Louise Pentland #24 The principles of the NSPCC don’t apply to ✨ me ✨

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
Smca53 said:
But I think people genuinely think there’s some legal welfare obligation on us randomers to protect Louise’s children / their own children lol and it’s laughable / making me cringe
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not sure what the actual perception is as far as legal vs. ethical obligation. Not saying this is happening here in this thread, but for example when people go into lockdown mode and either won't repost or even allude to images that influencers have posted of their children or are blocking out children's faces because the influencer hasn't, it kinda becomes like what are we doing? People should be guided by their own ethics but it gets kinda convoluted. That's just an example how even on the ethical side it goes sideways. But legally, I can't see what obligation anyone would have to an influencer's child unless they are in proximity to them one way or another or are some kind of mandatory reporter that spans hyperspace and knows the child to be abused.
 
consumerism makes u free said:
Yeah I'm not sure what the actual perception is as far as legal vs. ethical obligation. Not saying this is happening here in this thread, but for example when people go into lockdown mode and either won't repost or even allude to images that influencers have posted of their children or are blocking out children's faces because the influencer hasn't, it kinda becomes like what are we doing? People should be guided by their own ethics but it gets kinda convoluted. That's just an example how even on the ethical side it goes sideways. But legally, I can't see what obligation anyone would have to an influencer's child unless they are in proximity to them one way or another or are some kind of mandatory reporter that spans hyperspace and knows the child to be abused.
Click to expand...
I deleted my original response as I don’t want to continue to risk an OT conversation

But I agree, it’s the hypocrisy of criticising other people’s morals and standards on Tattle that really tickles me

I do think Louise expects people to have a duty towards her kids and it would be everyone else’s fault is anything ever happened to one of them. Makes me wonder what would happen in Liam’s job if Louise’s tit parenting and safeguarding issues were ever made a bigger thing. I expect nothing would happen tbf, I’ve known of people high up in the police in certain units whose own family members (as in, spouse, kids) were doing the thing that person was supposed to be protecting against. And nothing happened.

I was also disappointed in the NSPCC response recently and the fact that they continue to have the likes of Jim and Sarah Chapman as ambassadors

People slag off others on here for commenting about Darcy but I’d wager that most of those commenters have shown more care and concern about Darcy than her actual caregivers and those tasked with looking out for her welfare, which is pathetic
 
mineminemine said:
Her latest ad “my biggest tip to be close to your children is to love what they love” but only if you can profit from it. I can’t.
Click to expand...

I found this really smug and patronising - like, let me tell you how to be close to your own kids…It felt like her saying I’m winning at parenting, let me show you how to be better. Also, feeling close to your 10 year old is one thing…how about your 14/15 year old when they naturally want to pull away, experiment and rebel, or your 16-18 year old is going through exam pressure, then leaving home etc….come back to me Louise when you’ve successfully navigated that minefield!! Twice over!
 
Gossngiggles said:
She wouldn’t do it. No matter what she says about ‘love what they love’ it’s pretty obvious that it has to be something she also wants to do. There is no way she would be stepping up to watch rugby or football every weekend in the rain and she certainly wouldn’t be stepping up to volunteer in any voluntary capacity for something like that in the same way she does for dancing, It wouldn’t fit her brand.
Click to expand...
She would not have gone to that LOL thing of her own free will, especially in the rain - look how much she moaned about the weather! You went that day because you were paid - just be bloody honest, Louise! You didn’t brave the rain and crowds out of the goodness of your heart so don’t preach about it 🙄
 
Sorry I think it’s cringe that people are slagging a 13 year old… I usually just go past the comments cause I don’t want to take part in that.

I know it’s not legal but I just assumed everyone would want to look out for children but guess not.
---
mineminemine said:
Sorry I think it’s cringe that people are slagging a 13 year old… I usually just go past the comments cause I don’t want to take part in that.

I know it’s not legal but I just assumed everyone would want to look out for children but guess not.
Click to expand...

I think my comment got a bit misinterpreted - ultimately parents are the ones responsible for children but if they were mistreating their child everyone has the right to help safeguard them by reporting to the appropriate authorities.

I do disagree that just because Louise puts her children out there that means they’re opened to harsh criticism but that’s just my opinion and like I said I don’t take part in those discussions I skim past it and let others do what they want to do.

I’m not eye rolling at anyone lol
 
Last edited:
Smca53 said:
But I think people genuinely think there’s some legal welfare obligation on us randomers to protect Louise’s children / their own children lol and it’s laughable / making me cringe
Click to expand...

If, any of us, as randomers on here are in positions such as doctors, nurses, police, social care etc, if it ever came to light and you were linked to your handle on here, discussing anything that constitutes a child in danger and you didn’t flag it, it would be considered misconduct. You have a legal responsibility in a professional capacity to report it (hence my earlier comment about Liam being in very difficult waters here).

If you’re an ‘every man’ on the street, then no, there are no legal requirements to report anything but this type of issue is very different to the 8Passengers story. That one I would have reported if I’d have known.
 
I don’t have the answers. I love talking tit about people (see: me here on tattle) but I’m more uneasy about kids, particularly when it feels as if they’ve been groomed into wanting to be on the internet.

Safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility but we can’t do anything about strangers putting their kids at risk on the internet the same way we could if a neighbour was chucking her kids out the house 7am-7pm so it does somewhat feel like the least we can do is not be crappy about their eyebrows.

It feels like legislation needs to catch up with the real world.

However, I’m also of the mind that none of this would even be an interesting discussion if Louise didn’t pimp her kids out on the internet so ultimately, she’s the one with the responsibility for it all.
 
bassetbumpkin said:
If, any of us, as randomers on here are in positions such as doctors, nurses, police, social care etc, if it ever came to light and you were linked to your handle on here, discussing anything that constitutes a child in danger and you didn’t flag it, it would be considered misconduct. You have a legal responsibility in a professional capacity to report it (hence my earlier comment about Liam being in very difficult waters here).

If you’re an ‘every man’ on the street, then no, there are no legal requirements to report anything but this type of issue is very different to the 8Passengers story. That one I would have reported if I’d have known.
Click to expand...
With respect, whilst we are in disbelief that she would sell her daughter to strangers by advertising her show dates, this wouldn’t even touch the surface for a social services referral. Most people should have the common sense and decency to realise it’s unwise and unsafe, including the safeguarding team at the theatre who have failed their job here, but no crime has been committed. Completely different to 8 passengers.
 
to summarise Lady Louise's latest reel: enjoy crafts, start a blog, exploit your two daughters from before they are even born, don't give up on your dreams, be able to afford an overnight trip to America to stock up on stickers ✨sprinkle of privilege, little bit of manifestation✨ MEET THE KING!

and if you don't achieve it, you simply didn't want it badly enough. 🤷🏻‍♂️


Camilla won't be mentioned again now she can claim Charles is her bestie. 🙄
 
Do we know what happened to her cousin? (the one with the kid named Dexter) Was she renting him one of her houses? I was wondering if she was hinting that she had some legal trouble or something?
 
PIXXX said:
Do we know what happened to her cousin? (the one with the kid named Dexter) Was she renting him one of her houses? I was wondering if she was hinting that she had some legal trouble or something?
Click to expand...
Not fully, but they fell out, she alluded to family issues and ‘someone’ in the family him owed her a lot of money from a ‘situation’ and he and his family were previously living in one of her properties, putting two and two together it seems it was all linked. She then told everyone (after saying she wasn’t going in to details and wasn’t going to talk about it) that she was in court against a family member owing her money and to ‘never rent to anyone without a contract’ and how even if it’s family you need to make sure things are watertight.
So basically she did go in to details and told everyone.
 
Last edited:
Cemma25 said:
Not fully, but they fell out, she alluded to family issues and ‘someone’ in the family him owed her a lot of money from a ‘situation’ and he and his family were previously living in one of her properties, putting two and two together it seems it was all linked. She then told everyone (after saying she wasn’t going in to details and wasn’t going to talk about it) that she was in court against a family member owing her money and to ‘never rent to anyone without a contract’ and how even if it’s family you need to make sure things are watertight.
So basically she did go in to details and told everyone.
Click to expand...
Aaaaah it makes more sense, thank you! Makes me so uneasy that whole situation :/
 
PIXXX said:
Do we know what happened to her cousin? (the one with the kid named Dexter) Was she renting him one of her houses? I was wondering if she was hinting that she had some legal trouble or something?
Click to expand...

Her cousin and his little family seemed like lovely people didn't he do all her handy work in her first house for her??
---
spiderplantlady said:
Darcie’s latest reel is unfortunate and very ill-judged, Louise needs to be making better choices for her here. My school just sent out an email today with places to get free kids meals over Xmas for families that are struggling. A reel like that, at this time of year particularly, is in really poor taste and Louise should know better.
Click to expand...

Why the duck is a tesla on her list? 😭🤣🤣🤣

Went on to see cause you mentioned it but won't be doing that again as I'm 32 🤣
 
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