Hi - I’m still here. I’ve been logging on most days. Believe me there is a few of us watching the thread. I only commented because I could see how frustrated people were getting by the lack of interest from the press and I was trying to explain how things work on newspapers/magazines today. If I pitched the potential PayPal fraud story to an editor they wouldn’t take the risk. They might if it was a household name or someone off Love Island (little joke). It would cost money to investigate and put through legal checks. Whereas, a lifestyle puff piece (like the Mofatt story) is a different type of story - you can get away with a lot more as you are saying that the clothes retailer was annoyed. Do you see the difference? Also (fact) she’s pregnant and a responsible news outlet wouldn’t do it (yet). I don’t write the internet filler type articles but happy to advise anyone who wants to pursue this after she’s had her baby. But you’ve got to have proper sources etc etc. Please feel free to DM me. I have a friend that donated (still does) so ... guess I’m invested.That journalist that was on here, I don’t think was a journalist.
No offence if you are here and you are. But it’s almost impossible to prove...
Just seems VERY convenient that their only suggestion was to stop asking and talking about the PayPal.
In fact she not only said a paper won’t write about PayPal, but (paraphrase) ‘to stop talking about the PayPal situation’....
It was Tattle that blocked the names out not Rachel. The full names are on FB Rachel’s post.Where did that come from? Her Facebook page? It shouldn’t be shared on social media, even 22 years later. The names are clearly still identifiable. I’ll take this up with the local authority.
Brilliant, thanks. I don’t follow her but imagine I can still see it. I’ll look now.It was Tattle that blocked the names out not Rachel. The full names are on FB Rachel’s post.
You can have meeting with all this people purely over a child's behaviour , Christ social services put children back with herion addicts parentsThey are quite big meetings...
View attachment 28884
It’s 14 June 2018 and is public.Brilliant, thanks. I don’t follow her but imagine I can still see it. I’ll look now.
And a slap on the wrist (I am such a doofus me, naughty Hinch) about adverts is NOT the same as a story like this one. It sits right in the middle of a grey zone.Also, that they won’t write about pregnant women, as that journalist said is untrue.
The article I wrote about Hinch flouting ASA rules etc was published when she was 8 months pregnant.
must be how she's getting away with all the untruth's. She's changed her name like she did with the people in the book so no legal action can be taken.So it’s actually Rachel, Rachaele must be her stage name.
Yes I just screen snapped it - I scrubbed the names as it felt wrong to share it 'as is'.Where did that come from? Her Facebook page? It shouldn’t be shared on social media, even 22 years later. The names are clearly still identifiable. I’ll take this up with the local authority.
Yes I just screen snapped it - I scrubbed the names as it felt wrong to share it 'as is'.
Found it, thanksIt’s 14 June 2018 and is public.
This was about more than behaviour - it would have been significant child-protection. By her own admission (fiction) there was aggression and violence, neglect and absconding, drugs and alcohol... and a family in crisis... A FAMILY Rachel (now we know) not just YOU!You can have meeting with all this people purely over a child's behaviour , Christ social services put children back with herion addicts parents
Her older brother's name is highlighted so this is his copy from the meetingDoes she say where she got this from? I ask because I spent my teenage years in care (part of the reason I felt I could relate to her) I had no paperwork from any of the hundreds of meetings etc. As an adult a few years ago I discovered I was entitled to copies of all of my notes from my time in care and the numerous meetings etc before I was taken into care. It was a long fight to get all the information though. I'm sure if she went through the struggle of getting that information, we would have all heard about it. I'd also like to add that every single piece of information I received was redacted. So if this was an official document Rachaele had received, all those names would not be visible on it.
It seems like that was her brothers copy as his name was highlightedDoes she say where she got this from? I ask because I spent my teenage years in care (part of the reason I felt I could relate to her) I had no paperwork from any of the hundreds of meetings etc. As an adult a few years ago I discovered I was entitled to copies of all of my notes from my time in care and the numerous meetings etc before I was taken into care. It was a long fight to get all the information though. I'm sure if she went through the struggle of getting that information, we would have all heard about it. I'd also like to add that every single piece of information I received was redacted. So if this was an official document Rachaele had received, all those names would not be visible on it.
It seems like that was her brothers copy as his name was highlighted
I didn't even notice that, I am at the point that I don't buy a single thing she says! Thanks for pointing that out to meHer older brother's name is highlighted so this is his copy from the meeting
Her stories are becoming incredibly boringOh my God, this mornings story, her "scared" voice just sounds so fake, waking your kids to get an insect off you, she is honestly so pathetic. I'm sure it's all just drama created by her!
To be fair, her phone was probably already on It's never off!She was so scared of that bug this morning she managed to open her phone, turn camera on and video it, rather than just move away.
What.is.wrong.with.these.people.
My phobia is sharks and if one comes swimming up I ain't wasting time getting my phone out to record it