Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Insta-Mum Drama

981 replies

rosybell · 06/11/2019 17:30

Is there already a thread about the instamum dramas involving MoD today?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
23
Tooearlyforcrackers · 13/11/2019 08:16

There is an article about it in the Times now, this one is better, but still isn't 100% correct in terms of the facts. It wasn't the tattle mods that Alice complained to. It was....mumsnet Grin

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/clemmie-hooper-motherofdaughters-when-blogging-goes-bad-7vtwsxszs

RoseAdagio · 13/11/2019 08:22

I think, if the way the NMC deals with these things bears any resemblance to the way the Bar Standards Council does, she will not lose her job. The barrister I mentioned earlier posted way way worse stuff on social media and got a temporary suspension. I suspect that in CH's case a formal reprimand is the most likely outcome. I think for her to be struck off over this would be disproportionate tbh.

Having done some more reading up, "aggressive" seems to be a fairly common criticism of Candice over on Tattle. Just because it is a word that can be used to reinforce negative social stereotypes about black women doesnt, or shouldnt, mean that every time a non black woman calls a black woman aggressive that she should have to be called a racist for it if that woman actually is aggressive. And I have no difficulty whatsoever in believing that an ex pimp of any race or gender is aggressive.

Ditto "playing the race card". Yes it absolutely can be a racist thing to say, but it isn't automatically as some of you seem to assert. Case in point - at one of my previous employers, there was a member of support staff, non-white, who was widely recognised to be poor at her job. A less sympathetic employer would have dismissed her for poor performance but at our firm she just kept getting put on performance management measures which never did anything. A colleague (crucially, a colleague that was the SAME RACE as this lady) informed me that she had put in a grievance alleging racial discrimination. It was clearly bollocks. She wasnt being discriminated against due to her race, she was being performance managed because she was poor at her job. My colleague described her - a woman of the same ethnicity as himself - as "playing the race card". Now, according to some of the comments on this thread, this would make him a racist. That conclusion is plainly absurd in the real life scenario I have just described.

Now, I don't know why CH accused CB of playing the race card. It might be a situation where CH genuinely is a racist and finds CB's legitimately frequent posts about diversity/race issues annoying and that CH was whinging about CB posting about those topics too often, in which case that really does NOT portray CH in a good light AT ALL. On the other hand, CH might be aware of situations like the one I described above where CB has brought race into issues that actually were nothing to do with her race, in which case the comment would not be racist. Unfortunately CH would be very unwise to raise her head above the parapet right now to give us more specifics and as such the inference is that it was a racist remark.

RoseAdagio · 13/11/2019 08:29

One final note from me - Kelechi is a snake. Potentially the biggest snake out of the lot of them (although I am still struggling to get past the whole "CB was a pimp" thing and am staggered that any of you think even a sustained campaign of online trolling by CH is worse than being an ACTUAL PIMP). Kelechi has been relentless on twitter about how shes been the subject of a witch hunt and is being persecuted and deleted as a result of a racist algorithm over on Instagram that discriminates against black people for speaking out about white women. Shes then repeated the same one sided version of events in Grazia and completely omitted to mention the "I'll knock her teeth out" comments someone mentioned earlier in this thread. Really devious and manipulative. Shes also clearly thrilled about the fact shes now got that coveted all important blue verified tick, and comes across as really grabby and relishing the spotlight being on her. The Danielle Dash article she posted online (now taken down) even had a link for people to donate money to support Kelechi - wtf?! Why/what for?

Shady AF.

Like I say, NOBODY involved in this whole echo chamber of farts is coming out of it well....

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Sagradafamiliar · 13/11/2019 08:29

But it's not a mere 'catfight', Samo. And I'm not sweeping CB's past under the carpet, or condoning her opportunistic use of the the palaver. I can have opinions on both.

instagramwilleatitself · 13/11/2019 08:34

MOD - 14k followers

Hungermama +9k followers - book launching
Kelechi +7k followers - article in grazia full of self-endorsing inaccuracies and no doubt more exposure to come
CB +7k followers - book launching

Nothing disappears in the Insta ecosystem. Just gets recycled. Morals and ethics someone mentioned upthread have very little to do with it.

Samosaurus · 13/11/2019 08:39

What difference does it make to the media that CB used to be a pimp or MPs do shady things? It's about this story.

I think it is naive to think these things aren’t all related. The media’s treatment of CH as opposed to CB or the government ministers in question is indicative of the deeper problem of hypocrisy and fake news that is pervading our media - from broadsheet newspapers to individual social media accounts.

I understand why this story has gripped so many people’s imagination though (including each of us commenting on this thread). CH literally had it all, and through her own unnecessary breathtakingly stupid behaviour has let it slip from her grasp in the most catastrophic (in terms of her public profile, her career and possibly her marriage) way.

MarshaBradyo · 13/11/2019 08:45

It is interesting because followers will defend to the hilt every action and even defend wanting to be sold to (brands must love that, gotta be a first) and now they’ve attacked. A pretty big reversal.

All that personal information is now pretty bad, where and when they will be at work. That would make me feel unsettled.

legoiseverywhere · 13/11/2019 08:48

I meant when a journalist has an angle for their story in this case trolled becomes troll & targets friends & family they are not going to include what MPs do in the article or delve into how much of a victim CB really is.

All newspapers have bias & often chose to report on stories in a way that suits their agenda. This has been going on probably forever.

Kinraddie · 13/11/2019 09:04

Sorry if this has been asked and answered before, but how did Tattle users know that Aliceinwanderland was posting from St Lucia? Did she mention it in her posts?

PinkJam · 13/11/2019 09:14

@Kinraddie No but some stuff she posted made it quite obvious, and her writing style. And Alice’s IP address was shown as posting abroad in the same place CH was on holiday at. CH didn’t help herself by publicly trying to get Tattle closed down while posting on it at the same time! She got people’s backs up by wanting it closed down so she was naive to think they wouldn’t fight back.

Doubleraspberry · 13/11/2019 09:20

Just like I don’t buy stuff I see advertised on the television.

One of my kids loves cookie swirl c on YouTube. It’s been drilled into her that she’s watching an advert and this is an adult whose job is to play with toys companies give her in a fun way so kids will want to buy them too.

One of the things the Instamum threads on here have talked about a lot is the fact that it can be far from obvious that these accounts are advertising, which is why the lack of transparency is such an issue. Imagine you are a knackered and worried first time mum and one of these accounts tells you about a product that they love and makes them happy. It’s a bit more than you can afford but you trust this account and you think they are like you so you buy it. Until recently many of these accounts weren’t declaring ads, or gifts. There have been posters on here who have felt totally duped. Even now Instamums know their followers don’t actually like being advertised to so they play down the hashtags, talk about #pressdiscount, talk up each other’s businesses. It’s murky as hell.

Yes, you can tell your kids an advert is an advert. We all can. But if one of their mates was paid by a brand to take a toy into school and tell all their friends how great it is, it’s less easy, isn’t it? And you may say people are stupid not to realise but most of these accounts didn’t start off like this. It was gradual, and what began as genuine became commercial. Boundaries were blurred and people felt betrayed when the ASA guidelines were more strictly enforced.

Part of this episode is the result of people feeling like they lose the normal, midwife blogger to a sea of expensive endorsements. The other instamums are hurling her under the bus to preserve the model. Of course FOD made his statement with full involvement from his management, and probably Clemmie herself, as the imperative now for their household will be to preserve his account.

Sagradafamiliar · 13/11/2019 09:26

I can acknowledge broader problems to do with media manipulation and also comment on a thread relating to an influencer's fuck-up.
Oh well. Never pass comment on anything as the government with its MPs are even more sinister Hmm

Samosaurus · 13/11/2019 09:37

@Sagradafamiliar My comments about MPs weren’t related to anything you had written, so not sure what you are trying to say with your last sentence. No-one on this thread has suggested you should ‘never pass comment’

LazyDaisey · 13/11/2019 09:43

“but you trust this account”

Why the hell would I “trust” a bunch of pictures some stranger posted? No, you don’t just “trust” an account, sorry. If you are a knackered mum following some insta mum and you identify with what’s being posted... that’s down to you and your issues and whatever insecurities you might be feeling.

Sagradafamiliar · 13/11/2019 09:45

Samo, you disagreed with me and quoted me. 'It's a pile on' and 'MPs in parliament aren't subjected to these witch hunts' (aren't they?) are just roundabout ways to suggest everyone shuts up and glosses over it (whilst saying exactly what you want yourself on the subject). Even when the comments aren't remotely trolly and just based on facts.

Doubleraspberry · 13/11/2019 09:55

Why the hell would I “trust” a bunch of pictures some stranger posted? No, you don’t just “trust” an account, sorry. If you are a knackered mum following some insta mum and you identify with what’s being posted... that’s down to you and your issues and whatever insecurities you might be feeling.

Exactly it is. Those women are vulnerable and you may never have been one (I wasn’t either) but perhaps the real meaning of #womensupportingwomen should be looking out for each other and not just saying that people deserve what they get?

This is so recent. Five years ago none of this existed. Instagram accounts started with photo sharing, not commercialism. It’s not at all hard to see how people develop a sense of intimacy and trust online at what can be a really isolated time of their life. I don’t think dismissing them as insecure and foolish helps anyone. There is huge money being made here in a way that would not wash on TV, print media or mainstream advertising. It stinks.

Samosaurus · 13/11/2019 09:56

@Sagradafamiliar ah sorry I though you were referring to my later comment. I think you have misunderstood though - I have not advocated glossing over anything, but still think that this has become a ‘pile-on’ and was just pointing out that I think this because of the way CH is being treated in comparison to others who have been similarly misguided in their public actions. I think it’s ok to offer different opinions without other posters getting defensive about it btw. I in no way have ever suggested that anyone shouldn’t offer their opinion too. So apologies if you feel that I did that to you.

legoiseverywhere · 13/11/2019 10:10

If you are a knackered mum following some insta mum and you identify with what’s being posted... that’s down to you and your issues and whatever insecurities you might be feeling.

I don't think all the blame can be placed on those that are influenced.
When advertising on instagram is explicit eg highlighted & transparent engagement goes down, hence why some influencers go to long lengths to hide it.

MarshaBradyo · 13/11/2019 10:14

The whole thing started because brands knew that people lacked the critical distance they usually do. That, yes the trust is there. And it worked better if they were influenced without knowing they were being sold to.

Plus using other content, such as dc, means you can still post a lot and build a following without having to put much or any work in.

BanKittenHeels · 13/11/2019 10:14

It doesn’t matter that individual people on here feel they are not influenced, it is a current selling tool that like any other, that is fast rising and brings its own issues, it can be discussed.

This all day long.
It’s great is someone doesn’t think they are influenced.
But the discussion around regulation of these people advertising needs to happen as does the discussion surrounding the use of children in undeclared (and declared) advertising not to mention their safeguarding.

Another discussion that needs to happen is why people who pretend to operate as just “poor little me, an individual on big ol’ Instagram” who is actually functioning as a business is not allowed to face valid criticism as any other business does. I’m not even talking about Tattle here (until this episode I had only ever ventured over there to look at the Sali Hughes thread when that all kicked off), I’m talking about in general.

PinkJam · 13/11/2019 10:26

@LazyDaisey Yes it might be down to their own insecurities but we are allowed to have empathy and want to ensure other vulnerable Mums don’t get drawn into it as well.

Sagradafamiliar · 13/11/2019 11:07

@Samosaurus since we're @ing each other now, no I haven't misunderstood anything. Not every single comment I make means that I'm paraphrasing you.
...without other posters getting defensive about it btw. Yes. Yes.

Samosaurus · 13/11/2019 11:11

Sagradafamiliar oh dear I seem to be irking you so won’t engage any further. Sorry about the @ !

Sagradafamiliar · 13/11/2019 11:16

Thank you!

myolivetree · 13/11/2019 11:27

The whole thing started because brands knew that people lacked the critical distance they usually do. That, yes the trust is there. And it worked better if they were influenced without knowing they were being sold to.

This

People trust brands. Not just 'vulnerable' people. That's so patronising.That is how advertising and selling works. That's not new.

MoD and FoD etc are brands and businesses. Mini ad agencies. They have evolved into that. They make money doing what they do.

It's very complex because it's all built around their 'personal' lives, including their kids. But that makes them very effective.

Pretty sure the phones have been ringing red hot at their management company and the emails have been flying. Busy times. And FoD is cracking on with hair bobbles. Damage limitation in the Wild West of Insta Advertising.

There have been the soulful walks on the beach and in the woods. Just to keep it personal.

I

Swipe left for the next trending thread