Page 11 | Owner of Tattle Life named

BeardofHagrid · 2025-06-13T17:18:37+00:00

The owner of hate forum Tattle Life has today been legally named as Sebastian Bond. He also goes by the alias Bastian Durward. He has tried to flee to Asia to avoid paying his legal costs. [[https://goss.ie/featured/everything-we-know-about-the-owner-of-tattle-life-as-he-is-finally-named-423238 https://goss.ie/featured/everything-we-know-about-the-owner-of-tattle-life-as-he-is-finally-named-423238]]

Hairgrip · 15/06/2025 06:23

It's funny because quite a few of these influencers, and I use that term lightly, who are gleeful are members of Tattle themselves. Some have outed themselves on their own threads and some have had their friends posting on there mouthing off in "defence". So wanting all names to be published well... newsflash babes, you'll be included in that 🤣🤣

MadameWombat · 15/06/2025 06:31

A parent from my child's school is an influencer with a Tattle thread about her. I had a look at the thread after she mentioned it in a post. (Yes, I'm a terrible human) The things written were wildly exaggerated or just wrong!

NeelyOHara · 15/06/2025 06:37

“You’d have to have some things seriously wrong with your life to need to spend so much of it pointlessly posting about people you will never meet. It does make me feel a lot better about myself though so there is that!”

Er, you will never meet any of the people on Mumsnet? But you post about and to them?

screwyou · 15/06/2025 06:45

NeelyOHara · 15/06/2025 06:37

“You’d have to have some things seriously wrong with your life to need to spend so much of it pointlessly posting about people you will never meet. It does make me feel a lot better about myself though so there is that!”

Er, you will never meet any of the people on Mumsnet? But you post about and to them?

Oh the irony!!!

Original poster

BeardofHagrid · 15/06/2025 07:03

FreeRider · 14/06/2025 23:04

If they were posting her IG account, that means it was already public so what's the problem?

If they were slagging it off - you put stuff online, chances are someone will come along and say it's crap. People are allowed to have opinions and express them however they want. Having a foul mouthed opinion about someone, their publicly available work or calling them a cunt is not breaking the law (if the website you publish it on has rules about swearing/personal attacks they are at liberty to remove your posts/ban you).

Saying someone has broken the law online and they can prove they haven't - that is defamation. It's one of the main reasons no one came out and called/published that Savile a pedophile when he was still alive - he hadn't been convicted of the crime. It all came out when he died because you can't defame the dead.

So if I say those Paddington drawings were twee fucking crap that's my opinion - I'm not breaking any law.

Edited

Show quote history

My point was that this artist does not have 10,000 followers/doesn’t meet their definition of a public figure and they have nothing to do with Harry and Meghan, so they are not “fair game” to be discussed in their thread.

Also Tattle “mission statement” if you can call it that says: “We have a zero-tolerance policy to any content that is abusive, hateful, harmful.” Calling someone the C word is certainly all of those things by anyone’s definition.

OP posts:

Bernadinetta · 15/06/2025 07:39

Wouldn’t surprise me if the “influencers” shouting loudest about tattle life have their own accounts on there.

HolaEspanola · 15/06/2025 07:44

Hairgrip · 15/06/2025 06:23

It's funny because quite a few of these influencers, and I use that term lightly, who are gleeful are members of Tattle themselves. Some have outed themselves on their own threads and some have had their friends posting on there mouthing off in "defence". So wanting all names to be published well... newsflash babes, you'll be included in that 🤣🤣

But that’s what I don’t get- it’s not a list of names that would be published anyways, it’s would be a list of user IDs and/or their attached email addresses.
But see also I don’t know what judge would say that’s OK to do- what would be the legal precedent? Far more likely that a judge orders it shut down, no?

theyallwent · 15/06/2025 08:02

EconomyClassRockstar · 14/06/2025 23:27

I remember getting caught down the rabbit hole of Tattle and reading a thread about Kate Lawler not long after she'd given birth. It was genuinely very shocking. The stuff that people were writing about a woman who had literally just given brith and very obviously had quite bad PPD blew my mind. Anyway, I got banned so yay me!

See this is where I don’t mind Tattle. The Kate Lawler threads occasionally crosses a line but mostly aren’t too bad. That baby was monetised before it was even conceived so obviously people will comment and it won’t all be favourable.

In contrast to others who have given birth where the newborn (not the mother) is torn to shreds Kate’s thread was lovely!

BlackBeltInOrigami · 15/06/2025 08:32

Fratolish · 14/06/2025 20:34

Jimmy Saville predates Tattle by years surely? It's more than a decade since he was exposed.

Show quote history

Originally it was on the Digital Spy forums, but they closed the blind thread, and posters gravitated to Tattle.

BlackBeltInOrigami · 15/06/2025 08:41

IcedPurple · 14/06/2025 22:05

I really liked the Sali Hughes threads on Tattle. I was only aware of her Guardian column, which basically degenerated into an advertorial. But I wasn't aware of her social media presence and general unpleasant behaviour until I read the Tattle threads. Obviously it's not exactly life or death stuff, but the posters there are pretty well-informed.

It was like this for me, especially with Right Guys Reviews. I knew of them as they popped up on my feed, he gave me the ick, and I felt sorry for their kid who seems to be dragged around for views and comments. I was ill in bed and bored and ended up reading the multiple ’chapters” on them, it was eye opening, and people there have ‘receipts’ (screen shots, videos) and called them out. Dipping in and out you probably wouldn’t notice the grift, but seeing it play out opens your eyes. Makes you look at content creators in a different way, and you see things in a different light. It’s an education I tell you.

HolaEspanola · 15/06/2025 08:46

Do we think this is why they in particular as celebs (instagramers) hate it so much because it’s too close to the bone?

Hairgrip · 15/06/2025 08:46

HolaEspanola · 15/06/2025 07:44

But that’s what I don’t get- it’s not a list of names that would be published anyways, it’s would be a list of user IDs and/or their attached email addresses.
But see also I don’t know what judge would say that’s OK to do- what would be the legal precedent? Far more likely that a judge orders it shut down, no?

Show quote history

Yeah but people can be traced around the internet simply by their usernames and email addresses usually because they use the same or similar across multiple platforms. How many really think to use a secondary email to register online. So if someone was adamant in finding an actual name...

I don't understand the legalities of it all but it'll be interesting to see what happens next.

SuperTrooper14 · 15/06/2025 09:02

Toastedpickle · 14/06/2025 22:10

Exactly. People are getting very confused here. Why would anyone think that a judge would order for names of posters on tattle to be made public because they said something “nasty”?! Aside from the actual legality of it, if that did happen the floodgates would open for every single comment on the internet- the Daily Mail comments section would be a goldmine 😅 It is absolutely never going to happen.
This specific case was due to things being said that hurt a business that could be proved to be untrue and was not taken down by the site. It also concluded in 2023 and yet Tattle is still going and no one, not even the posters from this case, have been “outed”. So everyone who is gleefully rubbing their hands about users of the “cesspit” being made public can calm down.

I must say, there are a lot of posters who claim to hate it but know A LOT about what’s posted there ! Clearly making it money and keeping it going by regularly reading.

And yep, I’m a member. I go on the Ingham threads because the dad is a dirty piece of work who tried to get young fans to sleep with him and yet YouTube continue to let him post there. He has taken all of his children out of school and is now dodging £100k taxes whilst boasting about shopping hauls and how he makes £thousands a day. Look up Ruby Franke and her story of being exposed by her family on social media. It’s these awful people ruining their children’s lives that people should focus their anger on, and I’m glad tattle keeps discussions about it open or most of this would be lost.

Show quote history

I guess it depends on your definition of nasty. Some of the stuff on Tattle is brutal and highly defamatory - for example, you call someone in the public eye a neglectful parent and claim they are abusing their DC by having them feature online you need the receipts to back it up.

HolaEspanola · 15/06/2025 09:03

yeah that’s true, well I was careful enough to use a username I never use along with a random gmail address.
Plus though I know I never said anything defamatory anyways.
Admittedly some stuff on there is really bad and shouldn’t have been happening and it’s interesting how some posters are doubling down on their stuff and not even seeming contrite about it.

DelboytrottersDnecklace · 15/06/2025 09:06

Influencers put this information out there for the money and the freebies

Which they are happy to accept

The children are shoved out onto a world wide stage but they didn't ask for that and deserve their privacy (ruby Frankes dd has written a book about this)

They are the ones putting that information out there-the times I've read something about one of their children and thought ' if I was that child,I wouldn't be happy about the world knowing that'

If you put something out there,then people will have an opinion about you/whatever you've put out there

They all seem to think they shouldn't be held to account and that everyone should worship them with no questions asked

(while accepting the freebies via the back door and acting shocked that they are asked to declare that they,did in fact,get them for free)

Saying that,some tattle users do go too far

I got banned years ago for writing something innocent that someone else got the hump about (which was much better for my mental health)

Some of what was written was waaayyy too close to the bone and bang out of order but was spot on in others

If they shut this site down,another will pop up within days and the cycle will continue as they will keep putting that info out there and people will always have an opinion about it

hopeishere · 15/06/2025 09:07

Even if a judge did say give out all the email addresses you would then have to prove every single one was there for nefarious purposes.

Toastedpickle · 15/06/2025 09:26

hopeishere · 15/06/2025 09:07

Even if a judge did say give out all the email addresses you would then have to prove every single one was there for nefarious purposes.

No judge is going to do this! What would be the point?! As I said, we haven’t had the names or email addresses of the people who posted in the lawsuit case, have we?

I could go on tripadvisor right now and post that I found a bug in a meal at my local restaurant which as a complete lie. It is on tripadvisor to verify this info (same for trust pilot etc) if the restaurant complains and says it’s untrue. If they can’t, they take it down - they don’t then publish all my private info!
The Tattle case, they should have taken down defamatory remarks about this business which the judge found were lies, after they couldn’t be verified but didn’t - that’s where the compensation comes from and it comes from tattle, not the posters!

No judge is ever, EVER going to demand that personal info is given out publicly in the case of tattle. Even if they did - they won’t - but what would happen to the info?! Where would it be published, a name and shame gossipers website 😅 How would a judge decide what is untrue - do you think it’s going to be argued in court if Katie Price is considered fat or not because username3456 said she was? Think of people like Prince Harry who bloody loves a legal battle and has the millions to get into one, why hasn’t he gone after Jane in Portsmouth because she said Meghan’s show was shit?

This frothing about people being exposed is just from people who don’t like being criticised and expect everyone online to be part of their echo chamber. But are happy to expose their kids/take advantage of their followers/create a completely made up and fake life for money. They don’t like being called out on that.

If Tattle will carry on is a separate discussion. Personally, I hope it does as I believe children have no business being online and used to make money in such an exploitative way, and tattle is the only place this can really be discussed.

HolaEspanola · 15/06/2025 09:36

Toastedpickle · 15/06/2025 09:26

No judge is going to do this! What would be the point?! As I said, we haven’t had the names or email addresses of the people who posted in the lawsuit case, have we?

I could go on tripadvisor right now and post that I found a bug in a meal at my local restaurant which as a complete lie. It is on tripadvisor to verify this info (same for trust pilot etc) if the restaurant complains and says it’s untrue. If they can’t, they take it down - they don’t then publish all my private info!
The Tattle case, they should have taken down defamatory remarks about this business which the judge found were lies, after they couldn’t be verified but didn’t - that’s where the compensation comes from and it comes from tattle, not the posters!

No judge is ever, EVER going to demand that personal info is given out publicly in the case of tattle. Even if they did - they won’t - but what would happen to the info?! Where would it be published, a name and shame gossipers website 😅 How would a judge decide what is untrue - do you think it’s going to be argued in court if Katie Price is considered fat or not because username3456 said she was? Think of people like Prince Harry who bloody loves a legal battle and has the millions to get into one, why hasn’t he gone after Jane in Portsmouth because she said Meghan’s show was shit?

This frothing about people being exposed is just from people who don’t like being criticised and expect everyone online to be part of their echo chamber. But are happy to expose their kids/take advantage of their followers/create a completely made up and fake life for money. They don’t like being called out on that.

If Tattle will carry on is a separate discussion. Personally, I hope it does as I believe children have no business being online and used to make money in such an exploitative way, and tattle is the only place this can really be discussed.

Show quote history

Is that why it’s on the part of the website to take down anything defamatory when requested by the complainant?

A judge could order the IP addresses to be released to celebs who want to pursue their own investigations tho, no? Would a judge do this?

Jacky86 · 15/06/2025 09:47

Was this court case and the judge’s comment not two years ago?

HolaEspanola · 15/06/2025 09:49

Jacky86 · 15/06/2025 09:47

Was this court case and the judge’s comment not two years ago?

Yeah I think it was. And the posters of THAT defamation thread were never outed.

I think people are right, the instagramers are getting all excited over nothing, the outing of the website creator just now allows them to go after HIM for not moderating his site properly.

The next court hearing on the 26th seems to be related to how they’re gonna get the £300k off him… I think….

Gardengirl108 · 15/06/2025 09:51

idonethisthing · 13/06/2025 20:31

If he hasn’t said anything directly, there’s no legal action they can take surely? There are much worse forums out there. They’ll have to chase the individual posters for their libellous comments. He’s not guilty of opinion.

They successfully sued him for defamation, as the publisher of this material (in the same way a newspaper could be sued for defamation).

HolaEspanola · 15/06/2025 09:51

Also anyone remember ask.fm ? THAT site was horrid- anonymous posters telling people to kill themselves etc.
No one ever outed it for it

Jacky86 · 15/06/2025 10:08

I wonder if all the others will try to sue him now too? That will be an insane amount of people and money. Surely it would be easier to shut the site down.

HolaEspanola · 15/06/2025 10:11

Jacky86 · 15/06/2025 10:08

I wonder if all the others will try to sue him now too? That will be an insane amount of people and money. Surely it would be easier to shut the site down.

Am fairly sure this is what they gonna do. Go after HIM and the site now they know him.

scoopoftheday · 15/06/2025 10:17

If the site is closed down can they still sue him? If it no longer exists?

What I find (slightly) funny is some of the influencers I follow are saying the judge ruled all names of users to be released.

I've read the ruling and the judge definitely didn't say that.