Also - defamation only occurs if false information is published which harms someone's reputation. I think on this point, she has nothing to worry about - although it's fun to see all the armchair lawyers having a go 
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
No idea. And I wasn’t aware that *all* the IDs were exposed. I know of at least one man on Twitter who has been blogged about and hasn’t been mentioned.
90% of what is flying around is opinion, and you can’t sue someone for their opinion. It’s called free speech.Also - defamation only occurs if false information is published which harms someone's reputation. I think on this point, she has nothing to worry about - although it's fun to see all the armchair lawyers having a go
Last edited:
Absolutely. Whether you agree with what Lucy did, it is the PUBLISHING of their identities that is the biggest issue here and what makes a large group of contributors to this thread hypocritical in the extreme.
We are all absolutely entitled to talk about our lives and our experiences, our opinions of people in our lives and how we feel through our encounters with them. We own those experiences as much as the other person so there’s no copyright. Lucy shouldn’t have published private text messages but recounting her dates on her blog is not illegal. It would not be illegal even if she were not anonymous and she named people. The hot water for her is breaching any work privacy or safe guarding policies relating to sexual harassment of colleagues.
The earlier posters in this thread, the ones who have doxxed Lucy, YC, Charlie and a dating dad hold up the argument that “anybody could work out who person x, y, z is” from Lucy’s various social platforms. But this would require taking steps to work it out e.g.
- going to Facebook, looking up the IRL name of a dating dad and hunting through his friend list until you find someone with a particular hair style
- using photoshop to change image levels to reveal Lucy’s name and address on a photo she doctored to hide that private information
- hitting up Google with various combinations of words that may link to Lucy’s professional life in the hopes of uncovering her work accounts.
The law regarding harassment here is concerned with what constitutes reasonable action. Sleuthing through another stranger’s Facebook, while clever, amounts to unreasonable action under UK harassment laws, the same with the photo editing. The question that has to be answered is “is that reasonable behaviour?” or “what would most normal people do?” And you can bet your very last dollar that both of those actions prompt negative answers to those questions. Even worse, the poster did both of those and then some... This is stalking.
And what sets this thread apart from what y’all are admonishing Lucy for is publishing their names, particularly the name of Y, who is an innocent bystander, thus removing all possibility of doubt. Lucy didn’t do that; you did that.
Lucy has almost certainly fallen foul of work policies but you have not only removed all doubt about YC’s identity, you have encouraged others to stalk his personal social media. I almost want him to find out about this thread so he can report you for harassment.
To make it clear how libelous blogging can be: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/sep/08/how-to-blog-without-breaking-the-law
Did posters read the legal article I posted? Or just pick up on the word defamation, which is only a small part of it. Sharing Whatsapp messages or publishing information shared in confidence (like a date or about someone's relationship), or information of a sexual and intimate nature (like the details of her and Geography teacher Josh's sexual encounters including descriptions of his penis, or any of the other intimate dates) is illegal. There are plenty of bloggers who have been caught out by this. Also her version of events that occurred between 2 people can be deemed false, by her date who may have a completely different recollection of the encounter (particularly those she has accused of being creepy or predatory). Defamation is damaging someone's name and reputation as well. Pretty sure 'Brad', or 'Adam' or any of the men she has posted intimate, insulting, and critical content on would have a decent case for defamation. The burden of proof rests with the blogger to prove something is true. Hard to do unless you have video evidence of them doing what you write they have.
It is very easy for the men to recognise themselves in her blogs and articles, and have the original messages to evidence it is them - particularly if they recognise her FACE, and BODY, posted liberally on Twitter. Or for a friend to recognise them, as has happened with some of her dates.
Posters quoting Harry and Meghan - you do realise Meghan won her breach of privacy claim against the Daily Mail for publishing her letter to her father without consent...?
Also, it isn't particularly expensive to get a lawyer to get stuff taken down or claim a breach of privacy. And that is something that you may then have to declare on employment forms, mortgage forms, security checks etc especially if you lose. All it takes is one person to recognise you. One person. Why on earth would an intelligent career woman risk everything she has worked so hard for to get some attention on Twitter? Hopefully she has realised what a stupid risk she was taking and will do her blogging/venting in private.
Did posters read the legal article I posted? Or just pick up on the word defamation, which is only a small part of it. Sharing Whatsapp messages or publishing information shared in confidence (like a date or about someone's relationship), or information of a sexual and intimate nature (like the details of her and Geography teacher Josh's sexual encounters including descriptions of his penis, or any of the other intimate dates) is illegal. There are plenty of bloggers who have been caught out by this. Also her version of events that occurred between 2 people can be deemed false, by her date who may have a completely different recollection of the encounter (particularly those she has accused of being creepy or predatory). Defamation is damaging someone's name and reputation as well. Pretty sure 'Brad', or 'Adam' or any of the men she has posted intimate, insulting, and critical content on would have a decent case for defamation. The burden of proof rests with the blogger to prove something is true. Hard to do unless you have video evidence of them doing what you write they have.
It is very easy for the men to recognise themselves in her blogs and articles, and have the original messages to evidence it is them - particularly if they recognise her FACE, and BODY, posted liberally on Twitter. Or for a friend to recognise them, as has happened with some of her dates.
Posters quoting Harry and Meghan - you do realise Meghan won her breach of privacy claim against the Daily Mail for publishing her letter to her father without consent...?
Also, it isn't particularly expensive to get a lawyer to get stuff taken down or claim a breach of privacy. And that is something that you may then have to declare on employment forms, mortgage forms, security checks etc especially if you lose. All it takes is one person to recognise you. One person. Why on earth would an intelligent career woman risk everything she has worked so hard for to get some attention on Twitter? Hopefully she has realised what a stupid risk she was taking and will do her blogging/venting in private.
It would have to be something negative and you would have to make it clear who the person is. If you post you had wild sex with the guy you met at tescos and he happened to come across the tweet he can't sue you.
The letter and daily mail court case is different but obviously, people talk about their lives, good and bad and also if you say women can't speak about what happens to them how will abuse against women stop?
I mean, she wasn't particularly complimentary about a lot of the men she wrote about on the blog.... Criticism of their facial features, intelligence, sexual performance, the way they spoke, they way they behaved. There was a lot of very negative content on there and a lot of detail. She herself has acknowledged that if they found out, they'd have every right to be upset. And no one actually knows how honest she was or not, other than the men she has written about. So a bit daft to defend her as not having defamed anyone - who really knows!
Also, imagine you're Lockdown Girl, and your friend or you follow LGD on twitter. You (or friend) suddenly recognise your bf from all the detail shared, and now have to read how disparaging he is about you from Twitter. You have to read details about how your bf kissed someone, and how he thinks there's no future. In detail. How is that a nice thing to do to another woman? How is that a nice thing to do to a colleague? And isn't it likely that a single woman or man dating on the apps in London may follow a very popular dating blogger. So no one blogging about their dating life publically can claim to be a considerate or kind human being, or better than anyone on this site. Anyone berating strangers online, whether a blog, or a gossip site is hurting someone.
Also, imagine you're Lockdown Girl, and your friend or you follow LGD on twitter. You (or friend) suddenly recognise your bf from all the detail shared, and now have to read how disparaging he is about you from Twitter. You have to read details about how your bf kissed someone, and how he thinks there's no future. In detail. How is that a nice thing to do to another woman? How is that a nice thing to do to a colleague? And isn't it likely that a single woman or man dating on the apps in London may follow a very popular dating blogger. So no one blogging about their dating life publically can claim to be a considerate or kind human being, or better than anyone on this site. Anyone berating strangers online, whether a blog, or a gossip site is hurting someone.
Interesting which blog post of his is this?
She didn't write about him until he and LG had split up so I wouldn't worry about that.
I have to say, I agree with what you've written here. A lot of what is on this thread makes me really uncomfortable. It's one thing critiquing someone's blogs and another to start getting into their personal life.
the one he wrote on the LGD blog in 2020, about a year after her last post on Charlie. It was no 14 in the Mr Non Monogamous series.
Even if post break up, would you really want to read the graphic detail of your bf's negative comments about you to a colleague, details of a kiss, finding out information you didn't know on how much he confided about your relationship to another woman - more importantly the humiliation you'd feel that it's on the internet with people commenting on your relationship.
And also, how would YC feel to know that someone he cared about and had a relationship with has been pulled into some ridiculous Twitter verse by his colleague. Even if he was ok with the content posted about him, do we not think he would feel terrible that his inner most thoughts and feelings about a woman he cared for have been made so public in embarrassing detail. It's one thing to post about your OWN dating life, unforgiveable to post about someone else's.
And also, how would YC feel to know that someone he cared about and had a relationship with has been pulled into some ridiculous Twitter verse by his colleague. Even if he was ok with the content posted about him, do we not think he would feel terrible that his inner most thoughts and feelings about a woman he cared for have been made so public in embarrassing detail. It's one thing to post about your OWN dating life, unforgiveable to post about someone else's.
Yes, I agree - publishing names and location details here is a huge issue.
She is correct. It was a guy called Al AKA Beardy Al in her blog. She dated who was EXTREMELY bitter she didn’t want him and a complete and utter stalker with mental health issues.
He would make fake accounts every single day, inbox people her real identity, real address etc , the lot. He doxxed her in the end. He threatened to do it for ages.
Dating Dad was not doxxed. He's very open about his real identity on public domain.
Also anyone is within their rights to look and search someone on social media with information they have. That is not stalking or harassment. As long as they do NOT publish it on public domain without consent. If you don’t wish to be looked up on social media, then don’t have any social media accounts. Read the privacy agreements you tick on Facebook when you join. You’re allowed to search for people, even on Google. Don’t scaremonger people with incorrect legalities.
You’re within rights to gather or search for information. It’s what you CHOOSE to do with that information that’s the issue.
Whoever published Lucy’s real name and address on here (as this is public domain) and YC’s real name (and linked to his social media) on here. Best of luck, as that is a law breach.
Last edited:
I have had blokes get mad I googled them. Before I go on a date I'm going to google the person to be sure they are who they say they are. They have many times said it was "stalking" which is totally false.
The publishing of her full name and area where she lives in wrong. But if people figured it out, not sure how she can be upset if she posted a bill with it on there?
I guess because it was a mistake rather than something she meant to do? I doubt she meant to have the bill in shot and if it took someone to use digital enhancement tools in order to read and publish it that hardly seems like 'fair game'.
n
no one has explained the "tools" comment. I mean either you can read it or not?
so she did a poor job of blacking it out?
What was this?
To get back on topic, I am sad she stopped writing the blog! It used to be something I looked forward to every Saturday. (Twitter persona was a different kettle of fish because I often had to stop myself arguing with her.) I wonder if she is still planning to release a book.
- Status