Get rid of aisling o loughlin from Expose!!!!

gent9662

Seems she is having sleepless nights over this new facebook page.

What do people think? Should facebook be allowed to put this sort of page up?

biko

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055991795

Any abuse of the person = consequences will never be the same.

not_xanthor

Didn't they refuse to take down that Raoul Moate (sp?) tribute page?

I think she'll be having a few more sleepless nights yet.

Expose isn't exactly top drawer programing anyway. Family friends went to some 'exhibit' sponsored by expose at the RDS, and the 'goody bag'
apparently contained a bag of crisps and a color catcher.

Wolflikeme

I don't get this thread title

Anyway,

I suppose if it can be proved it's affecting her pyschologically it would have to be taken down no? It would never go that far though.*

If I was her I think I'd take satisfaction out of it. ''Yeah you hate me but I'm on TV and rakin' it in''!




*Unless she's a total friggin' spanner.

Voodu Child

Asking to have something banned or taken down from the internet usually results in loads more people seeing the page than would have if you'd left well enough alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

My name is URL

If she doesn't like the negativity that sometimes comes with being in the public eye then she'd be better off removing herself from it

here's the group.. it's not even that bad ffs - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Get-rid-of-aisling-o-loughlin-from-Expose/246018292545?ref=search

abouttobebanned

Get rid of expose

Krusader

I wish they would get rid of exposé altogether

Essien

Get rid of facebook groups that claim to make actual changes in the real world!

skelliser

biko wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055991795

Any abuse of the person = consequences will never be the same.

This person has put herself into the public domain. She has chosen to make a living out of it. Imo that makes her fair game.

This person needs to realise that if you are trying to make a living in this way that the public in so many ways pay your wages.
Thus they are entitled to their opinions.

Miss Fluff

http://www.showbiz.ie/news/august10/06-lovely-girls-day-at-the-horse-show.shtml

El Weirdo

Get rid of TV3. TV for morons.

not_xanthor

Somebody give her a job that better showcases the journalistic talents to which she's referring.

Wibbs

skelliser wrote: »

This person has put herself into the public domain. She has chosen to make a living out of it. Imo that makes her fair game.

Not in the eyes of the law in this country it doesnt. Contrary to what many people think, we do not have American stylee free speech in this country of ours. Websites in Ireland are treated like newspapers and other print media, so getting sued for something posted online is a very real possibility. The website gets it in the neck first(bigger target) but the originator of the post could well follow. There has already been a case here where someone got sued for 100 grand for writing a critical blog about someone. This site got a pretty big landmark decision on the diffs between print media and the web over a certain concert promoter. But still care is needed and maybe that very decision opens up more chance that a user rather than the website gets it in the pocket. There are enough ambulance chasers in this country to try.

Do I watch xpose? Nope. Do I think it high brow entertainment? I do not. Do I think yer wan or any of the others are ? Not particularly. I have much more issue with the corruption of certain individuals that are charged with governing us than any lassie who talks about frocks and "celebs" for a living. Good luck to her if she can earn a crust from it TBH. Just cos some muppet gets a bee in her/his bonnet over feck all doesnt mean squat to me. Better serve them to start a facebook page about problems in the health service or the banking crisis.

In any case it comes down to the don't be a dick rule. So what if I consider that kinda thing frivolous and the whole laughable notion of celebs in this country. Big deal. It doesnt register much beyond a mild eye rolling feeling in me. So why wind myself up about it. *shrug*.

spider guardian

i had never even heard of her before this. possible publicity stunt? it is the silly season after all

Wolflikeme

Miss Fluff wrote: »

http://www.showbiz.ie/news/august10/06-lovely-girls-day-at-the-horse-show.shtml

WTF!!?!! Are they supposed to be 'somebodies'? I recognise Ann Doyle! That's it!

I'm off to start another Facebook group.

skelliser

Wibbs wrote: »

Do I watch xpose? Nope. Do I think it high brow entertainment? I do not. Do I think yer wan or any of the others are ? Not particularly. I have much more issue with the corruption of certain individuals that are charged with governing us than any lassie who talks about frocks and "celebs" for a living. Good luck to her if she can earn a crust from it TBH. Just cos some muppet gets a bee in her/his bonnet over feck all doesnt mean squat to me. Better serve them to start a facebook page about problems in the health service or the banking crisis.

Do you not think its pretty hypocritical that a person who presents a show in which the private life's of public figures is treated as public property but gets in a strop when the tables are turned!

And what of censorship, are people not entitled to air their opinions?

Wolflikeme

skelliser wrote: »

Do you not think its pretty hypocritical that a person who presents a show in which the private life's of public figures is treated as public property but gets in a strop when the tables are turned!

And what of censorship, are people not entitled to air their opinions?

I think a public hate campaign is a bit more than just airing opinions though...

skelliser

Wolflikeme wrote: »

I think a public hate campaign is a bit more than just airing opinions though...

"Hate campaign" thats a bit extreme!
The only negative comment i can see is that "she is the most annoying women on tv"

tinkerbell

*sigh* Could at least have spelt it right, the show is called Xposé, not Expose :rolleyes:

Wibbs

skelliser wrote: »

Do you not think its pretty hypocritical that a person who presents a show in which the private life's of public figures is treated as public property but gets in a strop when the tables are turned!

Yes and no. I have no issue with following her or someone like her with cameras watching her every move just as she and her ilk report on others. Hell I'd follow those who just buy this drivel for a day and see how they like it. Private life is one thing, but insult is another. "Ohhh her hair is short and it really doesnt suit her" = Fine(if daft). "Ohhhh she's a short haired bitch = Being a dick(and a little sad).

And what of censorship, are people not entitled to air their opinions?

Opinion is fine, indeed welcome, but there exists a pretty big gulf between opinion and insult for the sake of it. A gulf in intellect and ego too.

SoupyNorman

Wolflikeme wrote: »

WTF!!?!! Are they supposed to be 'somebodies'? I recognise Ann Doyle! That's it!

Amy Huberman would get a serious lashing from me, as the Flutt would say...'I'd go balls deep on that one'.


The clanger Aisling made was registering her disgust in the public domain, Objectively she does not 'fit' in the show, she can never seem to attain that tarty, slapperish look the others achieve by just rolling out of bed. Shes probably better off back behind the news desk.


Whether legal or not, if you put yourself out as a public personality you HAVE to expect to criticized, in most cases it's probably not warranted however you DO NOT react to it in public, instead keep it all bottled up and use the energy to develop a deep seated hatred of the general public.

My name is URL

Wolflikeme wrote: »

I think a public hate campaign is a bit more than just airing opinions though...

I think that calling it a public hate campaign is a bit of a stretch in this case. It's a FB group set up by some randomer, criticizing her role in a tv show.

She's drawing attention to the whole thing herself by going to papers and appearing on radio shows about it. I never even heard of her before this whole thing. Getting the Gardai involved in such a trivial matter is taking the piss altogether and endangers whatever speck of free speech people in Ireland actually have

There's plenty of hate filled abuse shown towards those in the public eye, both on this website and others which is far more vitriolic and potentially damaging to the people it's aimed at.

bazmaiden

I don't get all of the hate i think she is amazing

great talent and a great body, she's got it all

Wolflikeme

skelliser wrote: »

"Hate campaign" thats a bit extreme!
The only negative comment i can see is that "she is the most annoying women on tv"

Going to the trouble of setting up a public forum whereby people can express they're hatred or dislike for someone in the public eye, is a hate campaign.

If we're talking about a TV show and somebody say in passing how much they dislike her, that's what you're describing...I think.

EKRIUQ

Aisling O'Loughlin wrote:

Thank God we live in a democracy where we can wear what we want instead of being hidden under a burka. And thank God for freedom of speech but it's sad to see that privilege being abused by misguided people. Aren't these kind of campaigns better suited to fighting for real injustices, say like internet bullying?

I think a Burka would actually suit her, that's a nice comment isn't it?

Wolflikeme

My name is URL wrote: »

I think that calling it a public hate campaign is a bit of a stretch in this case.

Yeah maybe it is but, I just think someone must really hate somebody to go to the trouble. Why bother, unless you wanted to hurt her.

Poor little ride.

SoupyNorman

Wolflikeme wrote: »

Going to the trouble of setting up a public forum whereby people can express they're hatred or dislike for someone in the public eye, is a hate campaign.

If we're talking about a TV show and somebody say in passing how much they dislike her, that's what you're describing...I think.

Not much trouble in setting up FB group, couple of clicks really.

By definition a campaign is extended and sustained advocacy of something through multiple media outlets which this isnt.

tinkerbell

Just read the other closed AH thread on this from yesterday .... there's a quote that somebody posted and it says: "I'm a journalist, not a model and the configuration of my features or my wardrobe choices really don't matter in the greater scheme of things."

In fairness, she's on a show about FASHION, not the six-one news. Although even those on the six-one news always dress good. So she has to look good otherwise she'll get criticism, what does she expect? How come the other girls on Xposé usually look good and dress suitably yet she can't?

Aisling - change the hairstyle and go hire a stylist. Problem solved. If you wanna be in a job where people don't care about how you look, then get a job in radio or something.

But really, there's no excuse for the horrible clothes she wears on Xposé. There is nothing wrong with her appearance (as in her looks) but her hairstyle does not suit her and neither do those clothes.

SoupyNorman

tinkerbell wrote: »

Aisling - change the hairstyle and go hire a stylist.

She should try shaving it off....ohhhh wait >.<

My name is URL

http://news.eircom.net/national/18366634/

Aisling O'Loughlin, 31, a presenter on popular TV3 show Xposé, said that she has already sought legal advice from lawyer Gerald Kean and from David McMunn, director of legal affairs at TV3, in relation to the offensive webpage on Facebook where people can join the "Get Rid of Aisling O'Loughlin from Xposé" campaign.

Ms O'Loughlin said her decision to pursue the matter was not motivated by her own victimisation but by the "lack of policing of cyberspace".

"I know there are those who would say I am asking for trouble by responding to people who engage in this kind of thing, but my motivation is the lack of regulation in cyberspace, the fact that it is so hard to defend your good name and the fact that there is no recourse to protect yourself," Ms O'Loughlin said.

The TV presenter said she had been unable to make contact with Facebook by phone to make a formal complaint and that the only response she got to an online complaint was a pop-up menu advising her not to expect feedback.

As a result, she decided to take action herself and posted her own comments on the offensive webpage advising those who had labelled her as "the most annoying woman on TV" to: "Please think twice the next time you plan on writing something horrible on the internet about anybody, because the words don't just disappear into the ether, they are ultimately published and can have very serious repercussions."

Ms O'Loughlin said she believed the page may have been started in Cork.

An expert in bullying at the anti-bullying centre in Trinity College Dublin, said they would usually advise a person who was the target of a bullying campaign to make an official complaint to the gardaí.

"A lot of these social networking sites won't take down offensive material unless gardaí approach them," said Murray Smith, a research assistant at the centre.

"There is a difference between a teen and a high-profile TV presenter and defamation probably would not work for the former," Mr Smith said.

A statement from Facebook said that their social networking site helped people "connect and share with each other" and talk about topics they had an opinion on – including public figures – and that "just like the conversations people have offline", sometimes online discussions covered controversial topics.

The statement said Facebook discussions could "actually promote a healthy and balanced debate" but that if they were alerted to bullying or hateful content in relation to a private individual on Facebook, "then this would violate our terms and would be removed".

The Facebook page was taken down yesterday.

The page is still visible, for me at least =/

Oh look, they called her 'naive' on entertainment.ie .. http://entertainment.ie/celebrity_gossip/Aisling+O%27Loughlin+Upset+by+The+Internet/48172.htm someone's gonna pay for that!

Hank_Jones

Voodu Child wrote: »

Asking to have something banned or taken down from the internet usually results in loads more people seeing the page than would have if you'd left well enough alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Surprised Tom O'C wasn't mentioned there.

SoupyNorman

Ms O'Loughlin said her decision to pursue the matter was not motivated by her own victimisation but by the "lack of policing of cyberspace".

Tomorrows headline:


'Aisling O'Loughlin(31) gets internets laws implemented.'

SoupyNorman

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Surprised Tom O'C wasn't mentioned there.

This This This

JerryHandbag

Facebook group member list growing by the hour....Aisling you silly girl

Great publicity for her, now people might actually recognise her on the street!

Cheap Thrills!

tinkerbell wrote: »

Just read the other closed AH thread on this from yesterday .... there's a quote that somebody posted and it says: "I'm a journalist, not a model and the configuration of my features or my wardrobe choices really don't matter in the greater scheme of things."

In fairness, she's on a show about FASHION, not the six-one news. Although even those on the six-one news always dress good. So she has to look good otherwise she'll get criticism, what does she expect? How come the other girls on Xposé usually look good and dress suitably yet she can't?

Aisling - change the hairstyle and go hire a stylist. Problem solved. If you wanna be in a job where people don't care about how you look, then get a job in radio or something.

But really, there's no excuse for the horrible clothes she wears on Xposé. There is nothing wrong with her appearance (as in her looks) but her hairstyle does not suit her and neither do those clothes.

THANK YOU.

I couldn't believe it when she wrote that. The outfits she wears are likely picked by a stylist. The others in the show are all pretty bar Gilson who is neither pretty nor classically beautiful but attractive or 'striking'

AOL is ordinary and therefore the stylists have obviously sttempted to style her as 'quirky' or 'interesting' but it hasn't worked. Trapeze shaped garments and tulip line raw silk, corsages and chiffon look all wrong on her.

The hair is dreadful, the problem is she has very fine hair and the other women mostly have cascading big Kelly Brook hair. They've taken her from a wishy washy shoulder length blunt fringed bob to this attempt at 'elfin' but she doesn't have 'elfin' features. She needs something slightly softer to help her look feminine. She's not Annie Lennox or Halle Berry, she's an ordinary, slightly Mumsy woman. Besides the pixie/elfin haircut is terribly dated.

This is all fair comment and so was the FB page, her job is fashion. She wouldn't have to look like a model if she was a designer/photographer etc but she is a PRESENTER on a fashion show...looking hot is part of the brief. The world of fashion IS shallow and trivial, it's not cuddly and kind.

Pile of bull$hit but it's her chosen career so she'd want to wise up. As it is now she is just pity fodder.

Jesus Juice

Many a person has fought the interwebz, all have failed.

RoadKillTs

Many a person has fought the interwebz, all have failed.

Well said.

Mike 1972

Voodu Child wrote: »

Asking to have something banned or taken down from the internet usually results in loads more people seeing the page than would have if you'd left well enough alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

1) Start own website
2) Issue calls for it to be taken down
3) PROFIT !

SoupyNorman

RoadKillTs wrote: »

Well said.

Hrmmm, thats just what I was thinking.

Have we met

Wolflikeme

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Not much trouble in setting up FB group, couple of clicks really.

By definition a campaign is extended and sustained advocacy of something through multiple media outlets which this isnt.

Fair enough. What is it then? I just feel it's a personal campaign then, or vendetta (strong word I know!). I mean would you hate somebody enough that you felt you needed to create FB page to ridicule somebody you don't know? There's something wrong there. It's actually really pathetic.

Wolflikeme

Ms O'Loughlin said her decision to pursue the matter was not motivated by her own victimisation but by the "lack of policing of cyberspace".

Sure it was. I wonder will she be policing t'internet in her spare time...

Sanjuro

You're in the public eye, you're gonna get people who don't like/resent/get pissed-off at/begrudge you. Grow a fucking second skin, or get off the television.

Besides, the kind of dreck that watches Expose aren't worth getting annoyed at.

My name is URL

Wolflikeme wrote: »

Fair enough. What is it then? I just feel it's a personal campaign then, or vendetta (strong word I know!). I mean would you hate somebody enough that you felt you needed to create FB page to ridicule somebody you don't know? There's something wrong there. It's actually really pathetic.

What's the opposite of a fan? I dislike certain people in the public eye.. not saying that I'd set up a page about it but I don't necessarily believe there's anything wrong with it

Wibbs

Jesus Juice wrote: »

Many a person has fought the interwebz, all have failed.

Yea right. Tell that to the blogger in Ireland who was hit with a 100grand legal bill after being sued over the content. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7009820.ece Tell that to other bloggers who have been sued and fined http://www.google.ie/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=blogger+fined&meta=&btnG=Google+Search Tell that to this very website who were sued by a concert promoter. That went well for the site, but it was no means a given that it would. Tell that to the people sued and fined for downloading warez.

This notion that the interwebz is king and untouchable is a patent nonsense and is going to be more and more a nonsense in the future. You will own your words more and more as time goes on. The new frontier was passed long ago.

Wolflikeme

My name is URL wrote: »

What's the opposite of a fan? I dislike certain people in the public eye.. not saying that I'd set up a page about it but I don't necessarily believe there's anything wrong with it

True. People don't go to football matches to hate another team, rather to support their own*.

It'd be pretty sad if they did. Just as (though it may not be wrong, but I'm still not advocating it) I find it pathetic that people would bother.


*Football perhaps isn't the best example.

Wibbs

Wolflikeme wrote: »

Sure it was. I wonder will she be policing t'internet in her spare time...

Oh I agree, but more and more you hear this guff about the web particularly in Ireland. Gerry Ryan was always on about it. That kneejerk, uninformed and hype laden won't someone think of the children ballsology he was well reknowned for.

This country whether we like it or not has always had those in power wanting control of the media and their image in it from the very foundation of this state. DeValera and his familiy and minions controlled it very tightly. Yes it has eased up, but for how long? Add in that as a culture we seem to have more affinity than most with being told whats good for us and I guarantee if more controls on the interwebz went to a public vote chances are it would carry.

Hank_Jones

Jesus Juice wrote: »

Many a person has fought the interwebz, all have failed.

They are really fighting large amounts of people on the internet though.
So it's basically one person against boards, 4chan, or whatever.

SoupyNorman

Wolflikeme wrote: »

Fair enough. What is it then?

A Facebook page.

Wolflikeme wrote: »

It's actually really pathetic.

You can also argue that running off to tell the guards is a equally pathetic.


Just keeping quiet would have made this go away. Sure if she joined the group herself it would have been checkmate to the 'V for vendetta' folk.



I getting VERY agitated that this nothing of a story is going to give Ivor a slight reprieve.

My name is URL

Wolflikeme wrote: »

True. People don't go to football matches to hate another team, rather to support their own*.

It'd be pretty sad if they did. Just as (though it may not be wrong, but I'm still not advocating it) I find it pathetic that people would bother.


*Football perhaps isn't the best example.

I get what you're saying, and do agree to a certain point. I mean you'd need to be hard pressed to bother going to the hassle of setting a group up in the first place, but I don't think there should be any legal or moral reaon why somebody can't do it if they so wish

Detractors gonna detract!

Wolflikeme

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree, but more and more you hear this guff about the web particularly in Ireland. Gerry Ryan was always on about it. That kneejerk, uninformed and hype laden won't someone think of the children ballsology he was well reknowned for.

This country whether we like it or not has always had those in power wanting control of the media and their image in it from the very foundation of this state. DeValera and his familiy and minions controlled it very tightly. Yes it has eased up, but for how long? Add in that as a culture we seem to have more affinity than most with being told whats good for us and I guarantee if more controls on the interwebz went to a public vote chances are it would carry.

Good post. I totally agree.