Cool! I am just looking out for you all. You are my extended family.
As you were
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
As you were
I should add she will need a hell of a lot of money to instruct lawyers ...litigation doesn’t cheap ...even if she had a case. Which I doubt she does.
And can any solicitors here confirm that sending fruit and veg photos isn't illegal.... very concerned for VegetableAboutTown
Didn't she justJosie messed with the wrong set of women
:
And because she broke lockdown rules
:
And can any solicitors here confirm that sending fruit and veg photos isn't illegal.... very concerned for VegetableAboutTown
I am sure it isn’t. Just don’t send any suggestive pictures.
Cool! I am just looking out for you all. You are my extended family.
As you were
I appreciate the concern. None of us are adding anything besides: hey check this out. If the brand wants to continue to work with her, that’s on them. We didn’t post it on IG.
So I've been back at work full time and haven't been keeping up to date here...last time I was on we'd only just started this thread...update me! What have I missed?!
If she’s to sue anyone, it will be Stephanie but I doubt she’s will.
Yeah, it's not like we accused her of using pesticides or something
They are the most ignorant privileged couple ever. I cringe watching them play country like a couple of school kids playing house. But they are both results of their own upbringing. She has messed up big time, and she’s not dealing with it well. I’m not sure she has any life experience to understand why she’s wrong. And know-it-all Charlie is probably reassuring her and making it worse. But....and I say this with caution... do we need to go after her and her business in this way? Yes her sponsors should be made aware of what’s going on and her behaviour should be corrected. But Caroline Flack hit her boyfriend and people going for her causes her to commit suicide. We should be kind. Show her by example how she needs to behave. Highlight her bad behaviour and let her correct it. I think they’re both disgusting show offs and are now being outed by their own bullshit. But also, imagine you were watching your world fall apart though your phone. I’m probably naive but wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was kind to each other, irrespective of colour, class, wealth etc. Just throwing it out there.
Last edited:
Uh oh. This is grounds for slander. How can you claim it exists? We all have seen the shorts, there’s not much space for a bell pepper
I just love that Stephanie is not caving in to her. She’s my new girl crush. Her feed is fab too.
The whole train wreck
I can confirm that no one has to worry about a thing, except maybe Woo, as food porn is seen as a serious crime in most countriesAnd can any solicitors here confirm that sending fruit and veg photos isn't illegal.... very concerned for VegetableAboutTown
.But don't worry my darling, my fees are very reasonable
.Well now I am disappointed I have missed most of the derailing of the darlings...The whole train wreck
So did I
And it's cheese dayThe whole train wreck
.I have a legal background and I don't know what claim she'd have against us. Criminal law isn't my specialty, admittedly, but I do know a little about defamation, which is what I suspect she'd try to go after people for. Defamation is a strict liability offence - dependent on facts of defamation and not the intention of the defendant. As a person, she would have a right to sue for defamation. A permanent statement would potentially be libellous, rather than slanderous (Monson v Tussauds). It is no longer a crime. She can take action if she can prove that she suffered serious harm (s1(1) Defamation Act 2013 ("DA")).
For a statement to be defamatory, it must have lowered Josie in the eyes of right-thinking members of society generally (Sim v Stretch), cause Josie to be shunned or avoided (Youssoupoff v MGN) or expose her to hatred, ridicule or contempt (Berkoff v Burchill). She's been named, so the cases I know on identification are irrelevant. The statement must be published to a valid third party - that's satisfied as this is a public site. A repeat libel is still libel (s8 DA). But then comes the fun part: Defences.
Truth would be our defence. It is available under s2 DA and it is absolute. The sting of the libel needs to be true - in this case I would say that the sting is what Stephanie called out. That is what is going to cause Josie harm. Therefore it is a defamatory imputation of fact, the burden is on us to prove that she posted those stories, which there are screenshots of, so that's satisfied & any malice, knowledge and fault of our members is considered to be irrelevant.
Therefore, I would not advise Josie, if I were her solicitor, to take on a case of defamation. It would blow up in her face, she would lose money and she would further damage her reputation. This is a really abridged answer, but yeah it would be throwing good money after bad.
- Status