The Ingham Family #22 Lazy’s Imaginary New Mate And Flexible Due Date Make For Future Clickbait

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Hope Isabelle doesn't feel like she has to go with Chris skating so that he doesn't do the things that she has no doubt read about :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
That also lists Lane hoggin, undertaking and being in the wrong lane at a roundabout. I’d be giving out points and fines for those all day long The amount I see those happening


I’m not defending Sarah, what she did was stupid after just passing and being on her own for the first time. But she didn’t touch, adjust the camera etc. She kept glimpsing over at it.

Stupid: yes
Illegal: I doubt it (I’m not a police officer though)
If she was driving dangerously, or caused an accident due to her taking her eyes off the road to stare at a camera, yes it would fall under Dwdca.


And if she did have an accident, and go to delete the footage that may prove she was looking at the camera, then that would be perverting the course of justice and would also be an offence. Could also be classed as spoliation of evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7
Hope Isabelle doesn't feel like she has to go with Chris skating so that he doesn't do the things that she has no doubt read about :(
I think that is exactly why either Esme or Isabelle go with him. None of the girls have ever been remotely interested in skating yet all of a sudden they have been since the allegations came out?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Lazy telling Isla not to eat too much fruit (blueberries) yet she's happy to let her stuff her face with donuts with her.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 15
If she was driving dangerously, or caused an accident due to her taking her eyes off the road to stare at a camera, yes it would fall under Dwdca.


And if she did have an accident, and go to delete the footage that may prove she was looking at the camera, then that would be perverting the course of justice and would also be an offence. Could also be classed as spoliation of evidence.
She didn’t have an accident though so non of the above applies. Not trying to be argumentative and I agree it’s stupid for her to do it. Basically I pretty much agree apart from her breaking the law. :)
 
Is Sarah really the right person to pick Esme up on the pronunciation of words! ?‍♀

Katerina's dog is huge! I hope Sarah doesn't take the baby round they're for a long while!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I always get baffled when I see people state they feel sorry for Sarah - like she's under some "spell".

Are they watching the same Sarah?!

The Sarah Ingham I watch:

- Constantly makes her children feel like total crap (the way they talk, what clothes they choose etc).

- Is the dominant one in the family. Dictates where they go, when they go.

- Doesn't have to do anything at all. Nothing round the house. No pick ups or drop offs. Nothing.

- Gets everything she would ever want/need and gives nothing in return to others (ie. Swindling her nanna out of the money each week).

She is not controlled. She is not to be felt sorry for. She is not sweet and innocent. She is just as vile as the groomer himself.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
  • Heart
Reactions: 26
We didn’t see her touching it whilst driving. She was looking at it. Like I said, it’s not illlegal or you wouldn’t be able to look at a sat nav

Your example is completely different as that involves handling the device

I’m not saying I agree. I don’t think she should be doing it when she’s just passed, just saying I’m not sure she’s broken any law
I was describing the two different ways she could break the law - by touching/operating the device, or by not paying due care and attention. Both illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
She didn’t have an accident though so non of the above applies. Not trying to be argumentative and I agree it’s stupid for her to do it. Basically I pretty much agree apart from her breaking the law. :)
I'm confused - it's only illegal if you have an accident? I'm not sure that's correct.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2
I'm confused - it's only illegal if you have an accident? I'm not sure that's correct.
If you read the post my reply was two they were saying it would be illegal for her to delete footage etc if she had an accident. Those are all ifs and buts as they didn’t happen.

I’m tired of going over this tbh anyway, I agree she shouldn’t have done it and it was stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
If you read the post my reply was two they were saying it would be illegal for her to delete footage etc if she had an accident. Those are all ifs and buts as they didn’t happen.

I’m tired of going over this tbh anyway, I agree she shouldn’t have done it and it was stupid.
Whoops. I didn't read that properly - sorry??
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Yes she used to slag off her instructor last year so I’m sure this is a different one. Knowing Sarah she probably only slagged him off to get a discount or free lessons #bargain
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
A wee bit late but regarding the lovely person who came here earlier, was it hell no sass or hell no's ass? I'm going with the latter.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 9
That Natasha seems like a married woman too. Why is a married woman entering competitions on their vlog? Maybe it's normal but just seems odd to me ?‍♀
I`d love to know when they find the time to constantly be writing on the ingham vlogs..Hmm..Maybe (like her coughs "Idol" :) She`s not worked out how her electrical cleaning goods work yet either?? :unsure:
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.