I would imagine they’re waiting for their life jackets to arrive from AmazonI watched a couple of mins of the we are taking a break video so that I could get a time ramp to report it for harassment. I wasn’t going to watch it but with the fans trying to ruin someone’s business and sending threatening messages, it’s gone too far and I feel it was worth doing.
If I was them I would have come out this morning and said this is being dealt with in the proper manner so please don’t leave negative reviews and we do not condone anyone sending threatening messages. The behaviour of their fans reflects terribly on them and shows the level of their fan base.
I hope the children are ok. Hopefully they have had a nice morning perhaps doing some geography and learning about Lochs, Twinkl have a fun activity they could do about the Loch Ness monster
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I loved his response to the "why is that a problem". The sort of pause before he replies when Scottish guy realises what level of stupidity he's dealing and then the "you think about that and get back to me"I’m new to this thread as I try and avoid all things regarding this vile slimey man and his absolute disgrace of a wife. With that being said this newest development has FINISHED ME OFFif chris thought that man was rude then god forbid he actually meets an angry Scottish person
the man shut him down with ease. I’m actually baffled as to how this man is still able to continue this career path and be around young children after everything that has gone down
the bit that got me in the video is when chris said “why is that a problem” in response to being told his kids didn’t have the proper protective gear on... I don’t know, maybe because they would bleeping drown and die without it?! The irony of him asking why the man was filming when he films things for a living is laughable
Sorry for the long post I’m just absolutely SCUNNERED with them
The fans saying the man is unprofessional posting it on the business page.
where do they think the Ingham’s post all their rants?? On their INGHAM FAMILY LTD page. BUSINESS PAGES THAT ARE MONETISED
I think this is the problem, fans don’t see them for what it is. A business. They see it as the Ingham’s being generous sharing their day
where do they think the Ingham’s post all their rants?? On their INGHAM FAMILY LTD page. BUSINESS PAGES THAT ARE MONETISED
I think this is the problem, fans don’t see them for what it is. A business. They see it as the Ingham’s being generous sharing their day
Section 12 : have a read!
Cruelty to persons under sixteen.
(1)If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and [F1who has parental responsibilities in relation to a child or to a young person under that age or has charge or care of a child or such a young person,], wilfully F2... ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be F2... ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to a fine . . . F3, or alternatively, or in default of payment of such a fine, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding [F4ten]years;
(b)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F5£400], or alternatively, or in default of payment of such a fine, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months.
(2)For the purposes of this section—
(a)a parent or other person legally liable to maintain a child or young person [F6or the legal guardian of a child or young person]shall be deemed to have neglected him in a manner likely to cause injury to his health if he has failed to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging for him, or if, having been unable otherwise to provide such food, clothing, medical aid or lodging, he has failed to take steps to procure it to be provided under [F7the enactments applicable in that behalf];
(b)where it is proved that the death of a child under three years of age was caused by suffocation (not being suffocation caused by disease or the presence of any foreign body in the throat or air passages of the child) while the child was in bed with some other person who has attained the age of sixteen years, that other person shall, if he was, when he went to bed, under the influence of drink, be deemed to have neglected the child in a manner likely to cause injury to his health.
(3)A person may be convicted of an offence under this section—
(a)notwithstanding that actual suffering or injury to health, or the likelihood of actual suffering or injury to health, was obviated by the action of another person;
(b)notwithstanding the death of the child or young person in question.
Cruelty to persons under sixteen.
(1)If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and [F1who has parental responsibilities in relation to a child or to a young person under that age or has charge or care of a child or such a young person,], wilfully F2... ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be F2... ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to a fine . . . F3, or alternatively, or in default of payment of such a fine, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding [F4ten]years;
(b)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F5£400], or alternatively, or in default of payment of such a fine, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months.
(2)For the purposes of this section—
(a)a parent or other person legally liable to maintain a child or young person [F6or the legal guardian of a child or young person]shall be deemed to have neglected him in a manner likely to cause injury to his health if he has failed to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging for him, or if, having been unable otherwise to provide such food, clothing, medical aid or lodging, he has failed to take steps to procure it to be provided under [F7the enactments applicable in that behalf];
(b)where it is proved that the death of a child under three years of age was caused by suffocation (not being suffocation caused by disease or the presence of any foreign body in the throat or air passages of the child) while the child was in bed with some other person who has attained the age of sixteen years, that other person shall, if he was, when he went to bed, under the influence of drink, be deemed to have neglected the child in a manner likely to cause injury to his health.
(3)A person may be convicted of an offence under this section—
(a)notwithstanding that actual suffering or injury to health, or the likelihood of actual suffering or injury to health, was obviated by the action of another person;
(b)notwithstanding the death of the child or young person in question.
- (4)Where any person who has attained the age of sixteen years is tried on indictment for the culpable homicide of a child or young person under the age of sixteen years [F8and he had parental responsibilities in relation to, or charge or care of, that child or young person], it shall be lawful for the jury, if they are satisfied that he is guilty of an offence under this section, to find him guilty of that offence.
Last edited:
Even my dogs have bleeping life jackets for out boat!
I think they'll be considering going behind a paywall after this. The sacconejolys did it last week for £2 a month and they only post a few times a month.
The inghams would need to price it a lot higher to make the same as they currently do (around £5k a month) from the small amount of followers that would pay for daily vlogs.
But the big difference is the SJs can take this risk as they can still get paid £10'000+ an #AD on Instagram and they had years at the top to make a fortune. Inghams fell as quickly as they climbed and didn't build up enough to set them up for life.
The inghams would need to price it a lot higher to make the same as they currently do (around £5k a month) from the small amount of followers that would pay for daily vlogs.
But the big difference is the SJs can take this risk as they can still get paid £10'000+ an #AD on Instagram and they had years at the top to make a fortune. Inghams fell as quickly as they climbed and didn't build up enough to set them up for life.
Woah… what is wrong with these people?
Attachments
Such a wonderful breed.
I’m still agog that the ICult keep saying “Chris and Sarah didn’t know the girls needed life jackets...“. It’s water. It’s deep, it’s cold, there’s under currents and weeds. How the duck can they not know?
I watch proper vanlifers on YouTube. They have life jackets for their two dogs for on paddle boards. Sadly lazy and creepy don't see safety as important even for their children never mind their dogs. Pair of halfwits!
I love the distinguishing featuresOh my goodness, has this ever been seen before? Chris must have written this himself - 5'9 and 11 stone'professional inline roller skater'
Chris Ingham Height, Weight, Age, Spouse, Children, Facts, Biography
Chris Ingham Height, Weight, Age, Body Statistics. His height is 1.75 m and weight is 70 kg. Read about dating life and interesting facts.healthyceleb.com
and doesn’t his face in the first pic look fabulously photoshopped/filtered
Attachments
They were told in Portugal to put life jackets on, but felt they knew best. I wonder if they hadn't have been so defiant in Portugal, they would've considered it more for Scotland, if that makes sense?
Lots of people like this in life unfortunately. Think using their fists and threats are the only way to solve things. They lack any brains to judge situations properly. It's frightening how many there out there who think this is an appropriate reaction.
Chris on one video says " if i take this to social media, you will regret it" now to me that sounds very much like a threat - what exactly did Chris mean by this comment? does he mean he will shame him online or does he mean he will send in his cult to do the work for him, obviously its the latter as the coward wont do anything for himself - I really don't think they are going to spend thousands of pounds on legal teams, think they are blowing hot air myself using the lets scare tactics - Mr kayak doesnt have anything really to answer too :/ the only one that could have a problem is the manager who took him to the caravan is how I see it
Creepy is an idiot and a bellend of the highest order. He's made himself look a right knob. All he had to do was apologise and own up to his mistake. I feel so sorry for those children.
His wife sounds very irresponsible too.
Kayak man sounds amazing. I'm sorry he was getting negative reviews. One of the worst things about SM in my opinion is keyboard warriors who have never used someone's business but post negative reviews and ruin people's businesses based on heresay.
His wife sounds very irresponsible too.
Kayak man sounds amazing. I'm sorry he was getting negative reviews. One of the worst things about SM in my opinion is keyboard warriors who have never used someone's business but post negative reviews and ruin people's businesses based on heresay.
They have repeatedly said that they were aggressively approached extremely rudely.
Transcript of how the interaction started:
Park Manager: Hi, Mr. Ingham?
Creepy: Yes?
Park Manager: Hi, sorry.
Creepy: Good morning, how are you doing?
Calamity Kayaking: Good morning, Mr. Ingham. My name is Paul Richardson, I’m the watch safety guy on the Trossachs, and we’ve received numerous reports that your kids been on the paddle boards with no buoyancy aids, no wet suits....
Creepy: *snippy* Why is that an issue?
CK: *defensive* .....Well it’s a bylaw here.
Creepy: Alright...okay...
CK: *now annoyed* Why is it an issue? Well why don’t you have a wee think about what you’ve just said...
Transcript of how the interaction started:
Park Manager: Hi, Mr. Ingham?
Creepy: Yes?
Park Manager: Hi, sorry.
Creepy: Good morning, how are you doing?
Calamity Kayaking: Good morning, Mr. Ingham. My name is Paul Richardson, I’m the watch safety guy on the Trossachs, and we’ve received numerous reports that your kids been on the paddle boards with no buoyancy aids, no wet suits....
Creepy: *snippy* Why is that an issue?
CK: *defensive* .....Well it’s a bylaw here.
Creepy: Alright...okay...
CK: *now annoyed* Why is it an issue? Well why don’t you have a wee think about what you’ve just said...
Literally never heard of them until I got an alert on tattle about the video that had been uploaded. Seems the guy filming did have a motive to shame them or you wouldn’t film, HOWEVER the wife is hellbent on proving she’s the better person in all of this by deflecting her mistake onto the ‘ranger’. Fact is you were wrong for not putting life jackets on your kids, admit it and leave it at that! Telling the world you’re getting lawyers involved doesn’t change that fact!
- Status