So, my ex wife got married again.Is it because Tanya's pregnant Jim is reminiscing so much? How's he going to handle it when the little Bogdan Burrley arrives? Or if/when Tanya gets married again?
MY ex WIFE.
MINE.
Jim Chapman #7 Sarah Chapman and her husband
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Jim Chapman Threads
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
MY ex WIFE.
MINE.
What was the logic of the Martha photos?
Baiting for engagement?
Dear god what’s worse the tiles or his hideous jumperYikesthat garden gets worse the more you see of it. It seems to be ALL paved over.
View attachment 1672200
At least the jumper can be easily taken off we can't say that about the tiles
So, when do we think Jim will get another dog? My guess would be as a Christmas present for Margo
I really hope they read the comments on the @thejuggleuk post about Sarah’s article.
Do you have a link?
The comments are just on the Instagram post - she linked to it in her stories. The article itself you can’t leave comments on.
I think they should be here, just for the history.
Also, it must have been really hard to turn the answer "money" into a whole article.
Also, it must have been really hard to turn the answer "money" into a whole article.
They’ll probably get branded as trolls or haters but they speak total sense. How can J&S not see it? The second they showed Margot on their open instagram accounts she became a potential target. It’s sounds over dramatic but we’ve all read the stories.
Sarah's article is a load of BS. She uses the 'Margot is not the content' line again, when we all know Margot has been the content since the day she was born. These two should be ashamed of how they have exploited this little girl - using her to make money since she was a few weeks old. Frankly, I've been disgusted by their behaviour, and it seems like it's only getting worse. I'm not sure there is a line they won't cross as proved when they showed Margot ill in hospital (while begging for toys instead of just making a donation they can well afford).
Then there's this:
She tries to limit what is shared online. Yeah right. Anyone who follows Sarah and Jim knows that this is a big fat lie!
Then there's this:
She tries to limit what is shared online. Yeah right. Anyone who follows Sarah and Jim knows that this is a big fat lie!
Once they literally posted a photo of Margot with tubes in her nose on a hospital bed, they lost any kind of upper hand in this conversation. Both Sarah and Jim are thoroughly pointless individuals, so they mine their baby daughter for content. This article is a straight up blatant lie.
I found this site because I read that article not knowing who they were. The article kind of rubbed me the wrong way, I don't feel like I got any explanation to the question "why i'm happy to share my child online" beyond that the kids parents want to share her? It felt sort of false and contradictory that she said she wants to share to make motherhood less lonely, because she also said doesn't want to post the difficult parts? I don't feel like it's possible to totally preserve the dignity of your child and also present a realistic/non-idealised picture to the world. Especially as someone with a public account. For me it seems like they've made their choice on that one, they should live with it. I am soo shocked to read they posted their baby in a hospital bed online to thousands of strangers! I am new to this though, as I haven't followed them longterm so maybe I'm not being fair.
I read Sarah's article.
Wow. Nowhere does she mention how putting her daughter online might affect her daughter in the future. It's all about her, Sarah, and how it has made her feel less lonely.
Amongst all the other fears and worries about putting children online there is another one not addressed in the article - not one thought that she and Jim have made Margot recognisable to thousands of people, and have also given away so many details about her it is possible to build up a composite picture of her thus exposing her to future identity theft. Sounds dramatic I know but I bet that they have not considered that for one second.
And then that bit about online trolls and forums hoping for legislation to shut them up - well when online forums have more concern for your child's privacy than you do, you know you are on dodgy ground.
Margot looks such a dear little soul, I find it so sad her parents refuse to safeguard her privacy. She will not thank them for it in the future.
Wow. Nowhere does she mention how putting her daughter online might affect her daughter in the future. It's all about her, Sarah, and how it has made her feel less lonely.
Amongst all the other fears and worries about putting children online there is another one not addressed in the article - not one thought that she and Jim have made Margot recognisable to thousands of people, and have also given away so many details about her it is possible to build up a composite picture of her thus exposing her to future identity theft. Sounds dramatic I know but I bet that they have not considered that for one second.
And then that bit about online trolls and forums hoping for legislation to shut them up - well when online forums have more concern for your child's privacy than you do, you know you are on dodgy ground.
Margot looks such a dear little soul, I find it so sad her parents refuse to safeguard her privacy. She will not thank them for it in the future.
If I was an 'influencer' (I hate that name, I prefer 'shill') & super wealthy and lived in the centre of London, I would NOT be posting identifiable shots of the area I lived or any photos of my children. Not only are there filthy pervs online but, they are an abduction risk (for a ransom). There are some pretty violent gangs in London (and other UK cities) who get up to some really disgusting (and highly illegal) stuff. Only recently, I have posted photos of my children on fb and they're 18 & 21 - so they can give me permission to share.
They really are playing fast and loose with their safety. Not just with Margot but as has been said, where they live. What for? To make content if something happens like a security breach? Can’t actually believe I’m typing that but it’s possible and In that case they’ve lost their minds, absolutely nothing is worth compromising your safety for. I sincerely hope I’m way off the mark here but it does make you think.
I mean margot has been content since even before she was born, remember all of their content basically became whatever baby stuff they were gifted beforehand
The sad thing about Sarah's article is that it reads to me like 'I was criticised online but when I started to share pictures of my child people liked me and I felt less alone.' As others have said, parents who share their children online do so for the sole benefit of themselves mainly, perhaps also for family and friends and to show solidarity with other parents, but it doesn't benefit the child whose identity is being shown at all. It's a great thing to talk about the challenges of parenthood, but many influencers have shown that's possible to do without sharing the child's identity (Melanie Murphy, for example). The video Sarah recorded talking about her birth experience was what many connected with — not pictures of Margot herself. In fact all the positives she lists in the article (how talking honestly about her Hyperemesis Gravidarum, hormonal acne, etc has helped both herself and other women) did not involve sharing pictures of Margot, so it seems a little strange that they are included under the title 'Why I'm Happy To Share Pictures of My Child Online.' It's so unnecessary and I really wish there was some kind of regulation around this.
I found that sad too. I also wondered if it crossed her mind that, despite the benefit of gaining a new friend/sycophant as mentioned at the end, the fact that they contacted her saying ‘I think I live close to you’ may have given her some pause. Like, ‘oh dear I wonder who else could figure out where I live and perhaps I should think more about what I share?’ But no!
- Status