Member's statement: Tattle Life: Online Harassment
Member's statement by Ms Cara Hunter on .
- MLA
- Ms Cara Hunter
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 23 June 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Tattle Life: Online Harassment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5045666
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise to make a Member's statement about the website Tattle Life and the impact that it has had on the mental well-being of people in Northern Ireland. For the avoidance of doubt, I declare an interest as a paid consultant for an AI firm providing advice on the ethics of AI. Obviously, this statement is not about AI but about online harm. This is a very topical issue, and I wish to talk about online harms, libel and slander and how they have had a real-life impact. No website is worse for that action — it is infamous — than Tattle Life. I want to raise in the House the issue of a brave couple from Northern Ireland, Neil and Donna Sands, who became the victims of a very modern kind of abuse: tech-facilitated harassment on that website.
They were harassed, ridiculed and stalked online by strangers hiding behind fake usernames, and that was fuelled by a website designed to monetise gossip and human suffering — a website built on toxicity and a culture of cruelty.
Many of us had never heard of the website until last week, but, sadly, many of us, as public figures, feature on it as well. However, for the Sands family, it has been their living nightmare for years. Over 45 pages of anonymous abuse posted about them and completely false — false claims, personal details and threats. One post chillingly read:
"I can see you. I'm looking at you right now."
It was not just idle gossip; it was targeted harassment. It was libellous. It was slander. It happened online but had real consequences offline. Donna Sands said that it pushed her to breaking point, and that is the reality of tech-facilitated abuse. The founder of the horrific, bullying website was making over £320,000 a year in ad revenue, profiting directly from the destruction of other people's reputations. It is a site where anonymous trolls can target people with lies, accuse them of crimes and infidelity and tarnish their overall reputation. The site is thought to have generated over £1·8 million in profit. However, last week, something historic happened in Northern Ireland: the Sands couple won a defamation case worth £300,000 — the largest amount ever awarded in Northern Ireland. A site once seen as untouchable was finally held accountable. That is justice, but it came far too late and at far too great a cost. It needs to be a wake-up call to those who find joy in anonymously putting down others online that they will be held accountable and that just because the abuse is online does not mean that it will be tolerated. Let us not wait for another family to be torn apart by a website such as Tattle Life. Let the Sands case not be just a headline. Let it be a turning point when Northern Ireland says, "Enough is enough". I thank Neil and Donna for their bravery in taking this awful case to court and showing that we need to build an internet that protects people and does not profit from their pain.
517 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.94).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.53 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.94 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.06 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.67 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.21 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.08 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:48 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.