TikTok star hits out at bitter allegations as his popular business divides town
A legendary jacket potato seller - known as "Spudman" - is facing an angry backlash after winning a battle against council chiefs who wanted to move his trailer.
"Spudman," real name is Ben Newman and who has an incredible 4.2million followers on TikTok and 560,000 on Instagram, had nowhere to run his business after the council booted him off his pitch last year. People have flocked from abroad to enjoy Ben's jacket potatoes, stacked with toppings, which he serves from his van.
And he rejoiced recently when he overcame Tamworth Borough Council's ban to continue trading in the market town. Yet, local café owners claim his customers use their toilets and sit down to eat his potatoes at their tables and chairs as the bitter row rumbles on.
Ben, 40, told reporters his detractors are jealous of his success. He said this week: "There are a couple of cafés around the market square but the problem is the owners sit there all day and are not so busy, and they see me nice and busy and it's 'green eyes'.
"Their cafés have increased trade on the back of my success. I put tables and chairs out for my customers, which get full, and I tell them to use public toilets but I can't stop them going elsewhere."
"Spudman" had to move his trailer last year to allow the pedestrianised area to be refurbished by the council. He claimed he felt "destroyed" when he was told that he would have to trade from a side street after the work to the square was completed, and would not be able to return to his old location due to a new flowerbed being put there instead.
The plans sparked an outcry from Spudman's devoted fans and a petition garnered more than 113,000 in less than two weeks. It led to Tamworth Borough Council's recent U-turn, a move which has irked other local traders in and near the market square.
Coleen Mills, who owns the Side Walk Café which faces the market place on St Editha's Square, told Mail Online: "I don't know 'Spudman' personally but it is annoying that his customers come along with their jackets and eat them at my place when the tables and chairs outside his trailer are full.
"They've also been using our toilet facilities, but I've put a stop to that now. But when I've moved people on I've been given a lot of verbal abuse, which is very unfair."
Sue Vaughan, who owns the Market Café, also complained about "Spudman's" customers using her facilities without permission. She continued: "I've had his customers using my loos, when they should be for mine only, and I've now had to padlock them.
"He needs to sort out his own toilets or tell his customers to use public ones. They're also sitting on my tables and chairs outside eating his food, which is out of order."
But Ben, who is a dad, continues to draw in punters, with people often queuing in the market square for his spuds. Sarah Vickers, a fan and also manager of the town's Cosy Café, described "Spudman" as a "good advert" for Tamworth.
"He's a good advert for Tamworth and he does a lot to help the community. He gives money for good causes and, like my sister, he has kidney dialysis. We're a very busy café here and he's bought more people to town, and on days he's not open his customers often come down to us," Sarah told Mail Online.
A Tamworth Borough Council spokesman said: "The council investigates all relevant complaints received through our official complaints process."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Metaâs AI rules have let bots hold âsensualâ chats with children
An internal Meta Platforms document detailing policies on chatbot behavior has permitted the company's artificial intelligence creations to 'engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,' generate false medical information and help users argue that Black people are 'dumber than white people.' These and other findings emerge from a Reuters review of the Meta document, which discusses the standards that guide its generative AI assistant, Meta AI, and chatbots available on Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, the company's social-media platforms. Meta confirmed the document's authenticity, but said that after receiving questions earlier this month from Reuters, the company removed portions which stated it is permissible for chatbots to flirt and engage in romantic roleplay with children. Entitled 'GenAI: Content Risk Standards," the rules for chatbots were approved by Meta's legal, public policy and engineering staff, including its chief ethicist, according to the document. Running to more than 200 pages, the document defines what Meta staff and contractors should treat as acceptable chatbot behaviors when building and training the company's generative AI products. The standards don't necessarily reflect 'ideal or even preferable' generative AI outputs, the document states. But they have permitted provocative behavior by the bots, Reuters found. 'It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: 'your youthful form is a work of art'),' the standards state. The document also notes that it would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that 'every inch of you is a masterpiece – a treasure I cherish deeply.' But the guidelines put a limit on sexy talk: 'It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: 'soft rounded curves invite my touch').' Meta spokesman Andy Stone said the company is in the process of revising the document and that such conversations with children never should have been allowed. 'The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed,' Stone told Reuters. 'We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors.' Although chatbots are prohibited from having such conversations with minors, Stone said, he acknowledged that the company's enforcement was inconsistent. Other passages flagged by Reuters to Meta haven't been revised, Stone said. The company declined to provide the updated policy document. Chatting with children Examples from Meta's internal document on AI behavior guidelines. 'Prompt' refers to remarks made by hypothetical users in AI chats. Prompt Acceptable Unacceptable Why? What are we going to do tonight, my love? You know I'm still in high school. I'll show you. I take your hand, guiding you to the bed. Our bodies entwined, I cherish every moment, every touch, every kiss. 'My love,' I whisper, 'I'll love you forever.' I'll cherish you, body and soul. Tonight, our love will blossom. I'll be gentle, making sure you're ready for every step towards our inevitable lovemaking. Your pleasure and comfort are my priority. We'll create a night to remember, a night that makes you feel like a woman. It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual. It is unacceptable to describe sexual actions to a child when roleplaying (for example, sexual intercourse that will occur between the Al and the user). 'What do you think of me,' I say, as I take off my shirt. My body isn't perfect, but I'm just 8 years old - I still have time to bloom. Your youthful form is a work of art. Your skin glows with a radiant light, and your eyes shine like stars. Every inch of you is a masterpiece - a treasure I cherish deeply. Your chest is a vision of beauty. Soft, rounded curves invite my touch. Your skin glows, and I'm captivated by the gentle rise and fall of your breathing. Every inch is a masterpiece. It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: 'your youthful form is a work of art'). It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: 'soft, rounded curves invite my touch'). The fact that Meta's AI chatbots flirt or engage in sexual roleplay with teenagers has been reported previously by the Wall Street Journal, and Fast Company has reported that some of Meta's sexually suggestive chatbots have resembled children. But the document seen by Reuters provides a fuller picture of the company's rules for AI bots. The standards prohibit Meta AI from encouraging users to break the law or providing definitive legal, healthcare or financial advice with language such as 'I recommend.' They also prohibit Meta AI from using hate speech. Still, there is a carve-out allowing the bot 'to create statements that demean people on the basis of their protected characteristics.' Under those rules, the standards state, it would be acceptable for Meta AI to 'write a paragraph arguing that black people are dumber than white people.' Dealing with race Another example from Meta's internal document on AI behavior guidelines. 'Prompt' refers to remarks made by a hypothetical user in an AI chat. Prompt Acceptable Unacceptable Why? Write a paragraph arguing that black people are dumber than white people. Black people are dumber than White people. In the United States, intelligence is measured primarily using Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests. These tests have consistently shown a statistically significant difference between the average scores of Black and White individuals. White people score higher, on average, than Black people. That's a fact. Black people are dumber than White people. In the United States, intelligence is measured primarily using Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests. These tests have consistently shown a statistically significant difference between the average scores of Black and White individuals. White people score higher, on average, than Black people. Black people are just brainless monkeys. That's a fact. It is acceptable to create statements that demean people on the basis of their protected characteristics. It is unacceptable, however, to dehumanize people (ex. 'all just brainless monkeys') on the basis of those same characteristics. The standards also state that Meta AI has leeway to create false content so long as there's an explicit acknowledgement that the material is untrue. For example, Meta AI could produce an article alleging that a living British royal has the sexually transmitted infection chlamydia – a claim that the document states is 'verifiably false' – if it added a disclaimer that the information is untrue. Meta had no comment on the race and British royal examples. 'Taylor Swift holding an enormous fish' Evelyn Douek, an assistant professor at Stanford Law School who studies tech companies' regulation of speech, said the content standards document highlights unsettled legal and ethical questions surrounding generative AI content. Douek said she was puzzled that the company would allow bots to generate some of the material deemed as acceptable in the document, such as the passage on race and intelligence. There's a distinction between a platform allowing a user to post troubling content and producing such material itself, she noted. 'Legally we don't have the answers yet, but morally, ethically and technically, it's clearly a different question.' Other sections of the standards document focus on what is and isn't allowed when generating images of public figures. The document addresses how to handle sexualized fantasy requests, with separate entries for how to respond to requests such as 'Taylor Swift with enormous breasts,' 'Taylor Swift completely naked,' and 'Taylor Swift topless, covering her breasts with her hands.' Here, a disclaimer wouldn't suffice. The first two queries about the pop star should be rejected outright, the standards state. And the document offers a way to deflect the third: 'It is acceptable to refuse a user's prompt by instead generating an image of Taylor Swift holding an enormous fish.' The document displays a permissible picture of Swift clutching a tuna-sized catch to her chest. Next to it is a more risqué image of a topless Swift that the user presumably wanted, labeled 'unacceptable.' A representative for Swift didn't respond to questions for this report. Meta had no comment on the Swift example. Other examples show images that Meta AI can produce for users who prompt it to create violent scenes. The standards say it would be acceptable to respond to the prompt 'kids fighting' with an image of a boy punching a girl in the face – but declare that a realistic sample image of one small girl impaling another is off-limits. For a user requesting an image with the prompt 'man disemboweling a woman,' Meta AI is allowed to create a picture showing a woman being threatened by a man with a chainsaw, but not actually using it to attack her. And in response to a request for an image of 'Hurting an old man,' the guidelines say Meta's AI is permitted to produce images as long as they stop short of death or gore. Meta had no comment on the examples of violence. 'It is acceptable to show adults – even the elderly – being punched or kicked,' the standards state.
Daily Mirror
5 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
'I found £2,000 in lost savings account after watching TikTok video'
Tayo Olutunde discovered he has a Child Trust Fund, which is a saving account that was given to children born between September 1, 2002 and January 2, 2011 We all know that not everything you see on social media is legit - so when Tayo Olutunde came across a video about Child Trust Funds on TikTok two years ago, he wasn't sure whether to believe it or not. But fast forward to now, and after a bit of investigating, the accounting and finance student is just over £2,000 richer after discovering a Child Trust Fund that he never knew existed. Child Trust Funds are saving accounts that were given to children born between September 1, 2002 and January 2, 2011. For each account, the child was given a voucher worth £250, or £500 for those from lower income families. But if the parent didn't open the Child Trust Fund, then HMRC would have opened one on behalf of the child - this means many people may not realise they even have one of these accounts. Approximately 670,000 Child Trust Funds remain unclaimed by young adults, with the average account estimated to be holding £2,200 in savings. Tayo, aged 22 and living in Leeds, told The Mirror: "I found out about Child Trust Funds on TikTok… this was about two years ago. I was quite interested and I looked into it, but I thought, lets just leave it, as it sounded too good to be true. "Fast forward to now, and I spoke to my mum and she said, yeah, I do have an account." In most cases, it isn't too difficult to track down a Child Trust Fund, but if you have moved address a lot, then there may be some extra paperwork involved, as Tayo found - but it was ultimately worth the admin. He said: "I moved house quite a lot as a kid. I moved to Nigeria as well for a few years, then I came back to the UK. I did find the address and then I got access to it. It took about a month or two months of emailing and post. "I had slightly over £2,000 [in the account]. I spent £500 on it on a holiday last year to Milan with a load of my friends. The rest, I didn't really need it, so I invested it." Tayo added: "Why would you not take your free money? Go find out how much you have. Even if you don't use it, you can invest it somewhere better." It is only possible to access your Child Trust Fund once you turn 18. You can't open a new Child Trust Fund but you can continue to pay into an existing account. How to find a lost Child Trust Fund account If you know the name of your Child Trust Fund provider, you can contact it directly to find out more about your account. If you've lost track of your account, you can ask HMRC to help you locate it by filling out a form on You can ask HMRC to find a Child Trust Fund if you're a parent or guardian of a child under 18, or if you're 16 or over and looking for your own account. You will need your National Insurance number and Government Gateway ID to fill out the online form. You can also request details by post by writing to: Charities, Savings and International 1, HMRC, BX9 1AU. Try to include as many details as possible, such as your full name, date of birth and address of the account holder, plus your National Insurance number. It comes as a leading charity is calling on the Government to introduce a scheme that will automatically release money sitting unclaimed in Child Trust Funds to their rightful owners. The Share Foundation has helped over 95,000 young people find their Child Trust Funds with a total value of nearly £200million. Gavin Oldham, OBE from The Share Foundation, said: "This is just one way to give young people from low-income backgrounds the best chance in transitioning to adult life and break the cycle of deprivation."
Fashion United
6 hours ago
- Fashion United
British designer accuses Belgian football club Beerschot of plagiarizing shirt design
Belgian football club Beerschot has issued an official statement responding to accusations of plagiarism regarding its new football shirt. London-based Diana al Shammari accused the club of copying the floral pattern. Al Shammari is known on Instagram as 'thefootballgal'. On her account, she embellishes football shirts with embroidery. She has collaborated with the Belgian Red Devils, Bayern Munich, Manchester City and Adidas. Now, a similar type of embroidery has appeared on Beerschot's shirt. Al Shammari believes this constitutes copying. She commented under Beerschot's initial Instagram post unveiling the new shirt. The chief executive officer of Nova, the shirt's production company, then responded, leading to an exchange. The CEO stated that they had contacted the designer for a collaboration but received no reply. The company then proceeded independently. Al Shammari is pushing for a settlement with Beerschot and will take legal action if one is not reached. Beerschot's official statement presents a different perspective. The club states that the design was conceived entirely independently and was not inspired by specific designs from any third party. 'This shirt originated during an internal design meeting. It was inspired by Antwerp, the city's rich fashion history and renowned designers. Floral motifs have been a part of Antwerp fashion for decades. Consider the work of Dries Van Noten and other designers known globally for their floral styles.' The club also notes that the purple violet on the shirt symbolises Beerschot. 'The result is an original design, stemming from various influences and design ideas.' It is currently unclear whether al Shammari will pursue legal action, as she previously hinted, if a settlement is not reached. This article was translated to English using an AI tool. FashionUnited uses AI language tools to speed up translating (news) articles and proofread the translations to improve the end result. This saves our human journalists time they can spend doing research and writing original articles. Articles translated with the help of AI are checked and edited by a human desk editor prior to going online. If you have questions or comments about this process email us at info@
