Yep submitted Monday 17th and validated on 20th. Wonder how long it‘ll be before they push that one through? At least this time they had the sense to have their names redacted so the sheep can find out, even though we all know the name of her ‘tend farm’I see they have put in planning permission for their orangery already !!
For me, two things stand out.
The first, which I know that everyone who posts here regularly will agree, is that the over-sharing of the children’s lives is a gross breach of their privacy.
Children are unable to give consent, they do not understand, and will not be able to give informed consent for a number of years.
This isn’t isolated to Mrs Hinch, but she is an example of all that is wrong with the using of minors for social media content.
Sophie’s pattern of sharing her boys is obvious - they are fillers between ads and announcements.
Ronnie, particularly, has intimate details of his life shared. This included a story of him using the toilet, covered only by Sophie’s thumb. We do not have evidence of this, as not a single Tattle member even considered taking a screenshot of this moment.
The company who provided the toilet step re-shared the story, meaning that it was seen even more widely.
Tattle was in uproar, all agreeing that this was beyond any acceptable limit.
We know more about Ronnie and Lennie than we do about some of our friends and family, because intimate details are shared for all to see.
We are, and always will be, cheering for those boys. This is a Ronnie rave thread and that will never change. But, we would like nothing more than for the boys to be allowed to live their lives in private.
I know that I don’t need to share any further examples here, as many other members will be able to provide them.
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?