Did you make that yourself? It's very intricate. You should set up a Etsy shop.
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:
The biggest mistake she made was to create a spectacular own goal by positioning herself at the centre of the documentary. She even called it "Me and my trolls". The examples cited are not remotely comparable to the Tattle posts here
Spectacular own goal
Becky exists for sure. I think it's totally understandable that someone would do such a 180 and concede to Sali's narrative. Something we imply but don't always state, is just what a power imbalance there is between an individual viewer and a popular influencer like Sali. This is exacerbated further still by the fact that Sali's accusations - which she levies at individual participants, including Becky - are incredibly strong and hyperbolic: "you caused me depression", "you destroyed my life", "you attacked my family and put us in danger" (I'm paraphrasing here, not quoting). Imagine if someone you once liked and admired, followed and looked up to, singled you out and told you these things personally. Contrary to Sali's portrayal, we are human beings with feelings of empathy, not soulless "sewer rats". Coming face to face with Sali must be very daunting and overwhelming (like talking to a boss or meeting your idol for the first time). This is why statements gathered in this way aren't reliable and why they would not readily stand up in court or in academic research.
Also, Becky is in no danger from Tattler users - we have no army of followers and loyal defenders to descend on her. (Also, why would we want to? She's done nothing wrong by talking to Sali and expressing her opinions/experiences, and I have yet to see a single comment here stating otherwise). However, she is very much in danger of Sali's followers and the narrative that Sali is building. I have no doubt that Sali's followers would report Becky to her employers, harrass her loved ones and drive her off the internet if they knew her real identity. The fact that people are calling her "a piece of tit" and that Sali is encouraging such comments, especially when it's unclear what posts Becky even made, are horrible testament to such a prediction.
Also, isn't it funny how Sali observation about Becky being "affluent looking" does not prompt any conversation around misconceptions about gossip site users? A good journalist would have looked into different threads and their demographics. Given that a bulk of Sali's audience is from The Guardian and not a low rent right wing tabloid like The Mail, and that she discusses high-end beauty, it's safe to assume many of those discussing her are left-leaning liberals, many of whom are well educated and have decent incomes. That's reflected in many of the comments and discussions here. The same is also true of the influencer Grace Beverley (fantastic discussion on class structures over there by the way). In contrast, the Prince Harry and Meghan Tattle thread is markedly more right wing, is anti BLM and quotes a heck of a lot of Mail and Express articles without much critical discussion of said articles.
As for me and my demographics, l work for a human rights charity that works to protect those who have their human rights violated. (Sally wouldn't fall within our mandate - someone snarking about your alleged botox does not count as a human rights violation.)
Also, Becky is in no danger from Tattler users - we have no army of followers and loyal defenders to descend on her. (Also, why would we want to? She's done nothing wrong by talking to Sali and expressing her opinions/experiences, and I have yet to see a single comment here stating otherwise). However, she is very much in danger of Sali's followers and the narrative that Sali is building. I have no doubt that Sali's followers would report Becky to her employers, harrass her loved ones and drive her off the internet if they knew her real identity. The fact that people are calling her "a piece of tit" and that Sali is encouraging such comments, especially when it's unclear what posts Becky even made, are horrible testament to such a prediction.
Also, isn't it funny how Sali observation about Becky being "affluent looking" does not prompt any conversation around misconceptions about gossip site users? A good journalist would have looked into different threads and their demographics. Given that a bulk of Sali's audience is from The Guardian and not a low rent right wing tabloid like The Mail, and that she discusses high-end beauty, it's safe to assume many of those discussing her are left-leaning liberals, many of whom are well educated and have decent incomes. That's reflected in many of the comments and discussions here. The same is also true of the influencer Grace Beverley (fantastic discussion on class structures over there by the way). In contrast, the Prince Harry and Meghan Tattle thread is markedly more right wing, is anti BLM and quotes a heck of a lot of Mail and Express articles without much critical discussion of said articles.
As for me and my demographics, l work for a human rights charity that works to protect those who have their human rights violated. (Sally wouldn't fall within our mandate - someone snarking about your alleged botox does not count as a human rights violation.)
That's it exactly. She's acting like it's a human rights violation, and usurping the stories of others
Big lurker first time poster here. Any of you enjoyed the recent Alan Partridge podcast where he rails against his trooooles? He kicks off because someone tweeted to say they have seen him swimming widths at the local pool. Put me in mind of Sali and her lamentable documentary.
BTW, I feel it's impossible to contribute to this thread without addressing the spectre SH has more than once brought to the feast in the context of this documentary: that someone who has a thread here might harm themselves as a result of reading that thread.
It seems to me that's pure fortune-telling, and not very sophisticated fortune-telling at that.
Self-harming actions are exceedingly complex. To reduce any "cry-for-help" behaviour to a single "cause" is reductive and contrary to (for e.g.) Samaritans media guidelines.
Lining Tattle up for potshots in the hope you might catch the prevailing wind to "predict" it, snuggled in the safe haven of your twitter mates' opinions. Please. Take your platform and, well, rotate on it
It seems to me that's pure fortune-telling, and not very sophisticated fortune-telling at that.
Self-harming actions are exceedingly complex. To reduce any "cry-for-help" behaviour to a single "cause" is reductive and contrary to (for e.g.) Samaritans media guidelines.
Lining Tattle up for potshots in the hope you might catch the prevailing wind to "predict" it, snuggled in the safe haven of your twitter mates' opinions. Please. Take your platform and, well, rotate on it
Hi,
New to this thread. I'm sorta confused. Please help me make sense of this.
Said person is claiming defamation/libel from trolls especially "Becky" meanwhile has a history of doing the same and name calling? Also trying to censor people's thoughts and ideas meanwhile working for BBC (journalism-that fight for freedom of speech and expression)?
New to this thread. I'm sorta confused. Please help me make sense of this.
Said person is claiming defamation/libel from trolls especially "Becky" meanwhile has a history of doing the same and name calling? Also trying to censor people's thoughts and ideas meanwhile working for BBC (journalism-that fight for freedom of speech and expression)?
Her pinned tweet signalling the radio programme has so far got .... 66 retweets. I think it's safe to say that there are whatsapp groups aplenty discussing its failures - which is what Sali wanted, after all 
You kinda nailed it. There is a summary at the start of the thread, that will fill in the backstory. Welcome. We are all beefy-faced skidmarks that live under bridges, but have occasional thoughts
Yes, so funny! Don’t want to spoil the end for any future listeners but I did think how much more magnanimous he was when faced with his troll in real life than Sali was with Becky, says something when you’re out classed by Partridge!
You are correct. Hello.
Now I'm out of Actual Points can I just snark for the snark's sake and say that "ruining" your kids birthdays by... getting in your head when you were supposed to be paying attention to your kids, and "ruining" your confidence by... making you buy a ticket so your husband could come too on a Euro-trip? 
Heart bleeds
Heart bleeds
It really is the vilest thing about all this, the constant allusions to suicide in an attempt to bully people into silence.BTW, I feel it's impossible to contribute to this thread without addressing the spectre SH has more than once brought to the feast in the context of this documentary: that someone who has a thread here might harm themselves as a result of reading that thread.
It seems to me that's pure fortune-telling, and not very sophisticated fortune-telling at that.
Self-harming actions are exceedingly complex. To reduce any "cry-for-help" behaviour to a single "cause" is reductive and contrary to (for e.g.) Samaritans media guidelines.
Lining Tattle up for potshots in the hope you might catch the prevailing wind to "predict" it, snuggled in the safe haven of your twitter mates' opinions. Please. Take your platform and, well, rotate on it
Is she talking about Katie Hayes again here bit of a leap from what was said in the documentary
Excellent post @Dillydally and spot on, too. I come here for the articulate and thoughtful posters. What saddens me is that I once looked up to Sali (might have even been a bit of hero worship, though nothing to the extent of her forum or GTL "Sali-nistas". Not once has she acknowledged why some former readers might be disillusioned. Zero introspection or self-awareness whatsoever. In her mind, we're losers, skidmark people, beef faced, jealous haters, you name it
I would say if anyone is thinking of making a complaint, itshould stick to verifiable instances of misrepresentation or untruths and refer to bbbc guidelines. It would need to be scrupulous and forensic. Otherwise it can be dismissed as vexatious. It would take a lot of work and imo would need to be watertight. I cba atm but ( and I will keep banging this drum) videos about my trolling hell and radio programmes with not one instance quoting the actual abuse? The examples she's given - marrying her husband for childcare and selling her (an idiom SH has herself used so cannot claim ignorance of) are pretty weak. I understand it all being collected in one place is unpleasant for her and I'm not keen on assumptions and speculation myself ( which is why I screenshot a lot). She fucked up in the way she reacted to the Estee Laundry and IG comments last year when I would suggest she lashed out hoping to alarm and scare some posters. Had she just messaged people and said "this is really upsetting, could you stop?" instead if going on the attack. And misrepresenting what had hapoened and what was said here. She fucked up and couldn't admit it. So she went on the offensive and fuelled all the threads since.
Just because something is upsetting it does not mean a legal remedy is required.
Caitlin Moran has had a thread on Cookd and Bombd slagging her off for ages. If you Google one of Sali's associates and a celebrity with whom they've worked you will find some *very* eye opening stuff on a fan forum from years ago. Posters on this thread are not responsible for content elsewhere on the site - she speaks of Tattle as one homegenous group and to us her "trolls" as if we are one entity.
Her video last year was so dishonest that I didn't even hear her say she was upset by stuff here. I listened back recently and was astonished. People didn't double down and disregard her suffering. Many were astonished at her dishonest video and attempts to justify her rash actions which backfired. I'm not saying she had to be vulnerable ir prove her suffering but she chose to rely on an "editorialised" version if what was posted and played the victim.
But hey she got some work out of it. When was the last time anything she did was shared on twitter?
As regards what she's said about "Becky", the woman said that she was having problems with a friend who looked like SH? And this was not deemed juicy enough to include in the prog or her article? Forgive my cynicism. Perhaps its true and for some reason was cut. Bizarre editorial decision.
She used C Flack's death to go on about trolls - not a factor mentioned at the inquest. Conjecture about reasons for a suicide and especially attributing suicide to a single cause is contrary to Samaritans reporting guidelines which she should be aware of as a seasoned journalist.
She has shown this streak of emotional manipulation before - reacting to criticism of one of her Guardian columns by sayer that "now my dying friend has had to read you attacking me" or similar. When someone in Twitter said that she'd get used to being without her children every Xmas and to "suck it up", she said it was the "nastiest tweet" of the year and that she was now in floods of tears. She posted on GTL about veing "attacked" on Twitter over her article and her now husband came to her defence on Twitter over a pretty innocuous tweet.
I'm sure she is a lovely friend and all the things that her mates say about her. But I think her problem with here is that she can't control it and that it caused her to lose control in her reaction. Which resulted her absurd video.
I think she would benefit from handing over monitoring here to her management team or someone removed from her personally who could deal with and rebut anything that needs to be countered not (and this am assumption on my part) friends or admins from her other groups who dripfeed distortions of what's said here. You don't have a commercial relstionship with a company as alleged - a formal statement from her management company/agent will suffice. I made a very obvious joke that I she wasn't actually Welsh and that I had attempted to prove it by acquiring her dna from a discarded brush on the train route she uses. Shirtly after this gets posted on Twitter. It doesn't matter to me, I don't feel aggrieved that I've been misunderstood or misrepresented. But if that is distorted what else is? According to something I've heard her say on R4 or R5 her former assistant is criticised on here daily - wtf?! If she gets the wrong end of the stick is anyone correcting her? Why is she under that impression (I expect the answer will be a chorus of "they delete stuff". Apparently the *worst* stuff gets deleted too. Idk. I don't care about and am not responsible for the management of the site. But the examples SH has given in radio/podcast interviews and in her IG videos don't suggest loads of terrible stuff that's been deleted, just a hyperbolic version if stuff here). Basically there's some stuff which us outside of her control and there is some toxicity that she can choose to not engage with and indulge.
Oh and why did her documentary include opinion on the legality of stuff on the site (she didn't say on her threads but maybe it was) from a psychologist and not the professor of internet law she interviewed? Bit weird.
Just because something is upsetting it does not mean a legal remedy is required.
Caitlin Moran has had a thread on Cookd and Bombd slagging her off for ages. If you Google one of Sali's associates and a celebrity with whom they've worked you will find some *very* eye opening stuff on a fan forum from years ago. Posters on this thread are not responsible for content elsewhere on the site - she speaks of Tattle as one homegenous group and to us her "trolls" as if we are one entity.
Her video last year was so dishonest that I didn't even hear her say she was upset by stuff here. I listened back recently and was astonished. People didn't double down and disregard her suffering. Many were astonished at her dishonest video and attempts to justify her rash actions which backfired. I'm not saying she had to be vulnerable ir prove her suffering but she chose to rely on an "editorialised" version if what was posted and played the victim.
But hey she got some work out of it. When was the last time anything she did was shared on twitter?
As regards what she's said about "Becky", the woman said that she was having problems with a friend who looked like SH? And this was not deemed juicy enough to include in the prog or her article? Forgive my cynicism. Perhaps its true and for some reason was cut. Bizarre editorial decision.
She used C Flack's death to go on about trolls - not a factor mentioned at the inquest. Conjecture about reasons for a suicide and especially attributing suicide to a single cause is contrary to Samaritans reporting guidelines which she should be aware of as a seasoned journalist.
She has shown this streak of emotional manipulation before - reacting to criticism of one of her Guardian columns by sayer that "now my dying friend has had to read you attacking me" or similar. When someone in Twitter said that she'd get used to being without her children every Xmas and to "suck it up", she said it was the "nastiest tweet" of the year and that she was now in floods of tears. She posted on GTL about veing "attacked" on Twitter over her article and her now husband came to her defence on Twitter over a pretty innocuous tweet.
I'm sure she is a lovely friend and all the things that her mates say about her. But I think her problem with here is that she can't control it and that it caused her to lose control in her reaction. Which resulted her absurd video.
I think she would benefit from handing over monitoring here to her management team or someone removed from her personally who could deal with and rebut anything that needs to be countered not (and this am assumption on my part) friends or admins from her other groups who dripfeed distortions of what's said here. You don't have a commercial relstionship with a company as alleged - a formal statement from her management company/agent will suffice. I made a very obvious joke that I she wasn't actually Welsh and that I had attempted to prove it by acquiring her dna from a discarded brush on the train route she uses. Shirtly after this gets posted on Twitter. It doesn't matter to me, I don't feel aggrieved that I've been misunderstood or misrepresented. But if that is distorted what else is? According to something I've heard her say on R4 or R5 her former assistant is criticised on here daily - wtf?! If she gets the wrong end of the stick is anyone correcting her? Why is she under that impression (I expect the answer will be a chorus of "they delete stuff". Apparently the *worst* stuff gets deleted too. Idk. I don't care about and am not responsible for the management of the site. But the examples SH has given in radio/podcast interviews and in her IG videos don't suggest loads of terrible stuff that's been deleted, just a hyperbolic version if stuff here). Basically there's some stuff which us outside of her control and there is some toxicity that she can choose to not engage with and indulge.
Oh and why did her documentary include opinion on the legality of stuff on the site (she didn't say on her threads but maybe it was) from a psychologist and not the professor of internet law she interviewed? Bit weird.
Last edited:
- Status