HouseByWhitehorns #3 Sarah Battle has landscaped, tablescaped & bedscaped, will she have Barry manscaped?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I see there's a fundraiser.. Pier swimming... Will she be on board i wonder, doubt it as she wont get a nice tshirt from galway 
I would genuinely love to know if the companies that use InstaHuns for advertising see a clear benefit. Are there metrics available to them such as increased revenue as a direct result of InstaHun involvement? Or do they do it just because everyone else is at it?
I was v surprised at Foxford using her as they are a well established business and shouldnāt need the likes of SB but maybe her tactic is to tag businesses so much that she wears them down.
Also those same businesses need to consider what they are getting embroiled in with the InstaHuns. Just like companies are now rightly scrutinised about how ethically made their products are, they should also be considering the message they are sending when using particular Instagrammers. If you think about it, what was acceptable in any aspect of life 5-10-20 years ago may not be nowadays. I truly think that the whole practice of using your small kids as content and to advertise will be something that is frowned upon/heavily regulated in future. So I definitely wouldnāt want my company reputation being affected by practices that are morally questionable or legally prohibited in future. One final point is that although the ultimate responsibility for the childrenās privacy lies with the InstaParents, I see that some of them who feature their kids have something in common - the same agency.
I do wonder do they give any sort of social media training to these InstaHuns or is it the case that anything goes as long as theyāre coining it in via commission.
I was v surprised at Foxford using her as they are a well established business and shouldnāt need the likes of SB but maybe her tactic is to tag businesses so much that she wears them down.
Also those same businesses need to consider what they are getting embroiled in with the InstaHuns. Just like companies are now rightly scrutinised about how ethically made their products are, they should also be considering the message they are sending when using particular Instagrammers. If you think about it, what was acceptable in any aspect of life 5-10-20 years ago may not be nowadays. I truly think that the whole practice of using your small kids as content and to advertise will be something that is frowned upon/heavily regulated in future. So I definitely wouldnāt want my company reputation being affected by practices that are morally questionable or legally prohibited in future. One final point is that although the ultimate responsibility for the childrenās privacy lies with the InstaParents, I see that some of them who feature their kids have something in common - the same agency.
I do wonder do they give any sort of social media training to these InstaHuns or is it the case that anything goes as long as theyāre coining it in via commission.
PPHat I think you've given it more thought in one post than any of these Instahuns or their agencies have in the last few years. They don't see a thing beyond the ā¬ā¬ā¬.I would genuinely love to know if the companies that use InstaHuns for advertising see a clear benefit. Are there metrics available to them such as increased revenue as a direct result of InstaHun involvement? Or do they do it just because everyone else is at it?
I was v surprised at Foxford using her as they are a well established business and shouldnāt need the likes of SB but maybe her tactic is to tag businesses so much that she wears them down.
Also those same businesses need to consider what they are getting embroiled in with the InstaHuns. Just like companies are now rightly scrutinised about how ethically made their products are, they should also be considering the message they are sending when using particular Instagrammers. If you think about it, what was acceptable in any aspect of life 5-10-20 years ago may not be nowadays. I truly think that the whole practice of using your small kids as content and to advertise will be something that is frowned upon/heavily regulated in future. So I definitely wouldnāt want my company reputation being affected by practices that are morally questionable or legally prohibited in future. One final point is that although the ultimate responsibility for the childrenās privacy lies with the InstaParents, I see that some of them who feature their kids have something in common - the same agency.
I imagine they would be very defensive and argue that they are doing it for the kids 'This income helps me secure their future/ goes towards their college fund' etc. Weak argument in my view but putting effort into anything (other than excessive begging) isn't their modus operandi anyway
Last edited:
And I would totally accept that argument were she struggling to feed her family. But she appears in new outfits very regularly, 5* hotel stays, hair and beauty appointments, I suspect medical aesthetics like Botox. All that costs a pretty penny so I would doubt much of the Insta income is going towards college funds.
Agree wholeheartedly with you, in effect images of children, their own children are basically sold for cash or gifts to benefit themselves. It's ethically and moral wrong I think. It's taking away the rights of privacy of the child.And Battle obviously choose photos of her children to make her look like she's a good parent. She doesn't give any parenting advice or any information whatsoever. It's all just "pretty" pictures that portray a seemingly perfect life. Then admits in a newspaper that she shows her children because people want to see them.. To me it's very weird for adults wanting to follow your account for your children. These photos are there forever even if she deletes her account, god knows who's using those images. We didn't grow up with our childhood images splattered online. My own children have said to me that they're glad I didn't put pictures up of them on social media (I hardly use Facebook or Instagram anymore). They want to be in control of who sees them and I respect their wishes.
So true @PPHat, she's certainly not struggling. In fact she obviously using whatever money she generates to maintain this lifestyle that she seems to be attaining to. Perfume that costs 150ā¬,earrings that she wore at the weekend were over 270ā¬,several outfits from BTs etc. Absolutely crazy!
Last edited:
You will be delighted to know that I have just been contacted by Foxford Woollen Mills in relation to my recent complaint re Instagrammers. They want to discuss with me furtherā¦bring it on.
Well if she does it will be the first time she has supported anything localā¦watch this spaceI see there's a fundraiser.. Pier swimming... Will she be on board i wonder, doubt it as she wont get a nice tshirt from galway
If she does there'll be an angle in it for her.
Absolutelyā¦letās wait and see!
I am so glad that not everything was filmed and put online when I was a child or teen. What is happening to her children and others by parents like Sarah is, I agree, unethical. It has always bothered me that the selling of childrenās privacy is allowed in order for the ācontent creatorā to profit. Parents like Sarah, Eimear Varian Barry, FBG, Twins and me, to name a few rely on their children to make a living from Insta.
They either feature totally or heavily in their stories and feeds. The point has been made that they could argue that money is being made for college expenses. I would argue that for the most part, the money is being used now to find a lifestyle or (in the case of EVB, support the family now). There is no excuse for using children as content for this type of instagrammer. If children are being used to financially benefit the parent then there should be laws in place to protect the child and the money should be placed in trust for them. I just canāt think of a good reason to strip children of their privacy-even to further awareness of a childhood health condition is wrong to me when it involves showing a vulnerable child. People like Sarah and her ilk figured out early on that they were not enough and that they got more reaction when their children were featured. She mentioned on the recent newspaper article that people related to her twins- her stories have started almost every day with videos of those boys. At best it is lazy content creation and at worst an issue that needs to be dealt with by a body that looks at the wholesale selling of childrenās privacy.
Donāt f
Donāt forget Orlaith Donlon who presents herself as this Mother Earth type of person, dressing her children in 1940ās/refugee looking type of clothing. But has no problem exploiting her children (two of whom are sick) for content. Just because she presents herself and her family as wholesome doesnāt make her any better that the rest of these dolls.
Todayās content is absolutely chronicā¦making a quicheā¦dairy makes me gag 
Canāt wait for the evening swim all the same š„±
Canāt wait for the evening swim all the same š„±
In France I believe it is now an offense to post photos of your children on social media. This is an extract from an online article I recently read:
"Parents in France are being warned not to post pictures of their children on social media networks such as Facebook.
The Telegraph reports that the countryās strict privacy laws mean that it is an offence to publicise intimate details of the private lives of others ā including children ā without consent. If their children decide to prosecute them as grown ups, parents could face a fine of Ā£35,000 (ā¬45,000) or up to a year in jail if found guilty.
Lawyer Viviane Gelles told Le Figaro newspaper that under French law, āParents are responsible for protecting images of their children.
āWe often criticise teenagers for their online behaviour, but parents are no better.
āChildren at certain stages do not wish to be photographed or still less for those photos to be made public.ā
So Sarah et al need to take note, it's a possibility that this may become a more world wide law.
"Parents in France are being warned not to post pictures of their children on social media networks such as Facebook.
The Telegraph reports that the countryās strict privacy laws mean that it is an offence to publicise intimate details of the private lives of others ā including children ā without consent. If their children decide to prosecute them as grown ups, parents could face a fine of Ā£35,000 (ā¬45,000) or up to a year in jail if found guilty.
Lawyer Viviane Gelles told Le Figaro newspaper that under French law, āParents are responsible for protecting images of their children.
āWe often criticise teenagers for their online behaviour, but parents are no better.
āChildren at certain stages do not wish to be photographed or still less for those photos to be made public.ā
So Sarah et al need to take note, it's a possibility that this may become a more world wide law.
Iām not familiar with her... does she make money from her page? Not excusing her at all if she does not make money.
Waiting to see if adult children choose to sue their parents doesnāt change the ability to expose/over expose them as children and monetize them. It is a start though.
Had to unfollow a long time ago #snorefesr
Hot chocolate and toast ā¦ š„±
Sheās struggling real bad nowā¦
Sheās struggling real bad nowā¦
Nothing to say ...
Cannot wait for the merc rundown tonight.... I'd send a question, but she'll probably just read her own fakes questions which appeal only to the rich and famous and those who dont use it for transporting children
Do you think Connolly have asked her to promote it more? ! In any event just how many of her real followers could afford it ? Watching paint dry is more interesting than her content
- Status