Influencers over-editing photos in Social Media/Cyber-bullying accusations

theoldbreed

Shergar6 wrote: »

Leading character? Is this a movie now?

She was probably the main target of Ramona over years. AFAIK she has done nothing wrong. How is she vile? Very weird language to use.

No it's not a movie. She was one of the leading characters in 'outing' RT.
I'm not really concerned whether you believe my choice of vocabulary is weird or not tbh.

theoldbreed

GingerLily wrote: »

Its the same few people that keep using that word 'Vile' and its almost always about RMC, it's actually boring at this stage

And you're equally as boring with the same spiel you come out with when someone appears to dislike RMC.

I used the word vile once in reference to her, which I stand by, and it's the first time I've posted here in ages if not ever. Who are these same few people you speak of. She's not well respected on here for sure.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I'm following this thread for the craic. 'Influencer' I have to be honest is the most ridiculous made up word I have ever heard. People really are sheep.

Same as..

And it seems like these people are vile really, and should not be influencing anyone..

soiseztomabel

Shergar6 wrote: »

Hardly begging. Its optional. If people want to pay the couple of euro then let them be. If she annoys you that much you might as well unfollow. It's stewing on things like that drove RT to wild out all these years.

Fully agree with you, more panhandling than anything else.

meeeeh

theoldbreed wrote: »

And you're equally as boring with the same spiel you come out with when someone appears to dislike RMC.

I used the word vile once in reference to her, which I stand by, and it's the first time I've posted here in ages if not ever. Who are these same few people you speak of. She's not well respected on here for sure.

So you barley ever post here yet you feel entitled to speak for all of us about who we respect or don't. You don't speak for me, while I am not a fan, neither do I follow her, I certainly don't think she is vile. And judging by your comments I can tell you I have a lot more respect for Rosemary MacCabe than I have for your contributions.

GingerLily

meeeeh wrote: »

So you barley ever post here yet you feel entitled to speak for all of us about who we respect or don't. You don't speak for me, while I am not a fan, neither do I follow her, I certainly don't think she is vile. And judging by your comments I can tell you I have a lot more respect for Rosemary MacCabe than I have for your contributions.

Each of her last 6 posts are about RMC - I'll leave it at that!

Carriexx

Morby wrote:

What are the Irish blogger groups on Reddit called please? I'm new to Reddit and can't seem to find them.

Morby wrote:

What are the Irish blogger groups on Reddit called please? I'm new to Reddit and can't seem to find them.

They are locked down

SozBbz

Shergar6 wrote: »

Hardly begging. Its optional. If people want to pay the couple of euro then let them be. If she annoys you that much you might as well unfollow. It's stewing on things like that drove RT to wild out all these years.

I'd have no issue with it if it was just passively there so people could support if they wished, but she does spend a considerable amount of time asking for new people to sign up which is then a bit grating when you see her spending habits.

She always frames asking for money as "support" so she can continue to work as a writer, when in fact is looks far more like support to fund frivolous spending.

I'm as nosy as the next person so I enjoy reading the spending diaries but I think they are quite at odds with the struggling writer persona.

SozBbz

I listened to the It Galz podcast last night and firstly for anyone else who might want to listen, just skip the first 25minutes or so, because they're just promoting themselves and their upcoming live podcast nonstop and its super boring.

However after that, its quite juicy. I knew from watching RMCs stories that some shiz had gone down but was never really that aware of it, and I thought it was good that they held their hands up over that whole mess. However the levels of manipulation involved (if indeed is is our friend R) to not only instigate that whole drama but to then twist it a whole other direction with the fake suicide after, creating many fictional family members and a whole back story. Talk about twisted.

Its worth a listen. I found it much more interesting that anything I'd heard to date on this topic.

Pistachios & cream

Shergar6 wrote: »

I mean, it's her money. She can spend what she wants. People getting outraged because she eats out a lot are fairly sad to be honest ����

I don't really get the point of the diary now. She said initially it was to make her watch what she spends but clearly that isn't happening. It seems a bit voyeuristic to know the ins and outs of her wallet now but I think the diaries give her lots of hits so she will keep it up.

I don't think she has to worry about money anyway. Her parents have what looks to be a sizeable property in Kildare and she has one sister who is settled in America so Rosemary will have a very nice inheritance. If she was really worried about saving for a mortgage she wouldn't be spending like she does but like most people whose parents can give them a soft cushion to land on she knows she has it sorted.

And yes it is weird that I know her business like this but she puts it out there so I'm not gonna feel weird about it.

By the way I think super privileged people like Rosemary really got to Ramona which is why she was such a target. I know RMC can be a bit eyerolly sometimes but she's not the worst of them either. And Aoife Dooley seems sound out.

I think for many people who follow rosemary the outrage about the spending diaries is how she doesn’t realise how privileged she is.

just before she started the spending diaries, Rosemary wrote a blogpost about how it’s impossible in Ireland to make a living writing. She had tried going freelance(influencing) full time and it hadn’t worked for her. She made the point that most influencers who rake it in have to branch out into products etc.

Rosemary wants to make a living only through her writing. She currently has a job writing content For a company for 4 days a week and doing other freelance stuff. It’s clearly paying her very well. However her blogpost made me surmise that she’s not happy with that and she wants to get a full time income from her blog and podcast, ie only writing the stuff that she wants to write, and not have to have a steady writing job from a company to pay the bills. However that is a very privileged position to have.

Her post on how it’s impossible to make a living writing in Ireland and asking people to patron her made it seem like she’s on the breadline however her spending diaries abuse that notion. Going by what she spent over a few weeks she’d need over €3000 net income a month. This is regular spending, she has no big unexpected bill like car insurance or even a holiday.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I'm following this thread for the craic. 'Influencer' I have to be honest is the most ridiculous made up word I have ever heard. People really are sheep.

Same as.

I think in some weird way they are going to miss BU/RT now that they are gone. I’ve listened to Jason then Aoife then Rosemary then that podcast last night with galz BUT, I have only listened and actually heard of them because of this whole drama.

It’s all great at the minute as they are all part of the story so the hits to their pages must have jumped big time. But what happens when it dies down? I’ve no interest in someone’s spending diary or where they are eating so I will inevitably stop looking and I don’t think I’ll be the only one.

No BU will mean no reveals will mean no directs to their pages. What they gonna talk about then?

SozBbz

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

It’s all great at the minute as they are all part of the story so the hits to their pages must have jumped big time. But what happens when it dies down? I’ve no interest in someone’s spending diary or where they are eating so I will inevitably stop looking and I don’t think I’ll be the only one.

No BU will mean no reveals will mean no directs to their pages. What they gonna talk about then?

I know, the ItGalz podcast was #1 in Ireland and RMC has about 3k extra followers on Insta over the past few days. Im sure all the other protagonists have seen similar surges in their followings.

However the only person i followed before this was RMC. I've not actually followed anyone else, just watched their stories if their profiles were open and I certainly won't be putting myself through another episode of ItGalz (until the next scandal of course )

Shergar6

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Same as..

And it seems like these people are vile really, and should not be influencing anyone..

But how are they vile? You keep spitting out these descriptive with nothing to back it up. <snip> The lowest of the low. The bloggers might be up their own arse, annoying or full of ****e but they are just latching on to the current in thing. I'd love to have their balls to make a few quid but I couldn't put my life out their for others to scrutinise and I'd be embarrassed at half the stuff you're asked to promote. Prune juice was one of RMCs.. But y'know.. She had the brass neck to do it, so good luck to her. They are not forcing anyone to follow or buy that ****e. They are not coming into your Dms and playing mind games <snip>

Shergar6

ahayes84 wrote: »

I think for many people who follow rosemary the outrage about the spending diaries is how she doesn’t realise how privileged she is.

just before she started the spending diaries, Rosemary wrote a blogpost about how it’s impossible in Ireland to make a living writing. She had tried going freelance(influencing) full time and it hadn’t worked for her. She made the point that most influencers who rake it in have to branch out into products etc.

Rosemary wants to make a living only through her writing. She currently has a job writing content For a company for 4 days a week and doing other freelance stuff. It’s clearly paying her very well. However her blogpost made me surmise that she’s not happy with that and she wants to get a full time income from her blog and podcast, ie only writing the stuff that she wants to write, and not have to have a steady writing job from a company to pay the bills. However that is a very privileged position to have.

Her post on how it’s impossible to make a living writing in Ireland and asking people to patron her made it seem like she’s on the breadline however her spending diaries abuse that notion. Going by what she spent over a few weeks she’d need over €3000 net income a month. This is regular spending, she has no big unexpected bill like car insurance or even a holiday.

Yeah I get that people not knowing how privileged they are is very annoying, but in fairness to her she is willing to actually work. I know it didn't work out long term but she used to be up at the crack of dawn when she was personal training. She has a full time job between everything. It's not like she is sat at home painting her nails all day in between meals out. She is working to get that money to eat out a lot.

I didn't read her blog about blogging in Ireland but don't we all have the ideal work situation in mind? Doesn't it make sense that she'd only want to write what she wants and to get paid well?

As for Patreon, I don't think she is mentioning it as much as some make out. It's usually in her stories which disappear every day. When she started she said she was going to try it as it was popular in America. And she does write content that some people (including people on here) want to read, so I don't really get the issue. I think she was just starting her new job and getting back on track with freelance stuff, so it's only in recent months that she has had a lot of disposable income.

I dunno, i just think if people want to pay her 2 euro a month then that's their business. It's not really our business what it goes on, even if she is publishing her spending diary. And sure, She doesn't really get that eating out 5,6 times a week while living in Dublin is not in most peoples budget and her restraint is crap, but she's never denied being super middle class. She's likely never had to worry about money because she has options and mammy and daddy. I have friends like her and they can be super frustrating but they are not bad people, just clueless to what being broke/on a budget actually means.

At least she is keeping the cafes and Restaurants in Dublin afloat!!

meeeeh

I read one spending diary and frankly I don't believe half of it. It's a lot more interesting reading about people eating out than reading about big shop in Tescos where they were trying to decide between striploin and sirloin steak. Nobody would be reading her spending diaries if her spending was half of what she claims it is.

GingerLily

SozBbz wrote: »

I listened to the It Galz podcast last night and firstly for anyone else who might want to listen, just skip the first 25minutes or so, because they're just promoting themselves and their upcoming live podcast nonstop and its super boring.

However after that, its quite juicy. I knew from watching RMCs stories that some shiz had gone down but was never really that aware of it, and I thought it was good that they held their hands up over that whole mess. However the levels of manipulation involved (if indeed is is our friend R) to not only instigate that whole drama but to then twist it a whole other direction with the fake suicide after, creating many fictional family members and a whole back story. Talk about twisted.

Its worth a listen. I found it much more interesting that anything I'd heard to date on this topic.

Ramona sent the initial message for sure and it sounds like they've gone to the guards about the suicide message - if the guards can prove it is Ramona then I think she'd get in serious trouble.

That is probably the worst of the stories I've heard so far - I missed it at the time.

I didn't know who 'Lindsay' was, it's all making sense now!

SozBbz

GingerLily wrote: »

Ramona sent the initial message for sure and it sounds like they've gone to the guards about the suicide message - if the guards can prove it is Ramona then I think she'd get in serious trouble.

That is probably the worst of the stories I've heard so far - I missed it at the time.

I didn't know who 'Lindsay' was, it's all making sense now!

I don't know if making stuff up to internet randomers is a crime, but its certainly morally reprehensible.

R should certainly face consequences for wasting Garda time for her "death threat" stunt however. I also find it hilarious that the Irish Times allowed themselves to be catfished.

c.p.w.g.w

SozBbz wrote: »

I don't know if making stuff up to internet randomers is a crime, but its certainly morally reprehensible.

R should certainly face consequences for wasting Garda time for her "death threat" stunt however. I also find it hilarious that the Irish Times allowed themselves to be catfished.

Is there proof that the death treat was a stunt?

SozBbz

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Is there proof that the death treat was a stunt?

Theres no hard proof here for anything, but there is quite a lot of evidence pointing only one way.

Re the mass card, I doubt if the Guards have been dusting for prints or whatever and shes hardly likely to admit it.

meeeeh

SozBbz wrote: »

R should certainly face consequences for wasting Garda time for her "death threat" stunt however. I also find it hilarious that the Irish Times allowed themselves to be catfished.

It's The (Sunday) Times Ireland edition not Irish Times and in fairness it was reported by their crime correspondent about the report that was made to Gardai. I suspect a male crime reporter doesn't give a damn what spats mostly female bloggers have online. It's August, even criminals have to take holidays and there is nothing else going on. And btw death threat or harrasment reports have to be taken seriously.

GingerLily

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Is there proof that the death treat was a stunt?

There's no proof the death threats are linked to BU anyway

SozBbz

meeeeh wrote: »

It's The (Sunday) Times Ireland edition not Irish Times and in fairness it was reported by their crime correspondent about the report that was made to Gardai. I suspect a male crime reporter doesn't give a damn what mostly female bloggers think about it. It's August, even criminals have to take holidays and there is nothing else going on. And btw death threat or harrasment reports have to be taken seriously.

OK fine on the correction of the newspaper, but I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Just because its silly season then its fine if reporters don't check the background of the stories they publish? Fine for them to take everyone at face value and not do any digging into their background and to whether they're credible as a person? The journalist in question did sloppy work and it was foolish to publish the story because on face value she appeared meek. I'm not saying he should have been able to out her as BU, but the evidence of her trolling seem well documented, and that would have coloured the story differently.

And of course death threats should be taken seriously. But if they turn out to be works of fiction, that too should be taken seriously as the Gardi don't have unlimited time/resources.

Pistachios & cream

Shergar6 wrote: »

Yeah I get that people not knowing how privileged they are is very annoying, but in fairness to her she is willing to actually work. I know it didn't work out long term but she used to be up at the crack of dawn when she was personal training. She has a full time job between everything. It's not like she is sat at home painting her nails all day in between meals out. She is working to get that money to eat out a lot.

I didn't read her blog about blogging in Ireland but don't we all have the ideal work situation in mind? Doesn't it make sense that she'd only want to write what she wants and to get paid well?

As for Patreon, I don't think she is mentioning it as much as some make out. It's usually in her stories which disappear every day. When she started she said she was going to try it as it was popular in America. And she does write content that some people (including people on here) want to read, so I don't really get the issue. I think she was just starting her new job and getting back on track with freelance stuff, so it's only in recent months that she has had a lot of disposable income.

I dunno, i just think if people want to pay her 2 euro a month then that's their business. It's not really our business what it goes on, even if she is publishing her spending diary. And sure, She doesn't really get that eating out 5,6 times a week while living in Dublin is not in most peoples budget and her restraint is crap, but she's never denied being super middle class. She's likely never had to worry about money because she has options and mammy and daddy. I have friends like her and they can be super frustrating but they are not bad people, just clueless to what being broke/on a budget actually means.

At least she is keeping the cafes and Restaurants in Dublin afloat!!

As you said it’s her money and she can spend it how she likes. However she is publishing her writing in order to boost her engagement and therefore make money out of it. So expecting people not to have an opinion on it is naive.

Floppybits

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I'm following this thread for the craic. 'Influencer' I have to be honest is the most ridiculous made up word I have ever heard. People really are sheep.

The unfortunate thing is that some people follow these "Influencer" religiously and what ever they say those folks have to have it or use it. Even worse are the people who want to be like them and if they cant see themselves as a failure. I'm not too sure but it seems to be younger women that are more affected by these "influencers" then again I could be wrong.

This is the reason I thought BU was a good thing when BU exposed the underhanded behavior of some "Influencers", for me this is a dangerous area where the consequences of what these "Influencers" have on their followers can be catastrophic. It may seem over the top but I feel that "Influencers" need to have a very strict code of conduct especially with very impressionable folks following them.

GingerLily

SozBbz wrote: »

OK fine on the correction of the newspaper, but I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Just because its silly season then its fine if reporters don't check the background of the stories they publish? Fine for them to take everyone at face value and not do any digging into their background and to whether they're credible as a person? The journalist in question did sloppy work and it was foolish to publish the story because on face value she appeared meek. I'm not saying he should have been able to out her as BU, but the evidence of her trolling seem well documented, and that would have coloured the story differently.

He probably wanted to keep the twist for a follow on story!

Would he have known about her trolling? How? Would she have told him?

Shergar6

ahayes84 wrote: »

As you said it’s her money and she can spend it how she likes. However she is publishing her writing in order to boost her engagement and therefore make money out of it. So expecting people not to have an opinion on it is naive.

But yiz are getting so pressed about it. It's hilarious.

But yeah you are are ultimately helping to fund her oh so epic lifestyle with those clicks so burst on. Guess it's providing your own entertainment in a way.

FYI she just posted her yummy breakfast. LOL.

meeeeh

SozBbz wrote: »

OK fine on the correction of the newspaper, but I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Just because its silly season then its fine if reporters don't check the background of the stories they publish? Fine for them to take everyone at face value and not do any digging into their background and to whether they're credible as a person? The journalist in question did sloppy work and it was foolish to publish the story because on face value she appeared meek. I'm not saying he should have been able to out her as BU, but the evidence of her trolling seem well documented, and that would have coloured the story differently.

And of course death threats should be taken seriously. But if they turn out to be works of fiction, that too should be taken seriously as the Gardi don't have unlimited time/resources.

The facts about story are she made a report to Gardai about harassment, they are investigating, she claims she has anxiety attacks because of it. Everything else are just rumours, there are screen grabs and theories that RT trolled a whole pile of people but without getting actual IP addresses it's very hard to confirm without doubt the identity. No serious newspaper will touch those claims without a bit more solid proof. It's a lazy article about not much but what you consider proof is at the moment just speculation. Btw you are criticising an article you didn't even read.

I'm making a general point but this whole BU thing, blogger critism thrives on hearsay, gossip and it seems people following it are jumping to different conclusion every three hours. It's actually not surprising a group of Russian trolls can easily influence elections.

Pistachios & cream

Shergar6 wrote: »

FYI she just posted her yummy breakfast. LOL.

Let me guess...2 pups granola?

meeeeh

GingerLily wrote: »

He probably wanted to keep the twist for a follow on story!

Would he have known about her trolling? How? Would she have told him?

There actually is a follow on story but it's about the BU and the online harrasment some people got after BU targeted them. This part explains a bit Cari's Closet angle.

Targeting Cari’s Closet may have prompted its decision to stop blogging, after the company instructed Sheehan & Co, a legal firm in Dublin, to act on its behalf.

A solicitor’s letter was initially sent to Bloggers Unveiled through Instagram demanding that certain material be removed on the grounds it was untrue and defamatory. The blogger did remove the material almost immediately, but the company has decided to press ahead and uncover the blogger’s true identity and sue for damages, according to sources.

Before it ceased operating, Bloggers Unveiled was informed that Cari’s Closet was about to seek a Norwich Pharmacal order at the High Court, which would require Instagram to produce all data and information it held on the account, including any telephone numbers, email addresses and the IP address of the account holder. The application is expected to be made in October. If granted, it will force Instagram to identify the blogger.

Source:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nasty-vindictive-toxic-and-unhealthy-xmj35bcbr

Flippyfloppy

meeeeh wrote: »

There actually is a follow on story but it's about the BU and the online harrasment some people got after BU targeted them. This part explains a bit Cari's Closet angle.



Source:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nasty-vindictive-toxic-and-unhealthy-xmj35bcbr

I’m sorry but how much damages would Caris Closet have actually suffered, investing in poor quality tat isn’t too expensive

pc7

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I’m sorry but how much damages would Caris Closet have actually suffered, investing in poor quality tat isn’t too expensive

Also is it defamation if its true? Importing ****e from China and sticking your own tag on it, seems they got caught out. I've no problem with stuff coming from China once you aren't trying to sell it as your 'bespoke' design. You'd be bloody raging if you got caught by them. ('allegedly')

GingerLily

meeeeh wrote: »

There actually is a follow on story but it's about the BU and the online harrasment some people got after BU targeted them. This part explains a bit Cari's Closet angle.



Source:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nasty-vindictive-toxic-and-unhealthy-xmj35bcbr

Can't read
Thanks though!

meeeeh

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I’m sorry but how much damages would Caris Closet have actually suffered, investing in poor quality tat isn’t too expensive

I certainly wouldn't a fan of stuff they sell but that doesn't mean that someone writting about them can forget about fact checking. Apparently one of their employees was named by BU, she requested her name to be removed because she was only an employee and that was refused. She apparently got loads of online harassment and ended on sick leave for five weeks because of it. I don't know how serious it was and how truthful the person making those claims is however deciding what damages, if any, they suffered is not up to you or me.

Pistachios & cream

To some extent I do hope cari’s closet go ahead with legal action. I think a test case in this area would be good. Also we would finally know if BU is RT.

However I don’t see them going through with it. It’s a costly exercise to go to court and unless the BU story was a complete fabrication it could easily go against them

pc7

ahayes84 wrote: »

However I don’t see them going through with it. It’s a costly exercise to go to court and unless the BU story was a complete fabrication it could easily go against them

And it brings more media attention on it, if the messages BU posted from CC family members are true, they'd have more to be worried about I would think.
Just listened to IT Galz, bit ott and dramatic imo, <snip>

GavMan

ahayes84 wrote: »

To some extent I do hope cari’s closet go ahead with legal action. I think a test case in this area would be good. Also we would finally know if BU is RT.

However I don’t see them going through with it. It’s a costly exercise to go to court and unless the BU story was a complete fabrication it could easily go against them

Unless the DM's and pics were all also total fabrications and that they can prove that, they have a job on their hands. Most of the stuff wasn't anything worse than you'd see on trust pilot or yelp or whatever.

wyrn

meeeeh wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't a fan of stuff they sell but that doesn't mean that someone writting about them can forget about fact checking. Apparently one of their employees was named by BU, she requested her name to be removed because she was only an employee and that was refused. She apparently got loads of online harassment and ended on sick leave for five weeks because of it. I don't know how serious it was and how truthful the person making those claims is however deciding what damages, if any, they suffered is not up to you or me.

Was this the email? Someone emailed CC and the reply was a little less than professional (if memory serves) and that's what BU put up.

erica74

Cari's Closet will go out of business if they go ahead with the case because they will surely have to prove what was posted was lies and, it looks like it was all true and that would be VERY bad for their business?
Plus, as far as BU is concerned, people sent her messages about Cari's Closet with photographic evidence and she posted them in good faith that they were true so, surely that covers her with regard to defamation? It's not like she made them up.

PawneeRanger

GingerLily wrote: »

Can't read
Thanks though!

You only need to register your email address to read The Times.

GingerLily

PawneeRanger wrote: »

You only need to register your email address to read The Times.

I thought they restricted the number of articles you read for free a month?

Opps!

ginandtonicsky

This story gets weirder and weirder. It's honestly like some sort of cheap made-for-TV movie designed to document the era of social media and bloggers and how mad of a world it all is.

Those lads from that cafe are a pack of clowns with the maturity and emotional intelligence of a four year old. Every "blogger" embroiled in this should be examining their own business ethics and moral backbone instead of getting involved in the dramatics of "who is she??" and making themselves look like a pack of self-obsessed teenagers who honestly should go for a walk outside in the fresh air and get over themselves. The game's up like, you got called out, now off you go and try to build a more reputable business that doesn't rely on photoshop, lying and the gullibility of young women to survive.

And that former boards poster...really disappointed to see that she's involved in all of this. <snip>

SozBbz

meeeeh wrote: »

SozBbz wrote: »

OK fine on the correction of the newspaper, but I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Just because its silly season then its fine if reporters don't check the  background of the stories they publish? Fine for them to take everyone at face value and not do any digging into their background and to whether they're credible as a person? The journalist in question did sloppy work and it was foolish to publish the story because on face value she appeared meek. I'm not saying he should have been able to out her as BU, but the evidence of her trolling seem well documented, and that would have coloured the story differently.

And of course death threats should be taken seriously. But if they turn out to be works of fiction, that too should be taken seriously as the Gardi don't have unlimited time/resources.

The facts about story are she made a report to Gardai about harassment, they are investigating, she claims she has anxiety attacks because of it. Everything else are just rumours, there are screen grabs and theories that RT trolled a whole pile of people but without getting actual IP addresses it's very hard to confirm without doubt the identity. No serious newspaper will touch those claims without a bit more solid proof. It's a lazy article about not much but what you consider proof is at the moment just speculation. Btw you are criticising an article you didn't even read.

I'm making a general point but this whole BU thing, blogger critism thrives on hearsay, gossip and it seems people following it are jumping to different conclusion every three hours. It's actually not surprising a group of Russian trolls can easily influence elections.

I did read it at the time actually, no need to speak for me.
I agree that its a lazy article, thats the point I'm making all along. IMO they should have looked deeper or not published at all. I think you'd find they consider themselves a serious publication, but what they did was temporarily give a person a platform to present themselves as a purely innocent bystander. Whether or not shes BU is one thing, I think it looks likely but I'm not the police so I'm not about to go out and do some amateur detective work. I don't think its beyond the reach of a newspaper to dig a little into a persons background before publishing a story.

GingerLily

SozBbz wrote: »

I did read it at the time actually, no need to speak for me.
I agree that its a lazy article, thats the point I'm making all along. IMO they should have looked deeper or not published at all. I think you'd find they consider themselves a serious publication, but what they did was temporarily give a person a platform to present themselves as a purely innocent bystander. Whether or not shes BU is one thing, I think it looks likely but I'm not the police so I'm not about to go out and do some amateur detective work. I don't think its beyond the reach of a newspaper to dig a little into a persons background before publishing a story.

I don't mean this sarcastically - but you should write a letter to the editor, I always love reading the quirky ones that get published whenever I'm at my inlaws, and at least they'd get feedback from the demographic that are interested in the story!

we'llallhavetea

It galz podcast is painful to listen to. What went on, <snip>?! Can't even grasp what they're waffling about.

pc7

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

It galz podcast is painful to listen to. What went on, <snip>?! Can't even grasp what they're waffling about.

No, 'I think' they did a podcast last year on what was consent and what was rape. They feel RT or one of her online personas pushed them to do the podcast topic (but views were their own), then someone said their podcast triggered a rape victim into an attempted suicide (with full fake family etc.). But now they realise that was all RT profiles setting it all up. They got dogs abuse for the podcast and subsequent 'suicide attempt by the person' who now seems to be RT. I think that's what they were saying. I was on a FB group last year when it all went off and it rang bells.

mrsdewinter

SozBbz wrote: »

I did read it at the time actually, no need to speak for me.
I agree that its a lazy article, thats the point I'm making all along. IMO they should have looked deeper or not published at all. I think you'd find they consider themselves a serious publication, but what they did was temporarily give a person a platform to present themselves as a purely innocent bystander. Whether or not shes BU is one thing, I think it looks likely but I'm not the police so I'm not about to go out and do some amateur detective work. I don't think its beyond the reach of a newspaper to dig a little into a persons background before publishing a story.

What tools do you think a reporter has that would allow them to 'dig into a person's background'? The facts presented to the reporter were: 1) a woman says she's been accused of being BU; 2) she's even approached the guards; 3) the guards confirm that she has spoken to them. From what I've heard about RT, she's excellent at her job and, unlike BU, she was willing to go public about her plight. There's no 'bull****ers hotline' for reporters to contact, you know. All they can work off is the facts in front of them.

SozBbz

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

It galz podcast is painful to listen to. What went on, <snip>?! Can't even grasp what they're waffling about.

Yeah they're super annoying to listen to. All the fake accents and talk of getting the "D" was giving me serious eyerolls.
However, I did think their position on this whole hoopla was interesting. I just won't be listening to their podcast again anytime soon. My advice for anyone who hasn't listened to it but wants to is to just skip the first 25 minutes.

La_Gordy

pc7 wrote: »

No, 'I think' they did a podcast last year on what was consent and what was rape. They feel RT or one of her online personas pushed them to do the podcast topic (but views were their own), then someone said their podcast triggered a rape victim into an attempted suicide (with full fake family etc.). But now they realise that was all RT profiles setting it all up. They got dogs abuse for the podcast and subsequent 'suicide attempt by the person' who now seems to be RT. I think that's what they were saying. I was on a FB group last year when it all went off and it rang bells.

Sounded to me like blame shifting. They said horrible things about rape victims and thought that was ok.

I wish I had seen someone point out the 25 minute mark to me earlier as I was waiting and waiting and all I heard was self-congratulations for the duration, with a fair amount of faux American accents and catchphrases thrown in. Then the actual segment was rambling, there was talk of their fear of acid attacks (!) and the "T" as they referred to it, was still presumption and speculation. As many of said we can all see what it points to, but that doesn't make it the definitive truth.

Flippyfloppy

pc7 wrote: »

No, 'I think' they did a podcast last year on what was consent and what was rape. They feel RT or one of her online personas pushed them to do the podcast topic (but views were their own), then someone said their podcast triggered a rape victim into an attempted suicide (with full fake family etc.). But now they realise that was all RT profiles setting it all up. They got dogs abuse for the podcast and subsequent 'suicide attempt by the person' who now seems to be RT. I think that's what they were saying. I was on a FB group last year when it all went off and it rang bells.

That podcast was convincing, even though at times it was hard to follow when one kept interrupting the other just as it sounded like they were going to say something interesting. They didn’t actually convince me that BU is definitely the person trolling them though. That’s the part everyone is conviently leaving out. I’m sure there’s plenty of trolls out their hiding anomously behind their keyboards..... from bored teenagers to jealous ex schoolmates etc.

Floppybits

<snipped>

Isn't that what is done in this country nowadays, get caught/exposed doing something and its "oh I'm sorry I was having mental health issues at the time, please forgive me and feel sorry me". Look at the "Influensers" who BU exposed saying they couldn't get out of bed for 3 days or the people that were exposed (not by BU) claiming exorbitant wages or expenses from Charities, suddenly they were suffering with anxiety and it goes on but didn't seem to suffer any issues prior to being caught. 
All these people do is take away from people who suffering real mental health issues. I have no time or respect for anyone who suddenly claims to have mental health issues when they are caught or exposed for being dishonest.