Depher/CPH CIC #6 Now I know how Jesus felt

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.
1
Wow they're getting really wierd and defensive about Tattle over there 😂
Apparently we all need to 'shut the duck up'.

Nobody here has claimed to have uncovered anything about Anderson - documented - yes. We're a bleeping gossip site and respond to gossip 🤷‍♀️ We're not a deep investigative operation. It's no deeper than that.
And when we chose to start to talk about him is irrelevant - could have been a year ago, could have been yesterday. Who bleeping cares?
The gatekeeping over that gummy loser is bizarre. All this 'yeah where was Tattle when xyz was happening?' - who cares? Why do you care so much? It's not a competition.
 
Jelly Bean said:
Wow they're getting really wierd and defensive about Tattle over there 😂
Apparently we all need to 'shut the duck up'.

Nobody here has claimed to have uncovered anything about Anderson - documented - yes. We're a bleeping gossip site and respond to gossip 🤷‍♀️ We're not a deep investigative operation. It's no deeper than that.
And when we chose to start to talk about him is irrelevant - could have been a year ago, could have been yesterday. Who bleeping cares?
The gatekeeping over that gummy loser is bizarre. All this 'yeah where was Tattle when xyz was happening?' - who cares? Why do you care so much? It's not a competition.
Click to expand...

To be fair, some of these ladies have been racially abused and threatened by Anderson and his fans. One had her address posted online and ‘warnings’ from Anderson that she was being watched. Others were falsely accused of committing crimes.

There have been very real consequences for those who have been most vocal about calling him out.

I’m not sure I’d have kept doing so considering he’s an alleged violent criminal.
 
Last edited:
Law123244 said:
To be fair, some of these ladies have been racially abused and threatened by Anderson and his fans. One had her address posted online and ‘warnings’ from Anderson that she was being watched. Others were falsely accused of committing crimes.

There have been very real consequences for those who have been most vocal about calling him out.

I’m not sure I’d have kept doing so, especially under my real name, considering he’s an alleged violent criminal.
Click to expand...
Oh I know. They've had a horrendous time long before we here, and the world at large, cottoned on to what was going on, very largely through them and Anderson's own insane posts. And have been very brave not backing down for years. I think everybody here has acknowledged that?

It just annoys me they seem to think posters here are trying to take ownership of the gummy perve. For commenting.
There is confusion about Tattle a lot of the time. We're all pathetic fish wife WOMEN (always seems important for some reason) losers who should just be ignored. But at the same time our opinion is so important it constantly needs to be debunked. We're a gossip site. We can post what we like within the rules of Tattle. As I said it really is no deeper than that 🤷‍♀️
 
Tin Can Crook said:
Twitter has descended into an us versus them mentality regarding the acknowledgement these are allegations and not currently evidenced. Not going to post the tweets here as this is a thread about James Anderson but I do think it's unfair to claim the people over here have "never revealed anything about the man". They were more than happy to share the archived tweets I found and flagged where James was using photos of his own children to fundraise, passing them off as kids in need. Doubly so, after James Anderson deleted all his tweets and they weren't manually archived so he was able to claim the screenshots were edited, they were happy to share the archive of him lying about Joyce I spent hours digging for as though it was their own discovery. 🤷🏻‍♀️

It's not productive to turn on each other, focus on James.

(And use Internet archives rather than just screenshots on the egregious stuff so he can't cry photoshop)
Click to expand...

I really don’t understand why some on X keep mentioning who found out what and wanting to be acknowledged as “exposing” him.
There are lots of people local to James/ Depher who have been reporting things and talking about concerns for years. Online and in person. Not everything is online!
Somethings it’s a build up over years of many people rather than the one person who was the top of the pile of reports
 
CuriousTherapyCat said:
I really don’t understand why some on X keep mentioning who found out what and wanting to be acknowledged as “exposing” him.
There are lots of people local to James/ Depher who have been reporting things and talking about concerns for years. Online and in person. Not everything is online!
Somethings it’s a build up over years of many people rather than the one person who was the top of the pile of reports
Click to expand...
And surely if you've had a campaign trying to expose a wrongun you'd be grateful whoever picked it up? Instead of suddenly being jealous?
 
It's a bit of a disproportionate response to be honest. Information which isn't the primary source is susceptible to misunderstanding, misinterpretation and errors. It's why journalists independently verify things and even they get it wrong sometimes. I've repeatedly said I trust and believe the information and I don't think it's unreasonable to still take a pinch of salt when it's not verified. As with any source of information.

They have literally got it wrong before. In February, they claimed a card drawn by a child to thank James for donating to a fundraiser was drawn by James himself. They then had to apologise and recant.
Screenshot_20241108_164747_X.jpg
IMG-20240208-WA0093.jpg


(Mr beast is yet to comment)

Big deal, it happens. Information which is not verified and is only through anecdote/witness accounts is susceptible to this. It is okay to take things with a pinch of salt in this situation.

Tattle have also got it wrong before, this is a gossip website. Unless distinct proof is posted, things should always be taken with a pinch of salt. People get stuff wrong. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that and I'm unsure why people are so offended at this concept.
 
Tin Can Crook said:
It's a bit of a disproportionate response to be honest. Information which isn't the primary source is susceptible to misunderstanding, misinterpretation and errors. It's why journalists independently verify things and even they get it wrong sometimes. I've repeatedly said I trust and believe the information and I don't think it's unreasonable to still take a pinch of salt when it's not verified. As with any source of information.

They have literally got it wrong before. In February, they claimed a card drawn by a child to thank James for donating to a fundraiser was drawn by James himself. They then had to apologise and recant.
View attachment 3259809 qView attachment 3259810 q

(Mr beast is yet to comment)

Big deal, it happens. Information which is not verified and is only through anecdote/witness accounts is susceptible to this. It is okay to take things with a pinch of salt in this situation.

Tattle have also got it wrong before, this is a gossip website. Unless distinct proof is posted, things should always be taken with a pinch of salt. People get stuff wrong. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that and I'm unsure why people are so offended at this concept.
Click to expand...

Exactly, nobody is disputing he’s a wrong ‘un or that the people on X have done loads, often under their own real names to expose him which is v admirable. Just saying that because info is negative and about him doesn’t mean it’s 100% true - the same way I’m positive they were right he had forged a ton of the letters of thanks but that picture turned out not to be one of them - and I’m absolutely sure it was posted entirely in good faith originally because they believed what they’d been told, that he had drawn it himself.
 
Well exactly.
I'm not sure why there is so much animosity now from them towards here tbh.
Fair enough - everyone is allowed their own opinion (apart from James obviously 😂).
I genuinely don't remember anyone here claiming to gave uncovered stuff about Gummy or dismissing stuff anyone else said (but tbh who cares if anyone did - its all just opinion).
Putting forward a small voice of caution, no matter how solid the person giving the info, is not a massive personal slur or criticism.
 
I’ve just come across the X “tattle didn’t expose anything” threads and they don’t quite get it.
no one here says they did.
they’ve also suggested local people weren’t talking about him/ reporting before they even knew he existed.
There is a world outside the internet. In small northern towns, people talk! There’s a catalyst that happens and builds for exposures.
anyway, he’s getting his commupence, that’s what matters. Why witch over who said what. It’s very petty
 
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.
Back
Top