Homegirl is about to find out what it's like to be the friendliest of friends with the SacconeJolys. LOL she's just getting to know them.
Homegirl is about to find out what it's like to be the friendliest of friends with the SacconeJolys. LOL she's just getting to know them.First day back at school, on inset all staff in school, dinner ladies included had to read , and sign we had read the Dept of Ed latest safeguarding children document. VEry long... The abuse section got me... In the emotional abuse it also mentions children being threatened or being in fear of physical ,psychological or emotional abuse. Well they have both def bloody done that on a number of occasions. Under neglect also comes not meeting the child's emotional needs through emotional neglect/ lack of physical comfort. . It was bloody scary many I could have highlighted for those children obv Alessia first physical contact, emotional care .So it's not just the physical abuse of the cold showers. I bet the local safeguarding team been involved hence silence then utter lies and bullshit to get Out of it.
Withoutacrystalball s video response to the shitjolys using her in their vlog today. Goes into full details of the article they say they read about cold showers. More twisting of the facts as per usual
exposes assholes.What I don't get is they reference the Irish times article which says to use "cold water". They say "cold water" and "cold shower" in the vlog with Alessia but back tracking they say "Luke warm". If you're referencing the Irish times as where you got your advice from it says to use cold water so why did they decide to use Luke warm water and not use the Irish times advice? It's a very messy explanation which when poked exposes holes.
Emelia knew about all this a year before the article was written too. Clever cookie.
I don’t think she does the workouts on the weekend does she?
I don’t understand the license thing - there are such strict rules around child ‘performers’ - I don’t see how they can apply to children whose lives are effectively the Truman show?!
Unless they are doing performances such as a catwalk show they don’t need them. I work for an L.A and have enquired, it’s a complete loophole.There is no way ANY Influencers have Child Performer Licences for YT and IG. Absolutely no way. I'd love to be proven wrong.
No she never works out on week ends.I don’t think she does the workouts on the weekend does she?
I don’t understand the license thing - there are such strict rules around child ‘performers’ - I don’t see how they can apply to children whose lives are effectively the Truman show?!
Maybe Emilia was the the sourceEmelia knew about all this a year before the article was written too. Clever cookie.
Oh, it is actually possible that one of them will write a book especially Alessia or Eduardo, it would balance that mess, at least.No idea who these people are? Oh, then let me help you out....she is a lazy...fashionably challenged.... unavailable & generally pissed off mother. The vertically challenged..... mental & mantic midget is the father. They would have a tiny channel if not for those beautiful children. I am hoping that at least one of those children write a tell-all book when they become adults. I CAN DREAM.... RIGHT?
I find it really condescending especially with a serious accusation and serious subject like children.Anna straight away making jokes about feeling like they are doing a press conference. Same way she made a joke about the headband after the cold shower.
Yes please, pull a Christina Crawford and go all out.Oh, it is actually possible that one of them will write a book especially Alessia or Eduardo, it would balance that mess, at least.
Oh wow I’ve just read who she was and her story.Yes please, pull a Christina Crawford and go all out.
She section's her days off into 30 minute blocks, she couldn't just spend 15 minutes watching the vlog, it would have to be scheduled for 30 minutes, and that would 100% cut into her half an hour snack break or her 30 minute "charge phone" breakAnna taking 15 minutes out of her day to approve the content of the vlogs would clearly be too much like hard work!
Besides, it has nothing to do with editing. What they did to Alessia was horrendous - it wasn’t edited to look cruel, it was cruel.
Are YT children classed as working though? I know they clearly are - but under law, is this the case or can it just be fobbed off as family videos or whatever? Because clearly from those outlines for child performers, no one is enforcing thiI don't believe for one second that he works within the guidelines for child performers. For a start that would mean giving the local licensing officer access to their household and, as the website for the National Network for Children in Entertainment and Employment says: 'the licensing of child performers cannot be viewed solely as an administrative process. The role of the licensing officer is primarily one of safeguarding and enforcement. It should always be remembered that "a piece of paper" will not protect a child.'
There is an officer assigned to each Local Authority and they have powers of entry if they think a child is at risk.
The rules as they stand are not fit for purpose as they were drawn up before Youtube became a source of income for family vloggers. It lists the circumstances where a licence would be required and says it does not extend to user generated content, 'e.g. where young people or a family record themselves and share it on a website or social media.' But if its a 'performance' on a website then it does require a licence.
Jonathan has always been very careful to say his vlogs are observational, not directed., so not a performance. But obviously there are performed elements to the vlogs.
The law is a mess on this and needs updating, fast.
This person literally stalks the SJ’sApparently according to this dickhead’s comment it’s all the nasty people on here who are causing this upset to the poor Scumbagjolys. So not all the other right-minded people who they’ve managed to bribe or threaten into retracting their opinions.
While the pair of them sit there spouting bullshit through fake smiles and gritted teeth knowing that they have no power to control the narrative on here.
I say keep up the good work.
View attachment 36899
Jonathan said the kids aren't directed and don't perform? What an utter crock! Those kids have done loads of scripted adverts for vacation destinations. You know, all those cruises and hotels they got to stay at for free because the kids participated in a scripted video.I don't believe for one second that he works within the guidelines for child performers. For a start that would mean giving the local licensing officer access to their household and, as the website for the National Network for Children in Entertainment and Employment says: 'the licensing of child performers cannot be viewed solely as an administrative process. The role of the licensing officer is primarily one of safeguarding and enforcement. It should always be remembered that "a piece of paper" will not protect a child.'
There is an officer assigned to each Local Authority and they have powers of entry if they think a child is at risk.
The rules as they stand are not fit for purpose as they were drawn up before Youtube became a source of income for family vloggers. It lists the circumstances where a licence would be required and says it does not extend to user generated content, 'e.g. where young people or a family record themselves and share it on a website or social media.' But if its a 'performance' on a website then it does require a licence.
Jonathan has always been very careful to say his vlogs are observational, not directed., so not a performance. But obviously there are performed elements to the vlogs.
The law is a mess on this and needs updating, fast.
Yes,exactly it comes across as insincere, not raw feelings etc...à la Laura Lee.You can't trust an "apology video" with that many jumpcuts, just saying
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?