I kind of just assumed it wasn’t true?
Sali Hughes #22 pretty narcissistic
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Sali Hughes Threads Wiki
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Probably @Spanner
Her assistant has also been referred to as the dog walker on here a few times- but that's more of a dig at SH rather than the assistant. And I'm pretty sure her assistant has made jokes about it being her dream job because she gets to walk the dog. It's humourous rather than unkind or "bullying"
(For the sake of all the lawyers reading) I called her that in my first post on here. I suppose it is kind of bitchy (but I don’t think it’s worse than the sustained Prawn stuff *goes on mass deleting spree like a Twitter blue ticker*) It was hyperbolic based on the fact that she seemed to be pictured with Sali’s dog more than Sali was and her feed was very Sali focused. Also, when I said she’d been “paid with ugly shoes” or similar, I didn’t actually believe that’s how she was remunerated. I was making a joke
Isn't being a makeup artist doing technical, detailed things with her hands?
Yes - and the assistant herself does seem to have a sense of humour about it.
Also, one thing SH consistently fails to do - because it doesn't suit her personal agenda - is to acknowledge that the nature of the discussion here has changed over time. She presents a comment made by one person nearly two years ago as exemplfying the content here today.
I think it's fair to say that there were some unflattering comments about her assistant, but only in the context of comments about SH and only in the early days before we knew she was listening in. Things changed after we realised she'd been compiling personal information about us and some of the anger here after the 'stalking' and the video was directed at her. Since then though we've acknowledged - have said it clearly - that as she isn't the focus of our concerns we should avoid mentioning her (except if, as sometimes, she comments about us). She's also had a bit of sympathy here because SH seemed intent on 'reminding' her publicly that we'd called her 'fat' (which of course we hadn't).
I'm feeling fed up - with us feeling like we have to defend ourselves.
I've been thinking about what I wrote above, and this is literally what has happened with information/opinions that are publicly issued since time immemorial.
It used to be newspapers and radio, which people would discuss in their drawing rooms, salons and clubs (very upper class examples there).
Lest we forget, Sali still comes into our houses through the mediums of newspapers and radio, and now there is social media as well, reaching people via their computer or phone, which they may read and discuss with those they live with, with their friends in whats app groups, or online - reaching people they either know in person or do not.
This is such a normal thing to do!!!!! It is not fair to be stigmatised for this and called low lives!!
We would have nothing to discuss if she didn't release things publicly. And yes, posting on social media is public when your account isn't limited.
The only advance here (apart from the technological medium) is that we have found each other - on this 'dragging site' - without knowing each other in 'real life' or other people's full identities. This wouldn't have been possible before recent times - a commenter remarked that the equivalent would have been to post a notice in the local newsagent e.g. 'anyone want to discuss Sali Hughes - possible nefarious practices - 07890 123456', and the likelihood is that there wouldn't be enough people in that small geographical area to form a discussion group on the topic like we have here.
That is what I think of us as, by the way, a 'critical discussion group with a particular interest'. 'Critical' could be misinterpreted, of course, and it does have two relevant meanings, but I chose it for its meaning 'expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art'. The second meaning - 'expressing adverse or disapproving comments or judgements' - follows as a result of our analysis of the faults of a 'pretty honest' journalist.
We are a discussion group so far as we respond to the issues of the day - any recent press output, social media offerings, but also we discuss related topics, such as skincare, makeup, fashion and 'tweakments', as well as feminism, ageing, books and tv. People also sometimes talk about things in their personal lives like illness, children and family estrangement.
Again, this is a totally normal dynamic to be involved in, and even a wholesome place to spend time. As people have said, they don't know anyone in the course of their lives otherwise who are sufficiently interested to discuss Sali, so they have found this site, and that doesn't make us weird. It could be compared to a hobbyist who breeds finches and goes onto a particular website to discuss this - their friends and family would not want to talk about finches any more than necessary and have no expertise, so they seek out a group of like-minded individuals to discuss developments in finch keeping and the evil agrochemical catalogue companies who keep raising the cost of finch food and medicine. They form a small community and get to know each other well enough that they send congratulations to each other on life events, and 'thinking of you' when one of them is suffering.
By the way, I do consider this site and the people here part of my 'real life'.
Perhaps an abrupt ending to my post, but I think that is all I wanted to say for now.
Can someone tell me if we are ‘rats living in a sewer’ what animals are the superior class people in SH’s fantasy world? Unicorns farting Jo Malone magic dust?
Too much - great post. I’m enjoying the discussion and the “meta” issue of trolling. Had no real knowledge of SH as I said I’m not into make up (or beauty, which is probably the right term) I mean I do wash my face and I own a bottle of doublewear, the rest is thanks to Botox (weapons grade, injected with the sort of drill used to break up tarmac)
Honestly this is much tamer than reddit, or mumsnet, or twitter.
What documentary is @bloke making? Or is he just a documentary maker?
Honestly this is much tamer than reddit, or mumsnet, or twitter.
What documentary is @bloke making? Or is he just a documentary maker?
The way I see it, correcting misinformation is a form of defence - defending us against the lies and exaggerations that are being broadcast (literally broadcast) about us.
It feels like a good portion of our activity, mine included, is motivated by trying to prove that we're not what Sali and comrades say we are.
Maybe I'm projecting from my personal life, but it just feels exhausting having to keep refuting all of these claims, when Sali is constantly making new ones and sharing them with a fairly large platform.
I'm not suggesting that people stop attempting to defend us, and I probably won't stop either, but I wanted to share how I feel.
I’m not too bothered about what SH says about this place. What’s been fascinating though is that she has been able to ride on wave of oh-so-easy-to-prove misinformation about her threads on Tattle and even an institution as the bbc didn’t bother to do basic fact checks before commissioning the documentary. I really want to know why she had to use the word ‘dragging’ for the film and am I right in thinking she never mentions the website’s name in it?
I’d have expected that more followers who saw her Friday crying tit show lastSeptember would have bothered to come over and check for themselves. Surely that’s the natural thing to do? That’s what most of us did, didn’t we? Came over, checked, realised she’s talking bollocks and also found some funny and engaging people to hang out with. Despite all sources of information we have at our disposal, it’s staggering how easy misinformation spreads.
I’d have expected that more followers who saw her Friday crying tit show lastSeptember would have bothered to come over and check for themselves. Surely that’s the natural thing to do? That’s what most of us did, didn’t we? Came over, checked, realised she’s talking bollocks and also found some funny and engaging people to hang out with. Despite all sources of information we have at our disposal, it’s staggering how easy misinformation spreads.
my theory is that she deliberately didn't name tattle so that BBC listeners couldn't easily come here, in the numbers that they came after freaky friday. making 'dragging site' a term, was a win-win, if searching it didn't lead to tattle then her narrative would be accepted, and if 'dragging site' did hit off, then she would claim credit - 'dragging site' (Hughes, 2020).
What you say reinforced a thought I've been having recently. I hate that female skincare (basically, skin health) and makeup (an extension of fashion) are everywhere referred to under the umbrella of "beauty" whereas for males it's "grooming" which is much less loaded.
I'd never thought of that - a good observation!
That's exactly how I feel - though I'd probably say 'frightening' rather than 'fascinating'. I am aghast at the BBC giving her a platform without, it seems, even basic fact checking.
Similarly, when I first came here that Friday it wasn't her conduct that bothered me so much as that of the hoards tweeting/instagramming abuse about the people here without, it seems, going to any trouble to acquaint themselves with the facts.
As for 'dragging', I think that she (and/or the producer) wanted a term that sounded nastier that 'discussion forum' or 'gossip site' - the terms used previously by the national press to describe Tattle.
No, she didn't refer to Tattle by name. I think she stopped doing that a while ago, even on social media. Clearly, it seems to me, to avoid directing people here.
Almost the scariest thing is her saying at the end of the Radio 5 programme something like: To anyone listening, if you ever feel tempted to go to that site just out of curiosity to have a look at what's being said, don't - because you'll be adding to their Google results and indirectly helping to destroy lives.
@NotDumbNotBlonde I like “skin health” actually. Less loaded, more neutral. I don’t want to do “beauty” I’m no looker and never really will be. I just want to look ok and decent.
Grooming makes me think of ponies and cats, I guess as men have hairy faces it makes sense they get groomed?
Grooming makes me think of ponies and cats, I guess as men have hairy faces it makes sense they get groomed?
Women can’t win either way. We either engage in beauty treatments because of the patriarchy or disengage because we are stern feminists. I’ve lost track of the ongoing debate but by the last tally women are seemingly incapable of doing anything to their physique unless there are ulterior motives for it. It’s bad if we want to ‘look ourselves’ and it’s bad if we ‘let ourself go’. (Btw both expressions are 
).
).- Status