Sali Hughes #22 pretty narcissistic

[DCICassieStuart]

Who remembers “Sali’s Army” and the Salinistas?!

Oh God yes

 

[NotDumbNotBlonde]

It's possible that Sali got confused and initially thought this about her friends name when you google her and just hasn't checked if this information is correct because she cba. I don't think even she would use her friend's name to further her agenda. But it is really lazy journalism not to check her facts before declaring this as fact, not just once as with her radio programme, but also a month ago in this interview with Liz Earle around 13.30 minutes).

Florid and overwritten- yep.

 

[Mustard]

Another in my series trying to fact check (and/or sense check) the Radio 5 programme...

Having introduced the subject, EB plays an extract from SH’s September 2019 video. There have been many posts here over the past year detailing the ways the video grossly distorts the content of these threads so I won’t go into that here (but will at some stage try to do a round up of the key points).

After the video extract, EB mentions the File on Four programme, welcomes SH and says ‘It must be quite weird hearing that back...’

SH says that she ‘had to hurriedly make’ the video ‘because they had reported me to a whistleblower account who very briefly albeit published their claims unchecked’.

Comment: EB doesn’t ask SH why she had been reported to a whistleblower account – even though I think the reporting to the whistleblower was the pivotal event in the whole story of SH and Tattle.

For anyone new, this is what happened (there’s more detail on the SH Wiki):

• In September 2019 people here started commenting that SH or her assistant or a known high profile friend were 'stalking' them around their social media – leaving evidence that they had engaged with or viewed their social media. A number of people said they felt intimidated by this.
• In a post on 26 September 2019 one person said they were leaving Tattle because of it. They said that SH had ‘liked’ a photo of their child on Facebook. They wrote: ‘…she had read my posts here and had done some detective work to discover my identity. I feel really creeped out, particularly as she had involved my children. I have enjoyed my time on tattle.life but I am leaving now as I feel very uneasy.' The post included a screenshot of SH ‘liking’ a picture on the person’s Facebook page.
• To bring attention to this, the post was sent to the beauty industry ‘whistleblower account’ Estee Laundry who posted it on their site. They also posted a message from an anonymous person – who may or may not have been a Tattle user – saying they were ‘freaked out’ by unusual social media contact from SH and that they had received a message ‘from a random person telling me Sali was ‘stalking’ ppl who criticised her.’
• These posts appeared on the Estee Laundry site on 26/27 September 2019. On the evening of 27 September SH posted her video.

The 26 September 2019 Tattle post that EL posted is still here – so that’s clearly evidenced. In her video SH refers to being reported for ‘stalking’ and confirms that she had ‘liked’ a photograph of a person’s child on Facebook.

It’s not clear, therefore, why she says in the programme that EL published claims unchecked and implies that they were quickly removed because they were not true. It is the case that EL took down these posts – I think they said it was after they’d ‘had a conversation with’ SH – but it’s not clear to me why. Maybe EL had published other claims about SH? I wasn’t here then so may not have seen everything they posted (if anyone knows more, please say).

But even if EL had posted other claims, this particular one – that it was being said that SH was ‘stalking’ people on social media – would seem to be not just evidenced but acknowledged as true by SH (who explains her action as having been to let people know they had ‘been seen’).

To leave out the ‘stalking’ and the reporting of it to Estee Laundry seems to me to leave out the point at which everything changed – the point at which, seemingly to justify what might have looked like pretty questionable behaviour, she posted a video wildly misrepresenting the content here.

As before, do please let me know if I've got anything wrong here or if there's something I've misunderstood or not taken into account.

I haven’t heard that interview? I will look for it on the Sounds App - which programme was it?

 

[Dogmuck]

How does one PM you @Yel? I’ve tried to before with no luck.

 

[Skiddidlydaddle]

Yes, that’s the one! Book does sound v interesting.

I've never read any of her books but they all sound very appealing. Adding her to the never ending books to read list.

 

[Too Much]

Patricia Field is no longer with us AFAIK

This came up when I googled:

Patricia Field on Bag Charms, Audrey Hepburn, and the Best Costumes in <i>Emily in Paris</i>

The costuming legend breaks down a few of the new show's most iconic looks.

www.townandcountrymag.com

 

[Corbyn'sCat]

Yes. She takes pride in it.

How did I miss this?

 

[Aude]

Hi, the sali streisand effect sent me here via R4. I'm researching progress of the Online Harms Bill / related hate speech laws and as part of this work have documented a number of high profile claims about trolling used to promote the need for such legislation that can be shown to be exaggerated, disingenuous or false.

I'm thinking about writing something about the R4 broadcast in this context and think I'm reasonably up to speed with both sides of this story. One thing I'm hoping someone might be able to help me with is what happened with Giles Coren's claim that SH trolled or was abusive to his wife?

I haven't been able to find Esther Walker's statement on this and think it has been pulled, so am wondering did she detract it or what the situation is with all that now?

Any or all help / signposting much appreciated.

If you haven't already, and if you want to understand the SH/Tattle story, do read the SH 'Wiki' here.

My memory is that EC took down her statement within hours of posting it. Someone - might have been GC? might be on his Twitter feed? - said something like: she took it down because she didn't want to add to SH's distress.

I don't think GC has ever said that SH 'trolled or was abusive' to his wife. That seems to me to be putting it a bit strongly (although of course that's what SH does about here - in spades!). You'll have seen his video presumably and the SH tweets that lay behind it?

 

[Skiddidlydaddle]

Agreed. And it wasn't just EC's article that SH criticised, she also tweeted (4 Dec 2018) 'I feel hugely sorry for these kids on the basis of what both parents have written about them now and in the past'.

I feel like this dispute on twitter is 6 of one, half a dozen of another. I mean, GC wrote an article about his young son saying he is fat and greedy and he hope's he doesn't grow up to be a fat adult. The EC article Sali commented on was quite horrible and reductive in the attitudes towards women. But, then Sali also writes about her sex life and her kids teachers. So who is "better" here?

 

[Enid Swamp]

I was going to say step off R6 as, yes, I already have to perform an incredibly powerful Jedi mind trick on myself to pretend I’m ok with “LaLa” trapping on throughout the morning.

 

[Enid Swamp]

Wouldn’t she just say people grow and change?

I fully get the hypocrisy don’t @ me

There’s no point going on about the fact that she thought Corbyn looked wrong at the Cenotaph and her kid agreed. It’s idle thought passing through and ending up on the internet. Same with the family chat about the damage of divorce. Family chat. It’s the zoning in on that stuff comes across as Tattle laser focussed nuttsiness. Not attempting to moderate by the way.

Botox and behaviour hypocrisy and influencing are the ones.

 

[Mazerati]

She really needs to stop coming out with rubbish like "such and such colour suits everyone" or "pillow talk suits everyone, there's a red lip for everyone". We are all different and there is no one size fits all. I know it might seem old fashioned but the colour me beautiful theory does work.

what is this theory please? I need to learn it.

 

[bloke]

Hi me again…with another question…

The cyberstalking expert that featured in the R4 documentary claimed to have witnessed comments that she viewed as potentially criminal under current hate crime law….She initially mentions sex and age which are protected characteristics under equality of opportunity law (but not yet under hate crime legislation) but then goes on to reference race, sexual orientation and disability (which are protected under both). See At 10 minutes in… https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000n5z3

Anyone any thoughts on this or any idea about what she might be on about?

 

[GTL Old-Timer]

And one of her associates left a woman under the impression that they were in some sort of remationship after persuading her to masturbate on webcam. The woman seemed devastated when she found out he had a partner who was either pregnant or who he had a young child with. She contacted SH on Twitter and SH was actually quite kind to her after initially telling her "fuck off nutjob". I think she thought the woman was possibly a fantasist at first.

Dont remember this. Who was the associate?

 

[Mustard]

Interesting from an actual journalist with integrity. I don’t know much about Deborah, think this popped into my feed because someone else I follow commented. If you are lurking Sali, please do read it, kid of what we were trying to point out to you.

Deborah Robertson must be naive.

 

[DCICassieStuart]

Not ‘the’ bloke member?

The elusive Mr ' '???

 

[Dogmuck]

I told her that I was working on a review of the file on 4 episode and she told me that she was unable to comment. So yes, on the record. I'm committed to meeting the ethical standard as set out in the NUJ code of conduct. I wouldn't have posted our exchange otherwise.

Apologies I didn’t realise you were a journalist. Good to know.

 

[Missypissy]

I wonder if it was another attempt to throw people here under the bus and imply we were hackers?

That's disappointing a charity had their account hacked, but at the same time it's 2020 and it takes seconds to enable 2-step even for a multi user instagram account and stop 99.999% of hacks. Imo there's some responsibility on the owner of an account to secure it. Would she be so lapse with the security of her personal account?

I wondered that too.
It's a shitty thing to happen to a charity or anyone. Must feel quite invasive. I hope people aren't drawing parallels between this place and an online security breach

Is it common for instagram accounts to be hacked? Im not very clued up. What would someone get from it...wondered whether it was a financial scam by the hacker but her post seemed to suggest it was nasty messages. Perhaps this is an actual trolling incident. Maybe there will be a sequel "me and my hackers"