Caroline Flack found dead at 40

[Honey Honey]

What is the moral of the story? That you never know how vulnerable the person you are slating or talking about is?

Remember when that rape victim googled herself and found a TFF thread with some members being callous toward her.

This forum deals in criticism. Slagging people off. Slating them. In some extreme cases some members slate other members here. Slate their likes, their dislikes, their behaviours. We slate players. We slate owners. 

Should organisations of more coverage be held to a higher standard than that which we hold ourselves? Is it top down? Is it bottom up?

[Pyfish+]

This whole situation is still very much raw and I don't want to get into any arguments or petty forum fights with anyone but there is so much shit being spouted in this thread that it is unbelievable. 

No matter who is to blame, Caroline Flack was struggling with her mental health and the tabloids didn't help, trolls on social media didn't help, constant coverage of her struggles didn't help. ITV do have a responsibility but as do the 'humans' who write the shitty articles and the imbeciles who hide behind anonymous social media accounts.

We can speculate, we can argue and we can sing about mental health until the bloody cows come home but until something is done about this 'cancel' and 'rubbernecking' culture, we are fucked.

[RandoEFC+]

1 hour ago, Harvsky said:

What is the moral of the story? That you never know how vulnerable the person you are slating or talking about is?

Remember when that rape victim googled herself and found a TFF thread with some members being callous toward her.

This forum deals in criticism. Slagging people off. Slating them. In some extreme cases some members slate other members here. Slate their likes, their dislikes, their behaviours. We slate players. We slate owners. 

Should organisations of more coverage be held to a higher standard than that which we hold ourselves? Is it top down? Is it bottom up?

Yes, surely. The wider platform you have, the more people you can potentially influence so the more responsibility you have to take. Also an organisation full of people who are paid to deliver news and opinion to the public should obviously have a higher bar of responsibility than a bunch of sad idiots on an internet forum.

That said, it isn't really okay for anyone to pass sweeping judgement on anyone else when they barely know any of the facts.

There was a minor incident involving a knife at the school I work last week, nobody was hurt thankfully. However the comments on one of our local news and politics pages were hysterical and some people were very unfair in their criticism of the school. Did I really care? No, because I know that they didn't know what they were talking about, I know what people are like these days so it was water off a duck's back. Had a local journalist, radio programme, news report etc come out with the same I'll informed judgements though I would have been apoplectic because those people are paid to inform the public about what actually happened and it would have been blatantly obvious that they'd sensationalised the story to get more clicks and whatnot with no regard for what the students, teachers and parents involved in the incident would feel when reading an exaggerated and or inaccurate account of what would have been a traumatic ordeal for them.

[The Artful Dodger]

The Sun are absolutely noxious vermin, that isn't really debatable. They are not an existential thing though, they are made up of human beings and read by human beings. People lap up trash tv, trash entertainment, celebrity gossip etc. It's not a separate entity. We have the culture we created.

 

[The Palace Fan]

It still amazes me that since the developed of smart phones that the shitrags who have been known as shitrags for decades are still in business and appear to be doing rather well.

[Smiley Culture]

3 hours ago, The Palace Fan said:

It still amazes me that since the developed of smart phones that the shitrags who have been known as shitrags for decades are still in business and appear to be doing rather well.

The devil works hard but the red tops work harder. The Sun was featured on Snapchat’s feed and they have very good marketing and advertising departments that get promotions on social media. I don’t follow any of them but my adverts on Facebook always seem to be click bait links from these red tops with headlines like “which England star now plays in the eighth tier” or whatever. 

[Michael]

On 15/02/2020 at 17:53, Smiley Culture said:

In some ways, I can’t believe it. In others, I can believe it. Her life had been torn apart, her career in probable tatters, split from loved ones and hounded by the media at seminal moments in her life recently. Although she may have been the one to end her life, there’s accountability elsewhere for this death. 

There's definitely accountability elsewhere. I mean people who knew her personally are saying that she was a fragile person. Not everyone has thick skin to deal with the vile attacks on social media or to deal with the gutter press. Unfortunately, those who want to be public figures, have to be prepared for all the crap that usually comes with being in the limelight. 

A person like Caroline would have definitely needed more support in the situation that she was in. She was clearly going through a hell of a lot of pressure. The gutter press will do anything to make money, they don't give a damn about the potential consequences of their actions. 

It's really sad that someone like Caroline took her own life so young. But I think that it is quite apparent, that she needed more support from friends and family than she was actually getting.

[Michael]

Caroline Flack's family release her unpublished Instagram post.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-51557180

[Honey Honey]

On 17/02/2020 at 11:53, RandoEFC said:

Yes, surely. The wider platform you have, the more people you can potentially influence so the more responsibility you have to take. Also an organisation full of people who are paid to deliver news and opinion to the public should obviously have a higher bar of responsibility than a bunch of sad idiots on an internet forum.

That said, it isn't really okay for anyone to pass sweeping judgement on anyone else when they barely know any of the facts.

There was a minor incident involving a knife at the school I work last week, nobody was hurt thankfully. However the comments on one of our local news and politics pages were hysterical and some people were very unfair in their criticism of the school. Did I really care? No, because I know that they didn't know what they were talking about, I know what people are like these days so it was water off a duck's back. Had a local journalist, radio programme, news report etc come out with the same I'll informed judgements though I would have been apoplectic because those people are paid to inform the public about what actually happened and it would have been blatantly obvious that they'd sensationalised the story to get more clicks and whatnot with no regard for what the students, teachers and parents involved in the incident would feel when reading an exaggerated and or inaccurate account of what would have been a traumatic ordeal for them.

When someone is vulnerable to criticism or the views of others it matters not what span of coverage the abuser has but what value the depressed individual gives to that abusers words. 

There is no hierarchy. 99 people might handle a comment ok which 1 person does not. You don't know who that 1 person is going to be. So the question is should you make the comment? If your answer is only the Sun can't make the comment I would refute that.

Over the years I've spoken in private to people on here who suffer from depression, who are vulnerable and the way another member talks to them can really send then into a darker place.

[RandoEFC+]

4 hours ago, Harvsky said:

When someone is vulnerable to criticism or the views of others it matters not what span of coverage the abuser has but what value the depressed individual gives to that abusers words. 

There is no hierarchy. 99 people might handle a comment ok which 1 person does not. You don't know who that 1 person is going to be. So the question is should you make the comment? If your answer is only the Sun can't make the comment I would refute that.

Over the years I've spoken in private to people on here who suffer from depression, who are vulnerable and the way another member talks to them can really send then into a darker place.

Yeah, I'm not saying that it's okay to say these things on a smaller platform or that we should draw a made up line somewhere between okay and not okay.

My point is that when people say nasty things about you, for most people part of the problem is not just that that person thinks bad things about you, it's that the people who hear them say it may have their opinions on you influenced as well.

Therefore, if I say "Harvey is a twat" on here, it might not be okay but it's less likely to influence your life because maybe 20 more people you've never met or are ever likely to meet are more likely to think you're a twat than they did yesterday. And most importantly, you have the platform here to argue your case and convince those people that you're not a twat.

If The Sun posted "Harvey is a twat" on their front page tomorrow, that gets seen by millions of people across the country, your family, friends, colleagues, boss, potential employers, potential friends, girlfriends, boyfriends, families are sat in their living room discussing whether you're a twat without you having the platform to put your side of the story across. Instead you're sat at home convinced that all of these millions of people must believe you're a twat because they've only heard that side of the story. You could take to Twitter to defend yourself but that would only draw more attention to it, probably put it back on the front page tomorrow and get it seen by more people, so all you can do is try and surround yourself with people who can convince you that it doesn't matter what millions across the country think because they're wrong. Then take into account that whoever posted "Harvey is a twat" on the front page of The Sun is getting paid handsomely for doing so while you feel helpless to respond and bam, you've got yourself a whole new kettle of fish.

[Honey Honey]

18 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

Yeah, I'm not saying that it's okay to say these things on a smaller platform or that we should draw a made up line somewhere between okay and not okay.

My point is that when people say nasty things about you, for most people part of the problem is not just that that person thinks bad things about you, it's that the people who hear them say it may have their opinions on you influenced as well.

Therefore, if I say "Harvey is a twat" on here, it might not be okay but it's less likely to influence your life because maybe 20 more people you've never met or are ever likely to meet are more likely to think you're a twat than they did yesterday. And most importantly, you have the platform here to argue your case and convince those people that you're not a twat.

If The Sun posted "Harvey is a twat" on their front page tomorrow, that gets seen by millions of people across the country, your family, friends, colleagues, boss, potential employers, potential friends, girlfriends, boyfriends, families are sat in their living room discussing whether you're a twat without you having the platform to put your side of the story across. Instead you're sat at home convinced that all of these millions of people must believe you're a twat because they've only heard that side of the story. You could take to Twitter to defend yourself but that would only draw more attention to it, probably put it back on the front page tomorrow and get it seen by more people, so all you can do is try and surround yourself with people who can convince you that it doesn't matter what millions across the country think because they're wrong. Then take into account that whoever posted "Harvey is a twat" on the front page of The Sun is getting paid handsomely for doing so while you feel helpless to respond and bam, you've got yourself a whole new kettle of fish.

Some good points but it doesn't matter how many are listening as that isn't the heart of the issue. If you are clinically depressed with an image sensitive component then your primary problem is usually assuming that what one person thinks many others also do. Regardless of whether others are listening or not. Resilience is not about being able to debunk what they say. The most resilient tend to think very little of those who criticise them. The response is to see that person as a piece of shit. The image sensitive flip it, seeing themselves as the piece of shit. They take it out on themselves. Mentally and sometimes physically.

Which is why my original point is that the moral of the story is you don't know what someone else is going through or how they will take it.

People with image sensitivity and depression in this country get triggered by others and take it out on themselves physically every day in their thousands, particularly women. You don't need the Sun's help.

[Bluewolf]

This was an interesting article by Sarah Langford on the case.... 

https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/20/crown-prosecution-service-pursued-caroline-flacks-case-happens-now-12261508/

[The Palace Fan]

3 hours ago, Bluewolf said:

This was an interesting article by Sarah Langford on the case.... 

https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/20/crown-prosecution-service-pursued-caroline-flacks-case-happens-now-12261508/

If you find that interesting then you should enjoy the book The Secret Barrister. It gives a good insight to the internal issues with the CPS and CJS for all outsiders.