The Squig sounds like she knows what she’s talking about too. Careful Jack.From the squiggle who emailed her contribution to Jack and who now wants their details deleted. Looks like Jack's been up in their DMs with more nastiness.
View attachment 524413
'Wild accusations' sounds like a quote. What 'accusations', exactly, Jack? That you got sent a testimony in 2016, which you asked for and never used? That you haven't been responding to further messages about it? That you haven't deleted the details? I mean, where is the lie?The Squig sounds like she knows what she’s talking about too. Careful Jack.
So perhaps I was wrong then and instead of DMs with apologies to this squig, she's been giving it legal threatening Billy big bollocks?From the squiggle who emailed her contribution to Jack and who now wants their details deleted. Looks like Jack's been up in their DMs with more nastiness.
View attachment 524413
ETAThank you @People-huv-tae-know and great recapthis whole hypothetical cease and desist threats from r Jackie is pathetic- she clearly has delusions about her own importance. Who knows or cares where she is right now but hope sb still with dad and not being subjected to second hand narc rage
lolView attachment 524420View attachment 524421
I couldn't find the episodes but I see Marmalade has posted links. Couldn't resist sharing these thumbnails, cringe!
I think you might be right. We are always trying to see the best in her and she’s constantly disappointing us!So perhaps I was wrong then and instead of DMs with apologies to this squig, she's been giving it legal threatening Billy big bollocks?
She's having TREATMENT!Wasn't she saying mere days ago that she was self conscious of showing her unsymmetrical face due to the severe lump on her jaw?
And doesn't TREATMENT sound so much more dramatic than antibiotics?She's having TREATMENT!
Well she certainly won’t if she keeps threatening them with legal action.All these Blue Tickers that she converses online with are not her friends like she thinks they are. They are acquaintances at best, most she has never even seen in real life.
She says she has cooked for the likes of Mary Portas, has met countless celebrities, she has worked with many household names (no I don't mean zoflora!), and she has socialised with the media darlings at the Groucho.
However, not one of these so called friends could she ring up for a chat. Not one could she drop in for a coffee. Not one could she meet for lunch. Not one could she go shopping with. Not one would come around to hers for dinner. Not one could she see a movie with. Not one would come around for an evening and stay over. Not one could she ring for a catch up. Not one could she have a gossip with. Not one would ever ask her to do anything with them socially.
She really doesn't have any friends, never mind cleb friends.
This sums Jack up to a t. Ignoring the sad fishing aspect, she believes 100% that she knows better than any other professional. If she (or anyone she knew) actually needed an oncologist, her GP would surely refer her to one. Why would she then think she knows better than a referral and ask people on social media?Agree with everything you said @Anonymous One, you just left out when she did a shout out on twitter for an oncologist to get in touch. Think it's worth a mention.
We're like that cargo cult that worship Prince PhillipOMG yes! Kirsty, if you do read here, just to say...keep doing what you do!Gives me faith in the world.
Isn't that all she does though she really is a sm influencer in that she influenced outrage and fist shaking and anything and everything without alot of thought. Her " apology" even said I didn't think and neither do the squiggles.Looks like her latest outburst has backfired somewhat. Seems a lot more people are talking against her now. Her squigs are just rent a mob mentality, they've no real thought behind them, just shouting and threats. At least now it looks like proper grown ups are joining the conversation!
It's such a disgraceful tactic as well. It capitalises on the fact that most people do not have the excess cash floating about to become involved with civil law cases. She uses the lawyer threat to get people to back down before she does, despite the fact that the laws of this country are freely available to read online and are explained in a straightforward manner by legal professionals in blog posts/ YouTube videos etc for the genuinely curious. She can't STAND the fact that I could say 'I think she's acted disgracefully' over orchestrating a Twitter pile-on and that would not be libelling her because it's a) clearly my honest opinion (honest opinion defence) and b) has not caused her/her company substantial loss of earnings (as any for-profit business would have to prove that a statement/s has/have caused a substantial loss of earnings as a result to damage to their reputation). If you're causing damage to your own reputation in plain sight on a public forum and most reasonable people would be able to see that, I don't think it really matters if I say I think you're a tool – you've already dug yourself a huge hole.The more she hits people up with threats of her lawyer, the less power it wields. I hope the squiggle is ok and takes it as far as they wish, without threat of intimidation by Jack.
Law is baffling. Law frauen are fab.It's such a disgraceful tactic as well. It capitalises on the fact that most people do not have the excess cash floating about to become involved with civil law cases. She uses the lawyer threat to get people to back down before she does, despite the fact that the laws of this country are freely available to read online and are explained in a straightforward manner by legal professionals in blog posts/ YouTube videos etc for the genuinely curious. She can't STAND the fact that I could say 'I think she's acted disgracefully' over orchestrating a Twitter pile-on and that would not be libelling her because it's a) clearly my honest opinion (honest opinion defence) and b) has not caused her/her company substantial loss of earnings (as any for-profit business would have to prove that a statement/s has/have caused a substantial loss of earnings as a result to damage to their reputation). If you're causing damage to your own reputation in plain sight on a public forum and most reasonable people would be able to see that, I don't think it really matters if I say I think you're a tool – you've already dug yourself a huge hole.
ETA: I'm now a well-known member!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?