nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

KPMG Drunk girl shutdown

Ares

Why has there been an outright shutdown on the KPMG drunk girl video on this site.

It is a very topical point of discussion in Ireland at the moment and yet the topic has been shut down completely.

This video has put class divisions to the forefront of Irish societies thinking and I believe that we, the users of the community, should be allowed to discuss it.

I think this is not a good move by boards and I hope that boards isn't being cowed by KPMG or other companies.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

titan18

gallag wrote: »

There is no way that girl is sixteen. Where did that info come from?

When you find her name, just check Twitter, it's all over it. Google it and it's pretty easy to identify an approximate age. She's 16 or 17 (and if 17, probably only recently 17)

humanji

Lyaiera wrote: »

That's not what I was trying to get across at all. I mean that the posts all around the internet are not under Boards control. The reaction to this has been far larger than the reaction to the other threads. Whether that be because of class war issues or because there's more sensitivity to what's written online now is irrelevant. As long as people learn from this and take a firm stance on what is and isn't appropriate, ethically for this community, then I think some good will come from this.

Ah right, sorry I get you now. I was off on a mad tangent.

. To be honest, I'd go with it being an over reaction to cyber-bullying that is the reason for the caution. Definitely more so than the conspiracy angle, anyway. But I also don't think anyone will really learn anything from this. Maybe I'm getting old and cynical, but it would take a hell of a lot more than situations like this to make a genuine change.

It'll be about a month until the next feedback thread about some issue will pop up and this one will mostly be forgotten, I'd say.

minidazzler

SYDEWYNDER wrote: »

Unfortunately the court of public opinion seems to dole out fairer justice then a court of law in this country.

Reasons it should be discussed? Its a viral video that has pissed off a lot of people. Thats reason enough for me. I'm not going to discuss semantics with you. We will be here all night if thats the case.

She mocked a HUGE group of people, that's a bad thing yes....does this mean she deserves to be torn apart by a HUGE group of people? And you call what is being said about her, and death threats JUSTICE? Are you fcuking kidding me?

There is nothing to discuss about this video, literally, there is nothing that can be said except to agree or disagree with her. Other than that, it's just gonna be ridicule, and that's Cyber Bullying...

Drop it, there is no need to discuss it, ridiculing her gets you nowhere but makes you feel good because how dare a rich girl give out to poorer people. You just wanna get your digs in to feel good, that's not a good enough reason to discuss a girl.

yore

humanji wrote: »

And again, you're not reading what's already been told to you. The Cork girls thread, in my opinion, shouldn't have been allowed. This is my personal opinion. Many others, including national news papers, felt it was worth discussing. But it ran it's course and died out. It fell from memory.

Then it was dragged up again to prove something in this thread. In the intervening period, nothing came of the video. I locked it. There was no need to delete it, since nothing had come from it (and again, that phrase means litereally what it means).

Have you checked with the Cork girls in question?

humanji wrote: »

I was online when the first threads of the KPMG girl started, and I deleted one because I felt it was inappropriate. Other AH mods felt the same and we also noted that if the girls dad really was something to do with KPMG, then there might be legal problems. So, we decided that it'd be best to delete all the threads as they popped up, and then when we got an official site stance on it, then we can moderate in accordance to it. And that stance was "better safe than sorry".

Sadly, that's all there is to it. There's no conspiracy, no lawsuits, no brown envelopes, just an apparently crap video that is no better or worse than the hundreds of crap videos we delete in AH every week.

Ah ha. Some honesty!! If she had been shouting abuse and said "me da is a bouncer in slappers nightclub and he'll bleedin' batter ya" then it would have been allowed to flow!!!

humanji wrote: »

Oh, that may be an important point: we delete hundreds of threads every week. This one is only special because it got it's own feedback thread.

And it's own sticky in AH

K-9

gallag wrote: »

There is no way that girl is sixteen. Where did that info come from?

Don't know, somebody thought she was and it just got taken as fact, the internet for you again.

Maybe the Dad said it when he was conspiring with the Boards hierarchy!

Wile E. Coyote

minidazzler wrote: »

You've given no reasons why it SHOULD be discussed, just ones of why it's shouldn't not be discussed, which is not the same thing. What is there in the video to discuss?

How about using this video to discuss the ethics of videoing people in public without their permission? It's not illegal to do so after all. Or the ethics/legality of posting it to the Internet without their permission? Again not illegal. Or to discuss the attitudes of teenagers in society and how they react under the influence of alcohol. Or posting it as a general warning to to those same teenagers about the dangers of alcohol and how they need to be aware of their surroundings when out because you never know who's watching you?

Personally I feel sorry for the girl and think its been blown out of all proportion but I can understand how some posters perceive this girl to be getting special treatment when normally a thread would just be locked and not deleted.

humanji

yore wrote: »

Not really. Your explanation as to the question as to why this one was deleted and the other one wasn't was simply that "nothing has come" of the Cork one. That is the reason why that one wasn't deleted. You never explained why this one was deleted and further muddied the waters by telling us that nothing has come from this one also.

Nope again, I explained it quite clearly, several times to you, but you've ignored it. I'll give you a hint, the explanation is in the stuff that I wrote.

SYDEWYNDER wrote: »

So its fear then. Jesus Christ lads grow a backbone will you?

And how many companies do you own? And how many employees are you responsible for? Can't be many or any if you're so quick to throw them to the lions.

Oryx

SYDEWYNDER wrote: »

So its fear then. Jesus Christ lads grow a backbone will you?

You offering to pay their legal fees?

P. Breathnach

gallag wrote: »

There is no way that girl is sixteen. Where did that info come from?

Anybody with an IQ higher than that of a rabbit can work out her age.

Penn

Just to clarify the comment about CMods (me) deleting the thread:

Myself and most of the AH mods were still online around half 1 this morning discussing the whole topic. I woke up this morning and during the night a new thread had started with almost 100 replies, and from the quick look I had taken, had seen people post pictures of the girl supposedly from earlier that day, as well as talk about her Facebook profile. Due to the amount of effort it would have taken to go through the whole thread and the fact that the thread had been unsupervised for so long, I felt the best course of action would be to delete the posts (with the exception of the OP) and leave a reminder not to start new threads on the topic.

This isn't some special case where the Cmods have been drafted in. Due to the late night and the fact that I was up earliest, I just did what I presumed the mods would do themselves when they got up.

Honestly, people are making this a far bigger issue than it is.

Boards doesn't want to be subject to any legal action, and allowing discussion on it will lead to insults etc being thrown at the girl.

humanji

yore wrote: »

Have you checked with the Cork girls in question?

Have you?

Ah ha. Some honesty!! If she had been shouting abuse and said "me da is a bouncer in slappers nightclub and he'll bleedin' batter ya" then it would have been allowed to flow!!!

I said this near the beginning of the thread. It's not a sudden revelation. But your claims that he bribed or threatened the site are bull.

And it's own sticky in AH

Because after deleting 20 threads, we thought it an idea to let everyone know why. This too was explained in another of my posts you didn't bother reading.

kjl

Sully wrote: »

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

The difference being ability to afford to take it down

Lyaiera

humanji wrote: »

Ah right, sorry I get you now. I was off on a mad tangent. . To be honest, I'd go with it being an over reaction to cyber-bullying that is the reason for the caution. Definitely more so than the conspiracy angle, anyway. But I also don't think anyone will really learn anything from this. Maybe I'm getting old and cynical, but it would take a hell of a lot more than situations like this to make a genuine change.

It'll be about a month until the next feedback thread about some issue will pop up and this one will mostly be forgotten, I'd say.

I don't think most posters and people on the internet will change. I would hope that people are more willing to report things on Boards. I've become far more willing to report things ever since the discussion in After Hours about its attitude towards women, when the mods implored people to report things. If more people are reporting then maybe mods will be able to lock threads and reprimand posters that are nasty more often.

yore

humanji wrote: »

Nope again, I explained it quite clearly, several times to you, but you've ignored it. I'll give you a hint, the explanation is in the stuff that I wrote.

Apologies. I've since noticed your recent posts. Apparently her threads are being wiped because her dad is the wealthiest partner in KPMG. I think that this is what most people thought anyway and kinda the reason why this thread exists in the first place

sfwcork

So if the girls father wasnt with kpmg the threads woud be ok?

humanji

Lyaiera wrote: »

I don't think most posters and people on the internet will change. I would hope that people are more willing to report things on Boards. I've become far more willing to report things ever since the discussion in After Hours about its attitude towards women, when the mods implored people to report things. If more people are reporting then maybe mods will be able to lock threads and reprimand posters that are nasty more often.

This is the best way to start, I guess. Small changes. It's the reporting of posts that really help us out.

minidazzler

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

How about using this video to discuss the ethics of videoing people in public without their permission? It's not illegal to do so after all. Or the ethics/legality of posting it to the Internet without their permission? Again not illegal. Or to discuss the attitudes of teenagers in society and how they react under the influence of alcohol. Or posting it as a general warning to to those same teenagers about the dangers of alcohol and how they need to be aware of their surroundings when out because you never know who's watching you?

That's fair enough, so it can be discussed in Humanities, definitely no need for an ethics discussion in AH.

humanji

yore wrote: »

Apologies. I've since noticed your recent posts. Apparently her threads are being wiped because her dad is the wealthiest partner in KPMG. I think that this is what most people thought anyway and kinda the reason why this thread exists in the first place

Nope again. Getting desperate now. You'd almost think you had some sort of vendetta against the site for some previous transgression you were reprimanded for...

Dav

OK, lets call a halt to some of the more extreme theories being thrown around here.

I will list for you the order of events that occurred in the office that lead to us snipping threads and links to the video yesterday.

People were talking about this "drunk KPMG girl video" in the office, I asked what they were talking about and someone (I think it was Nicola) sent me a link.

I watched it in dismay remembering back to when I was a hotel worker during the Celtic Tiger earning minimum wage and remembering the huge number of entitled brats like this that I dealt with on a regular basis (Trinity College Engineering ball, I'm looking at you in particular - you kids were a proper pain in the arse). I thought to myself "this is going to be more hassle than it's worth and will be this year's 'Guy dodging a taxi fare' event as Daddy will have serious need to act because it impacts on his reputation as well as his brat daughter's future."

After some discussion (where I initially argued that we shouldn't pull the thread), Gordon pointed out that I got dragged into that taxi dodging thing for about 2 weeks as I was dealing with their solicitors, and that was without us even being named on the injunction (but we were served with a copy of it). Nicola reminded me of the "damage to reputation" argument of the Defamation Act which could well come into play. I'm not prepared to waste 2 weeks of the company's time on what amounts to a stupid underage drunk girl's rant when there is nothing more that needs saying on the issue.

So we pulled it for these reasons:

She's underage.
She did not consent to have this video posted.
She will already be a target of all sorts of bile and vitriol from all over the net.
The Defamation act (the comments we'd already seen on the threads were way out of order).
The video was being pulled from YouTube, suggesting they were already dealing with it.
Neither I, nor my boss (Gordon) want to have to spend weeks tied up in a legal mess dealing with the fallout of the entire thing.

Here are some reasons we DID NOT pull the thread:

KPMG are the Distilled Auditors.
Daddy's Rich.
Censorship of issues affecting those of a better socio-economic situation than others.

We try really hard to have better standards than other parts of the internet. We don't think the internet should be the wild west and that people should be able to discuss whatever it is they want without the fear of being hopped on for having a contrary opinion or belief. We don't think it's acceptable for people to be personally abused and if you don't think you can engage in a conversation without resorting to that, we don't want you here.

We don't always get this right and I'm not trying to suggest that we do.

There've been several mentions of other videos that have been left up that are essentially the same thing - people being caught on camera and being shown to be total idiots or in compromising positions etc. The simple truth is that if we'd known about them, we'd more than likely have taken the same action. This particular video happened to be a topic of discussion in the office and so we pre-empted what we were reasonably certain was going to be a big chunk of our time. There is simply no way that we can monitor even 10% of what gets posted on the site every day - that's why we have the Report Post function for the Community to exercise it's will and say "We don't think this belongs here" (and in this instance, they did) backed up by the Moderators, Cat Mods and Admins who give up their time to keep this site running and make the decisions that best help the site overall.

We have a pile of legal issues that hit us all the time. People who've been on telly threaten us, the people from some car seller's once threatened to come to our office with a shotgun, people who we site ban for being trolls threaten us, some eejit who bought something from Adverts (which is a separate company from Boards.ie) even brought us to the small claims court and didn't bother showing up for the case. This is what the office spends its time dealing with. These are the fights we have to take on so that our members have the right to discussion of the day's news and events, but too many of you are so quick to jump on us when we're doing what we have to do to keep this site in operation. Unless you're prepared to put your name and address on file with us so that we can hand them over to someone who wants to sue over your comments, then we have to take things down when they're reported. We don't want to run a site that requires that sort of information to be a member - all you ever have to give us is an email address and we're happy with that.

We can't afford to go to the High Court - not even if we win. It would cost us too much money - money we don't have (where this myth that we're rich comes from is beyond me, the company ran at a loss last year). So the choices we have are be sometimes cautious and keep the site open or take a stand and face closing the site down.

So if you're disappointed that you can't discuss this particular issue, I'm sorry, but the bigger picture at play is that there's a whole site here with hundreds of various communities who are just as important to this site as any other and who have no interest in that issue. Leaving the sort of discussion we saw developing on it up on the site puts all of them them in jeopardy and we're not prepared to let that happen.

Thank you all for your time and I hope your understanding.

My name is URL

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Anybody with an IQ higher than that of a rabbit can work out her age.

Doesn't say much for the bouncers and bar persons of the fine establishments she was in on the night!

Quazzie

g'em wrote: »

As I said, it never ceases to amaze me how vehemently people defend their right to be offensive on the internet. To all the people who say that this video could be discussed reasonably, ^^^ this is unfortunately the reality.

So its better to stifle all discussion rather than have the mods moderate the thread?

ANXIOUS

g'em wrote: »

As I said, it never ceases to amaze me how vehemently people defend their right to be offensive on the internet. To all the people who say that this video could be discussed reasonably, ^^^ this is unfortunately the reality.

So G'em would you use this logic in every instants? What about the amount of abuse that Bertie, Biffo and Brian? Why is that allowed?

humanji

sfwcork wrote: »

So if the girls father wasnt with kpmg the threads woud be ok?

No.

minidazzler

yore wrote: »

Apologies. I've since noticed your recent posts. Apparently her threads are being wiped because her dad is the wealthiest partner in KPMG. I think that this is what most people thought anyway and kinda the reason why this thread exists in the first place

Here's a good reason to get rid of threads... it's deleted from Youtube because Action has started to be taken.

Lets say the threads are allowed run on boards. The Girl reads them and gets highly upset, and maybe has to go for counselling for anxiety and such. Who gets sued? Here's a helpful hint.... It's NOT you. Boards are responsible for everything posted here. You lose nothing.

Boards doesn't like getting sued, especially since there is no merit to discussion of this.

yore

humanji wrote: »

Have you?

Yeah I have :rolleyes: . I'm not the one claiming that that issue is dead and run it course. I'm sure those girls will never be allowed to outlive that notoirity.

humanji wrote: »

I said this near the beginning of the thread. It's not a sudden revelation. But your claims that he bribed or threatened the site are bull.

Yeah. I wonder what happened to all those explicit claims that I personally made? Maybe a mod deleted them as I can't seem to find them.

. Please stop making random sh1te up. If you get to that stage then you know that you are losing the argument.

humanji wrote: »

Because after deleting 20 threads, we thought it an idea to let everyone know why. This too was explained in another of my posts you didn't bother reading.

Here's a hint...perhaps locking the thread might be better than deleting it. If a thread is deleted and someone logs on, they might start one if they can't see evidence of it already being started.

The actions of the mods are causing this to snowball!!! If they'd left it, nobody would have cared.

hoodwinked

i have to say at first hand it does look like daddy had it removed, but after reading through (and it took awhile) i see the other side of this,

we don't know whats going on behind the scenes (thankfully) and id rather have boards tomorrow than not have boards,

this will all be forgotten by us by next week, where boards office will be dealing with this for months,

so in the end i think they are right to avoid it.

Cushie Butterfield

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Anybody with an IQ higher than that of a rabbit can work out her age.

Now that was low, please leave rabbits out of this. There were no rabbits present in the video, nor were they mentioned, so your statement is nothing short of rabbit-bullying. God knows how this will affect their lives. Just because they have no-one to stand up for them doesn't make them fair game. Let's just hope there are no rabbits or rabbit owners reading this thread as God only knows the far reaching ramifications of your claims. This thread should be deleted for the good of rabbits & rabbit owners worldwide. :mad:

SYDEWYNDER

minidazzler wrote: »

She mocked a HUGE group of people, that's a bad thing yes....does this mean she deserves to be torn apart by a HUGE group of people? And you call what is being said about her, and death threats JUSTICE? Are you fcuking kidding me?

There is nothing to discuss about this video, literally, there is nothing that can be said except to agree or disagree with her. Other than that, it's just gonna be ridicule, and that's Cyber Bullying...

Drop it, there is no need to discuss it, ridiculing her gets you nowhere but makes you feel good because how dare a rich girl give out to poorer people. You just wanna get your digs in to feel good, that's not a good enough reason to discuss a girl.

Thats ridiculous. Did I threaten to kill her? No. I can't and won't speak for how other people want to vent their anger no matter how extreme they choose to be. If you are going to say ridiculous things like what she said, then there is going to be... fallout. That is why we are all taught from a young age TO THINK BEFORE WE SPEAK. If she did not have the presence of mind to think about what she was saying that is not my, your or anyone elses problem.

Regardless of how little to discuss you feel this video contains, I see a lot to discuss. Class divides, alledged underage drinking, people generally being ****ebags etc.

Unfortunately this bright spark has made herself traceable. Did I do that either? No. But we are all open to judgement from our peers. That is one of the pillars of a democracy is it not?

Sully

SYDEWYNDER wrote: »

Just read your post Dav. I am disgusted at the reasons boards is blocking all this. Fear of a rich daddy and because he works for Boards auditors should not halt something on a forum.

Can you prove that? He already said its nothing to do with his financial status or who he works for.

yore

humanji wrote: »

Nope again. Getting desperate now. You'd almost think you had some sort of vendetta against the site for some previous transgression you were reprimanded for...

Getting personal now eh?

Transgression eh? I've stated earlier I was banned from AH. If I gave a sh1te I'd rereg using a different email/IP/username combination. Just block any client side Java etc that could give the game away