This is Outspoken.
The podcast is not afraid to say exactly what you're thinking.
Our names are Amy Kay and Sophie Torba.
We're identical triplets, but we often don't have identical opinions, so sometimes things can get heated. Outspoken covers all things reality TV, influencers, entertainment, and issues facing women.
That is so fetch thank you.
I've got quite a spring in my step this Monday morning, because there's no better feeling than knowing it is a four day working week and it is the Easter long weekend, four days off, heaps of chocolate.
This has sprung up so quickly.
It's really taken me by surprise, because I think it's because they release Hot Cross Buns so early that you know, you don't have that starting point to say, oh, the Easter period has bene so they've only had Hot Cross Buns in the shop for like six months. And you're saying, but.
That's what I But that's what I'm saying.
I'm saying if they release them at an appropriate time, it kind of signifies that the East defestive period is beginning. Look, I'm happy with how early they release them because they're quite a staple in my diet, and actually the thought that Easter is going to be over in a couple of weeks actually depresses me because I think they should be an all year round thing.
Oh, they pretty much are.
Sophy said to me the other day. She was getting depressed that hot cross bunds wouldn't be in stores, and I had to remind her that they do keep selling them, but they just take off the cross. Did you guys see that, Yes, they did that.
It's not the same. I don't think it's the same.
Do you know what's also interesting about this weekend coming up that for people that actually have daylight savings, like an Adelaide, it's going to be over, So it's I feel like it's that transition into winter and darkness. Do you know what I am enjoying now that it's getting a little bit cooler. I've been getting into my matching pajama set, but I just look like this massive baby. Like I came down and Brandon just burst that laughing because it's like, why they match it? Wait, what is
your matching pajama sex? I don't think I've ever seen this, because when we lived together, you used to just wear some pineapple pants.
With a hole in the bump.
Well, they're a matching pink like we got each other the same. Yeah, they've got little teddy bears on them.
Yeah, they're pretty cute.
Well, I'm going to look even more tragic because Reyes got me an oodie for my birthday and I don't want to know. It's got mini mouse on it and it's pink. So again, I look like I'm five years old, and I just know I'm going to be living in it all winter.
I reckon if I'm.
Going to invest in one, I'm just going to get a plane one.
I don't know.
I feel like because I'll be wearing it so much that I'll get sick of whatever cartoon characters on that. Now, you don't want a plane one because then you might actually wear it out to the shops, whereas I know that I can't wear it out of the house because I look like I'm five. I kind of respect someone if they do choose to wear it at the shops. I don't know, Like that's why I'm not getting one, because I honestly would wear it to the shops with your big ug boots. Yeah, I wear my rug boots
at the shops. I honestly don't give a shit. And the shops are just across the road from me as well, so I'm there all the time. It is so funny because Amy is literally at the shop so often that there's a girl working there in the self service checkout area that knows you by name.
Yeah.
And I was there one weekend and I was dressed in just jeans and a white top, and she mistook me for you, And she's like, no, she did, she knew it was whatever. She's like, wow, you look really nice today. What are you all dressed up for? And I was thinking, God, I must come here looking like crap. If you think I'm dressed up. I actually think after COVID that jeans at the top is very dressed up. Like that's my go to formal attire these days.
I hate wearing jeans.
Just back to Easter quickly. I kind of want to throw Sophie under the bus here because we were having a little chat off Mike about how East is coming up, and so said, oh, Brandon and I have just decided that we're not going to buy each other chocolate. We're just going to spend fifty dollars on each other for Easter, and I have to ask you on Mike, Sophie, have you previously spent fifty dollars on Brandon in chocolate?
Like, have you bought the chocolate? That's very extravagant.
I haven't, but we've decided because we're trying to be healthy, but we want to get a present. So what can you get for a present for twenty dollars? Why not just save the money? Aren't you saving for her?
Festive time?
It's a festive time, Okay, you're supposed to celebrates the best, if the right word to destrive, I think you can use festive. It's like a fun time you're around family members. It is funny you say that, though, so because Reese told me not to buy them anything and he didn't want any chocolate, But there wasn't a mention of fifty
dollars gifts. Well, I suppose just different, aren't they. I've actually booked a tennis court at a national park here in Adelaide for our Easter Sunday, and I'm so excited because our mom's going to be there and Reese's mum is going to be there, and I feel like they'll team together and put on a pretty epic easter a hunt for us. Okay, someone did write into the podcast a listener asking whether you were concealing an engagement ring
on your hand? Is this now that the are you trying to like drop little hints now that the in laws are all meeting and stuff? Oh no, No, It's quite funny that someone like spired that out, because when I saw that my hand was covered in the photo, I just couldn't unsee it, Like it just looked so weird. I don't know how I didn't even notice. But no, I'm not engaged. We're just going back to the East Egg hunt. I do want to hear if other people do this in their twenties and thirties. Do your parents
still do an East Egg Hunt for you? Go to our Facebook community, which has outspoken the podcast.
I feel a bit sad about doing this.
Let's rather take the magic out of it, preparing the chocolates for the bunny.
But I suppose that's what becoming an adult.
It's all about a Yeah, that's right.
A hotel in Brisbane, famous for its instagrammable aesthetic, has ordered a micro influencer to remove photos from her visit despite paying to stay at the Calisle Hotel. Britt Daisy was told she had to remove happy snaps taken at the hotel because it contradicted their commercial photography policy. Brit joins us on the show to tell us what exactly happened.
So essentially, this hotel in Brisbane called the Kalis, my friends and I we kind of like double in a bit of micro influencing, and we saw this hotel all over Instagram because a lot of bloggers have stayed there, and that's how we found out about it, because it's just an Instagram as dream like, so ascetic, so beautiful.
So we paid to have like a little holiday there.
But I guess when we booked it, one of the incentives, because it's quite expensive, one of our incentives was that we will get a lot of content creation done there because it's just it's super asthetic, so it's like perfect content creation space.
So we booked it and we.
Went and when we checked in, we obviously had to sign I guess a like forms upon check in, but I've experience was a bit chaotic, so Guilty didn't really read the forms, just signed it and we went there and took heaps and heaps of Instagram stories and of course, like I would just tag the Kalal in all my stories and post because we were having such a nice time at the hotel, like it was such a pleasurable experience and everything was so beautiful that I guess you
when you as a micro influencer or as a blogger, when you love something, you.
Post about it because.
It's getting the name out there and you're usually it's like a symbiotic transaction, like you're somewhere beautiful, you tag them and people see it. And I had heaps and heaps of friends and like even just my followers replying to my stories being like this hotel is amazing, like I want to stay there, and I was like, yes, so it's honestly so amazing, Like I couldn't speak higher
out of it. So we took a bunch of photos and then obviously uploaded them on our feed, and then when we got back, I got a message from the Calile themselves, and the general gist was that as guests are not permitted to have any cross promotions in their photos of the Calisle, so you're not allowed to tag any brands, and the photos that I had on my feed,
like none of them were sponsored or paid posts. It was just like stuff that I had been gifted and clothing that I was wearing of brands that I work with, so obviously I tagged them. And I was also tagging the Kalisal because that's where I was, and I thought like that would.
Be a good thing for them.
And then they yeah, so they they messaged me, and they also messaged my two friends who stayed with me, who were also doing the same thing, and they basically said, you have to take down the photos. And I read it and I was like, wow, that's unlike anything I've ever heard before, because usually it's hotels being like, oh can you tag us, or like a restaurant usually if you take a photo there, they will ask you to tag them because like they want that exposure.
But they didn't.
So, yeah, they told us to take it down, so I assumed they just meant take off any tags that stated that I was at the Kalisal, So I untagged them from all my photos and I took away the GEO tag and I thought it would be fine, and then they emailed again, DMed me again and were like, oh, you still haven't like removed the promotional messages like and then they re explained to their policy that you're not allowed any promotional messages on photos taken in their premises.
So yeah, I had to, they said, I had.
They wanted me to remove the photos, but I didn't want to, and so we basically compromised by I just took off the promotional messages that were in my caption and I removed all the tags, and yeah, one of the photos was at like literally in front of one of their elevators, so you absolutely could not tell I
was even at the Kala Hotel. And they still wanted that taken down because I had just like i'd written a caption saying like so stoked, I didn't spill anything on my all light outfit, and then I just had pants by glasses, and they wanted the pants by Glasses removed because that was, in their eyes.
Promotional messaging.
And I explained to them like, no, I wasn't even that wasn't even a collub like I literally am telling my followers where my pants were from and.
You can't even tell where I am.
And then they kind of came back being like, yes, it still breaches our policy. So basically, when I got that message and when my friends got it as well. I went to one of my influencer friends who has like a lot more followers in me. She's quite well known, she's got about three hundred K, and she was actually staying at the Calaal around the same time as I was, and I noticed she had a lot of photos on her grid tagging other brands in the Kalaal premises.
So I messaged her and I said, oh, did you get this as well? What do you think? And she was like shocked by the whole thing.
She was like, dude, it's so crazy, She's like, but that's why I never tagged them in any of my stories or posts, because I knew that if I tagged them, they'd be able to kind of like track that I'd been there and they might see that I have those photos up. And she's like, I had heard from other bloggers that they don't like it when you upload brand images taken in their premises. So that's why she didn't
do it. And they haven't messaged her obviously, because it hasn't been on their radar that she stayed there and took photos because she never once tagged them. But it's just crazy because that's creating an environment where bloggers are going to go there and not ever tag them because they don't want to be tracked down. And obviously one of the biggest incentives to stay there is because it's
so ascetic and it's so perfect for content creation. And I guess if you're paying money to stay somewhere, you want to get the most you can out of it, and if that means not tagging them at all, you will do that. So then you can still take some photos and upload them and then you can't be told to remove them. Even like Shiny Grimman uploaded a photo
on her unfilleded account today or yesterday. I think it was saying that she got in trouble for taking the photo and I could tell that it was taken in the Calile. She obviously didn't tag it or anything, but you could tell so. And she's huge. She's got over a million followers, so in my eyes, her tagging that she was at the Cali would bring huge attraction to the hotel. So it's clearly not just micro influences that they don't want posting at the hotel. It's also these
massive ones which could bring them so much business. So it's crazy. I just was a bit surprised about the their ability to dictate what photos you put up publicly if you're a paying patron, like you're not in any sort of agreement with them. I guess you sign on arrival apparently. I mean that's my bart. I didn't see that part, which I'm guessing a lot of influencers don't because it seems that there's been a few who have
had this same problem. But it's a bit I guess it takes away a bit of your agency and like it's not a private power property if people are paying to stay there, So that's where the bit of the tension is.
I think. Well, I think, obviously, because.
It is so beautiful, a lot of brands and influencers would want to shoot there. And I do one hundred percent understand if you know you're launching a brand and you've gone there and you've taken your photo shoot that you're then going to sell your products from, that would of course, like you would need their permission and you probably need to pay them like your location fees.
But I think the reason why like that. I spoke to my.
PhD supervisor about it because I thought it was just so crazy because my whole PhD is about like visibility and exposure being a currency in the social media landscape, and that is how this hotel pretty much got its reputation because everyone saw it all over Instagram and influencers were taking beautiful photos there and that got its name
out there. So my supervisor was assuming that maybe they were in a legal issue at one point which made them just want to not be associated with any other brands just to safeguard themselves or another I guess potential reason would be they want control over all brands that are going to be associated with their hotels.
So I mean, there's not.
Many harmful brands out there that you can really think of that like taint the reputation of the hotel, and I think most consumers are quite the consumers are quite conscious these days, and I'm sure like seeing an influencer promoting a brand in a hotel with just the location setting tagged, wouldn't not many people would associate the brand and then the location as well. But they don't even like,
they don't even care if the location isn't tagged. It's more that if it's on their premises at all and you can see any part of their interior exterior in the photo, then they don't want any promotional messaging. And it doesn't matter if like the Calole name is in there or whatnot, Like as long as you're on their premises and the photo is showcasing any part of their premises, then they just don't want any promotional messaging in the
caption or on the photo. I've spoken to a few other micro influencers and it kind of left a bit of a bad taste in our mouth. Like we had such a favorable stay at the hotel and we loved it so much and we couldn't speak high I like hire of it, and now we're a bit like, I don't know if I'd stay there again, because you know, if you're staying somewhere so beautiful and you have that like content creation mindset, of course you're going to want
to take photos there. And I mean, you can one hundred percent go there and not tag any other brands and upload photos and that's fine.
But I guess one.
Of the justifications for spending the money to stay there is because you can also, you know, take beautiful content for the brand that you work with, And I guess that kind of it kind of takes that away, and now a lot of influencers are talking poorly of the hotel because it's just unlike anything that we've ever experienced with any other business. So I think from a PR perspective, it's going to discourage influencers from staying there, and that's
how they got famous. And they've also sent bloggers there and obviously paid bloggers to stay there, and that content's been fine because obviously they've only been promoting the hotel, but it's kind of like you can't use I mean you can, but it's a bit of mixed messaging when you're paying bloggers to stay there and promote it and then telling other bloggers who have paid to stay there that they can't upload photos unless you're only tagging the
Kalis because we've paid to stay there and we don't have any deal with or we're not doing any work with the Kalis. So it's kind of I guess a bit of dissonance between whether they want influencer marketing or they don't, Like they clearly value influencer marketing if they're getting influencers to stay there for them, but then they only want those chosen influencers to be posting about them, so that in itself is a bit confusing.
Now that it's just the three of us, I feel like there's a lot to unpack because I'm in two minds about this hotel's policy.
What did you guys think about it?
Really?
I'm surprised you're in two minds about it because when I first heard this story, I could not believe it because from a pr perspective, if you're a hotel like this, you want influencers tagging you in content. And I feel like it's a little bit hypocritical of the hotel because they are known as an influencer hotel, and originally it is influencers who have made this hotel, and it seems a little bit odd that they're now telling people, actually, no, do not tag us.
In your content.
But do you think that they're at a stage now where they don't actually need influencers to promote them. They're big enough as it is. I feel like they perhaps are at a stage where they want to be exclusive and choose the influencers and brands that they choose to work with. I don't think that's true at all, because, as Britt mentioned in the interview, the likes of Shane
Grimman were told not to take photos at the Carlosle Hotel. Well, it's really interesting when you think about the commercial aspect of this. So the hotel doesn't earn any of the money that the influencer is actually earning of taking a photo in their very esthetic hotel. So I feel like if you're a paying guest, then that kind of is the narrative. However, if you're rocking up to the hotel and using it as a backdrop to take brand photos, I don't think people are just randomly rocking up to
the hotel and taking photos. I think they're staying as guests, or they're going to the restaurant at the hotel.
No, I think people are. It happens a lot.
I mean, I've seen influencers vlogging about how they take their photos, and they go and stand out the front of like random rich people's houses and pretend that it's their house.
Oh, it's so funny.
I have to butt in because I was on trip Advisor just checking out information about the hotel, and the first review that popped up was that said overrun with influencers. If you want to feel like you're at a cheap hotel on the Gold Coast.
This is for you.
Don't forget your boat shoes and white linen shirts. Boys and girls. You must be sure to pack your most instagrammable outfits. The hotel is beautifully designed, but a real miss on the guests. If you'd like to not be able to swim in your hotel, Paul, this is for you and the pool stuff aren't interested in finding somewhere for you better to stay in the sanctuary of your room. If you ask me, the thing is the photos in question that posted you couldn't even tell that they were
at the hotel. I mean one of the photos, as she said, was in front of a lift and the other was in front of a white wall. But she's tagged the hotel and they've gone take it down.
I feel like we need.
To take a look at what the Calai Hotel's rules actually are about photography.
So on their website they have a Frequently.
Asked Questions section and there is an area called photo, video and commercial use. So they say, while we passionately support creative initiatives, any activity, including photography and videography of a commercial or promotional nature, is not permitted anywhere within the hotel without the prior written approval of hotel management, and in the case of photography slash videography without an
authorized location acknowledgment. Hotel management has the right to counsel accommodations and require the immediate seation of any activity taking place in breach of this condition. Unauthorized imagery or video must not be published on any media and must be immediately removed from the public domain upon request from hotel management. Hotel rooms are to be used solely for guest accommodation
and enjoyment. Hotel rooms are not to be used as locations for commercial activity, including pop up shows, trunk shows, etc. I take it from these terms and conditions that they have been royally screwed over by some influencers in the past who have taken advantage of the rooms.
You might be right.
So it also might be a case of that they've seen so many influencers come in and use the hotel as a backdrop and make a lot of money from it that they're now trying to control how the money is made and sort of take their own cut. Yeahtual, I mean the thing is I get that obviously they would like to be paid a location fee. However, in the case of this influencer brit who spoke to us, she has a micro following, she has ten thousand followers, and the photos that she was putting up, she wasn't
actually paid for the clothing. She was gifted the clothing. However, as a micro influencer, you've got to start out somewhere, so she was trying to take photos that other bigger influences would take of clothing and tap the clothing in it. I feel like, where do you draw on the line in terms of what the commercial gain is. So if I'm be gifted a share I can't take a photo
in the hotel room. Well, they classify in their terms and conditions that it's also stuff that's of a promotional nature, so I'm assuming that they count gifted items involved in that. I personally don't agree with that. I think that if you have been gifted something, or you're a fashion blogger trying to create your feed, you should be allowed to just post up a photo of yourself at the hotel that you've paid to stay out.
Yeah.
Well, they have said that you can post photos of a personal nature, but as you said, not created for promotion. So I think that this is where the line is really blurred, because again, a micro influencer isn't necessarily gaining a lot from posting that photo. That it's sort of they're curating their image. And as Britt did mention, she actually got a lot of comments from her followers being like, oh my gosh, where did you stay? I really want
to stay there? So the feedback otion, Yeah, the feedback was really positive. Well, the weird thing is that influencers themselves are sometimes the product that they are pushed. If you're a micro influencer, you're going to be taking photos of yourself in glamorous places.
Like this hotel. So where do we draw the line?
Are you allowed to promote yourself as.
The product and the photo?
Though? Because they don't have an issue with people taking photos of themselves there, they have an issue with people trying to connect different brands that they're not associated with their brand.
That's what the problem is.
The thing is the hotel said to brit that if she untagged the image like the brands in the photo, she could keep the photos up. So it seems that the hotel is okay if you're a guest and you take a photo. However, they don't want you taking photos of particular products in the hotel and then tagging them.
I feel like it.
Could be because they do have a pop up retail space where they do host some of the region's most promising upcoming fashion designers.
So I feel like if you take a look.
At influencers, majority of them are promoting fast fashion brands. So maybe because they do have this pop up retail space that is why they need permission to be allowed to But what is it. What do you mean pop up retail they have in the hotel. They have an area where people can buy clothes. I assume yeah, so they don't want an influencer coming in and a pretty little thing outfit and tagging, you know, pretty little thing in their hotel because they're wanting to champion their own
brand that they've got in the hotel. It's actually pretty interesting because the wife of one of the co owners of the hotel, she actually has her own swimwear brand as well. So I wonder if it is so.
Is that they don't want any competition.
I am really interested to see moving forward, how this hotel's relationship with influencers develops, because they have had a history of having big brand launchers at the hotel, as well as hosting certain influences on staycations. It does seem dangerous to kind of make enemies with micro influencers because you really don't know when those influencers are going to take off, and then you actually want them at taking
photos at your hotel. It's pretty funny because I feel like in Adelaide hotels would be dying for any sort of micro influencers to post about them, So that's why it is all a little bit ironic. I do feel for Britain her friends because I don't feel like they were trying to do anything wrong. I mean, they obviously didn't read the terms and conditions, but who does read those things when they sign into a hotel. They probably thought they were doing the hotel a favor by posting
about them. It's also great look for the hotel because if I receive something like that, I.
Would be so offended.
Well, Britt did say that they were extremely lovely at the hotel, and she kind of wanted to bring it up more as a talking point because to me, it is such an interesting conversation and I do wonder if other hotels or other venues, like you know, brunch spots, are they going to start implementing similar rules because the social media space is just really flourishing and developing, So it might be something that we see in the future.
And as you touched on earlier, Amy, I feel like influencers have really become a brand themselves and they do show what they stand for or don't stand for. So it is interesting now that some places are saying, hey.
We don't even want to be tagged by you.
Who wants to stand there and eat cold lengsil soup. It tastes like sick. It tastes that I'm sicking it up after an eye out, That's what it's. Wouldn't even give my dog that that ship mate, that's ship on a plate.
Now, before we get into the next door, we need to preface that we will be getting into some toilet tour. We promise it's not as graphic as last week when we were talking about Green Pooth. If anyone's eating their breakfast, maybe pause and finis full.
It's honestly not that bad.
So Martha from Married at First site has shot that was genuine. So she has shared a video of herself yelling at her partner Michael for his bad aim when it came to him pissing in the toilets.
Oh gosh.
I all I could think was how does he put up with her?
Like?
Can you imagine being yelled at on the when you're taking a piss.
It made me think, though, that that is what a relationship is like two years a long term.
Lets let's play the click.
Can you please just sit down and piss?
Please?
Why just do it?
A lot of guys do it.
Ah, I've just jipped everything in there and it's splashing. I can from here on the foot tower, move to the foot tower. This actually really reminded me of my own relationship. Like even last night, I had hopped into bed and Brandon had the door in our on Sweet slightly open, and you know what, you can just hear the last little drops of we coming out, and I was like, could you close the door? Yeah, that's bad because it makes you unique to go. Yeah, but she's
not asking him to close the door. She's telling him that he has to sit down to piss. I mean that's a bit emasculating.
Did you know that.
I don't know if we've spoken about this, but some people actually stand up to wipe their bem.
Ye, yes, we've discussed.
We've discussed, discussed. There's either people that stand up or they you know, you know, do the normal thing reach around. Well, before we get into any more disgusting conversation, I just want to say that Michael did actually see the funny side of it all, and he shared his own reel to Instagram, which was entire how my girlfriend thinks I take a piss And the clip showed him standing.
A meter away, so he had a.
Tape measure to make sure he was a meter away, and then he put a blindfold on and then it was like inferring that he was about to piss. I find it funny that Martha would prefer him to sit down when he pisss because she doesn't want.
To get like the floor dirty.
Like for me, if I came in and saw my boyfriend sitting down taking a piss, I'd be like, what the fuck? Was a very masculating, isn't it to see a man sitting Oh? I think I don't see why what the problem is? I mean, if they want to sit down, but he doesn't want to sit down, he stand up. No, But I was literally having this conversation the other day with Dale, and I was saying, it's actually pretty good being a girl, because this is okay,
I need to preface this. We were camping and Dale bought me this like fold out toilet seat that's basically a toilet seat on some legs, so I can sit and go to the.
Toilet like a pody. I suppose, I know.
Yeah, And I said to him, Oh, are you going to use it? And he's like, I hope I don't have to. And I said, do you know what, it's actually quite good being a girl, having getting to sit down because I go to the toilet a lot when you though to stand. That was the only time I said that it's not.
Great being a girl.
I don't know, it seems pretty easy, like you could just walk in, like when you've done like a really hard workout. There's nothing worse than having to go to like I go to the toilet so many times during the day to do wee and getting down and having to get back up. And also you mean like when you've done legs day or something like, yeah, on the
toilet that's hard. Could I just say though? It was so funny in our community we put up a post about the green Peol incident involving the rainbow cake, and one of our lovely members of the community wrote that they loved that we were normalizing women talking about Pooh, and I thought that is hilarious, Like, thank you so much to whoever wrote that kinde comment.
But we're just being but we're just being vulgar.
And they're like, I love that you're actually normalizing it.
We are kind of our they were.
I actually also had to love one of the reviews we got sent, so they gave us a one star and they said, toilet humor, this is truly disgusting. Who wants to listen to toilet Talk if you disagree? I mean, this is just me literally asking for you to leave and ize comment, but please leave about to say this isn't gonna become a regular segment either, like this is that might've been someone else that was put a false eating their cereal.
Maybe I can understand why.
Moving on to Molly May from Love Island UK, and she recently revealed on her Instagram story that she had her composite bonds removed from her teeth and they're basically like, are they kind of like a poor man's veneers. Well they're not a poor man's veneers, but they don't grind your teeth down to actually put the veneers on. It's sort of like they I mean, I'm not an expert on it, but I think they kind of like, let's
get bringing our mum, who's a gender with therapist. I think we shut this stuff on that kind of makes your teeth look bigger.
I suppose.
Like is that it did shock me when I first saw it, because I was like, wow, they do look different. But I think it's just when you see anything. Because she's also documented herself getting her lips feel it dissolved, and at first you're like, wow, she looks different, but then you just get used to it. It's a good different though. I'm so excited to see girls going back
to their natural state. It kind of reminds me of that old show Snog Marry Avoid, where they'd have someone in there and they're like, oh, we're going to remove all of your fakery, and then they look.
So much better.
I mean, to be fair, I think Molly may looked really good before, but she looks even better in a natural state.
Well.
I also love that she's got rid of her really long hair extensions and she's got this cool sort of lob going on. Have you noticed in the UK, though, because I've heard that the lob has actually been created with clipping hair extensions. But I feel like this is something maybe our UK, any UK listeners can let us know. A lot of YouTubers seem to sleep with those clip in.
Hair extensions in their hair. I can't add anything worse.
It actually makes me feel physically sick to my stomach because I had days where I'd wear them for about eight hours at a time and by the end of the day it was like taking a bra if you know, that feeling was unclipping your hair extension. That's why those those halo hair extensions are so good. But you do still after worrying them for a long time, it's the best,
like when you rip it off. I was gonna say, I saw Anastata King's North in a vlog talking about how she was going to leave her click in this sentence in when she went to bed. I just yeah,
as you said, it made me feel sick. Well. Back to Molly May and I really like the fact that she has urged her young followers not to follow in her footsteps in regards to cosmetic enhancements, because she said she wished that she had waited to well so her face would actually mature, which I think is really good advice.
I mean, obviously people are open to make their own decisions, but it seems like a lot of her decisions were motivated by the fact that she was appearing on Love Island, because she actually got the composite bonds done two days before appearing on the show, and I think a lot of the lip filler she also got was a result of the fact she was going to be on TV. Do you blame her though, because Love Island is probably the biggest show in the UK at the moment and
they are absolutely torn to shreds by viewers. Yeah, I don't blame her, but I am glad that she has embraced her natural self and feeling confident enough to go back to what she was like before Love Island, because it would be pretty scary. You know, she's amassed all these millions of followers and so many people know her looking a certain way, so it would be really weird, unveiling like your natural teeth.
Again.
Yeah, I found it really interesting because she spoke about One of the main motivating factors for her transformation was the fact that she wanted to look younger and she is only about I think she's twenty one.
That freaks me out.
And she her and her partner Tommy, they look so much older than twenty one. And she said that when you're younger, you always want to look older, but then when you get older. I mean, she's twenty one. Still, she's still young, but you want to look younger. Yeah, exactly right. It was really interesting because I think when we were twenty one, we looked about fifteen, and I know the feeling of really wanting to look younger. Now being older or older. Now we're thirty two and being
asked if we're twenty three. In cookie, it's a real full circle experience. You're not her sister, you're not her friend, You're a liar, and I'm going.
To walk away from these lives because she's gonna sit here and keep hying you.
You're the biggest poser in this town.
You know what You're going to burn stop.
It yet again.
Celeb's spellcheck has dominated our news feeds and our online discussions this week, even though she's on a hiatus Ozzie Influencer Opinions got everyone talking about her again. So Ruby Tuesday Matthews, who well recall from Oystergate. She sent in a message to Ossie Influencer Opinions and she was kind of having a bit of a goal at her for posting her and said, can you please not post me anymore?
And at the end of the message, she wrote, I would seriously recommend assessing your content that you post moving forward. I would hate for you to be in Celeb's Spellcheck's boat. I love this little mansion here because I feel like everyone is dying for any sort of information about what is happening with Celeb' Spellcheck that they thought maybe this is a little bone we've all been through. Yeah, like maybe she is getting sued. I mean she has come
out and said no, that is not the case. She's not being sued, But we don't know what's in the works. There's a lot of influencers that are very angry about what Celeb's Spellcheck's been doing, and I feel like we
kind of touched upon it last week. But there has been a lot of discussion around the video that Celeb's Spellcheck posted of Lorena from the Bachelor, and the more I've thought about it and the more I've listened to different like you know, It's life on Cut was talking about it, which I found pretty interesting because they are both influencers and kind of seem like everyday people, and
I found their take on it really interesting. So Britt was really of the opinion that they crossed the line majorly when they posted a video of Lorena allegedly snorting what looked like a white substance, and they said across the line because this was something that Lorena had not posted, This was something that was sent to the page by someone that was at the party. It was kind of a got ya moment. Well, I just say, though, we
don't know that for sure. I mean, we're all jumping to conclusions because initially when I saw it, I thought, Wow, somebody's insta story that or someone sent it as a snapchat, so we don't know if it was actually yeah, But regardless, Lorena didn't publish it, and celeb Spellcheck's amo is usually that she will reshare something that an influencer has posted themselves and you know, make fun of it or bring
pull someone into account. So it was interesting to look at it with that point of view, because I feel like that type of content is something that could get celebs Spellcheck in trouble. And it is interesting that that was posted and then this hiatus has been taken. It's such a shame because I feel like she was being quite good at moderating the comments and keeping the content fun. I mean, apart from the influencer encounts like those were so much fun to look at, but I do feel
like they were verging some of them. I think it's the drug taking reference. Isn't that there were a few that referenced drug taking, And I think that's where if you are listening sole Spellcheck, you've got to just not include that stuff. But the thing is with Lorena Celeb'spelcheck didn't actually accuse her of snorting cocaine, but that is the inference that people have got from the video being shared.
Which is why we wanted to have John Laxon, who is a Sydney media lawyer on for Laxon and lex so we can pick his brain about what you can and can't post. And a lot of influencers are chucking around the word defamation, and I think it's really important that we know what defamation is and whether Celeb's Spellcheck and other pages like Ossie Influencer Opinions are actually liable. Also, are you liable for commenting on this type of information because we don't want to get like, no one wants
to get in trouble for this type of thing. I also think it's interesting to talk to John about even if something is defamatory or classified as defamation, can you actually be taken to court over it? Because most cases don't actually go to court. Most things get settled outside of court. So I feel like there's a lot of people who are scared thinking I'm going to be taken to court for all my money.
Yeah, so let's listen to what John's got to say. Amy's personal lawyer.
You get into Harvard Law wit like it's hard.
So firstly, John, welcome to Outspoken. We are so excited to have you on. We've given you a bit of a pump up in our previous episode we said you're our favorite lawyer going around town.
Thank you, very very gracious of you.
Sophi keeps calling you my personal lawyer, and we must say that obviously we have Well, you've represented me in the past, but you're not my personal lawyer. Unfortunately.
Well, I'm very honored to have been your lawyer. Thank you.
So we should probably get into it.
We've got you on the show to speak about Instagram page celeb spellcheck. So a number of influencers who have featured on this page have accused it of being defamatory. Now, can you firstly explain what exactly is defamation?
Well, simply, defamation is a taught and a tort is a civil wrong. So with defamation, it's a civil wrong that involves conduct that harms another person's reputation. So the law recognizes that individuals have the right not to have their reputation unjustly Sully, I can use that quaint expression, and so law provides a mechanism to seek remedies where that occurs through the payment of compensation. But it's not just about whether a person feels that've been defamed or
whether the other person intended to defame them. The test is what the ordinary and reasonable person would think. So what defamation laws seek to do is to balance the competing rights, the tensions between the rights of members of the public to protect their reputation, the rights to exercise freedom of speech and to access accurate and true information.
So the course obviously recognize the importance of freedom of speech, although you've probably been surprised to learn that that right isn't expressly legislated in Australian law, unlike in the US Constitution. And then there are a variety of defenses available to a defamation clim The most widely known one is the
defense of truth or justification as it's sometimes called. You know, there are several others also, public interest reporting in the public interest and efectiveness of the current defamation provisions are currently under question. There's a debate about that. A new South Wales has already legislated a new public interest defense but yet to come into force. Now whether that's a good thing or not, well, there's a debate about that
going on at the mind. That's a long way of answering what defamation is.
In regards to this page, celeb spell check, they've been known to share spelling errors that influencers have put up, but the content has gone much further in recent weeks and people have seen posts such as different influencers or reality stars looking as if they're allegedly snorting a white substance. If they're sharing something like that that is a video that has been put out there or that they have received. One would assume that, wow, we can see what's going on.
Maybe that page could use the truth defense. But is that something that they could use or is it a bit more difficult than just saying we've got a video of this person doing this this act.
Well, it's a bit more difficult. I mean, it's a fine line, and you know, it's a question on which rigual minds can differ. I mean, it would be hard to make the suggestion that an image that seems to show someone snorting lines of cocaine was a harmless joke. The person who posts the image knows is going to be consequences, especially if the person the influencer is unaware that they're being recorded at the time, so you know, they're on denis And depending on the circumstances, there might
be defenses to posting that like truth. But I'll say more on that later. But there are difficulties in establishing truth. So whether something's harmless fun or not, it typically comes back to the question of what the ordinary and reasonable person would think, because that's the test under the defamation
and that depends on the context of the publication. So you might remember it came up as an issue a few years ago in the Chris Kenny ABC litigation where the Chaser group they made a video depicting Chris Kenny
being intimate with the dog. The ABC argued that it was clearly satirical no reasonable person could I think it was suggested that what was the subject of the humorous video was actually mister Kenny being intimate with a dog, and there was an initial hearing with the parties in which the court accepted that argument, but it left open the claim that the ABC was suggesting that mister Kenny was as bad as someone who might have sex with
the dog. Now that case it ultimately settled, so we'll never know what a court would have found at the ottimate hearing. Most and you know, most of these matters do settle.
Yeah, now you touched on some of the reforms that are happening at the moment with the defamation laws in Australia. What is it that we can aspect from the new laws. I know it's a bit of a slow process when laws come into place.
Yeah, Well, to answer your last question, for I think the law is always evolving whether it's in the form of new legislation, proposal legislation, or because judges continue to interpret the law and appliant to new situations like social media. So you know, I think it's arguable whether or not the law who's caught up with the social media age
a large well. The large media organizations often cry that defamation law is no longer sit for purpose because obviously they don't like paying out large sums of money when they are on the wrong end of it. They're obviously going to say that they're the defendant and they want it to be as difficult as possible for people to see them. But they will a lot of power, and social media is obviously the mentally powerful and it can
be harmful. So untrue things that are published online obviously have the potential to ruin people's lives, and that's why they can sue when they are faded, and most people would think, well, they should be able to So there needs to be a level of responsibility on the part
of large media organizations and social media platforms. And I can tell you from experience with trying to get an outcome from a social media platform, doing so inevitably results in the facebooks and the Instagrams and the Googles telling you to talk to the hand. So the changes that have recently been introduced by the Defamation Amendment Act, they aren't specifically related to the social media age to my mind. They're actually primarily more about making life easier for large
media companies to defend deformation actions. So two of the key changes to the Defamation Act, they've introduced a threshold question of serious harm in the new section ten A and so serious harm is going to be an element in a deformation case. And there's also a new public interest defense. Both of those that have been borrowed from the UK Deformation Act to a certain degree. But the problem is, you know, what constitutes serious harm isn't defined.
So it's clear the objective of the Serious Harm Amendment is to remove from the court system for the trivial, you know, the backyard type, non mass media disputes, neighborhood disputes involving name calling or spats on social media, where there's limited actual effect on somebody's reputation. So the proposal, the idea behind it is that this can be determined early on in the proceedings, or a threshold question to
weed out trivial cases. But the problem with adding, however well intentioned, it is, it's still conceived because firstly, those types of trivial cases were more the exception than the rule. I mean, it's an awfully expensive thing to do, as anyone who's been involved in litigation knows, to commence defamation proceedings, so most people don't do it. You just don't do
it over something that's inconsequential. You suck it up. And secondly, the threshold question really has the potential just to delay things, to close it up, and to increase costs by requiring this additional preliminary hearing at the beginning of the process, increasing costs, you know, delays for the amount of on calls and so defendants Media company, it would be lovingness because it's an opportunity to make a plaintiff spend some cash on getting over the first bar the threshold question as
to whether or not the defamation constitutes serious harm. There's also a new proposed public interest defense under Section twenty nine A, and as the name suggests, that's intended to make reporting in the public interests easier. Now that's not just material. It's interesting to the public it's more going to involve, for example, reporting which reveals corruption in public office,
things of that nature. So the amended is intended to address an alleged gap that emerged in the current legislation, and that being section thirty of the Defamation Act, which has the defensive qualified privilege, And so it should make it easier for media organizations to defend such reporting. And it requires that the defendant established that the issue was of public interest, and that the defendant reasonably believe that
it was in the public interest. But you see the extent to which a matter published is of public interest and whether it's reasonable in the circumstances. So therefore, publish something about a person, it already comes within the existing defense of qualified privilege in section thirty of the existing Defamation and large media organizations, despite the fact that they're crying now and they're agitating to change, they've actually successfully
argued section thirty defenses. So why do we need to change. You know, I'm not Convitweeden, Why would you want to justify greater protections for journalism that's not substantially true and not reasonable to publish in the first place. Because of it is then the defender will always have the defense of truth. If a journalist does have a reasonable belief that publishing a matter is in the public interest, then the you and your listeners as the objective reasonable person.
They might also think that the conduct and public the matter was reasonable, and the case will fail. And another weakness with the proposed amendment the new section twenty nine er is that the public interest defense can't be defeated where the publication is malicious, whereas under the section thirty defense that qualified privilege it can. So I see that as a problem as well. Hope that wasn't too long with no.
That was so interesting? Could even what you were mentioning in terms of just how expensive it all is, because we've seen celebrities like Rebel Wilson and Jeffrey Rush awarded
massive payouts recently after suing media outlets. Do you think this is going to be something where we are seeing influencers take action against online publications because they do have the money or is it Yeah, We'll just interject because what you were talking about before is obviously there's large media companies with a lot of money to defend these claims. But in this situation with this online platform celub spellcheck.
They have the lesser power here because it's just one individu or who doesn't have much money coming up against a number of wealthy influencers who potentially do have the money.
To take her to court. So, Yeah, as you're.
Saying, Amy, do you think John, that this is a sign of things to come that influencers will be successfully suing outlets or Instagram accounts like this?
Well, potentially not necessarily. What the proposed model amendments seek to replaces the current statutory cap of four hundred and twenty one thousand dollars, intend to replace it with the scale of general damages so that only aggravated damages can be awarded over the scale, and aggravated damages are a form of additional compensation additional damages which are only awarded where the defendant's conduct lacks bonifides whether it's otherwise improper
or unreasonable, and the plaintiff has suffered as a consequence. But the key not to lose sight of here is that the awards for damages in the Bower and Rebel, Wilson case and the Rush cases, though it is substantially because most of it with subtangible economical lots in the form of worked that those two actors missed out on. You know, it's no secret they're internationally famous and they earn huge amounts of money when they get gigs on films, So missing out on a role can mean losses and
the minions. So for me, organization or anyone who's going to defame them obviously need to think carefully before they do. And as a general anyway, whether it's right or not, in most areas of law, or the more you earn if you're wronged, the more you're going to get in damages. So if I, either Rebel Wilson or Jeffrey Rush had sipt over in the supermarket, for example, and had me not at work due to the negligence on the part of the supermarket, it had suit for damages. They would
have received substantial amounts for that as well. So the economic loss component will always be relative to the income. Now you might think that that's not necessarily fair, but that's just the way the system is, and let's not forget that. In Grebel Wilson's case, she was originally awarded for a half million dollars that was reduced on a peal of six hundred thousand dollars, so in the context
of what they earn in their every day life. Ordinarily what was awarded was not necessarily disproportionate, but was actually pretty consistent with the common law. And despite those massive awards, it's pretty hard to feel too much sympathy for large media organizations, which, let's face it, they would deduct their defamation expenses as across of doing business unlike you were. Right obviously, so, and that just reinforces that what I
said before about mitigation. It's extremely expensive. You generally have to have very deep pockets to sue a large media organization. So if you've got wealthy people suing for defamation and showing that they've suffered significant economic loss, then yes, we could continue to see large awards of damaging. So aside from what you get for economical loss, you can also get what's called general damages for things like her and humiliation.
But that's got a cap on it. So, as I said before, currently it's four hundred and twenty one thousand dollars. Under the new provision, it's going to go down to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Now, some might think that that what you can be awarded in a defamation case.
Humiliation is actually well and truly with up areas of the law now as you know, I mean, I ad for a number of women against their former employers in things such as sexual arrassment matters, and even in circumstances where you know women have been subjected to serious, even criminal offenses of the sexual nature. In a civil claim of sexual harassment, you're doing really well. It's a court awards you anything in the region of even one hundred
and fifty thousand. So that's an interesting question too, the weighing up whether it's appropriate that someone can get hundreds of thousands of dollars for being accused of being a liar in a defamation case, whereas somebody who's subjected to a serious sexual harassment claim which their employers liable, only gets a fraction of that when they win. I'm not saying one should come down, I'm saying the other should go out.
In these cases, people are obviously having to pay people like yourself to represent them.
Are these costs included?
Are they having to then output money to you that's taken off what they would have got from the court.
Typically, when if you succeed, you're awarded cost that's never one hundred percent of your cost. Well, it can be in certain limited circumstances, but yeah, you actually have to unless the lawyers prepared to run a matter on spec then the client has to pay for expensive lawyers, counsel, often senior counsel, as well as their own solicitors to run the case and get them out of the court. So that's enormously See do you.
Think pages like celeb, spellcheck and other anonymous accounts because they are anonymous, does it make them harder to prosecute?
It does? I mean the very first question that you've identified is what is the identity of the account holder? That's working that out even a simple task, So that of itself makes them harder to prosecute. And then you've got to work out whether in fact you've been defined obviously always, but then a further threshold issue is are
you suing somebody who's actually got assets? You know, the old proverbial all you end up suing the proverbial man of straw if I can use that quite old, you know, And so assuming that you've identified the person, then you need to be absolutely sure that you've been defined and that what they've published is defamatory and untrue and not just a pharto if you're doing something that you actually did,
because then the truth defense will arise quite clearly. So you know, if a publisher is going to be able to rely easily, going to be able to rely on the truth defense, then a person would be crazy to sue. In decimation, you only need to ask certain people form of polish. In Craig Thompson, you might have all about that photos are probably less likely to be sued over, more likely to arise where anonymous allegations against individuals are published.
It's more difficult to prove an allegation than it is to prove a photo, because a photo typically speaks for itself unless it's adopted photo, as was the case in the Paul En handsOn matter many years ago. And as I said before, you know, a further issue is what if the person operating you account has no assets? What
if it's a teenager out of their bedroom. There's no point seeing somebody's got no assets because you're not going to be able to get anything out of it when you do so, unless you're a person with so much money that you can sue for the principle of it, and there's not many of those. It's really something that a person contemplating suing and declamation needs to consider along and hard before doing so.
So it sounds like these influencers don't really have much of a case against celeb spellcheck when you put all of those things into context like that.
Yeah, well, I mean, the platforms aren't ever going to volunteer who's behind it, so you know, you need to use court procedures to compel the platforms to tell you not, such as preliminary discovery. That's only recently started happening in the last few years, and it's really difficult. When you're up against massive multinational platforms like Google or Facebook, they'll
typically resist any such application. So then you've got an initial fight with a judge, and an initial expensive fight before a judge, a really expensive fight where again you need to lawyer up, get your solicitor and your council, and sometimes seeing your council, and then at the end of it it turns out to be somebody with no assets, then there's no point going any further. But you've already as a client, you've dropped a large amount of money just to get just to ascertain somebody's identity.
Just lastly, I feel like this is a good question for people listening that might be engaging with pages like this, because often people jump on social media and they'll comment under scandalous posts and think that maybe what they write doesn't have any consequences. What would you say to people who are commenting on posts put up by pages like celeb spell.
Check, Well, it does have consequences. That's the current state of the law. That might change because the matter I'm talking about is currently on appeal at High Court. But you might remember remember Dylan Voler, the ABC report about the Northern Tertiary Youth detention centers on a four corners probe.
So there's the case of Voiler against Nationwide News. It was in the New Southwale Supreme Court and in that case Justice Rothman found that Nationwide News Australian news channel on setbax me year, they could be held responsible in defamation for comments to links that were posted on their Facebook pages. So the pages attracted lots of defamatory comments by people trolling mister Bollom, but that was sufficient to
establish the publication element needed to prove defamation. So by allowing comments, by inviting people to like or to comment on posts, the court found that each organization participated and was instrumental in bringing about publication of defamatory matter, and so they were liable. It didn't matter that they themselves hadn't written the trolling comments. They were liable for having the the sites from the first place. So I went
on appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with the first instance judge, and that was on the basis that the media companies knew that by having publicly viewable Facebook pages, an outcome of having an operating page was that any third party comment would also be published to any Facebook user and they're responsible for it. So once again the media organizations are screening about that.
It's on appeal to the High Court, and that appeal hasn't been heard as yet, so once it is, that'll sort out that issue once and for all.
We sort of touched on the changing legislation, and there's been a lot of news around the fact that there's new proposed online trolling laws which the government will use to well, they've said they want to use it to unmasked trolls. Do you think this is actually going to work, because from what you've said, it's very hard to track down these people, and it seems quite pointless to take someone to court for sending a trolling comment. I mean,
is it, well, someone who doesn't have money as well. Yeah, it just seems a bit baseless.
Well, there's a bill, it's called the Online Safety Bill. It's currently before the Senate, and that bill establishes rules around what constitutes cyberbullying for harassment, and it establishes an e Safety Commissioner, and the e Safety Commissioner can issue removal notices the social media services like Facebook, Insta and messaging services and also users of the services like your men. So a failure to comply with a notice by removing
offending comment could result in a fine. So that's not the case at the moment, but that's what's proposed under the bill. And the bill allows the Commissioner to order internet services social media services bike Instagram to also provide the entity, say, the identity of the end user if that identity is relevant to the operation of the act. So that change may very well affect the owners of
accounts like Celet's spell check. If things are posted on their accounts which are menacing, harassing, or offensive under the wording of a proposed bill, or that are otherwise i'most under the act because the account owners could then potentially
be identified and find by the Safety Commissioner. And so obviously, if that happens, that's that cats alide on what I previously said about the difficulty of bringing a preliminary discovery applicassion to actually find out who it is that you're certain that might all be revealed for free by the taking conditioner, but it's not. It hasn't passed us yet, so let's wait and see whether it does.
Says that some of the fines for social media companies are up to half a million dollars in the case if they're suing, as you say, someone who might be sitting in their home a teenager. What happens in the case of those sort of fines, They just take them for all their worth and then that's it. Well, they would be asked to pay the fine. I assume they'd Okay, sorry, I'm answering the question for you, John, but might be incorrect.
Well, I mean, yeah, I think that's right. I mean, just because there is the potential for well, I mean it's fine for corporations, social media companies and up to five hundred and fifty five thous but individuals of one
hundred and eleven thousand dollars. So I mean there's the potential for an individual who like you know, as yea, as we all know it could be but even know efforts, they could be fine whether they get find that amount or whether in fact they are fined, and so whether a fine and that amount is imposed, that'll be a
matter for the judge. And if somebody presented the court and said, well, we just we don't have the money and we're acting in you know, we thought we were acting in the public interest and there was no malice, and et cetera, et cetera. Well, who knows the same sorts of matters that you could raise in mitigation that you wouldn't any in any other sort of criminal manner. For example, it's still a plant.
Thank you so much, John, You've be an absolute legend. I think everyone is going to absolutely love this episode, So thank you so much for joining us.
Oh, thank you, Amy and Sophie. I really enjoyed it such fun. Hope it helped.
It is useful that.
Was so interesting and I think it will be helpful for a lot of people moving forward having this discussion. We also wanted to say a big thank you to John Laxon from lax and Lex Lawyers for joining us on the show. He is an absolute legend and I've got to say and personal experience, I would highly recommend John to anybody out there who is looking for a media lawyer because he does go above and beyond. This
is future Sophie here now. As of Sunday afternoon, Celebs Spelchick is back up and running, and for the past few days she has been teasing us on her Insta stories with a few cryptic posts.
Now.
On Saturday, she posted a photo of Hill's Star or Drina Partridge and captioned it or Drina crying in a Halloween costume. She also posted a photo of Sophia Richie with a new boyfriend that literally looks exactly like Victorian premier Dan Andrews.
In her bio.
She also changed her emoji to a pen and pencil, with some thinking that maybe it means she's either going to be writing more gossip stuff or that she is going to be having her very own column in a newspaper, and on Sunday afternoon, she posted a photo of Hillstar Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag and it shows Heidi holding a book which says you can profit from a monetary crisis. Many believe this is a cryptic way of saying she will now be making money from the account, which personally
I'm all for. The majority of posts have now been unarchived. The most noticeable which are missing are the photo of ex Bachelor contestant Lorena allegedly snorting what appeared to be a white substance, and also the post she did about beck Judd when she allegedly dropped pajamas off at a local charity store that she was supposed to be promoting online. All I can say is I'm so excited to see what comes next. Well, I think that's all we've got time for today. We do hope you guys did enjoy
our different episode. You have to let us know if you enjoyed having some small interviews.
In there today.
I feel like we should all be a little bit smarter from today's episode as well going into our mondays.
I do feel smarter, And.
If you do have time, we'd love if you could leave us a five star review because this does take up quite a.
Bit of our time.
And make sure you tell your friends about the podcast because it's actually really interesting. Because when people join our community, we get them to tell us how they've heard about the podcast, and we had an excellent one this week. Someone said that our cousin is dating their cousin and I really enjoyed that connection.
That's how small Adelaide is.
Could you also share about it on your Instagram stories? I mean, maybe we should be spreading the.
Word of what defamation actually is. You sound so desperate in the book. I am being desperate. Please share it