite and only feeds the fire.

The true sign of stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Sunny Dayz

Caspian Disgusting Crowd wrote: »

But that's the thing, with the Ali express news it wasn't incorrect. The lady in question left a "factually incorrect" article up for months stating she designed the items and as soon as it was discovered she didn't she had the article redacted and threatened to sue for discussing it, which left heavily edited posts and an eventual thread closure for stating fact. She was charging 130 odd euro for something from Ali express that she bought for about a fiver

I can only assume when you have just launched a new business/ product / service - that you do keep a close eye on the media for any mention or promotion of your business. So when your business is mentioned in a national broadcaster (I think it was in the Indo) then you certainly would have seen the article, read it and be delighted to be featured, I think any business would consider it a success to have an article on the national media. However, if any of it is incorrect - you get on to the publisher straight away to correct it. I'm assuming she read it when it was published and (again I'm presuming) she was quite happy with the article was it was originally published.

ace_irl

Sunny Dayz wrote: »

I can only assume when you have just launched a new business/ product / service - that you do keep a close eye on the media for any mention or promotion of your business. So when your business is mentioned in a national broadcaster (I think it was in the Indo) then you certainly would have seen the article, read it and be delighted to be featured, I think any business would consider it a success to have an article on the national media. However, if any of it is incorrect - you get on to the publisher straight away to correct it. I'm assuming she read it when it was published and (again I'm presuming) she was quite happy with the article was it was originally published.

I agree, normally articles are sent to the person as well. Even large business monitor all this very closely. As a new business that is heavily reliant on social media and internet platforms, it stands to reason that the owner was most likely one of the first people to read it.

As I said above, by not correcting it in a timely and reasonable manor the owner validated the article as factually correct.

Under EU and Irish law, twitter and facebook are covered for this matter, so, a simple tweet from a personal or business account would have been more then sufficient to correct the matter.

Failing to do so technically means that the owner stood to profit from deliberate (that's subjective) false advertising (ignorance is not an excuse in this case).

Once again, that is my opinion of how I have interpreted the facts and sequence of events, drawing my own conclusion based on publicly available information.


Best contact my solicitor just to be safe!

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

ace_irl

I think it depends on several things.

Beyonce hardly cares what we're saying about her on boards.ie unless it was massively damaging to her financially.

Depending on where a suit is lodged and argued, different countries have different weighting on burden of proof and what side is responsible. My understanding is that in the US defamation and slander is considerably harder to argue and win then it is here so tends to not be something that's pursued (or threatened) as often as you see.

For defamation and slander to stand and for people to be liable, there has to be evidence of damages, generally lost Revenue as a result of inaccurate and false information.

A story about a potential surrogate wouldn't really hinder her in performing and selling music.

SeanHarty

ace_irl wrote: »

I think it depends on several things.

Beyonce hardly cares what we're saying about her on boards.ie unless it was massively damaging to her financially.

Depending on where a suit is lodged and argued, different countries have different weighting on burden of proof and what side is responsible. My understanding is that in the US defamation and slander is considerably harder to argue and win then it is here so tends to not be something that's pursued (or threatened) as often as you see.

For defamation and slander to stand and for people to be liable, there has to be evidence of damages, generally lost Revenue as a result of inaccurate and false information.

A story about a potential surrogate wouldn't really hinder her in performing and selling music.

all valid points but boards bend over way to much way to quick.

I made a post here a while ago in one of the threads that got closed about how someone's boyfriend wrote to me threatening me because I pointed out getting items worth hundreds of euros to promote a brand could be see as benefit in kind.

The thread was closed because "I couldn't provide proof" all the while the boards admins wouldn't let me post the screen shot of the proof.

:rolleyes:

ace_irl

Another point though is that if celberties like Beyonce were to try and carry on like RC and so on and try stop every discussion they didn't like, they would have no time for anything else and probably have to hire people to help them with it. It would lireally consume every second of their day because they are that popular and talked about.

Irish influencers have too much time to focus on it because they just aren't as busy as the likes of Beyonce. They also haven't made anywhere near enough money to shelter themselves so they use scare tactics to try control their perception.

Clearly it's done the complete opposite and turned everyone against them, but they have shown their hands, they must be well aware of how fickle their careers actually are.

ace_irl

SeanHarty wrote: »

all valid points but boards bend over way to much way to quick.

I made a post here a while ago in one of the threads that got closed about how someone's boyfriend wrote to me threatening me because I pointed out getting items worth hundreds of euros to promote a brand could be see as benefit in kind.

The thread was closed because "I couldn't provide proof" all the while the boards admins wouldn't let me post the screen shot of the proof.

:rolleyes:

Are you for real? That is ridiculous. While I can understand boards stance, they do so to the detriment of their users.

Boards also owe their users and members a duty of care and that seams to be lacking.

Imagine being so sad you get your other half to threaten someone over a perfectly valid point!

Especially considering the fact that Revenue are looking to clamp down on the sort of gifts and products received by these individuals.

It would indicate that the individual is very sensitive over having to pay tax like us normal folks!

SeanHarty

ace_irl wrote: »

Are you for real? That is ridiculous. While I can understand boards stance, they do so to the detriment of their users.

Boards also owe their users and members a duty of care and that seams to be lacking.

Imagine being so sad you get your other half to threaten someone over a perfectly valid point!

Especially considering the fact that Revenue are looking to clamp down on the sort of gifts and products received by these individuals.

It would indicate that the individual is very sensitive over having to pay tax like us normal folks!

the thread was a while ago, i got banned due to a few choice words i used to describe a mod at the time so ive stayed away from these threads pretty much ever since.

this happened before the clamp down, a RC got sent 5 pairs of freddys jeans (i think that was the brand anyway!)

and on her social media was going on about how surprised she was to get them and they never contacted her, they were the best thing ever yada yada, a clear add.

meanwhile another less know blogger from Cork got sent Five pairs of the same jeans on the very same day, where she then explaned that the company got in contact, asked her to pick five pairs from their website and they would send them out for coverage.

so when i pointed out the five pairs which were 120Euro each added up to 600Euro and that could be seen as benefit in kind i got blocked, he messaged me and when i post about it here rather than get into a back and forth with a grown man acting like a child over the internet the thread got closed pretty quick and mods were PM'ing me.

Madness.

retro:electro

It's worth mentioning that Rosie had those jeans up on Depop a month later and was selling them for €100 a pop. Therefore making a profit on a freebie and one she was "so exited to wear".

ace_irl

SeanHarty wrote: »

the thread was a while ago, i got banned due to a few choice words i used to describe a mod at the time so ive stayed away from these threads pretty much ever since.

this happened before the clamp down, a RC got sent 5 pairs of freddys jeans (i think that was the brand anyway!)

and on her social media was going on about how surprised she was to get them and they never contacted her, they were the best thing ever yada yada, a clear add.

meanwhile another less know blogger from Cork got sent Five pairs of the same jeans on the very same day, where she then explaned that the company got in contact, asked her to pick five pairs from their website and they would send them out for coverage.

so when i pointed out the five pairs which were 120Euro each added up to 600Euro and that could be seen as benefit in kind i got blocked, he messaged me and when i post about it here rather than get into a back and forth with a grown man acting like a child over the internet the thread got closed pretty quick and mods were PM'ing me.

Madness.

That is actually hilarious.

If she gets items to a certain vale as payment for advertisement then technically she should declare them as they are income. They'll all be screwed when Revenue eventually close the loop for tax avoidance and they'll find themselves with large tax bills.

Wasn't there uproar over them meant to be declaring free items as gifts as you can only receive so much money as a gift tax free each year?

Anyway that's beside the point. You should upload it somewhere else and link it to the reddit page or something.

SeanHarty

anna080 wrote: »

It's worth mentioning that Rosie had those jeans up on Depop a month later and was selling them for €100 a pop. Therefore making a profit on a freebie and one she was "so exited to wear".

didn't know that, what a snake.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Luckily he didn't set his brother after you, or is he even out of jail yet

SeanHarty

Caspian Disgusting Crowd wrote: »

Luckily he didn't set his brother after you, or is he even out of jail yet

Imagine! :P

retro:electro

SeanHarty wrote: »

Imagine! :P

Makes a change from threatening women I suppose..

SeanHarty

anna080 wrote: »

Makes a change from threatening women I suppose..

i missed all of this, maybe ill go into hiding again...out of fear.... :pac:

whats all this about him or his brother threating women?

and here was i thinking he looks like a standup guy :rolleyes:

ace_irl

Absolute charmer really.

Can't believe she was selling them. She has to declare that money too! Maybe I should send her a list of everything that should be included on her next tax return.

ace_irl

I have to say, selling stuff that you are sent for free is very poor business ethics. I honestly think in the next 2 years they will be back looking for work as make up artist or whatever she was before hand.

Effects

ace_irl wrote: »

I have to say, selling stuff that you are sent for free is very poor business ethics. I honestly think in the next 2 years they will be back looking for work as make up artist or whatever she was before hand.

What do you expect them to do with it all?
How do you expect them to make money?