Sali Hughes #19 When Harry met Sali (I'll have what she's having)

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
Runestone said:
Why is someone who lives by and I quote “I’m not a tanner - I generally embrace my paleness” recommending fake tan products? I remember her deriding people who didn’t embrace pale like she does, why would I trust such a recommendation now?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I understand it. I'm really pale and people really do comment on it often. From, "Oh my god! You're so white!" to "Why don't you go to the beach, lol!". It does get really tedious and I'd never go out without leg makeup in summer for that reason. They don't really give a tan, just make you look less 'commentable' :)
 
MakkaPakka said:
"all that spare time" this summer.
Click to expand...
🖕 (to her, not you MakkaPakka :D)
She certainly needs a vacation from all this free time and endless baths.

MakkaPakka said:
her skin is "vampiric".
Click to expand...
Buffy the Vampire Slayer vampiric or Nosferatu vampiric? Or twinkling Twilight vampiric?
She's so pale, she's translucent and needs to wear Missoma jewelry like a reflective vest all the time for safety reasons.
 
Aude said:
Tbh, I find her whole response to here weird.

In pursuit of her career as an influencer, she puts content online - including her image, her opinion and information about herself and her private life - and we comment on it between ourselves. She also writes a short weekly article for the Guardian and ocasional other journalism which we also comment on.

Our comments are mostly critical because there is no other outlet for criticism of influencers. Sometimes our comment and criticism is about something completely trivial, sometimes it's about something really important. There's serious criticism and jokey piss-taking. Some of us are pretty detail oriented and pick up on small inconsistencies which we feel cast doubt on her integrity and reliability.

Often a discussion here might be prompted by something directly related to SH and then broaden out more generally - whether about influencers more generally or about our individual skincare routines. Sometimes it's absolutely nothing to do with her - sharing advice and experience about products for example and providing support.

If that's a fair summing up, what about that is 'bullying'?

ETA: We are small group. She has well over 100k social media followers and a platform in a national newspaper.
Click to expand...
When I was trying to summarise the content of this forum I forgot to include one important element that drives discusion here - our response to her attempts to silence us.

To recap... Her initial strategy seemed to be to try to intimidate people individually. It was around the middle of thread #3 that people here started noticing that she or her assistant or a known friend (CM) were 'stalking' them around their social media. A number of people said they felt intimidated by it, one said she was leaving the forum because of it. By SH's own admission, her intention had been to show them they had been seen. By her own admission, she had pried into the lives of people here to the extent that she knew where they lived.

It was after people tried to bring attention to this behaviour that she tried what seemed to be a new strategy - to mobilise her thousands of social media followers and well-connected contacts to get the whole site shut down. This was the Friday video. She did get an enormous amount of sympathy from followers and also public support from well-known figures who themselves have huge followings. Some, such as Nigella Lawson and Marina Hyde, just tweeted support. Others, such as India Knight, piled on with abuse and what could be taken as intimidation.

Others reacted differently. I hadn't heard of Tattle and was curious to know what this 'bullying' was that she was talking about. I came here in the middle of thread #3 and, finding it different from the way she had described it, went back and read from the beginning. I thought the criticism in a few posts was unkind but I thought it was mostly reasonable comment about valid concerns. In reading through I looked specifically for the type of content, and the specific instances, SH had described in her video and couldn't find it.

Up till then I'd found SH a bit irritating and perhaps not quite living up to her 'honesty' USP but hadn't thought about it much. I was now outraged by her attempt to use the power and influence of her hundreds of thousands of followers to close this down, a small discussion forum with - at the time - maybe 30 members. It seemed as if, having pretty well shut down criticism and dissent in her own social media, she was now seeking to shut it down across the entire internet. Part of my reason for joining here was to show solidarity with this oppressed minority! There are all sorts of other reasons why I stay but that is still part of it.

Her current strategy seems to be to mention the 'hate site', 'internet weirdos' and, most charmingly, 'arseholes' whenever she has a public platform - shamelessly misrepresenting it as 'lies' and 'conspiracy theories'.

Clearly, the more she does, the more content she provides for discussion here.
 
Last edited:
Aude said:
When I was trying to summarise the content of this forum I forgot to include one important element that drives discusion here - our response to her attempts to silence us.

To recap... Her initial strategy seemed to be to try to intimidate people individually. It was around the middle of thread #3 that people here started noticing that she or her assistant or a known friend (CM) were 'stalking' them around their social media. A number of people said they felt intimidated by it, one said she was leaving the forum because of it. By SH's own admission, her intention had been to show them they had been seen. By her own admission, she had pried into the lives of people here to the extent that she knew where they lived.

It was after people tried to bring attention to this behaviour that she tried what seemed to be a new strategy - to mobilise her thousands of social media followers and well-connected contacts to get the whole site shut down. This was the Friday video. She did get an enormous amount of sympathy from followers and also public support from well-known figures who themselves have huge followings. Some, such as Nigella Lawson and Marina Hyde, just tweeted support. Others, such as India Knight, piled on with abuse and what could be taken as intimidation.

Others reacted differently. I hadn't heard of Tattle and was curious to know what this 'bullying' was that she was talking about. I came here in the middle of thread #3 and, finding it different from the way she had described it, went back and read from the beginning. I thought the criticism in a few posts was unkind but I thought it was mostly reasonable comment about valid concerns. In reading through I looked specifically for the type of content, and the specific instances, SH had described in her video and couldn't find it.

Up till then I'd found SH a bit irritating and perhaps not quite living up to her 'honesty' USP but hadn't thought about it much. I was now outraged by her attempt to use the power and influence of her hundreds of thousands of followers to close this down, a small discussion forum with - at the time - maybe 30 members. It seemed as if, having pretty well shut down criticism and dissent in her own social media, she was now seeking to shut it down across the entire internet. Part of my reason for joining here was to show solidarity with this oppressed minority! There are all sorts of other reasons why I stay but that is still part of it.

Her current strategy seems to be to mention the 'hate site', 'internet weirdos' and, most charmingly, 'arseholes' whenever she has a public platform - shamelessly misrepresenting it as 'lies' and 'conspiracy theories'.

Clearly, the more she does, the more content she provides for discussion here.
Click to expand...
Could someone direct me to where she admitted the stalking/intimidation?

Tesla's Ghost said:
These two posts should be on the first page of every future thread. 👏 👏👏
Click to expand...
I like this. We need a summary for every new person who comes here
 
If anyone hasn't listened, I would suggest listening to her on Jo Good's show yesterday. When introducing the subject of SH's #mybullyinghell Jo Good says "somebody once said...y'know...social media, it can be the sewer that runs through society because it can attract absolutely vile human beings to it...which is what happened in your case and you were bullied...".
Some of the people commenting on here are identifiable, SH and her acolytes managed to identify people from here and who were commenting on IG and was thus able to block them FB and Twitter.
I trust the documentary will be more restrained in how it refers to posters here.
I wonder who SH is planning on interview to understand why people post bitchy stuff on public forums? Hit me up, Sal.

Mazerati said:
Could someone direct me to where she admitted the stalking/intimidation?
Click to expand...
In the video which is still on her IG. Obviously she didn't describe as such but people here were freaked out, I would think because they were worried they might be doxxed - even if SH wasn't going to do that you could understand that concern.
On the Jo Good show she says people stopped posting because of guilt and shame. I hope she has learnt this from actual posters during the course of researching the upcoming documentary rather than, say, just making tit up.
 
Last edited:
Mselvista said:
If anyone hasn't listened, I would suggest listening to her on Jo Good's show yesterday. When introducing the subject of SH's #mybullyinghell Jo Good says "somebody once said...y'know...social media, it can be the sewer that runs through society because it can attract absolutely vile human beings to it...which is what happened in your case and you were bullied...".
Click to expand...
Just FYI this part is 46 mins into the programme on BBC Sounds
 
Mazerati said:
Could someone direct me to where she admitted the stalking/intimidation?
Click to expand...
In her Friday IG video (late Sep 2019) she says something along the lines of 'I showed them I had seen them'.

In the video she also admits that she 'liked' a photograph on someone's Facebook page - which was the reason that person had left Tattle. This is what that person said here at the time (Sep 2019):

'Yesterday I decided to delete my tattle.life account because I was feeling unnerved. Today after reading other comments on SH I have decided to make a final post. Yesterday morning I received a notification that SH had liked a FB post of my children. This seemed very odd. It was one of a few photos that I had mistakenly left on a public setting. My feed would have had to be scrolled down quite far to find this photo. Later that morning I realised that I had been blocked from the FB GTL group and her Instagram. I didn't make many comments on her FB and Instagram and I was always very polite. Therefore she had read my posts here and had done some detective work to discover my identity. I feel really creeped out, particularly as she had involved my children. I have enjoyed my time on tattle.life but I am leaving now as I feel very uneasy.'

After SH's Friday video, IK posted a tweet saying 'E: does she know where they live? I would actually like to know that myself'. SH's tweeted reply is 'Literally yes'. (I'm not sure I've got the wording of the IK tweet exactly right but there's a screenshot of it on the previous thread I think.)

ETA: The screenshot of the IK tweet may be on the IK thread rather than the previous thread here. Also, the tattler who left (quoted above) included with her post a screenshot of SH 'liking' the photograph on her FB.
 
Last edited:
Also, for people who are new, the posts prior to her Friday video were so much more restrained. I read back and was shocked at how relatively innocuous they were.
For me at least, the video was a catalyst to really go for her. Not a more palatable way of putting that I can think of. The way she misrepresented what was being said here made me think "duck her". I was also experiencing a full blown bipolar manic episode at the time. I'm not saying that to make excuses, it's just a fact. Her insistence that posters here are both "mentalists" and not mentally ill (an example below) is infuriating to me.

20200725_142142.jpg


Re Sali talking about lies here, I don't think that everything said here is true but that doesn't make the untruths malicious lies. People have been mistaken and made assumptions about, for example, her receiving undisclosed money for endorsements.
But SH *has* told demonstrable untruths and posted questionable seeming stuff (washing her face with handwash manufactured by the company paying for a trip she was on. With 3 other women. None if whom could lend her some cleanser). If people are sceptical about her IG claims it may be because she said that posters here were discussing her children when about the only mention of her children was that she *had* children and other claptrap she said in her written and legalled in 25 mind statement that Friday.
But certainly not everything here is true but not for the reasons SH asserts. We're not making stuff up for the sake of it. People are jumping to conclusions based upon her behaviour.
We all get things wrong, Sal. Remember what you tweeted about Christopher Jefferies? I'd have thought a "proper" journalist would have known better. Tut, tut.
And, ffs, Lauren, Feebee, whoever is reading here, could you explain to Sali that a conspiracy theory is a theory that asserts a conspiracy. No one that I have seen has accused Sali of conspiring with anyone. Unless there's talk of her conspiring with Leonard? Tell her to look up the definition of bullying at the same time. She really should familiarise herself with it if she's making a documentary.

20200725_144009.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mselvista said:
Re Sali talking about lies here, I don't think that everything said here is true but that doesn't make the untruths malicious lies. People have been mistaken and made assumptions about, for example, her receiving undisclosed money for endorsements.
Click to expand...
I think that's right, that there have been occasions when there's been a mistaken assumption that she was paid to promote something or had been given something free. But I think, first, that the occasions have been few (representing around 0.1% of the content here?) and, second, that usually someone else will join in to say they think that's not likely to have been the case.

The main example I can think of is when some people said they thought that her stay at a well-known weightloss/detox clinic writer's retreat would have been a freebie and at least an equal number of others here said they thought that it wouldn't have been.

Third, of course, #presstrips #presstreatments etc is such a grey area and ASA rules so often flouted that it's no wonder there's a question mark around everything.
 
Mselvista said:
Also, for people who are new, the posts prior to her Friday video were so much more restrained. I read back and was shocked at how relatively innocuous they were.
For me at least, the video was a catalyst to really go for her. Not a more palatable way of putting that I can think of. The way she misrepresented what was being said here made me think "duck her". I was also experiencing a full blown bipolar manic episode at the time. I'm not saying that to make excuses, it's just a fact. Her insistence that posters here are both "mentalists" and not mentally ill (an example below) is infuriating to me.

View attachment 192046 q

Re Sali talking about lies here, I don't think that everything said here is true but that doesn't make the untruths malicious lies. People have been mistaken and made assumptions about, for example, her receiving undisclosed money for endorsements.
But SH *has* told demonstrable untruths and posted questionable seeming stuff (washing her face with handwash manufactured by the company paying for a trip she was on. With 3 other women. None if whom could lend her some cleanser). If people are sceptical about her IG claims it may be because she said that posters here were discussing her children when about the only mention of her children was that she *had* children and other claptrap she said in her written and legalled in 25 mind statement that Friday.
But certainly not everything here is true but not for the reasons SH asserts. We're not making stuff up for the sake of it. People are jumping to conclusions based upon her behaviour.
We all get things wrong, Sal. Remember what you tweeted about Christopher Jefferies? I'd have thought a "proper" journalist would have known better. Tut, tut.
And, ffs, Lauren, Feebee, whoever is reading here, could you explain to Sali that a conspiracy theory is a theory that asserts a conspiracy. No one that I have seen has accused Sali of conspiring with anyone. Unless there's talk of her conspiring with Leonard? Tell her to look up the definition of bullying at the same time. She really should familiarise herself with it if she's making a documentary.

View attachment 192059 q
Click to expand...
Surely she didn't really tweet this? That's crazy!
 
I am considering treating myself to the Foreo Bear, so was looking around for a nice water-based face gel to use with it.

One of the products mentioned was the L'Occitane Aqua Reotier gel. I clicked on the link to read gushing praise for the product, from non-other than Sali herself. How can she endorse a product for dry skin and another for combination skin. Now that I'm a little bit more critical I can see this for what it is; a paid post designed to add veracity to the minute testing group of 39 women over 28 days. This has turned me off the product completely.
 
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