Mind you, selling your own and family’s (I emphasise her kids here) dignity and privacy for free stuff - I’d rather not. My family and home, and body, are private and not for public consumption thank you.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
What’s the connection with Arighi Bianchi? I can’t work it out! However I have been looking them up and it looks like a slightly vulgar furniture shop.
So happy to have finally found a Manon thread, she’s been increasingly irritating for years now. I used to really like her but now she’s a yummy Clapham mummy with a finance bro hubby and every post is an ad 
Do her in-laws own it or have some link?
I remember her tagging her mother-in-law a while ago and her surname in the tag was Bianchi. I feel like she mentioned a long time ago that it was a family business… can’t remember 100% - but the MIL thing I do remember!
Yes it is her inlaws business, from couple of generations ago. And yes I think slightly vulgar too. And of course lots of free advertising from their daughter in law!
What is it with showing us everything in your sezanne basket too? Tagging them and detailing sizes? We suspect you already have some sort of paid partnership with them with all the tagging - just state it’s a sodding ad or gifted ffs.
What is it with showing us everything in your sezanne basket too? Tagging them and detailing sizes? We suspect you already have some sort of paid partnership with them with all the tagging - just state it’s a sodding ad or gifted ffs.
isn’t is still run by the Bianchi family though? Manon’s husbands surname is Bennett, unless it’s owned by his mothers side of the family..?
ANOTHER free holiday? She hasn't marked it as an ad but it certainly seems like it.
Pretty much all of her stories today/yesterday have been ads it looks like, none of it marked as such. None of it
It’s quite bizarre how shameless she is. Equally if she’s going to be a shill I wouldn’t judge her for being one promoting a French holiday…that’s a defensible part of her brand realistically. It’s just that she’s so brazenly on the freebie gravy train. I’m sure the anon HMRC hotline will be aware of her shenanigans soon enough. Easy enough to investigate.
Ugh that shameless video of her getting in the pool 
give it a rest love.
give it a rest love.Gets a boost of views I bet. Well planned too I’m sure..
And her Reddit sub can fap themselves into oblivion.
When it states “all brands tagged” but you’re there on a work trip and it’s paid for or gifted, but there’s no mention of a tagging or ad anywhere..ASA..
Has everyone stopped posting now because of the ruling?! Well here goes - this is purely factual so whatever - but tagging the lawnmower brand of her husbands birthday present on Instagram .. classy!
I think tattle is just a bit quieter more generally !
keeping it classy then
Nahh I think everyone is scared! Silly really - I mean there is outright bullying (and I do include online and in these types of sites) but there too is freedom of speech surely?
It’s a question of degree. And these things occur on many platforms - certainly not just on Tattle. If comments on SM posts are deleted by the creator as they simply don’t like like them, without any objective criticism of the writers intention or viewpoint, surely this in itself is wrong too? As wrong as targeted, malicious, intentional bullying - the manipulation and control of their images to the follower or viewer. There are also the lies, back to this post - and many others, in respect of breaking advertising rules and guidelines.
I certainly don’t agree with bullying but the case subject of the ruling was based on circumstances quite different to a bit of gossip and moaning about Instagrammers and their self entitled and annoying ways.
It’s a question of degree. And these things occur on many platforms - certainly not just on Tattle. If comments on SM posts are deleted by the creator as they simply don’t like like them, without any objective criticism of the writers intention or viewpoint, surely this in itself is wrong too? As wrong as targeted, malicious, intentional bullying - the manipulation and control of their images to the follower or viewer. There are also the lies, back to this post - and many others, in respect of breaking advertising rules and guidelines.
I certainly don’t agree with bullying but the case subject of the ruling was based on circumstances quite different to a bit of gossip and moaning about Instagrammers and their self entitled and annoying ways.
I agree with this.
The control of open commentary on their posts is what drives people to comment openly elsewhere.
I do agree there are some threads where people seem to have taken it too far in speculation or harassment. That’s not ok.
A lot of threads have really interesting, nuanced and intelligent debates, where commenters are respectful of all perspectives. In general there is a mistrust and disdainful frustration with influencer culture. That plays out in many ways, but the root cause is the same - people sharing private stuff to make money and not liking it when people don’t lick their a.
And .. the moral argument of whether you should be using your underage children to further line your own pockets.. this is a big one for me, really wrong. But we are to say nothing? The creator won’t have a word said against them, as it cuts their income streams, so what? People should have to accept and consume? Not stand up for what is wrong and right? Not want to protect children who have not made that choice themselves?
I think it’s clear, if rules of common decency and sense are followed, as per Tattle’s rules, and a degree of knowing right from wrong, and moderator input, why should freedom of speech be stifled?
I’m sure I could find people, groups, old friends, neighbours etc, that dont like me, my style, my life choices and talk ill of me behind my back.. but do I seek it out? No. You can see what you want to see, even not look. But if they chose to spend their life online, in the public eye, is this not a part of the job description? By this, I don't mean bullying and harassment, I mean freedom of speech to disagree and make comment that isn’t wholly supportive and and licking.
I am not belittling at all the case ruled on, that had many degrees of wrong, but people now being afraid to speak their minds - when all they are saying is how they disapprove or don’t like certain facets of the life these creators put on public display? And are critical of them for this reason? I don’t agree it’s right to silence people - totally correct. We can only speak if we lick a? There’s a name for that.. it isn’t democracy.
I think it’s clear, if rules of common decency and sense are followed, as per Tattle’s rules, and a degree of knowing right from wrong, and moderator input, why should freedom of speech be stifled?
I’m sure I could find people, groups, old friends, neighbours etc, that dont like me, my style, my life choices and talk ill of me behind my back.. but do I seek it out? No. You can see what you want to see, even not look. But if they chose to spend their life online, in the public eye, is this not a part of the job description? By this, I don't mean bullying and harassment, I mean freedom of speech to disagree and make comment that isn’t wholly supportive and and licking.
I am not belittling at all the case ruled on, that had many degrees of wrong, but people now being afraid to speak their minds - when all they are saying is how they disapprove or don’t like certain facets of the life these creators put on public display? And are critical of them for this reason? I don’t agree it’s right to silence people - totally correct. We can only speak if we lick a? There’s a name for that.. it isn’t democracy.
Are we still talking about Manon..? I’m a bit confused