Caroline Flack found dead

Hammer89 · 18-02-2020 03:46PM

claregal1 wrote: »

Whitmore is off to the brits tonight...

He knew that I imagine.

Harleen Quinzel · 18-02-2020 03:53PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

They're not decrying social media and newspapers/ magazines.

Theyre decrying the harrassment Flack got in the media and online.

Thats not the same thing.

Oh please.

It’s publicity when it suits them and harassment when it doesn’t.

They’re hypocrites of the highest order.

Boggles · 18-02-2020 03:54PM

ShimSlady wrote: »

That's not what nauseating means

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nauseating

making you feel as if you are going to vomit

Now if you could answer the question?

ShimSlady · 18-02-2020 03:58PM

Boggles wrote: »

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nauseating

Now if you could answer the question?

You went to the trouble of going to Dictionary Cambridge but failed to look at the definition in context to the subject matter.

All you had to do was scroll down to the next line mate.

statto25 · 18-02-2020 04:00PM

Jesus this thread is a ****show

Ray Palmer · 18-02-2020 04:00PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Come off it, of course they were hired, they were hired by record labels and as brand ambassadors.
Why weren't they dropped from their labels, why weren't their tours cancelled, their new albums scrapped, why did all those brands continue to associate with them after what they did?
Because they still had a lot of public support and a lot of adoring fans.
So don't try to make out that a man would have it harder just based on his gender when there is plenty of evidence to support otherwise.

Some peoples careers recover after major incidents, some peoples don't.
It has nothing to do with gender.

No they are under contract. To do what you said would breach all their contracts. Totally different as you can replace a presenter with somebody else. A musician/performer is a unique element.

When it comes to presenting TV programs in the UK that is obviously not true. John Barrymore, John Leslie etc...

Meline Skyjes, Mel C etc...

Obvious gender imbalance on repercussions. Deny it if you want but it won't change reality.

SusieBlue · 18-02-2020 04:11PM

Shuhada Davitt wrote: »

whatever about disagreeing with what the poster said, but you have constructed your post above in such a manner that it's making you almost hypocritical in a sense. you are going on about having empathy and caring for peoples lives, when you are taking a very nasty turn here on living people who have a differing opinion or outlook than yours. it's kind of proving the other posters point - that people are so wrapped up in this "celebrity" nonsense that it is warping their views and how they see the world and interact with people.

you are kind of proving that it's so easy for people to get caught up in the media hype of these tragic situations to the point that it is making you say one thing about "having empathy and sympathy" when you are not extending that to the people you are interacting with on here.

i didnt read that posters posts as being aggressive or that they are taking "glee" in the death of caroline flack, rather that you took the opportunity to hound them into submitting to your point and tried to paint them as being horrible for stating a few facts. facts that yes are hard to swallow, but they are still facts nonetheless. people need to step away from instagram and stop jumping on the bandwagon with these things.

Did you even read the post I was replying to?
I'm not being nasty, I haven't made statements like "someone died, so fooking what", I haven't belittled anyone for being upset over a young woman committing suicide, and I haven't suggested anyone who is bothered by it needs to be on anti depressants or is a millenial.
Are these what count as "facts" now?
The person who you are so valiantly defending made all those comments, not me.

as the poster said, there are thousands of suicides a day around the world, but yet, all of a sudden you're a tyrant for even alluding to the fact that Ms. Flack had problems and was an abuser and all the other negatives. nobody is dancing on her grave.

it's a tragedy, but that should not stop discussion in a rational way, and also doesnt give you a right to degrade someone and make them out to be some sort of hateful weirdo just because you're too soft to appreciate the facts of life.

Now I KNOW you haven't even read the thread, because the post that sparked this whole exchange was this one:

SusieBlue wrote: »

It’s possible to recognise that it’s sad and needless that she committed suicide while accepting she was wrong to assault her partner (if the allegations are true).
You can believe both things, it doesn’t have to be one or the other, and it doesn’t mean there are double standards. It’s called being human.

That’s why people are upset over her passing.
Not because they’re forgotten what she did, but because they empathise with the level of hopelessness & despair she felt that the only option to her was to take her own life.

I would argue that that the approach I have taken is quite level headed and reasonable, I'm not being an apologist for what she did but I take no delight in her death.
And yet you are still accusing me of being too soft?
I won't demonise her for what she did but I'm not making a martyr of her either. Its ok and perfectly acceptable to believe she was wrong to do what she did, and that its sad that she has died.
You are completely misrepresenting the opinion I have given and that's extremely dishonest.

TheIrishGrover · 18-02-2020 04:11PM

I feel for her family and the heavy-handed way the prossocution went about it was uncalled for and directly contributed to her actions. In no way am I saying anything negative about her actions.

And here's the but.

But, I find it very hypocritical of all the show and all these people blaming Social Media for her actions.

Did the abuse she received on Social Media have an impact? Most likely and it is abhorrent. There is a special place in hell for Internet Trolls and I hope every single one of them makes it there.

But shows like Love Island not only thrive on ALL aspects of Social Media (The supportive and the destructive) but they would not be able to survive without this.

Every show has its people you root for and people you don't like and it's the supportive and abusive comments that fuel these shows: Oh that guy's hot but what an asshole. Bet he's X Y or Z or whatever. Oh she's a thundering b1tch who is cheating on her.

So to hear them say "Oh, back off. It's gone too far". Other than the fact that they knew her, they wouldn't give a sh*t (Unless it affected viewership). As a matter of fact, that's incorrect. The more polarizing the better for these type of shows. Look at the abuse that anyone who approaches a normal body-type. Look at how much fun everyone has posting and reading this hate-speech. Look how "concerned" the hosts are during/immediately after the fact. Look how concerned the show-makers are when people AREN'T talking about the show and then decide to shake things up with some careful editing.

So I genuinely feel sorry for the friends and family and hope they get the emotional assistance they require.

But I call bullsh*t when I hear how concerned the show-runners are about the impact of Social Media. They are just sad it happened to someone they actually gave a tiny sh*t about and about the potential spotlight on them.

blade1 · 18-02-2020 04:13PM

statto25 wrote: »

Jesus this thread is a ****show

The funny (not) thing is, it would seem it's the posters that are giving out about the online abuse of Caroline Flack are are the very ones doing a lot of abuse here.

Boggles · 18-02-2020 04:23PM

ShimSlady wrote: »

You went to the trouble of going to Dictionary Cambridge but failed to look at the definition in context to the subject matter.

All you had to do was scroll down to the next line mate.

Context doesn't change the meaning of the word.

So that's a no in answering the question so?

SusieBlue · 18-02-2020 04:25PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No they are under contract. To do what you said would breach all their contracts. Totally different as you can replace a presenter with somebody else. A musician/performer is a unique element.

When it comes to presenting TV programs in the UK that is obviously not true. John Barrymore, John Leslie etc...

Meline Skyjes, Mel C etc...

Obvious gender imbalance on repercussions. Deny it if you want but it won't change reality.

Of course they can break contracts in cases of gross misconduct or if there was imminent damage to the reputation of their brand, they just didn't want to.
These are multi million dollar corporations, do you really think their contracts wouldn't have a clause for incidents like these?

But I'll humour you, even so. Say the contracts couldn't be broken.
Why were the contracts renewed when they were up? Why didn't they immediately wash their hands of them as soon as they could?

Ant McPartlin is another one who's career has recovered really well from public disgrace, and he's a presenter too. The public love a good redemption story.

The reality is that some careers recover, some public figures will have support no matter what they do wrong, and others will not be so lucky.
It isn't about gender at all.

statto25 · 18-02-2020 04:27PM

blade1 wrote: »

The funny (not) thing is, it would seem it's the posters that are giving out about the online abuse of Caroline Flack are are the very ones doing a lot of abuse here.

The narrative for some here seems to be that if you do something and can't deal with the consequences of that action then youre not entitled to any empathy or understanding. An eye for an eye mentality. A woman took her own life here, that should be the focus and how this can be prevented again in the future. To be honest I don't think I blame anyone here. She was obviously very sick to come to the conclusion that death was the illy answer. As someone who has recently gone through the very same where I became depressed and suicidal because of a life choice and was told if I hadn't made the choice then I wouldnt be suicidal, I can see the sheer frustration and hopelessness of it all. Its absolutely shattering

ShimSlady · 18-02-2020 04:28PM

Boggles wrote: »

Context doesn't change the meaning of the word.

So that's a no in answering the question so?

Context very much does change the meaning of the word. Especially in relation to your question.

Your username is rather apt.

Boggles · 18-02-2020 04:29PM

ShimSlady wrote: »

Context very much does change the meaning of the word. Especially in relation to your question.

So it's a no.

ShimSlady wrote: »

Your username is rather apt.

Unfortunately I don't enjoy the benefit of picking a new one every month.

Shuhada Davitt · 18-02-2020 04:33PM

Boggles wrote: »

So it's a no.

Unfortunately I don't enjoy the benefit of picking a new one every month.

you can't tell people to "be kind" and then essentially troll them as you are doing.

think of the harm you are causing this person, only because you deem them to be trolling you. you have decided thats what they are doing, then you go on the defensive just like susie and you become the troll. it's ironic and hypocritical

Hannibal_Smith · 18-02-2020 04:34PM

Harleen Quinzel wrote: »

Oh please.

It’s publicity when it suits them and harassment when it doesn’t.

They’re hypocrites of the highest order.

Its not hypocritical at all. There's a line. Celebrities have constantly said that what they get crosses that line. A lot of them over the passed few days have posted some ofthe comments theyve got. They didnt sign up for that.

Hammer89 · 18-02-2020 04:34PM

Boggles wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't enjoy the benefit of picking a new one every month.

blade1 · 18-02-2020 04:39PM

statto25 wrote: »

The narrative for some here seems to be that if you do something and can't deal with the consequences of that action then youre not entitled to any empathy or understanding. An eye for an eye mentality. A woman took her own life here, that should be the focus and how this can be prevented again in the future. To be honest I don't think I blame anyone here. She was obviously very sick to come to the conclusion that death was the illy answer. As someone who has recently gone through the very same where I became depressed and suicidal because of a life choice and was told if I hadn't made the choice then I wouldnt be suicidal, I can see the sheer frustration and hopelessness of it all. Its absolutely shattering

I see a lot of abuse being aimed at Laura Whitmore now ( from both sides).
So one dies, time to move onto the next one, is it?
The people giving out then can't seem to see they are part of the problem.

Boggles · 18-02-2020 04:39PM

Shuhada Davitt wrote: »

you can't tell people to "be kind" and then essentially troll them as you are doing.

think of the harm you are causing this person, only because you deem them to be trolling you. you have decided thats what they are doing, then you go on the defensive just like susie and you become the troll. it's ironic and hypocritical

Where did I tell anyone to "be kind"

Are you okay?

SusieBlue · 18-02-2020 04:43PM

Shuhada Davitt wrote: »

you are just far too reactionary and obviously determined to be the most vocal and prove that your point is the "correct" one, when it isnt. it is only your point, a total stranger on the internet, who is not right in their opinion, any more than the opposing opinion.

you seem to want to take ownership of the thread and who posts what.
you've done it on other threads and you use a horrible tactic of luring posters in with the way you word things.

why dont you stop and consider the very real harm you are doing to readers of this thread by the way you are posting. it's not clever and it's very easily seen through, and i was coming on to post that so others can see through what you are doing.

im not saying she was wrong or right (assault), and yes it's sad that she felt she had to take her life - but people are rightly annoyed by the bandwagonry, the facebook brigades looking for likes by posting pictures of "be kind" and all this other nonsense, when these very people are on here and other platforms day after day degrading each other and making misery for other posters if they have a different opinion. if you were being "kind" you wouldnt be arguing in a thread about a suicide - you would wish your condolences and move on. you are arguing a lot for an RIP thread tbh.

it's a farce. if you can't see that, then the other poster was right about the "millenials" comment.

total hypocrite

If you have a problem with the way I post, feel free to report me instead of taking it upon yourself to backseat mod.

You are also putting words in my mouth, because I never defended the "thoughts & prayers" crowd, I never perpetuared the "be kind" BS, I criticised those things myself.
In fact, you seem to agree with everything I've said, so I can only assume you just have an issue with me in general.
If thats the case, just put me on ignore?
There is no point continuing this exchange if you are going to continuously misrepresent what I have said and use strawman arguments.

ShimSlady · 18-02-2020 04:43PM

Boggles wrote: »

So it's a no.

Unfortunately I don't enjoy the benefit of picking a new one every month.

Have you figured out how context works yet?

Or do you still I think physically vomited after hearing an opinion i disagreed with?

Shuhada Davitt · 18-02-2020 04:44PM

Boggles wrote: »

Where did I tell anyone to "be kind"

Are you okay?

you're proving my point.

i dunno, are people really this thick these days!?

Boggles · 18-02-2020 04:45PM

ShimSlady wrote: »

Have you figured out how context works yet?

Or do you still I think physically vomited after hearing an opinion i disagreed with?

What opinion of hers exactly did you disagree with?

Asking people to be kind?

Bloody outrageous woman.

Stevieluvsye · 18-02-2020 04:46PM

This thread wouldn't look out of place over in Current Affairs

ShimSlady · 18-02-2020 04:47PM

Boggles wrote: »

What opinion of hers exactly did you disagree with?

Asking people to be kind?

Bloody outrageous woman.

Oh my god i just got sick all over my keyboard because I found your post slightly nauseating

:D:D:D:D

Harleen Quinzel · 18-02-2020 04:52PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Its not hypocritical at all. There's a line. Celebrities have constantly said that what they get crosses that line. A lot of them over the passed few days have posted some ofthe comments theyve got. They didnt sign up for that.

Take Stephanie Davis as an example.

She goes to events, posing to make sure she gets her exposure, sells exclusive interviews and magazine spreads to the highest bidder, documents every aspect of her life online (especially her young son), but now is calling the press and media the big bad monster.

She, herself has used the media to be quite nasty about other people, but, like most in her profession, they like the media and exposure as long as they control the narrative.

The press usually write about alleged criminals and their crimes.
Should Caroline have been exempt because she was famous? Good looking? Had mental health problems?

dubstarr · 18-02-2020 04:52PM

A lot of the celebs giving out on Twitter are the same ones need Twitter and the Red Tops to survive.Half of them are not any way in the slightest talanted.

So they basically are biting the hands that feed them.

Love Island is basically porn.If you want to have sex on Telly go on Love Island or Big Brother.And you are sure to be rewarded with a job on This Morning.But you better toe the line,otherwise they will turn on you.

Galwayguy35 · 18-02-2020 04:52PM

Never heard of this Stephanie Davis one until she was interviewed by Matt Cooper the other day, she and others might be whistling a different tune if the media do exactly what she wants and ignores her completely.

It happened to Geroge Clooney back in 1997 when he attacked them over Dianas death and he was an established actor unlike these Z list nobodies.

Stevieluvsye · 18-02-2020 04:56PM

dubstarr wrote: »

A lot of the celebs giving out on Twitter are the same ones need Twitter and the Red Tops to survive.Half of them are not any way in the slightest talanted.

So they basically are biting the hands that feed them.

Love Island is basically porn.If you want to have sex on Telly go on Love Island or Big Brother.And you are sure to be rewarded with a job on This Morning.But you better toe the line,otherwise they will turn on you.

Just curious as to what time it airs tonight?

retro:electro · 18-02-2020 05:05PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Never heard of this Stephanie Davis one until she was interviewed by Matt Cooper the other day, she and others might be whistling a different tune if the media do exactly what she wants and ignores her completely.

It happened to Geroge Clooney back in 1997 when he attacked them over Dianas death and he was an established actor unlike these Z list nobodies.

They wouldn’t dare because they might actually have to get a job then, and they don’t want that.
It only seems to be the ones at the bottom of the barrel who are crying intrusion.

Actual celebrities seem to know how the industry works and are able to live semi private lives and go about their day without being stalked. And that’s because they actually have something to exchange in return for coverage, be that a movie, music, whatever. All the z listers have to exchange is their love lives and whatever drama they’ve got embroiled into this time — they thrive on the interest it brings and for that they’ve no one to blame but themselves. They’re the ones who bring it to the forefront.

Caroline Flack found dead

Comments