IFAM #14 MOT Has Expired, The Clickbait Has Backfired So A New Plan Is Required (The Ingham Family)

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Were the girls walking over without creepy or lazy?
Seriously no judgement here but I walk through a fairly big city at least once a month to get to hospital appointments and so I see lots of homeless people, some of which are very clearly under the influence of drugs and I have seen them respond in quite an aggressive way to people offering food and drink rather than money. I wouldn’t want a child to face that sort of reaction!
Again really no judgement towards homeless people that turn to drugs, I don’t know how they’ve got to that point so I don’t judge them.
Yes sent the girls in..and I don't think it's a judgement drugs and alcohol can be a problem in the homeless community, plus mental health problems with no access or little access to medication so not particularly safe. Just because someone seems to be sat quietly does not mean when approached that they will react appropriately, through no fault per se of their own. So I can see where you are coming from

So yes it's probably another vote to always work with a charity in some aspects
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
This made me laugh, Smug Sarah doesn't disappoint
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11
Urgh. Now we know why Mary Shortle went on a blocking spree....

Also Sarah, working with and giving to those less fortunate than yourselves is a noble act. Putting it in your vlogs while your children carry bags from a ridiculously niche boutique shop? You’re doing it for no one but yourself.

And while we’re at it... stop airing your daughter’s private affairs on social media, and hinting quite heavily who you believe is to blame for her issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22
Urgh. Now we know why Mary Shortle went on a blocking spree....

Also Sarah, working with and giving to those less fortunate than yourselves is a noble act. Putting it in your vlogs while your children carry bags from a ridiculously niche boutique shop? You’re doing it for no one but yourself.

And while we’re at it... stop airing your daughter’s private affairs on social media, and hinting quite heavily who you believe is to blame for her issues.
100% agree with you about airing her daughters private affairs and making digs - this is what damaged me growing up in a very sad household.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9
100% agree with you about airing her daughters private affairs and making digs - this is what damaged me growing up in a very sad household.
I’m sorry you had to go through that, genuinely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5
I had really hoped our speculations that they’d filmed their ‘act of kindness’ wouldn’t actually happen. I don’t think I can watch I’ll get too angry. Every individual wether they have a home or not is entitled to privacy and dignity, if you genuinely wish to help others in unfortunate situations then that’s a wonderful thing, it stops being wonderful when you use the act to enhance your own reputation and increase your income. When people are at their most vulnerable others should take special care to protect their dignity, not be unwitting extras in a YouTube video! I’d like to
See someone tell Sarah to stick her burger where the sun doesn’t shine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 23
Urgh. Now we know why Mary Shortle went on a blocking spree....

Also Sarah, working with and giving to those less fortunate than yourselves is a noble act. Putting it in your vlogs while your children carry bags from a ridiculously niche boutique shop? You’re doing it for no one but yourself.

And while we’re at it... stop airing your daughter’s private affairs on social media, and hinting quite heavily who you believe is to blame for her issues.

Yes, she wants us to know it definitely wasn't THEIR family as to why Izzy goes to therapy!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 15
They always say how excited Prinny gets when the camera is on (most recently, on today's vlog). I wonder why. Could it be that it's the only time her owners are excited and happy. It's all for the camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10
I had really hoped our speculations that they’d filmed their ‘act of kindness’ wouldn’t actually happen. I don’t think I can watch I’ll get too angry. Every individual wether they have a home or not is entitled to privacy and dignity, if you genuinely wish to help others in unfortunate situations then that’s a wonderful thing, it stops being wonderful when you use the act to enhance your own reputation and increase your income. When people are at their most vulnerable others should take special care to protect their dignity, not be unwitting extras in a YouTube video! I’d like to
See someone tell Sarah to stick her burger where the sun doesn’t shine.
The thing is they either didn't ask to film them, which is bad, or they did ask and the vulnerable homeless people just said yes because they were getting some food out of it. Either way, it's despicable they were filmed and put on youtube for views and money.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 14
Yes I think that hat was bought for Esme. She probably couldn't care less about it though seeing as she's bought a new item of clothing every day! Poor Isabelle is always cold cuz her coat is so thin and not practical for this cold weather in the slightest! Isla is always well wrapped up but the other 2 look like there really uncomfortable and freezing!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7
Bit strange that creepy wasn’t in the doll shop with them, been told he isn’t welcome maybe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Have i heard correctly... around 11:20 into the video sarah says isla said she needed new gloves for a class so she bought esme and isla new gloves.... what class does she need gloves for? ? um if thats your excuse to buy more stuff you dont need w o w
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Is it not against GDPR if you film people withou their consent now as putting their face on camera means they’re identifiable. Not totally up on it but surely as this is a business they have to get consent first?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5
Is it not against GDPR if you film people withou their consent now as putting their face on camera means they’re identifiable. Not totally up on it but surely as this is a business they have to get consent first?
Not totally sure on the law, but i think they do have to get release forms signed before putting them online
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.