@Jemandthehologramsunite I agree with both you and Starlite about someone trying to give the OP a "heads up". I believe by about 85% that this message was sent by someone who either knows the OP herself, or of the OP through a close contact (most likely a partner of one of the other men in the stag party), because the sender thinks that the OP should know the truth.
I do not believe for even a moment that it was some random person who met up with the stag party and somehow managed to get so much detail about the OP and her partner - it sounds much more like a very poor excuse to keep the message sender anonymous. And if the messenger is correct in their message, then I do think that the OP has a right to know about it.
My problem with @Starlitestarbright post, was her saying:
"There's no smoke without fire"
and I apologise immediately for not making it clear that that was my problem with Starlite's comment.
I just hate it when people use that expression, as historically there have been a great many occasions when people have been accused of something that they were later found to be totally innocent of. On sad occassions that phrase 'about there being no smoke without fire' has led to the ostracisation of both adults and children, and on the very worst occassions, that belief has led to the execution of, or the suicide of, the accused. Therefore I find that belief/expression to be at the best very thoughtless and ignorant, and at worst completely cruel and sadistic.
I do not think that Starlite meant it in such a nasty way, I think it was an unthinking throwaway comment, that I hope she and anyone else will think seriously about before using in the future. My apologies again for any misunderstandings due to my lack of eloquence, I hope that I have explained my post well enough this time. Of course it is fine Jem if you still think I need to "get a grip", hopefully we can just agree to differ in an amical fashion.