Savage bar attack leaves journalist terrified.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

... and know him well enough to find him and take a photograph...

VERY peculiar and odd in the extreme!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Finally, someone who knows who he is. Lovely. I'll assume you've called Niamh to tell her because she obviously has no idea, so is there any dcahnce you could enlighten the rest of us?

Priory Hall.

I know, the article is odd alright. I don't know why she didn't shame him, obviously the SIndo solicitors advised against naming him. Amazing how the defenders of him come out of the woodwork though.

Some people just don't like women standing up for themselves or others. They will jump on their high horses in defense of the corrupt.

Jimminy Mc Fukhead wrote: »

Also some of you are positive this guy is guilty but what happens in the future now that you've instituted a few people in a newspaper office as judge, jury and executioner.

You know there is a warrant out for this guy?

John_Rambo wrote: »

Priory Hall.

I know, the article is odd alright. I don't know why she didn't shame him, obviously the SIndo solicitors advised against naming him. Amazing how the defenders of him come out of the woodwork though.

Some people just don't like women standing up for themselves or others. They will jump on their high horses in defense of the corrupt.

Technically naming him or not, by printing a picture attached to an article saying that 'this' person is of a notorious nature (implying something vague) and then stating that he tried to "Glass" her - is enough alone to open the paper to a possible case of liable.

A name is not necessary.

The man - if the paper has the right person - might deserve all that he gets but in trying to hype up a story that lacks actual details about the person in many ways, its shoddy reporting to say the least.

Then again, it is the Sunday Indo!

John_Rambo wrote: »

Priory Hall.

I know, the article is odd alright. I don't know why she didn't shame him, obviously the SIndo solicitors advised against naming him. Amazing how the defenders of him come out of the woodwork though.

Some people just don't like women standing up for themselves or others. They will jump on their high horses in defense of the corrupt.

You're saying that's Tom McFeely, so? How sure are we on that? Photo's a bit blurry.

I don;t think anyone is defending him here, though - it's much, much more a case of attacking Horan. If she's going to do an expose piece on him, and she had done it in some way professionally, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Biggins wrote: »

might deserve all that he gets but in trying to hype up a story that lacks actual details about the person in many ways, its shoddy reporting to say the least.

I see where you are coming from, but anyone that has their ear to the ground and knows what he's done and knows the caliber of this person.

Hype or no hype, he's done horrible horrible things. This saga could be a very very different story if that apartment block had gone on fire. It would have been as bad or even worse than the Stardust, a tragedy that's affected and still affects a lot of Irish people.

Come on, he's done very bad things, he's taken money off people and put their lives at risk for a lot of cash, he's really left them hanging.

Yet, here all the vitriol is aimed at a junior journo taking a photo?

There's something wrong.

My name is URL

They should do an exposé on some of the dopes that paid through the nosé for poorly constructed apartments which were been sold by a former terrorist.

John_Rambo wrote: »

I see where you are coming from, but anyone that has their ear to the ground and knows what he's done and knows the caliber of this person.

Hype or no hype, he's done horrible horrible things. This saga could be a very very different story if that apartment block had gone on fire. It would have been as bad or even worse than the Stardust, a tragedy that's affected and still affects a lot of Irish people.

Come on, he's done very bad things, he's taken money off people and put their lives at risk for a lot of cash, he's really left them hanging.

Yet, here all the vitriol is aimed at a junior journo taking a photo?

There's something wrong.

Have you actually read the article? The writing is apalling! Not to mention the fact that she has done virtually no research and is asking the reader to do it for her!

MaxSteele

Scumbag that he is ironically being an ex-IRA member claiming british bankruptcy on Irish developments ....

I think attacking a nosey, snake of an 'investigative' journalist is +1 on the MaxSteele bucket list.

John_Rambo wrote: »

I see where you are coming from, but anyone that has their ear to the ground and knows what he's done and knows the caliber of this person.

Hype or no hype, he's done horrible horrible things. This saga could be a very very different story if that apartment block had gone on fire. It would have been as bad or even worse than the Stardust, a tragedy that's affected and still affects a lot of Irish people.

Come on, he's done very bad things, he's taken money off people and put their lives at risk for a lot of cash, he's really left them hanging.

Yet, here all the vitriol is aimed at a junior journo taking a photo?

There's something wrong.

If its the right person and he's not doing the right thing by putting things right, he's prone to be exposed - and rightly so.

The reporter in this case went about her piece all wrong though.
It served no public interest except to show that she can report badly with little or no detail that is actually relevant to some man that she can amazingly recognise - but not recognise - and tell us all (who don't actually know him) very little nothing about the man and why she is chasing him to get his pic, whatsoever!

Bad reporting is bad news - the paper should be ashamed of producing such a crappy article!

BarackPyjama

Why does disliking Niamh Horan mean that you're somehow in support of Tom McFeeley? Not being able to understand anything other than such polar opinions demonstrates a worrying lack of intelligence.

As a poster already said - I want our justice system to punish people that have illegally wronged others. If Tom McFeeley should be charged and prosecuted, then let's hope that happens.

What I don't want is a glorified celebrity and gossip journalist antagonising, violating the privacy of and trying to publicly condemn people, be they guilty or not. Intelligent, thorough and balanced investigative journalism I have no problem with. Trashy rubbish like this deserves the spite and vitriol it receives. As does Niamh Horan.

Jimmyhologram

Biggins wrote: »

If its the right person and he's not doing the right thing by putting things right, he's prone to be exposed - and rightly so.

The reporter in this case went about her piece all wrong though.
It served no public interest except to show that she can report badly with little or no detail that is actually relevant to some man that she can amazingly recognise - but not recognise - and tell us all (who don't actually know him) very little nothing about the man and why she is chasing him to get his pic, whatsoever!

Bad reporting is bad news - the paper should be ashamed of producing such a crappy article!

The article does tick two important boxes:

1) Sensationalism
2) Getting the dig in at anything remotely Shinner related

Both of which have always been more important than public interest to this particular newspaper ...

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Have you actually read the article? The writing is apalling!!

With all respect, and I'm not being sarcastic Ikky poo... There's building and writing. I know the pen is stronger than the sword, but in this case, Tom McFeely's building could be a lot more damaging than the journalists writing.

Tom McFeely's shoddy building far outweighs the journo's (can't remember her name) shoddy writing.

Tom McFeely's building goes on fire - hundreds of people die horribly.

SIndo journo takes a photo - a guy get's annoyed. (along with his mates online)

Have you actually read about what he built, the corners he cut to make a few bob, the judge ordered the people out of their homes immediately it was that bad according to the experts!

Are you old enough to remember the stardust tragedy? We need to look at the bigger picture here.

John_Rambo wrote: »

With all respect, and I'm not being sarcastic Ikky poo... There's building and writing. I know the pen is stronger than the sword, but in this case, Tom McFeely's building could be a lot more damaging than the journalists writing.

Tom McFeely's shoddy building far outweighs the journo's (can't remember her name) shoddy writing.

Tom McFeely's building goes on fire - hundreds of people die horribly.

SIndo journo takes a photo - a guy get's annoyed. (along with his mates online)

Have you actually read about what he built, the corners he cut to make a few bob, the judge ordered the people out of their homes immediately it was that bad according to the experts!

Are you old enough to remember the stardust tragedy? We need to look at the bigger picture here.

One of the main problems here is that, at the moment, I'm taking your word for it that it's even McFeely in the photo in the first place!

If it's not, your last few posts are completely irrlelevant, and if it is, you;d be better off starting a seperate thread. This one is, and has been from the onset, been abotu Horan's handling of the story.

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

Both of which have always been more important than public interest to this particular newspaper ...

You and I are the public.

What was highlighted (badly maybe) is that Tom McFeely is sipping cocktails in the sun while the people that he ripped off, that took out loans have been ousted from their firetrap apartments and they have nowhere to go.

Sharpshooter

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Less of the bile Dude ...maybe you need to get your piles seen to ?

Where did that "barely literate " shite come from....?

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Can understand that Dude...were you up to the hilt in someones hole behind "The George".

Bit of a "glare" off those assless chaps eh ?

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Eh

Anybody know what this Gimp is on about ?

Sounds like he could do with some "sedation"...uh ...like a stiff shoe in the plums !

Yeah ! I'll buy that

Mod

Fulton Crown banned for trolling.

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Why does disliking Niamh Horan mean that you're somehow in support of Tom McFeeley? Not being able to understand anything other than such polar opinions demonstrates a worrying lack of intelligence.

As a poster already said - I want our justice system to punish people that have illegally wronged others. If Tom McFeeley should be charged and prosecuted, then let's hope that happens.

What I don't want is a glorified celebrity and gossip journalist antagonising, violating the privacy of and trying to publicly condemn people, be they guilty or not. Intelligent, thorough and balanced investigative journalism I have no problem with. Trashy rubbish like this deserves the spite and vitriol it receives. As does Niamh Horan.

Look at Veronica Guerin (may she rest in peace).
She went up to the very door of one Mr Gilligan to question him (and was severely attacked).
Her articles - all her articles as far as I know, before and after that attack, were very much detail about who, what, why, etc.
The reader if he/she knew nothing beforehand, was well informed from any one of her articles. It was brilliant journalism - and although she might have mentioned her being attacked at one stage in a section of an article, I've never come across any article of hers where she wrote just a whole piece about such an attack and went on to colour it up with sulphurous words.
She instead informed the public briefly about the attack and then continued on with proper reporting procedures and with more professionalism.

...Then we have Horan's piece.
She is not even in the same county, never mind league as Veronica Guerin.
Horan's reports does nothing to advance investigative journalism or investigative journalists.

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

The article does tick two important boxes:

1) Sensationalism
2) Getting the dig in at anything remotely Shinner related

Both of which have always been more important than public interest to this particular newspaper ...

Indeed so - IF one already knows the person might be shinner too!
I didn't and reading that dire piece in the Sunday Indo, I would still be in the dark uninformed.
How is that in the public interest as others make out the article is!
It tell us all bugger all about the person and what he's supposed to have done, etc.

John_Rambo wrote: »

You and I are the public.

What was highlighted (badly maybe) is that Tom McFeely is sipping cocktails in the sun while the people that he ripped off, that took out loans have been ousted from their firetrap apartments and they have nowhere to go.

None of that was highlighted in the article.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

None of that was highlighted in the article.

Exactly (thank you), that's my point too.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

None of that was highlighted in the article.

We, the public, Irish citizens know what he did, we know where he was and what he was enjoying when the photo was taken.

We know what's going on. It's not right.

John_Rambo wrote: »

We, the public, Irish citizens know what he did, we know where he was and what he was enjoying when the photo was taken.

I didn't - I didn't know him!
Sorry to be blunt and it not aimed directly at you - but some of us are not all mind readers!

Her article was pure no detail, self glorifying trash!

Jimmyhologram

John_Rambo wrote: »

You and I are the public.

What was highlighted (badly maybe) is that Tom McFeely is sipping cocktails in the sun while the people that he ripped off, that took out loans have been ousted from their firetrap apartments and they have nowhere to go.

That's a fair point - but I wonder what percentage of readers will have been aware who the person in the photograph was? I try to keep abreast of news, and am reasonably informed of the Priory Hall story - but I wouldn't have known only for reading this thread. Perhaps I'm in the minority on this...

Incidentally, I have absolutely no objection to the guy in question being hounded by the media

John_Rambo wrote: »

We, the public, Irish citizens know what he did, we know where he was and what he was enjoying when the photo was taken.

We know what's going on. It's not right.

Not saying it is. But the point is this:

How in the HELL can Niamh Horan highlight ANY of the points you make when she claims to have no idea who she she has just taken a photo of, why she did so, or what the person has done??!

Remember: We're STILL taking your word for it that it's even McFeely in the first place.

Red Hand

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Not saying it is. But the point is this:

How in the HELL can Niamh Horan highlight ANY of the points you make when she claims to have no idea who she she has just taken a photo of, why she did so, or what the person has done??!

Remember: We're STILL taking your word for it that it's even McFeely in the first place.

I think it's great that people have to go on the internet to find out what a "journalist" meant, as the journalist didn't even know herself.

I don't know how the Sindo gets away with it's content. Absolute rubbish.

JonathanAnon

The word "savage" suggests that the guy actually hit her, so this is hugely misleading.. And Niamh Horan would want to get some street smarts if she thinks that approaching a republican with a camera and an unkind word is a good idea...

"There was a moment where it felt like the world had stopped around us"..

Dear god... Maybe McFeely should take her to court for how badly written the article is.. I actually think I could write better than her with no journalistic background.

westendgirlie

If it wasn't for this thread, I would have no idea who the man in the photo was. The journalist did not have the interests of the public and in particular, Priory Hall residents when she wrote that piece. It really is self centred drivel.

If she wanted to give her ego a boost, why didn't she just come out and say that, she, Ms Horan, spotted (found even) McNeely enjoying a foreign holiday whilst the misfortunate ex residents of his development are still in limbo.

I really have no idea what demographic that story is written for.

Brendog

Where does she get off thinking this is a news report?

if anything it sounds like the storyline of some ****ty romantic novel.

"He glared at me, his stance wide waiting to pounce. All 16 stone of him. His eyes wide with this uncontrollable rage engulfing his red face. There was a moment where it felt like the world around us had stopped.
It was as if it was just him and me, standing there alone. Our eyes were locked on each other."

:pac:

Jammy Donut

I can't be the only to keep reading 'Savage bear atack' Can I?

Seanchai

More proof, not that any is needed, that the Sunday Independent is not worthy enough to wipe a pile-induced arse. A complete rag, written by an entire organisation of superficial, undereducated sycophants of Anthony O'Reilly and his business and political interests.

This repeatedly silly girl and her latest non-story is perfect for that rag, and the people who buy it.