KPMG Drunk girl shutdown

P. Breathnach

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Discussion could have evolved on:
Underage drinking.
Parental supervision.
Societal values.
Ubiquity of every moment of everyday life being filmed and uploaded for public view.
The rights and wrongs of those who videoed it.
Privacy rights
etc
etc

...

Yeah, right.

You have been posting here since 2004 and have thousands of posts in your record. Do you seriously believe that is what would have happened? Even the tone of the "discussion about discussion" in this forum persuades me that you are wrong. It is clear that there are people who want to eviscerate her with impunity.

Skid

Boards.ie: Nicola wrote: »

Our stance and the actions taken have very little to do with cyber bullying, we knew no good would come from the video or threads so acted accordingly.

There is no double standard or enforcing of class divisions at play here, if, in any of the other cases mentioned we foresaw the potential for a huge amount of trouble then the same action would have been taken.

With stuff like this we have to take it on a case by case basis, applying a one size fits all rule simply isn't feasible.

If that is a euphemism for "we didn't want to receive correspondence from her Father's solicitors" then you should just say so.

anncoates

RandolphEsq wrote: »

The double standards argument; just because this girl talks in an accent, looks the way she does, and says the things she does, there is a mass amount of begrudging. This isn'ta typical random Irish person drunkenly ranting for that reason. People in Ireland take anyone down who is up on a pedestal. Fair play to the father for working hard in life, and fair play to the girl for not taking that crap the begrudgers like to throw.

Wow.

Lyaiera

Skid wrote: »

If that is a euphemism for "we didn't want to receive correspondence from her Father's solicitors" then you should just say so.

They've already said that, if not in those words.

Boards.ie: Nicola wrote: »

Ethical and cyber bullying implications aside, and while nobody was explicitly defamed in the video, there is a part of the Defamation Act which deals with damage to reputation and this video has the potential to do that for the girl and her family.

daRobot

Seriously, all of this fuss about this video just shows how desperately insecure, and bitter people are.

If it's a mad wino/tramp on the street no one cares, as they don't threaten you, or more importantly, your ego.

This to me is just a young girl, who has a successful dad, going on a rant to some lads in a late nite pizza joint. Yep, it's embarrassing for her that it's caught on camera, but who knows what preceded all of that, and what they said to her originally to get that reaction.

But as for the witch hunt over it.... Well, for me anyone who is partaking in that is truly the pathetic one. Perhaps you innately feel like a bit of a loser, and you feel that this is how a daughter of one of the "Elite" (cringe), may feel about you. Hence the outrage.

Seriously, what a fuss over nothing...

Oryx

I know that boards.ie regularly remove troublesome threads. Whether that trouble is legal, moral or just plain asshattery. I do not wish to see this girl hauled over the coals, she got drunk and talked rubbish. Who hasn't? Thats all well and fair, and the way boards operates. Long may it last.

The reason this is such an issue for feedback imo, is, as mentioned because this has been effectively censored, when other roughly similar threads aren't, always. Taking this incident as an individual case I can see why that is. As a protective stance on the part of boards I can also see why that is.

Its just the cynic in me who sees the ban on discussion occurring primarily as a result of this video being associated with a big company with a big legal team. Not because we want to protect a silly 16 year old who is, as we speak, being witch hunted all over the web anyway. The great thing about boards discussions, when they are allowed, is that they are NOT witch hunts; the ethos and moderation here ensures they generally dont deteriorate into such without the need for a blanket ban.

But maybe I see a conspiracy where there is none. Anyway, I hope the girl gets to forget about this sooner rather than later.

Penn

Skid wrote: »

If that is a euphemism for "we didn't want to receive correspondence from her Father's solicitors" then you should just say so.

No, it's probably a euphemism for "During the night people were posting pictures of her that they'd found from earlier that day, trying to turn her into a meme on YLYL and had apparently been looking at her Facebook page before it was taken down"

The girl's been through enough WITH all the deletions which have taken place. If Boards had been more lenient, well, ask yourself if you'd like it if one of your family members had been subjected to that

mikemac1

Gosub wrote: »

For me, the issue is that Boards.ie have taken fright because the girl probably has serious clout behind her. This is journalistic cowardice. However, this is a privately run board and they make the rules. If that includes a level of cowardice, so be it. Let's move on.

It's nothing new

We can lash UPC, PC World and Eircom every day on boards.ie
And Eircom deserve a good lashing for their shoddy service :mad:

But dare to mention Jimmy the dodgy car salesman in Kinnegad and the mods act swiftly.

Corporations don't care but private individuals do.

And this little princess and her father would be lawyered up

Sir Oxman

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yeah, right.

You have been posting here since 2004 and have thousands of posts in your record. Do you seriously believe that is what would have happened? Even the tone of the "discussion about discussion" in this forum persuades me that you are wrong. It is clear that there are people who want to eviscerate her with impunity.

I think there would have been posts lambasting the girl, of course but that's why moderation is enforced.
It's also clear to me from posts on this thread that there is the makings of a good thread but alas, we'll never know now.

At least on here.

P_1

Penn wrote: »

OH MY GOD!

So?

It wouldn't change anything. Notice how Youtube, Dailymotion etc have been taking down the videos? Do they use KPMG too? The fact remains that there are legal implications to showing the video and Boards doesn't want that trouble. Hell, the audience guy in the Late Late was bringing out injunctions and Boards removed the videos and pics. The guy who was alleged to have done a runner from a taxi hit Boards with an injunction

Do their fathers work at KPMG too?

This is a good example as to how mainstream/relevant to everyday life that Boards has become.

IMO its up there with the radio stations and the papers at this stage. Before you go mad screaming 'OMG KPMG do Boards' accounts, conspiracy!' ask yourself the following questions:
Would Spin FM cover this 'story'
Would the Indo cover this 'story'

I think you'll find the answer is no, this is for many reasons, 2 of which are respect for the privacy of the individual involved and the almighty legal schitstorm that running with it would bring.

Drakares

Are all video posts that make people look like clowns going to be deleted from boards now? If that's the case, may as well start rooting through Cool pics and vids, as well as dozens of threads in After Hours. Why are they not classed as "bullying?"

Or just the ones who's parents have rich daddies who work for large multi-nationals? It seems to be all about the bullying then.

mikemac1

pithater1 wrote: »

Would the Indo cover this 'story'

I think you'll find the answer is no, this is for many reasons, 2 of which are respect for the privacy of the individual involved and the almighty legal schitstorm that running with it would bring.

The Indo has respect
Bwahahahahaha :pac:

Liam Lawlor was in a car crash with his translator and they said she was a hooker


Waaaay offtopic post

P_1

mikemac1 wrote: »

The Indo has respect
Bwahahahahaha :pac:

Liam Lawlor was in a car crash with his translator and they said she was a hooker


Waaaay offtopic post

Ha fair enough, lets not brin badmouthing the Indo into this one eh

Far too much of a schitstorm without adding that to the mix

Hank Scorpio

Shes a pure snob but was blind drunk, I've ranted and raved when I was hammered alot of times talking pure and utter horse****e but luckily for me It was never recorded. It's random Weekend drunk ranting stuff you see all over the country in chippers. Yes she's a numpty but she doesn't deserve to have her life destroyed over it. Guy who uploaded the video is a dick to be honest

PC CDROM

To those saying there is no double standard here. Wrong. There is.

And that is a good thing. So what if stuff was allowed in the past? Perhaps this is now just another part of the "internet" growing up? Maybe mistakes have been learned from the past?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056709484 descended into pure bullying IMO. (I was being sarcastic in that btw, while making a point that went over peoples heads)

I for one am glad to see that this KPMG thing has been clamped down on regardless of what was allowed in the past.

The really hard thing will be too make sure that similar ethics are applied consistently in the future. TBH it looks like all youtube videos of people having rants in public will have to be not allowed, if their permission is not granted.

gallag

You want the truth? You cant handle the truth!

Yes this is double standards, we all know that, if it was a chav being covertly filmed being an ass it would be all good in the hood, as has happend many times. We all know the reason for censorship here is threat of legal action and as much as many wont like it its a dam good reason, if you stood to lose financially from it I bet you would not make a stand. Nothing boards can do about it so time to move on.

Best for honesty though, remove the double standerds argument or trying to look like saving this spoilt bully some face and just admit you dont want sued. I think everyone could understand that.

MugMugs

PC CDROM wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056709484 descended into pure bullying IMO. (I was being sarcastic in that btw, while making a point that went over peoples heads)

Sarcasm or not, hardly the best example you could dig out given your closing comments on it.

titan18

Ignoring what was actually said in the videos, I don't see too much of a difference in allowing the video about the guy bragging about rape on AH, and the drunk rich girl.

Again, ignore the content, but both are videos of drunk underage kids ranting about crap (although the Nodianos guy is obviously ****ed up)

Fwiw, whilst I thought the video was kinda funny, I do agree with threads being locked after seeing the crap people were saying on twitter about her. Although, I do think there's a discussion to be had about people going ah we've all been there, don't worry about it, and dismissing the fact that she's 16 and got that drunk

anncoates

The problem with any discussion about it on AH is that it won't focus on justified criticism of her snobbish remarks but will turn into a witch hunt: unearthing personal information and the like as well as a load of other stuff like misogyny that is unrelated to the immediate issue but just slung under cover of it.

jonsnow

Meanwhile the corkschoolgirls tearing each other apart thread is still open.Just posted on it. I guess they are at no risk of cyberbullying.

Sully

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Guess who Boards.ie Ltd. and Distilled Media Ltd. use as auditors? KPMG

OMG! To the Conspiracy Theories forum! *puts on tinfoil hat*

The mods wouldn't have known that and there was no direction from Boards.ie Admins/Owners to do anything. The mods acted on their own and made the right choice.

Sully

jonsnow wrote: »

Meanwhile the corkschoolgirls tearing each other apart thread is still open.Just posted on it. I guess they are at no risk of cyberbullying.

As Nicola said, its not a 'one size fits all' rule. The two threads are completely different.

mackg

Oryx wrote: »

Its just the cynic in me who sees the ban on discussion occurring primarily as a result of this video being associated with a big company with a big legal team. Not because we want to protect a silly 16 year old who is, as we speak, being witch hunted all over the web anyway. The great thing about boards discussions, when they are allowed, is that they are NOT witch hunts; the ethos and moderation here ensures they generally dont deteriorate into such without the need for a blanket ban.

But maybe I see a conspiracy where there is none. Anyway, I hope the girl gets to forget about this sooner rather than later.

I agree with you.

Funny thing is this just kind of proves her little rant right, her dad is in KPMG and she can do whatever she wants.

If this was some lad from a council estate going on about how tough he was and about how he knows some famous criminal it would be post of the day 2 days in a row and we'd all have a good laugh about it.

If this was consistently the way things were done I doubt there would be too much fuss but it's not.

humanji

jonsnow wrote: »

Meanwhile the corkschoolgirls tearing each other apart thread is still open.Just posted on it. I guess they are at no risk of cyberbullying.

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I've locked that now.

Higher

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

This reeks of double standards.

Scumbag howls racist abuse on a train, fire away lads; chances are she's not lawyered up. Princess howls abuse at people in a different social class to her, stop; her doddy has a few bob and will sue us.

People should be allowed post the video and discuss it on boards, but I would suggest it is done on one of the stricter fora where you're less likely to get trolls; maybe Humanities.

Some perspective.

Firstly you can tell from the lads accents that they themselves are from middle or upper class.

Secondly, the people videoing were the ones who brought poverty into it. The whole reason she got riled up was because they were laughing at her being shoeless and eating scraps off the table calling her poor. No one here knows how long that went on before she snapped but she was clearly antagonized.

Add to that the fact that she is 16 and the camera man ON TWO OCCASSIONS tried to get a shot up her skirt and its not hard to see why people are defensive of the girl.

Sorry but I said some ridiculous stuff when I was a drunk teenager, this could potentially destroy her career and its nothing more than bullying.

People say 'oh if she was poor it wouldn't be covered up', well i'd argue that if she was poor it wouldn't even be an issue. The whole thing has become a focus point for people bitter at those more well off. Its gotten to the stage where the father has had to delete his linkedin, the girl and her sister have had to delete their facebooks and twitter because they received such abuse.

Let it go.

Lyaiera

Sully wrote: »

As Nicola said, its not a 'one size fits all' rule. The two threads are completely different.

I particularly like the 8th post with 87 thanks that implies the video is of masturbatory quality.

Sir Oxman

Sully wrote: »

OMG! To the Conspiracy Theories forum! *puts on tinfoil hat*

The mods wouldn't have known that and there was no direction from Boards.ie Admins/Owners to do anything. The mods acted on their own and made the right choice.

Mods on page 1 or 2 said it was after direction from Boards HQ.

Sully wrote: »

As Nicola said, its not a 'one size fits all' rule. The two threads are completely different.

That's just been closed! Hmmm.

The King of Moo

There is a double standard at play here, but I don't think it's one that Boards.ie can be directly held responsible for. It's a broader one, indicative of the overt class distinctions which are increasingly evident in this country.

The number of posts that were reported demonstrates this. I highly doubt that if she were from a more modest background that as many posters would've been as motivated to protect her. Not many people leapt to the defence of the racist English woman on the train, even though she seemed drunk and she didn't consent to being filmed.
What I see happening is that people identify more with this girl than a poorer person, because they're more likely to be from middle-class backgrounds (not everyone who defends her is middle class obviously, but the demographics of Boards would suggest that most are), and have been in similar situations: being drunk and saying stupid things.
But there is a growing trend of mocking anyone who speaks or looks like a poorer individual, hence "skangers" and "scobes" are fair game on After Hours, whereas if a wealthier girl is getting mocked or abused, posts are reported and threads are (rightly) closed.
Just look at the posts in the thread about padlocks on After Hours, with people presuming that those attaching them to bridges are on the dole and wear tracksuits, even though it's a phenomenon that occurs all over the world.
You can see this attitude in this thread, with people presuming that people "have a chip on their shoulder" and want to criticise this girl because of her accent and wealth, and not because of her obnoxious attitude.
I'm from a working-class background and I dislike the video because of her snobbery and the fact that I see such overt snobbery on the increase in Ireland, not because she has more money than me. Some of my best friends are rich, but they're not snobs.

I think it's right to remove the video from the thread if she's underage, because unfortunately it likely would end up in cyberbullying from a minority of people.
I also think it's a shame that we can't have a measured debate on this, because unlike others I do think the video begs a lot of questions about snobbery in Ireland and children growing up with this attitude.

I don't think Boards is consciously enacting a double standard, unless it did turn out that fear of legal action was a reason for threads being locked.
One good think I hope comes from this video is that Boards' policy about such videos encompasses people without her clout.

P_1

Sully wrote: »

As Nicola said, its not a 'one size fits all' rule. The two threads are completely different.

How so? Because the papers reoported on it first?

Higher

smash wrote: »

I don't think she'll do it again, unless of course it gets 100% censored and she realises how powerful her position as one of the elite in Irish society actually is.

She's a bully in real life, telling others that they'll get nowhere, or they can't afford 'real' shoes etc etc. A witch hunt is not needed though and at this stage I'd say she knows what it's like to be on the receiving end.

A little background, they were laughing at her because SHE WAS SHOELESS and eating pizza off the table. Thats the reason for her 'IM RICH' rant. I reckon the guys with the camera were the bullies to be honest.

I've seen kids getting bullied snap like she did in school in my day. Bullies love getting a reaction like she gave them.