Part Time Working Mummy #6

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've mentioned it before but I'l say it again, How is she seeing all these horrible troll messages still if she has 2 people (her admin) shielding them from her as she claims. It makes me think what is she even paying them for if there clearly not doing the job intended?. If they were genuinely her admin her messages would be filtered and she would only get the good messages through, she wouldn't be having these break downs over insta every couple of days about trolls. So it leads me to this conclusion either they aren't admin at all and she's just paying them a wage because she has enough money coming in to support her family her lifestyle and those around her, which would be great BTW if only it weren't dishonest money. OR they ARE her admin, they do try and block the trolls but she's so narcissistic that she likes to see what everyone is saying because she loves the drama, which wouldn't suprise me because why else would she be reading here all the time. That alone is enough to tell me the kind of person she is.
 
The foot rubbing brings back awful memories of my childhood. My mum is very narcissistic, she was vile to us emotionally and physically and one thing she used to do was MAKE us sit and rub her feet as she knew we hated it. I know that’s nothing to do with the PayPal donations but it’s something that I just don’t get. Every time I see it I cringe 😩
 

Uberqueen

Well-known member
Clean Honest Living has given a very clear explanation of the legalities around the practise of "doxxng" on her story.

To give out a username to your followers on a post or story is not doxxing as that is your "public face"

However, to then release personal information about that person, date of birth, real name, address etc, children's names is doxxing and illegal.

Therefore PTWM I assume, in her rant, broke the law concerning Keels? Am I wrong here? I can't bring myself to view the snotfest again.

When she released the public profiles of Edies family that time, unfortunately, was not doxxing. Immoral yes. A bloody headache for her Dad yes.

Releasing that private message between two locals on a non public page, was that doxxing as she released private info?

The latest Seb vile messaging expose was not doxxing as no personal information was released just the public profile.

I may be wrong here.
 

GiveMyHeadPeace

VIP Member
I've mentioned it before but I'l say it again, How is she seeing all these horrible troll messages still if she has 2 people (her admin) shielding them from her as she claims. It makes me think what is she even paying them for if there clearly not doing the job intended?. If they were genuinely her admin her messages would be filtered and she would only get the good messages through, she wouldn't be having these break downs over insta every couple of days about trolls. So it leads me to this conclusion either they aren't admin at all and she's just paying them a wage because she has enough money coming in to support her family her lifestyle and those around her, which would be great BTW if only it weren't dishonest money. OR they ARE her admin, they do try and block the trolls but she's so narcissistic that she likes to see what everyone is saying because she loves the drama, which wouldn't suprise me because why else would she be reading here all the time. That alone is enough to tell me the kind of person she is.
... and she probably doesn’t actually get sent all the vile horrific troll messages that she says she does.

Clean Honest Living has given a very clear explanation of the legalities around the practise of "doxxng" on her story.

To give out a username to your followers on a post or story is not doxxing as that is your "public face"

However, to then release personal information about that person, date of birth, real name, address etc, children's names is doxxing and illegal.

Therefore PTWM I assume, in her rant, broke the law concerning Keels? Am I wrong here? I can't bring myself to view the snotfest again.

When she released the public profiles of Edies family that time, unfortunately, was not doxxing. Immoral yes. A bloody headache for her Dad yes.

Releasing that private message between two locals on a non public page, was that doxxing as she released private info?

The latest Seb vile messaging expose was not doxxing as no personal information was released just the public profile.

I may be wrong here.
I had to message CHL to explain this. She said that what PTWM did to Keeley was doxxing as she revealed her identity behind her username. What she did to the rest of the women - sharing messages, names - wasn’t doxxing but is still obviously immoral and bullying. Sharing a message that someone sent you with their username visible e.g ‘Lexi’ isn’t doxxing.
 

Empen

VIP Member
Clean Honest Living has given a very clear explanation of the legalities around the practise of "doxxng" on her story.

To give out a username to your followers on a post or story is not doxxing as that is your "public face"

However, to then release personal information about that person, date of birth, real name, address etc, children's names is doxxing and illegal.

Therefore PTWM I assume, in her rant, broke the law concerning Keels? Am I wrong here? I can't bring myself to view the snotfest again.

When she released the public profiles of Edies family that time, unfortunately, was not doxxing. Immoral yes. A bloody headache for her Dad yes.

Releasing that private message between two locals on a non public page, was that doxxing as she released private info?

The latest Seb vile messaging expose was not doxxing as no personal information was released just the public profile.

I may be wrong here.
What she did to Keeley was illegal, yes.
What she did to the ladies on Facebook was doxxing, yes.

The latest one with lexiloo - her account name wasn’t however- it had other people’s underneath that you could see and obtain their information from. So yes. That was.

It’s such a mess.

... and she probably doesn’t actually get sent all the vile horrific troll messages that she says she does.



I had to message CHL to explain this. She said that what PTWM did to Keeley was doxxing as she revealed her identity behind her username. What she did to the rest of the women - sharing messages, names - wasn’t doxxing but is still obviously immoral and bullying. Sharing a message that someone sent you with their username visible e.g ‘Lexi’ isn’t doxxing.
It only was as far as it goes that she handed out other people’s information on that screengrab. But it didn’t doxx lexiloo.
 

Uberqueen

Well-known member
What she did to Keeley was illegal, yes.
What she did to the ladies on Facebook was doxxing, yes.

The latest one with lexiloo - her account name wasn’t however- it had other people’s underneath that you could see and obtain their information from. So yes. That was.

It’s such a mess.



It only was as far as it goes that she handed out other people’s information on that screengrab. But it didn’t doxx lexiloo.
Ah. Right..Thanks . I don't remember seeing other people's info on that screenshot. I need to go and have a gander.
 

Seeing_the_light

Well-known member
Clean Honest Living has given a very clear explanation of the legalities around the practise of "doxxng" on her story.

To give out a username to your followers on a post or story is not doxxing as that is your "public face"

However, to then release personal information about that person, date of birth, real name, address etc, children's names is doxxing and illegal.

Therefore PTWM I assume, in her rant, broke the law concerning Keels? Am I wrong here? I can't bring myself to view the snotfest again.

When she released the public profiles of Edies family that time, unfortunately, was not doxxing. Immoral yes. A bloody headache for her Dad yes.

Releasing that private message between two locals on a non public page, was that doxxing as she released private info?

The latest Seb vile messaging expose was not doxxing as no personal information was released just the public profile.

I may be wrong here.
That's how I understood it - just screen shots of what is publicly viewable isnt doxxing anymore than posting a link to an Amazon review 😉

What does confuse me is how she could post the apparently 'private' conversation between two locals.. how did she see that?
 

Lucyinthesky88

Chatty Member
That's how I understood it - just screen shots of what is publicly viewable isnt doxxing anymore than posting a link to an Amazon review 😉

What does confuse me is how she could post the apparently 'private' conversation between two locals.. how did she see that?
It’s still bullying though, to post a screenshot of someone’s account with their username along with claims they’ve abused you/your child to thousands of people, clearly with the intention of setting fans on them, otherwise why share it.
 

Elgato

Well-known member
Keels was doxxed absolutely and her child’s identity was revealed including where he attended school.

The rest maybe not doxxing by legal definition but they were easily identifiable by many members of public by simply putting two and two together. People that are related to her through her youngest too so although maybe not internet doxxing in the real world it’s going to be rough for them cos small town mentality.

I do wonder what the community thought of Rachel’s antics seeing as she’s continually shat where she’s ate.

The Lidl ad made me die laughing cos what’s being encouraged atm? To ditch wipes altogether there was even a program on it very recently!

The bullying by her and her fans is ironic considering she is an anti bullying ambassador ( it’s worth the page it’s wrote on in that regard) and she did (paid) ads for fb hq on the subject.
 

Seeing_the_light

Well-known member
It’s still bullying though, to post a screenshot of someone’s account with their username along with claims they’ve abused you/your child to thousands of people, clearly with the intention of setting fans on them, otherwise why share it.
Absolutely! It has the foul smell of playground bullying hanging over it.

A mutual "friend " must have forwarded to her
That was my conclusion, too.
 

Greyongrey

Active member
Wow, just had a read of that lidl post. So many argumentative, uneducated people on that post. No-one is allowed a differing opinion anymore it's quite scary really. People are that obsessed with someone they become so rude just because other people are giving a different spin on things.
My favourite post on there: the governments corrupt and fucked why dont they stop selling wipes then.
Wow, get back to school.
This is what her 'army' consists of, people who aren't capable of thinking for themselves. Literally cannot believe some of the things I've just read on there, this site is a much nicer place than her page!!
 

Wotsit

Well-known member
Wow, just had a read of that lidl post. So many argumentative, uneducated people on that post. No-one is allowed a differing opinion anymore it's quite scary really. People are that obsessed with someone they become so rude just because other people are giving a different spin on things.
My favourite post on there: the governments corrupt and fucked why dont they stop selling wipes then.
Wow, get back to school.
This is what her 'army' consists of, people who aren't capable of thinking for themselves. Literally cannot believe some of the things I've just read on there, this site is a much nicer place than her page!!
Terrible isn't it.....I care about the future environment and try to do my bit where I can but I hadn't realised how bad wipes were till those comments. Why do they have to argue about it, just consider it and if you don't agree or aren't bother then move on. Not that I use them anymore as kids have grown up but its certainly made me think if i do ever need them. As someone said before, its better 1000 people doing their "bit" than 100 people doing everything.

The "army" are all clearly deluded when it comes to R, what she says goes no matter what. I fear for not just the environment but civilisation in general with this amount of stupidity in the next generation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top