SacconeJolys #2 Hey guys, so I just finished my work out

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I personally think that a lot of the backlash toward many so-called influencers, is due to the attitude they have regarding their position. They enjoy the very income that buys them their mansions, luxury cars and clothes, etc, to you and I, the every-people who watch their content and engage with them via social media. I don't deny that there is work involved in what they do, but it certainly isn't the hard graft that many of us do to simply keep afloat. If I were paid as well as they are for the hours I work, I'd be richer than most influencers. I think their bleating about how much hard work they put in is a massive insult to those who follow them. I would love to watch an unedited day in the life and see how many hours a day they actually spend on running their channels and socials. And to dismiss the notion of luck in regards to their popularity. The Saccone-Joly's, Louise Pentland, Zoella, Alfie Deyes, Joe Sugg and their comrades who burst onto the scene at a similar time have enormously benefited from being on YouTube at exactly the right moment. Had they arrived later, I'm sure their journey would be different.

I personally think these influencers need to colour their interactions with their audiences with a humble, gracious attitude. If it were not for us, they'd not have the careers they love so dearly. We as followers also need to respect their right to live safely, and certainly not bully or threaten them. No one has the right to do that to another. However, I am afraid these public figures have waived their right to private lives by broadcasting their lives to the world. You can't make a living off selling your family's life and then complain that people are impinging on your privacy, when you invited them inside your home yourself.

I also feel that if you are going to broadcast incidences of malicious behaviour, there should be some proof of it, so long as legal proceedings are not in place. I am definitely a 'I won't believe it until I see it' kind of person.

I harbour no bad feelings toward any influencer, and have never bullied, intimidated or threatened one. I've never tried to pry into their personal lives or make their lives difficult in any way. I do feel that they all need to take stock of their positions, and realise that their very livelihood relies upon engagement from the every-person, you and me, before they alienate their entire audiences with their extravagant lifestyles and entitled attitudes.

Sorry for the essay, this issue is really bothering me.

Oh, and Jonathan and Anna, if you do read here. I am not a sad little person with a sad little life. I am not experiencing a horrible life event, nor is it making me behave in a horrible manner. I found gossip sites like this after other influencers directed me here by not allowing any kind of discourse on their channels and socials regarding their conduct online. There needs to be somewhere for people to express their opinion, especially where it cannot be doctored or managed by the influencer in question. I am simply a consumer who wishes to make her opinion known and to be able to discuss it freely. I wish you and your family well, and have never and would never harm you in any way. Feel free to send me a message if you'd like to chat.

Thanks, chaps. Peace out! ☮
You touched on some very wonderful points that I agree with times a billion.

I've noticed a pattern with a lot of YouTubers surrounding viewer engagement. Most of them get to a point where they make excuses for their lack of audience interaction. Either they are too busy with other projects, hide behind the guise of mental illness (*coughs* Zoella *coughs*), or say they don't like meet and greets because they cannot meet everyone properly. Yet, they are never too busy or shy to go on book tours, brand sponsored trips, or promotional appearances to support whatever their latest endeavor is. So basically they are telling the people who support them is if they want engagement they need to pay for it. I remember when Anna and Jonathan went to vlogger events when Emilia and Eduardo were babies. They'd leave them with the nanny (I think her name was Natasha?) and she would vlog while they were at the event. With the amount of help they have now there is no excuse for why they couldn't do more public appearances. Even if it's just once a year, it's better then nothing. How quickly these people forget where they came from and who they partially have to thank for where they are now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13
It's kind of worrying that people seem to think the kids and dogs would be better off in care or in shelters. They're obviously much happier with Anna and Jonathan.
Oh FFS, who has ever said that? Seriously. Frankly the dogs WOULD be better of rehomed with families who could care for them properly but I have never read anywhere that they'd be better off in shelters.
As for the children....first of all, I call BS on the police visit about bruises. It doesn't work like that if there's a report that a child might be physically abused. It wouldn't be left up to the police to decide the outcome. Vloggers rely on their audience being as ignorant about the real world as they are themselves.

Most vloggers have never worked in the public sector, or even in a job with responsibility for other people. Look at Part Time Mummy whatever her name is, her fans have swallowed the lie that she single-handedly gets abused women placed in refuges around the country and the police phone her for help. Lol.

But of course no child should be removed from their parents except as a last resort. Again, IF this has even been said (and I'd like you to show me where) then it will be one person with such a view.
Exaggerating the very real concerns people have about their parenting and making us all sound irrational is a typical SJ dirty twist of the truth. God, even writing about them makes my skin crawl.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 15
Oh FFS, who has ever said that? Seriously. Frankly the dogs WOULD be better of rehomed with families who could care for them properly but I have never read anywhere that they'd be better off in shelters.
As for the children....first of all, I call BS on the police visit about bruises. It doesn't work like that if there's a report that a child might be physically abused. It wouldn't be left up to the police to decide the outcome. Vloggers rely on their audience being as ignorant about the real world as they are themselves.

Most vloggers have never worked in the public sector, or even in a job with responsibility for other people. Look at Part Time Mummy whatever her name is, her fans have swallowed the lie that she single-handedly gets abused women placed in refuges around the country and the police phone her for help. Lol.

But of course no child should be removed from their parents except as a last resort. Again, IF this has even been said (and I'd like you to show me where) then it will be one person with such a view.
Exaggerating the very real concerns people have about their parenting and making us all sound irrational is a typical SJ dirty twist of the truth. God, even writing about them makes my skin crawl.
Child protective services can request the presents of a police officer if they are doing a welfare check on a child. If this did actually happen and they do actually have an on-going harrassment case, then the police may have felt compelled to be there regardless of whether they were requested. But police do not typically conduct welfare checks themselves. That is usually done by a child protective services agent. Jonathan mentioned having received visits by both police and social services but Anna just said police. Who knows at this point. The beginning of yesterday's video sure made it sound like they have some campaign in the works. Oh joy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
You have to sit back and think ! How do they know it's a hater hacking the school website? Also several times they changed the hater to haters harassing them ! So which one is it ? Also they cant be perusing it legally because they would be told not to discuss it online ! I dont doubt they have had social services and police around to check on them but I do think they have over dramatised it for views! Dont even get me started on the causually thrown around mental health card !
 
  • Like
Reactions: 20
I wonder if the flight yesterday was to Ireland to appear on a TV show about the Haders. I bet they are loving all the exposure as it may boost followers.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 8
The comments under the Mail article have come to a grinding halt after only 9 comments, most of them asking who the hell he is. I smell Gleam's hand in this.

Any article about the SJs always gets negative feedback so they stop people from commenting after a while. So much for free speech.

The Mail online are covered by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Since the Levenson enquiry the media are supposed to fact check articles and report the truth accurately.

He can manipulate his kiddie audience but he won't get away with crying 'troll' over justified complaints about his conduct. Funny that neither parent expresses any concern for their children in that article.

And how the heck is he being trolled when people are writing to brands, not him? The tissue of lies just collapses as soon as you breathe on it. More's the pity that the Mail (crappy paper anyway) should compromise whatever standards it has for the sake of a fast buck from Gleam.

mailonline.co.uk
[email protected]

Child protective services can request the presents of a police officer if they are doing a welfare check on a child. If this did actually happen and they do actually have an on-going harrassment case, then the police may have felt compelled to be there regardless of whether they were requested. But police do not typically conduct welfare checks themselves. That is usually done by a child protective services agent. Jonathan mentioned having received visits by both police and social services but Anna just said police. Who knows at this point. The beginning of yesterday's video sure made it sound like they have some campaign in the works. Oh joy.
Yes I agree. The police would accompany a social worker but not just turn up on their own. Its bollocks

They fail to admit that they were being monitored by social services. He claimed they had an 'open relationship', Lol. He means there was an open case. They don't get involved for no reason.
That was a while ago but maybe the case file was still active and they didn't like something they saw when Alessia was first at home. They did use to let the other two kids climb all over her and she looked so distressed.
He was also using a crying Alessia as the thumbnail and got called out by hazel Hayes for manipulating his audience when he was using the baby for views, clickbaiting about her possibly having something serious wrong with her.

After this Anna kept Alessia in the bedroom with her for a year. So the truth is probably that they were advised by the social work team already in contact with them to be a bit more bloody protective of their precious new born baby!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 16
There will be very few negative comments in daily mail article as the comments are being moderated. Possibly because children are featured.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Yes I agree. The police would accompany a social worker but not just turn up on their own. Its bollocks
Police can and will attend on their own, however it would just be for a welfare check. A police officer would not (should not) examine a child for injury unless it’s an emergency life threatening situation. Any examination would need to take place in a controlled environment, just in case any legal proceedings need to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
Lol they featured the video in the story for extra views!

Love how someone made a comment that "something just doesn't sit right with family vloggers, recording everybit of their children's lives to broadcast to millions of people without there permission (how can a baby agree to this) for money" -- they've never even watched them and can see how wrong it all is!

That article has backfired!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 14
Joanne Good from BBC Radio London has recorded a podcast with I think the husband under the title Dogs and the City. Available via the BBC Sounds app. I do not know this family, so don’t have an opinion on them.
 
Just watched Anna’s Instagram story about how “cute” it was that they arrived home yesterday and all the children (except Andrea) has gone so brown in the sun! Children should not be getting tans and it’s certainly not cute!!
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Wow
Reactions: 14
Also, this morning she talked about how hot it was in the house last night.
33 degrees? Do they not know how to prevent that at least to some extent?
I’m in Germany and we’ve had the hottest day of the year yesterday with a temperature of 42 for gods sake. You try to cool down the flat or house at night and at about 8am everything is shut, blinds down and it stays like that until nighttime.
And I was raging when I heard that they only have 1 fan (but a Dyson, thank goodness for that...) and that it’s in the parents bedroom. A felt bad for the children because they don’t have one in their rooms. Are you blinking kidding me???
The children don’t have a fan in this heat? And you don’t even consider giving them yours? Just so you can go to sleep at 8 and work out at 5? And you’re ok with your children being up and miserable until god knows when?
I’m furious...

And then she’s in the kitchen a few hours later saying that all the doors and windows are open. Not smart. At 8 it was already 28 degrees here. Shut the windows, woman! And shut your gob while you’re at it.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 28
Disgusted isn’t the word no fan for the poor kids meanwhile Anna is fine because she’s in bed with her dyson fan all so she can get up at stupid o’clock for her workout absolute selfish witch
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 15
Disgusted isn’t the word no fan for the poor kids meanwhile Anna is fine because she’s in bed with her dyson fan all so she can get up at stupid o’clock for her workout absolute selfish witch
Uhhh that's not something I'd talk about on instagram!

Why not just give the fan to the kids or sleep downstairs?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
I don’t want to look at their account as it sounds horrific. I came here because I heard about the podcast in Dogs and the City. Why do you all follow them?
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.