Tag: privacy

Clickbait Crazy

White woman Kris Schatzel caught posing with a ‘Black Lives Matter’ sign in a “slutty” outfit is exposed as a clickbait crazy ‘Protest Barbie’

“Stop treating the protests like Coachella pt. 17” raged ‘Influencers in the Wild’ of a white woman posing for her personal photographer with a ‘Black Lives Matters’ sign on a Zebra crossing. She was wearing what The Independent far too generously termed a “black floaty gown” in a video of the incident, posted on Twitter on Friday.

The woman’s dress – which most certainly “looked more like a slutty slapper’s sloppy seconds” and left little of her cleavage to the imagination – attracted great interest from the 157,000 followers of the account. With 15.7 million views, 400,000 likes and 6,600 retweets within 24 hours, here was an example of the social media loving millennial generation at its very worst.

This morning’s Mirror subsequently named and shamed the “model” as Kris Schatzel and the photographer as Mila Voyna. The paper claimed the Russian had generated “mass outrage” and then after declaring: “This is a huge misunderstanding!!! Later I will explain everything an [sic] apologise!” Schatzel unsurprisingly decided she wanted privacy and deleted her Twitter account.

“Clickbait crazy” is the only description suitable for this abhorrent woman and her ridiculous behaviour. May she now please disappear permanently.

Observations about Kris Schatzel elsewhere online included:

“The opposite of feminism. Go read a book.”

“Put some clothes on hoe!”

“What an ugly woman. In all senses.”

“She’s not an influencer. She’s an ignoramus.”

“She’ll be making merchandise branded with ‘Black Lives Matters’ on it next.”

“Send her back to Putin. Or give her to Donald. Both like Soviet trollops.”

“A shame for her Jeffrey Epstein isn’t still around. Just his type. Get her on the Lolita Express.”

“Is that Ghislaine Maxwell hiding behind that camera? Now we know where you’ve been Ghis!”

“She needs attention. Attention in the mental asylum. Lock her up and throw away the key!”

“Shop her. She’s probably an illegal. Get her back on a boat to Russia. Mind you, they would probably just send her back too.”

“Oh no…. oh no. Look at her. Uh-uh. This is bulls**t.”

“Her parents must be insanely proud of what they’ve produced.”

“Did she consider looking in a mirror before going out in that filthy piece of rag?”

“She is absolute trash… Kris Schatzel should be cancelled.”

“I think Kris Schatzel will need to find a new ‘career’ after this. Any brands associated with her from now on need to get dragged.”

“I hope she has talents other than posing, pouting and getting her tits out cause she is gonna need to a find a real job after this.”

“Protest Barbie… She needs to get a little lesson in oppression.”

“Her face needs to be seen… Just horrible… She’s not an influencer… She’s a loser with no respect for others.”

“Kris Schatzel, you’re a jackass. ‘I speak four languages, none of which is empathy’ sums her up.”

Pictured top: Kris Schatzel flashes her leg whilst posing with a ‘Black Lives Matters’ sign indicating utterly no interest in anything other than promoting her sorry self as genuine protestors look on in shock.

Facebook: @TheSteepleTimes

Instagram: @TheSteepleTimes

Twitter: @SteepleTimes

https://twitter.com/influencersitw/status/1268916126190272514

Kris Schatzel – The girl in the video has now made her Instagram account private. On its introduction she boasts: “Made in Russia, influencer/youtuber/model, I’m Kris and I speak 4 languages.” One of them is most certainly not tact.

In this image, Miss Schatzel seems keener on getting her bra out than on in the cause in hand.

Twitter user @Amelia_mcJ rightly summed up how people should react: “I dare say Kris Schatzel is CANCELLED!”

June 6, 2020
Heroine of the Hour – Lorraine Kelly

In suggesting obese people slim to avoid death by coronavirus Lorraine Kelly is spot on; she’s also right about Harry and MeGain

The ‘Queen of Gorbals Gobbledygook’ that is Lorraine Kelly OBE has struck again. In her column in The Sun today, this “gritty heroine of our times” spoke for the nation in announcing: “Telling obese people to slim is no insult.”

Quite correctly pointing out the obvious in stating: “This awful coronavirus is far deadlier to those who are overweight,” this “gritty heroine of our times” has yet again shown herself to be a lady of metal rather than a fluffy friend of the vain and the vacuous.

Completely the opposite of daytime dimwits like ‘Verging on Vile’ Vanessa Feltz (whom could most definitely do with losing a few pounds herself) and the ‘Daytime David Icke’ 5G conspiracy theorist Eamonn Holmes in her approach, Ms. Kelly did not seek to “fat shame,” but instead shared her own experiences and offered solutions rather than highlighting problems.

“This is not about going on a stupid faddy diet,” cautioned the Glasgow born presenter before adding: “It’s all about a lifestyle change and doing exercise you enjoy. My advice, which is hard-earned over the years, is not to have too much unhealthy food in the house, especially right now in lockdown when it’s so easy to sit watching TV while guzzling whole packets of biscuits. If you don’t buy the junk, you won’t be able to gorge on it. That’s not to say you can’t have a treat. You can. Just don’t eat a whole plus-sized bag of Maltesers or only leave a few Hobnobs in the biscuit tin.”

Concluding on this particular topic, Ms. Kelly remarked: “I wish you luck” before turning to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Of this tedious duo she stated:

“I’m confused. Harry and Meghan demand privacy and are suing a Sunday newspaper to ensure they are left alone… They want to have as normal a life as possible… And yet… They have moved to Los Angeles, the very hub of celebrity culture.”

Here, Lorraine Kelly highlights a pair not in need of “luck” since they’ve already burnt through plenty of that. Instead, ‘Hapless Harry’ and ‘Mendacious MeGain’ just need lobotomies and one-way tickets to nowhere.

Facebook: @TheSteepleTimes

Instagram: @TheSteepleTimes

Twitter: @SteepleTimes

May 9, 2020
Wally of the Week – The Duchess of Sussex

In throwing out major elements of her argument against Associated Newspapers yesterday, the Duchess of Sussex’s defeat marked not just a battle loss, but the start of a worse stage for her war

‘MeGain’ should quit whilst she’s (just about) still ahead. Whilst public support for her is still just about there in some quarters as, frankly, distaste for the Mail and its parent operation remains high, this ‘I don’t want to be a royal anymore but I want everything that went with being a royal’ looks increasingly isolated after having major part of her case against Associated Newspapers deservedly struck out yesterday.

In delivering his ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Warby pointedly remarked that parts of the duchess’s case were “irrelevant” and “inadequately detailed.” He went further and totally ignored her claim of “dishonest behaviour” and now, according to Mark Stephens, a libel and privacy expert at the law firm Howard Kennedy, will be forced to pay a bill of upto £250,000 in costs as a result of her totally “ill-informed” claim.

Worse still, the Duchess of Sussex now faces the prospect of her five friends – whom most curiously still remain unnamed at this stage (raising the question of: “Do they actually exist?”) – being dragged into the witness box. In addition, yet more embarrassment and costs will follow for the royal family she once so used to crave being part of and as a result we today join those telling this mendacious madam: “Enough is enough. Put a stop to your nonsense before it is too late.”

Facebook: @TheSteepleTimes

Instagram: @TheSteepleTimes

Twitter: @SteepleTimes

May 2, 2020
Falling Off The Cliff

Matthew Steeples suggests the BBC’s decision not to appeal the Cliff Richard privacy ruling is very worrying for press freedom

News that the BBC have decided not to challenge the Cliff Richard privacy ruling is not surprising but it also sets a worrying precedent.

In a statement, aside from apologising yet again to the plainly strange Christian crooner, the Corporation thankfully, however, announced they would be taking its case to a higher level and stated:

“The BBC is writing today to ask the Government to consider a review of the law in this important area to protect the right to properly and fairly report criminal investigations, and to name the person under investigation.”

“There is a fundamental principle of press freedom at stake here and one upon which we believe Parliament, as our lawmakers, should decide.”

They are quite right and given this ruling is tantamount to new legislation, this ultimately will go down in history as taking Britain down a very dangerous road.

Pictured top: Convicted paedophile Rolf Harris with Sir Cliff Richard.

Facebook: @TheSteepleTimes

Instagram: @TheSteepleTimes

Twitter: @SteepleTimes and @M_Steeples

August 16, 2018
Public vs. Private

Matthew Steeples suggests respected actor George Clooney and publicity desperado Karen Danczuk provide contrasting examples about the ethics of paparazzi intrusion and media manipulation

Paparazzi intrusion and media manipulation are interlinked hot potatoes that look unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. Two very different examples emerged in recent days of very different behavior by so-called ‘personalities’ – yet each gives indication that something is not quite right with the situation as it stands.

Whilst ‘ordinary individuals’ – and such should include, for example, successful business people who do not choose to put themselves on any kind of public pedestal – unquestionably deserve privacy from press intrusion unless they do something criminal or opt to share details of something considered newsworthy, the issue of where is the line of public and private was importantly raised by George Clooney late last week. The actor promised to “prosecute to the full extent of the law” a magazine named Voici after they scaled the fence of his Lake Como home to take unauthorised pictures of his young twin babies, Ella and Alexander, and he is right to do so.

Whilst undoubtedly a public figure himself (and one whose fortune stems from such), Mr Clooney has a point. His offspring, through no fault of their own, have only become part of a media circus because of their parentage and the dangers that could result from their images being featured in the press are great. Stronger restrictions against unauthorised photography are indeed required internationally – especially in the domain of minors – and California, for example, was right to issue laws in 2013 that protected children from paparazzi cameras.

Elsewhere and though such publications as the Mail Online may thrive due to their enthusiasm for incognito shots, on Sunday that paper illustrated another type of shoddy journalism. In publishing a ‘story’ – if it could even be called such – about the tawdry ex-wife of the disgraced Labour MP Simon Danczuk, 34-year old Karen Danczuk, cavorting on a Spanish beach with her 26-year old “Spanish toyboy lover” as he proposed to her, that paper opted to mislead its readers.

Featuring images taken by an agency named Flynet Pictures, it is plain that Ms Danczuk – listed as a “current client” by Louise Clifford, the daughter of the jailed nonce and convicted sex offender Max Clifford, on the website of her Borne Media PR agency – staged the images contained in that article and that the Mail Online’s Stephanie Linning was, at the very least, complicit of playing along with what is nothing other than a moment of media manipulation. The public, however, did not fall for this and of the 320 comments on the article most were in the negative. One, which received 1,184 likes, remarked: “So it was a big surprise for her then with a camera on standby? Fixed photo opportunities!”

Shame on the Mail Online for falling for the desperado Karen Danczuk and her representatives and shame on Voici also for invading the Clooney children’s privacy. Such activities must cease and the sooner, the better.

Update: 8:30am, Monday 31^st July 2017 – Karen Danczuk has now blocked @SteepleTimes on Twitter. Something about ‘heat’ and ‘kitchens’ comes to mind.

Paedophile Max Clifford pictured with his daughter Louise Clifford prior to being jailed for 8 years in 2014 for abusing victims as young as 14 years old; Louise Clifford is now the PR of amongst others such greats as Karen Danczuk, Chloe Sims and Lauren Goodger and shockingly purchased her father’s “goodwill” in November 2015

July 31, 2017
Anti-Social Media

The law needs to be updated with regard to what is acceptable on social media; businesses such as Facebook and Twitter need to equally be held to account

Social media, as we’ve already reported, was proven to be anything but sociable in a London courtroom this week. With the jailing of the tweed gilet clad racist Viscount St Davids for 12 weeks for malicious communications came acceptance from the country’s most important magistrate, Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot, that “Facebook is not private” and that it is no longer a place where anything can be posted without repercussions applying.

Elsewhere, on Friday, outside of the realms of the law but again very much illustrative of the perils of posting without consideration of impact, the Mirror reported that Stella McCartney is said to be furious with David Beckham – a man known to use European privacy laws to have his own home obscured on Google – after he posted an un-pixelated image of a group of children at his daughter’s birthday party that included amongst others her six year old daughter on Instagram. Ms McCartney, a woman reportedly very protective of her child’s safety, is said to be “spitting feathers,” yet, as the paper concluded: “David Beckham has not taken the [liked by 900,000 individuals to date] post down.”

Previously decisions in civil cases – such as that of freelance journalist Dennis Rice vs. the crowdfunded news site Byline and media personality Katie Hopkins vs. blogger Jack Monroe – have highlighted that irresponsible and defamatory posts can be costly to the parties involved, with damages and legal bills awarded against Hopkins alone said to total some £130,000. Equally, as a contrast, such outcomes as Paul Chambers’ successful appeal against his conviction for tweeting about blowing an airport “sky high,” have also depressingly shown that regulation of what is acceptable is confused and in need of reform.

A most telling factor to consider is that the Communications Act came to statute in 2003 and as such really does not have any specific provision for activities conducted on mediums like Facebook – a for-profit company with revenues of £20.6 billion in 2016 and 2 billion active monthly users as of June 2017 – and Twitter – a for-profit company with revenues of £1.9 billion in 2016 and 328 million active users as of July 2017. Facebook was founded in February 2004 and Twitter in March 2006 and thus, though it is accepted that the Communications Act (2003) was appropriate back in the early noughties, it is now out of date and no longer fit for purpose.

An attempt to update the law with the Malicious Communications (Social Media) Bill in 2016 was likely going to be a step forward, but because of Theresa May’s decision to call a pointless General Election in May 2017, that failed due to it having not even yet reached the House of Lords prior to the 3^rd May. Now, with the ‘Wheat Field Wanderer’ in a position of being nothing but “weak and wobbly” in terms of her political influence, such laws will likely be forgotten. That is entirely wrong and we now call upon politicians of all parties to campaign to right the wrong that allows bullies and trolls to continue to prosper.

A pixelated version of the image David Beckham posted to Instagram of his daughter, Harper, and other children; the Mirror opted (rightly) to obscure the faces of the other children and we do the same here; shown: Princess Eugenie and Harper Beckham

July 16, 2017
Viscount Porridge

Thrice bankrupt bigot Viscount St Davids banged to rights and set to be jailed Thursday; he blames Gina Miller as “untruthful” and Matthew Steeples as “an eavesdropper” and accepts utterly no blame for what he did

On Thursday, if he doesn’t turn up at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on time, justice will come knock, knock, knockin’ on Baron Strange of Knockin’s door.

Donald Trump supporter and serial bankrupt Rhodri Philipps (AKA 4^th Viscount St Davids, Lord St Davids, Baron Hungerford, Baron de Moleyns, Baron Strange of Knockin and, to the public and no doubt his new jailbird chums, plain old Mr Philipps) – a bigot whose insistence on being called anything other than Mister sealed his fate as the real life representation of Paul Whitehouse’s Rowley Birkin QC – was found guilty Tuesday of two counts of sending menacing messages on a public electronic communications network. After convicting him, chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot warned the aristocrat: “The first port of call will obviously be a prison sentence.”

She added:

“I have no doubt the first post was menacing, you were offering money to have [Gina Miller] killed. A reasonable person reading the post would have felt a sense of apprehension at least, if not fear.”

“I don’t accept you didn’t understand the post could be shared. On Facebook users share and have shared any number of others’ posts – nothing is private about a Facebook post.”

“They were not funny, not a joke, they were sent when Lord St Davids was infuriated – they were not meant to be light-hearted comment, they were intended to cause apprehension among some of your Facebook acquaintances, not all as some clearly shared his views.”

“I find you knew when you posted these messages they might create apprehension in a reasonable person reading them in the multi-racial country we live in.”

Represented initially by a chubby dimwit American and Conservative councillor for Kensington (yes, one of them, a member of the worst council in Britain) named Andrew Rinker – a curious creature commonly known as ‘Rinker The Stinker’ in even the most polite circles – Philipps proved himself nothing but a nasty piece of work and a fool in the dock. He tried to blame me for “stalking” and “trolling” him and referenced me “a professional eavesdropper.” He claimed his trial was “political” and motivated because of his multiple titles and whilst his scumbag chum and cohort Tariq Siddiqi targeted me also via social media throughout the period, he was ultimately convicted simply because the Crown was able to prove he is nothing but an inept racist incapable of covering his own vile tracks.

Of the result, Kate Mulholland of the Crown Prosecution Service commented:

“This threat caused extreme concern to Gina Miller and although Lord St Davids claimed his Facebook friends would have been tolerant of his views, they were open to the public.”

“No-one should have these kind of menacing comments made to them or about them and where there is evidence of an offence the CPS and police will bring a prosecution.”

As I said previously, the law must now change: What goes on social media, doesn’t stay on social media. We must all be held accountable for whatever we post.

July 12, 2017
Sandra Howard – What’s on your mantelpiece?

A 20-question interview with Sandra Howard – novelist, former model and wife of Conservative politician The Rt. Hon. Lord Howard of Lympne

The Steeple Times shares “wit and wisdom”. What’s your guiding force?

Seeing the upside of life and what’s to laugh at.

“Don’t get even, get medieval” is, in our humble opinion, a great motto. What’s yours?

Perseverance pays.

Kerry Katona was considered unacceptable in 2007. Who or what is unacceptable in 2017?

Kim Kardashian’s bottom.

Tony Blair misses being Prime Minister. What do you miss most in your life?

Talking to my mother – She was a sage and a wonderful rock.

What might you swap all your wealth for?

A continuing, happy, healthy marriage.

Donald Trump was once a case of: “If you owe the bank a thousand, they close you down; but if you owe the bank a billion, you own the bank”. What’s your view on the state of the financial system?

That’s too taxing for my ‘small bear’ financial brain. Well above my pay grade.

What phrase or word do you most loathe?

“At the end of the day” and I’m not mad about: “You know what?” (Jeremy Corbyn’s favourite phrase).

In the UK, some people consider charity to “begin at home”. What’s your view and what causes do you personally support?

It should begin at home and continue overseas. I’d hate to see our foreign aid budget cut. I support Addaction (to help people off drugs), Youth Epilepsy and Hospice UK.

The judge in Law Abiding Citizen states: “I can pretty much do whatever I want” before being blown up whilst answering her mobile phone. What’s your view on the appropriate use of such devices?

They rule our lives, sometimes for better and frequently for worse.

If you could fill a carriage on The Orient Express, who would be your fellow passengers?

All my closest (bridge-playing and witty) friends.

If you were unfortunate enough to end up on death row, what would be your last meal and where would you eat it?

Fresh crab, Dover sole, some delicious smelly cheese and a ripe mango. I’d eat it on Grand Anse Beach in Grenada, slipping in a last swim in that glorious clear sea.

What time is it acceptable to consume the first drink of the day?

A Buck’s Fizz at breakfast isn’t a bad start to the day.

A Negroni, a martini or a cup of tea?

A cup of tea.

Whose parties do you enjoy the most and why?

Other peoples’ – I’m a mess of nerves when giving one of my own.

Who is the most positive person you know?

My husband – Most of the time.

What’s your most guilty pleasure?

A day (or more) entirely to myself to write in peace and privacy, not doing any of all the stuff, emails etc. that gets in the way.

If a tattoo were to sum you up, what would it be of?

A black cat – I think I’ve had lots of luck in my life.

If you were a car, what marque would you be?

A Mini Cooper is about my marque – fast, but I hope not flashy.

Cilla Black presented Surprise, Surprise. Tell us the most surprising thing about you.

I’m a passionate supporter of Liverpool Football Club.

What’s currently sitting on your mantelpiece?

Family photos, a pair of china cockerels and a vase of lovely lavender freesias.

Sandra Howard has quickly established herself as a successful author and journalist. She has written six novels; her latest, ‘The Consequence of Love’, is published on 13^th July. She was, in the 1960s, a leading photographic fashion model and lives in London and Kent.

Follow Sandra Howard on Twitter at @howardsandrac and like her page on Facebook at @sandrahoward76.

July 6, 2017
A Pointedly Pricey Plot

Seriously expensive waterfront building plot goes on sale outside San Francisco; it comes with plans for the perfect home for a tech titan

14.5 acres of forested land with 2,000 feet of frontage to San Francisco Bay shoreline has gone on sale for what could be one of the highest prices ever for a single residence building plot in Northern California.

2800 Paradise Drive in Tiburon, Marin County comes with planning permission for a 16,000 square foot main residence, a 2,200 square foot guest house and a 700 square foot caretaker’s cottage and is also described as ‘The Bluff Point Estate’. It is situated six miles east of the US 101 Tiburon Boulevard interchange and is described as being “within minutes of downtown Tiburon and the Golden Gate Bridge”.

A rendering of the proposed house at 2800 Paradise Drive, Tiburon Peninsula, Marin County, California, CA 94920, United States of America

An aerial view of the entire plot

Real estate investor Maxwell Drever pictured at the adjoining Drever Estate, Paradise Drive, Tiburon in 2012

The last remaining piece of land of this size to remain undeveloped in this area is adjoined by the palatial Drever Estate – which, according to SF Luxe’s Damion Matthews, was marketed for $37 million in 2010 (the equivalent of $41 million, £31.7 million, €37.6 million or درهم150.6 million today) by Concierge Asset Management chairman Maxwell Drever and his wife, Janice. It is described as providing an opportunity to create “a world class super low density single owner residential estate”.

Offered by Bill Bullock and Lydia Sarkissian of Global Estates Decker Bullock Sotheby’s International Realty, 2800 Paradise Drive is vacant, entirely fenced and has a dirt fire access road. It includes native oak, bay, eucalyptus and pine woodland, sandy beaches and proposed designs by Booth Hansen architects of Chicago illustrate a 6 reception room, 4 bedroom, 4 bathroom residence that will come with “an art gallery entrance, a swimming pool, a terrace garden and a photovoltaic renewable energy (solar) collection area”.

2800 Paradise Drive will likely be sold to a Bay Area tech titan seeking the ultimate in “privacy and security”. They’ll need to have £36.3 million ($47 million, €43.1 million or درهم172.7 million) spare (before building costs).

April 30, 2017
Blabbermouth Burrell

Butler-turned-blabbermouth Paul Burrell sinks to a new low; he should retreat to Siberia and live out his days privately

Cat-like Paul Burrell again and again reinvents himself. Somehow, in spite of already having undeservedly exhausted more than nine lives, this ghastly individual is back in the press and this time he’s milking the story of his marriage to a corporate lawyer he met on a train.

“Diana’s rock”, as the traitorous butler-turned-blabbermouth likes to call himself, chose not to keep his wedding to Graham Cooper private but instead bared the story of his union with his “soulmate” to various media outlets.

Mr Burrell, in spite of being born in Derbyshire wore a kilt to the ceremony (in a bizarre pattern of tartan he’d, of course, commissioned himself in 2006) at the Linthwaite House Hotel in the Lake District and in comments to the Mail Online remarked:

“There’s no more hiding my unbridled happiness now. Life is about being true to who you are and, for the first time ever, I’m able to stand proudly beside my husband and say: ‘This is who I am’”.

Burrell also told the newspaper of how he walked into the ceremony to Barbara Streisand’s Some Enchanted Evening and “danced out of [it] to Kylie Minogue’s Better the Devil You Know” and disrespectfully remarked on references to his late employer, Diana, Princess of Wales, being made during the ceremony. He again showed himself to be a master of the kiss-and-tell and even, in case anyone cared, shared the menu for his “three course wedding dinner”. It consisted of: “A starter of ham hock terrine, egg and chipped potatoes followed by pot-roasted breast of Goosnargh chicken served with Pommes Anna and wild mushroom fricassee and finished with a dessert of apple Tarte Tatin with a Calvados caramel and vanilla ice cream”.

An anything but credible individual according to Lord Justice Scott Baker, Burrell – a man prone to crying on a whim – was severely criticised by Princes William and Harry in 2003. In a statement, at the time, they remarked:

“We cannot believe that Paul who was entrusted with so much could abuse his position in such a cold and overt betrayal”.

“It is not only deeply painful for the two of us but also for everyone else affected and it would mortify our mother if she were alive today and, if we might say so, we feel we are more able to speak for our mother than Paul”.

“We ask Paul please to bring these revelations to an end”.

Burrell plainly paid no attention to this request and now, fourteen years later, it is again time to urge this self-serving toad to do the decent thing: May Paul Burrell please stop peddling tat and may he please retreat to Siberia.

April 4, 2017