Eoghan Harris terminated

TheCitizen

TheCitizen wrote: »

Times have changed and the madness of Harris et al doesn’t wash these days anyway.

It was mealy mouthed stuff similar to the mealy mouthed stuff out of Jody Corcoran on the SIndo today. I didn’t read the full article, I wouldn’t pay for it but his first two paragraphs were basically “Eoghan had to go but he’s still my pal etc...”

Stomach churning, and sad that he still feels he has to suck up to the bully Harris.

That’s not what I linked to. My link was a fairly strong attack on previous actions by the independent. It was after the death of Hume last year.

Don’t think it was behind it paywall since I don’t pay for the Indo. Here’s a taste.

Much more followed over the following months, with a string of opinion writers joining in and attacking the Hume-Adams talks. An editorial defended the coverage in the strongest terms: “Dissent from Mr Hume’s fallible political judgment by Sunday Independent columnists should be seen for what it is — as part of a healthy democratic debate on a major issue.”

To say there was a “debate” would be a stretch. For months, the only regular dissenting voice was that of the eminent historian Dr Ronan Fanning. When the SDLP’s Mark Durkan sought a right of reply to Dunphy’s August 8 column, it was refused. That was wrong. Some of what was written was offensively over the top — for example Dunphy referring to Hume as “the political bomber flying over unionist heads trying to kill them”.

A cartoon drawing of Hume which appeared with that column – and with at least two subsequent pieces – became a source of controversy. In later years, it was wrongly described as depicting “blood dripping from John Hume’s hands”. There was no dripping blood, but Hume’s right hand was dark, in stark contrast to his left. It was, in my view, ambiguous — and wide open to the interpretation that Hume’s hand was stained by blood.

The coverage is characterised by Hume’s friend Michael Lillis this week as “false and wanton vitriol”, which “gushed Sunday after Sunday” and “caused Hume immense distress”.

The paper was absolutely entitled to subject Hume-Adams to plenty of scrutiny, at a time when the IRA instilled fear in decent Irish people — but to refuse a platform to a senior SDLP figure who took serious issue with what was being written was an indefensible decision.

shockframe

TheCitizen wrote: »

Yep. Totally forgotten about. Bertie I won it on the horses etc.

Harris and what he said at the start of the Peace Process will not be forgotten either. I and others will remind everyone of this charlatan when he gets platitudes when his day comes.

Bertie to be fair has some redeeming features, Harris et al has none.

The revelations have tarnished him this week.

I'm not a big political nerd myself but his media presence this week has been the gift that keeps on giving.

There will be establishment shills that will come out and bat for him but the younger generation on Ireland Simpsons Fans/Facebook/Twitter will view him with a mixture of sleaze, contempt and something of a joke figure.

He was already sailing close to the wind with his shockingly outdated mindset. He's gone way over the edge now.

Rosita

fvp4 wrote: »

We don’t know exactly. Why do you not believe her?

Who said I didn't believe her? I have no reason not to believe her. I just said mentioning it was irrelevant. My point about the need to specifically detail the issue was not to imply she was lying (why would she be lying?!) but that if it wasn't going to be addressed specifically it wasn't worth mentioning. It's easy to brush it aside as he did (no 'shrinking violet" or whatever he said) and the story wasn't about her. That's all I'm saying. Nothing to do with believing her or not. I'm sure she's a person if great integrity. But she enabled his "this is all' dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi' stuff" comment. When dealing with someone as aggressive, assertive, confident, and fluent as him you have to bring more to the table than that. She failed to lay a glove on him in real measured terms. He finished just as cocky as he started.

TheCitizen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That’s not what I linked to. My link was a fairly strong attack on previous actions by the independent. It was after the death of Hume last year.

Don’t think it was behind it paywall since I don’t pay for the Indo. Here’s a taste.

Much more followed over the following months, with a string of opinion writers joining in and attacking the Hume-Adams talks. An editorial defended the coverage in the strongest terms: “Dissent from Mr Hume’s fallible political judgment by Sunday Independent columnists should be seen for what it is — as part of a healthy democratic debate on a major issue.”

To say there was a “debate” would be a stretch. For months, the only regular dissenting voice was that of the eminent historian Dr Ronan Fanning. When the SDLP’s Mark Durkan sought a right of reply to Dunphy’s August 8 column, it was refused. That was wrong. Some of what was written was offensively over the top — for example Dunphy referring to Hume as “the political bomber flying over unionist heads trying to kill them”.

A cartoon drawing of Hume which appeared with that column – and with at least two subsequent pieces – became a source of controversy. In later years, it was wrongly described as depicting “blood dripping from John Hume’s hands”. There was no dripping blood, but Hume’s right hand was dark, in stark contrast to his left. It was, in my view, ambiguous — and wide open to the interpretation that Hume’s hand was stained by blood.

The coverage is characterised by Hume’s friend Michael Lillis this week as “false and wanton vitriol”, which “gushed Sunday after Sunday” and “caused Hume immense distress”.

The paper was absolutely entitled to subject Hume-Adams to plenty of scrutiny, at a time when the IRA instilled fear in decent Irish people — but to refuse a platform to a senior SDLP figure who took serious issue with what was being written was an indefensible decision.

Fair enough that’s an editorial piece from Alan English I take it.

It was left to Jody to offer the platitudes for Harris. The paper is stained from those days and it’s got no clout anymore thankfully.

TheCitizen

TheCitizen wrote: »

Fair enough that’s an editorial piece from Alan English I take it.

It was left to Jody to offer the platitudes for Harris. The paper is stained from those days and it’s got no clout anymore thankfully.

Yes. Letter from the Editor. Was surprised myself. I may buy an independent for the first time in a decade if this keeps up.

Junkyard Tom

Harris and associated accounts seem to have focused on women for trolling?

RandomViewer

Harris will be on with Daithi and Maura where he and Teri Prone will discuss the latest happenings in Fair City

TheCitizen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes. Letter from the Editor. Was surprised myself. I may buy an independent for the first time in a decade if this keeps up.

Would be happy to buy a paper off them if they show a bit of humility and integrity. Jody Corcoran’s piece from the clip they put up on the website looked to be full of platitudes. “Eoghan went over the top but he was a great polemic etc etc...Vomit.

volchitsa

TheCitizen wrote: »

Would be happy to buy a paper off them if they show a bit of humility and integrity. Jody Corcoran’s piece from the clip they put up on the website looked to be full of platitudes. “Eoghan went over the top but he was a great polemic etc etc...Vomit.

This is an article that's well worth reading
https://irelandbyaccident.com/2021/05/09/a-tale-of-tweets-trolls-and-true-courage/

(Yet another woman picked on to be trolled by Harris and his possible acolytes - if it's not a lone operation, that is.)

TheCitizen

volchitsa wrote: »

This is an article that's well worth reading
https://irelandbyaccident.com/2021/05/09/a-tale-of-tweets-trolls-and-true-courage/

(Yet another woman picked on to be trolled by Harris and his possible acolytes - if it's not a lone operation, that is.)

Good article

Tomaldo

On a slightly lighter note, does anyone know if EH said he wouldn't write for the Sindo if Denis O'Brien ousted Tony O'Reilly from INM. I think I read it in the Phoenix some time ago, but he didn't keep that promise.

TheCitizen

Tomaldo wrote: »

On a slightly lighter note, does anyone know if EH said he wouldn't write for the Sindo if Denis O'Brien ousted Tony O'Reilly from INM. I think I read it in the Phoenix some time ago, but he didn't keep that promise.

I have no idea.

Ultimately "Sir" Anthony is responsible for all that bile out of Harris et al. They did his bidding. A stain on all of them the way they treated John Hume.

TheCitizen

Rosita wrote: »

I presume this is note to yourself.......

Please don't think I care.

I asked you a question post 675, any chance of an answer Roseeta?

McMurphy

That linked to article by Francine Cunningham is a brilliant article, thanks to whoever it was linked to it earlier. Only got a chance to sit down and actually read it there.

Danzy

Tomaldo wrote: »

On a slightly lighter note, does anyone know if EH said he wouldn't write for the Sindo if Denis O'Brien ousted Tony O'Reilly from INM. I think I read it in the Phoenix some time ago, but he didn't keep that promise.

Harris would write for An Phobalacht if they paid him enough.

An Claidheamh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That’s not what I linked to. My link was a fairly strong attack on previous actions by the independent. It was after the death of Hume last year.

Don’t think it was behind it paywall since I don’t pay for the Indo. Here’s a taste.

Much more followed over the following months, with a string of opinion writers joining in and attacking the Hume-Adams talks. An editorial defended the coverage in the strongest terms: “Dissent from Mr Hume’s fallible political judgment by Sunday Independent columnists should be seen for what it is — as part of a healthy democratic debate on a major issue.”

To say there was a “debate” would be a stretch. For months, the only regular dissenting voice was that of the eminent historian Dr Ronan Fanning. When the SDLP’s Mark Durkan sought a right of reply to Dunphy’s August 8 column, it was refused. That was wrong. Some of what was written was offensively over the top — for example Dunphy referring to Hume as “the political bomber flying over unionist heads trying to kill them”.

A cartoon drawing of Hume which appeared with that column – and with at least two subsequent pieces – became a source of controversy. In later years, it was wrongly described as depicting “blood dripping from John Hume’s hands”. There was no dripping blood, but Hume’s right hand was dark, in stark contrast to his left. It was, in my view, ambiguous — and wide open to the interpretation that Hume’s hand was stained by blood.

The coverage is characterised by Hume’s friend Michael Lillis this week as “false and wanton vitriol”, which “gushed Sunday after Sunday” and “caused Hume immense distress”.

The paper was absolutely entitled to subject Hume-Adams to plenty of scrutiny, at a time when the IRA instilled fear in decent Irish people — but to refuse a platform to a senior SDLP figure who took serious issue with what was being written was an indefensible decision.

Dunphy was some ass@#$%

As was whoever drew all those cartoons, have they no shame?

Hope the money and "good coke" was worth it Eamon

An Claidheamh

Michael Clifford, David Davin Power, Pat Leahy and Ronan McGreevy have all claimed they are the victims of bots now that it has been put to them that they supported the 'Northern Whig' account

Haven't actually appeared to deny it though ...

smurgen

He definitely wasn't fired over the poll data either. It's over the legal proceedings.

jmcc

Murkier and murkier:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/eoghan-harris-linked-twitter-account-under-garda-investigation-1.4559889?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Regards...jmcc

Cilldara_2000

jmcc wrote: »

Murkier and murkier:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/eoghan-harris-linked-twitter-account-under-garda-investigation-1.4559889?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Regards...jmcc

The complaint was made on behalf of Irish Examiner political correspondent Aoife Grace Moore by her employer.

The Examiner management are also snowflakes :mad:

FrancieBrady

jmcc wrote: »

Murkier and murkier:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/eoghan-harris-linked-twitter-account-under-garda-investigation-1.4559889?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Regards...jmcc

There'll be a number of people squirming reading that I'm sure.

jmcc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There'll be a number of people squirming reading that I'm sure.

Yep. No wonder IN&M is trying to distance itself from Harris.

Regards...jmcc

Cilldara_2000

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Michael Clifford, David Davin Power, Pat Leahy and Ronan McGreevy have all claimed they are the victims of bots now that it has been put to them that they supported the 'Northern Whig' account

Haven't actually appeared to deny it though ...

Any link for this? As far as I can see, Mick Clifford is just taking the piss out of the allegations that he was involved.

blackcard

Rosita wrote: »

Who said I didn't believe her? I have no reason not to believe her. I just said mentioning it was irrelevant. My point about the need to specifically detail the issue was not to imply she was lying (why would she be lying?!) but that if it wasn't going to be addressed specifically it wasn't worth mentioning. It's easy to brush it aside as he did (no 'shrinking violet" or whatever he said) and the story wasn't about her. That's all I'm saying. Nothing to do with believing her or not. I'm sure she's a person if great integrity. But she enabled his "this is all' dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi' stuff" comment. When dealing with someone as aggressive, assertive, confident, and fluent as him you have to bring more to the table than that. She failed to lay a glove on him in real measured terms. He finished just as cocky as he started.

I really have to wonder how you are related to Eoghan? No dispassionate person would go to the lengths that you have to defend him

Rosita

TheCitizen wrote: »

I asked you a question post 675, any chance of an answer Roseeta?

This is what you wrote:

You appear to have a lot to say about someone (Harris) that you know very little about..

I assumed this was just an observation rather than a question? As for knowing a lot about Harris - yes, and, no. Wikipedia is quite good on background, so, yes. But what did he write about John Hume on 26 June 1991.......I'd be rusty enough on that.

Happily since I don't keep shifting the goalposts constantly I'm not required to know huge amounts about him. I'm simply referred to an interview which I heard and decided to challenge some of the biased lies here which attributed a very different vibe to the interview to what I heard.

But, yeah, alternative opinions are very difficult for some people. Those who despise Harris are actually probably quite like him in the sense of not having the intellectual courage to assert their views without playing the man.

Rosita

blackcard wrote: »

I really have to wonder how you are related to Eoghan? No dispassionate person would go to the lengths that you have to defend him

I'm not defending anyone. I'm just pointing out that he held his own in that interview. It's just what I believe. Just because you don't like that doesn't make me related to him.

Jaysci20

Six Twitter accounts which criticised Daniel Kinahan have been suspended this weekend. A well known Belfast solicitor connected to Sinn Fein previously represented Daniel Kinahan. An unusual week certainly for Twitter account suspensions. One of those account suspensions is of a political editor of a Belfast newspaper.

"Ah will ya stop the nonsense" - Sarah McInerney

TheCitizen

Rosita wrote: »

This is what you wrote:

You appear to have a lot to say about someone (Harris) that you know very little about..

I assumed this was just an observation rather than a question? As for knowing a lot about Harris - yes, and, no. Wikipedia is quite good on background, so, yes. But what did he write about John Hume on 26 June 1991.......I'd be rusty enough on that.

Happily since I don't keep shifting the goalposts constantly I'm not required to know huge amounts about him. I'm simply referred to an interview which I heard and decided to challenge some of the biased lies here which attributed a very different vibe to the interview to what I heard.

But, yeah, alternative opinions are very difficult for some people. Those who despise Harris are actually probably quite like him in the sense of not having the intellectual courage to assert their views without playing the man.

You've been on this thread prevaricating on his behalf somewhat. I think you know more than you pretend to is my observation.

Am I playing the man or the ball, or the woman or the ball here Rosita

An Claidheamh

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Any link for this? As far as I can see, Mick Clifford is just taking the piss out of the allegations that he was involved.

Just their twitter pages, though I can't really believe Clifford be involved

jmcc

The net is getting wider:
https://twitter.com/sean_murray1/status/1391488467813679104

Regards...jmcc