360 dangling

[notalwaysright10000]

Out of curiosity, I went to their website and found this statement:

"Just to let you know all videos have been currently made ‘Private’, they have NOT yet been deleted.

Basically it has come as a massive shock to us, but according to the social services it turns out Abbi cannot be a mother on youtube PLUS wear a short skirt, short shorts or look sexy because it could be seen as ‘provocative’.

The last thing we want is any harm coming to anyone, especially a child, even if it’s 0.00001%, so we have decided to remove all videos until further notice, and listen to the advice the social services have to offer."


Social services is telling them "...Abbi cannot be a mother on youtube PLUS wear a short skirt..."?
Ah-ha-ha yeah. Bullshit.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

[Feeture Feature]

They wanted to make a living off the videos by getting sponsors on Patreon. They claimed Abbi was ill and needed expensive treatment (in UK with National Health!). But they seemed to have very nice living quarters and transportation and liked to go shopping and dining out all the time, all suspect to me for those who are poor and not making a decent living. And she dressed well. At least they seem to love their kid. So I'm not sorry to see them go.

[notalwaysright10000]

They wanted to make a living off the videos by getting sponsors on Patreon. They claimed Abbi was ill and needed expensive treatment (in UK with National Health!). But they seemed to have very nice living quarters and transportation and liked to go shopping and dining out all the time, all suspect to me for those who are poor and not making a decent living. And she dressed well. At least they seem to love their kid. So I'm not sorry to see them go.

Unfortunately this community or niche interest or whatever you want to call it abounds with opportunistic scammers and bullshitters, but the silver lining is that most of them are so laughably incompetent.

[paradigm88]

Looks like while I was typing, you guys found the same info I found.

Doesn't seem that unlikely to me. It doesn't even have to be family. All some pearl-clutching do-gooder would have to do is file a report suggesting the "corruption of a minor," because of the inclusion of their daughter in videos that are intentionally provocative. It wouldn't have to set a very high bar. Just high enough to get them a little nervous.

I always figured the UK wasn't as puritanical as we can be in the States, but when the welfare of a child is on the line, people become very righteous very quickly. People will move mountains if it's "for the children."

I doubt they'd kill off a revenue stream for nefarious reasons when plenty of real possibilities exist.

[notalwaysright10000]

Looks like while I was typing, you guys found the same info I found.

Doesn't seem that unlikely to me. It doesn't even have to be family. All some pearl-clutching do-gooder would have to do is file a report suggesting the "corruption of a minor," because of the inclusion of their daughter in videos that are intentionally provocative. It wouldn't have to set a very high bar. Just high enough to get them a little nervous.

I always figured the UK wasn't as puritanical as we can be in the States, but when the welfare of a child is on the line, people become very righteous very quickly. People will move mountains if it's "for the children."

I doubt they'd kill off a revenue stream for nefarious reasons when plenty of real possibilities exist.

If you're talking about American law, not only is it unlikely that they could be charged with corruption of a minor, it is flatly impossible -unless both a DA and a judge were willing to just flagrantly disregard the law, in which case they could also be charged with not liking strawberry ice cream. And I'll go out on a very thick and stable limb and say I would unhesitatingly bet my life that there isn't the faintest chance any such charge would be even conceivable under UK law either.

These people are bullshitters, and very unskilled ones at that. A much more parsimonious conjecture is that their revenue stream is not that lucrative but they would still prefer to keep their channel open as they try to think up something more profitable.

[fiddlestick889]

I believe them, it’s definitely possible especially because it became popular, all it would take is a pissed off neighbour or family member to report them and they would investigate which would clearly scare them

[paradigm88]

If you're talking about American law, not only is it unlikely that they could be charged with corruption of a minor, it is flatly impossible -unless both a DA and a judge were willing to just flagrantly disregard the law, in which case they could also be charged with not liking strawberry ice cream. And I'll go out on a very thick and stable limb and say I would unhesitatingly bet my life that there isn't the faintest chance any such charge would be even conceivable under UK law either.

These people are bullshitters, and very unskilled ones at that. A much more parsimonious conjecture is that their revenue stream is not that lucrative but they would still prefer to keep their channel open as they try to think up something more profitable.

I'm not even suggesting it going that far. I'm saying just the accusations, just the hassle of going through any step of that process would be enough for them to likely reconsider.

I openly admit I'm one to give the benefit of the doubt; I know you're more of the cynic. I guess we'll only know if they somehow resurface.

[notalwaysright10000]

If you're talking about American law, not only is it unlikely that they could be charged with corruption of a minor, it is flatly impossible -unless both a DA and a judge were willing to just flagrantly disregard the law, in which case they could also be charged with not liking strawberry ice cream. And I'll go out on a very thick and stable limb and say I would unhesitatingly bet my life that there isn't the faintest chance any such charge would be even conceivable under UK law either.

These people are bullshitters, and very unskilled ones at that. A much more parsimonious conjecture is that their revenue stream is not that lucrative but they would still prefer to keep their channel open as they try to think up something more profitable.

I'm not even suggesting it going that far. I'm saying just the accusations, just the hassle of going through any step of that process would be enough for them to likely reconsider.

I openly admit I'm one to give the benefit of the doubt; I know you're more of the cynic. I guess we'll only know if they somehow resurface.

Ah, I see. If you only mean that these people might well be dumb enough to be cowed by a nonexistent threat, then I entirely agree. But for a host of reasons everything they've said (as far as I've seen) has the distinct ring of falsity.

[notalwaysright10000]

I believe them, it’s definitely possible especially because it became popular, all it would take is a pissed off neighbour or family member to report them and they would investigate which would clearly scare them

That may or may not be all it would take to scare them, but that most definitely is not all it would take for any formal charges to get anywhere near a court.

[Charlie01]

ITS NOW £1000 PER YEAR FOT THE UNLISTED VIDEOS


BUY SUBSCRIPTION
Option 1
- £1,000 / 1 Year
1 year access to our unlisted videos

[notalwaysright10000]

Surprise!
I'm not right about everything or course, but I do always know when people are bullshitting. Those who know me in real life find this nothing short of amazing, but I'm only amazed that it isn't as screamingly obvious to everyone else as it is to me. It's like living in a world where almost everyone but you has prosopagnosia.

"How can you be sure that's Bob just by looking at him?"