Youth Defence write the Observer

The_Minister

Those plucky fellows, youth defence, appear have published their own observer, in which they strike back at the real Observer by apologising to themselves (read it and it makes sense). Anyone else laugh their hole off at this?

Red Alert

yep, was handed to me at the bus stop this evening around 5.

Vainglory

There's about three clear cases of libel in it (University Observer, Ivana Bacik, MRBI) I think it's pathetic to be honest, and a huge waste of money.

Blush_01

It might have had some value if it was printed on softer paper.

TheVan

I hope they are sued out of their tiny little minds....

The Observer should deffo go on a case, ditto with MRBI. Bacik probably won't, she'll take the high moral ground as a politician I'd say.

Pythia

They tried to give it to me but I didn't take it.
Didn't know it was the YDers though. Would've had a great chat with them.

The_Minister

TheVan wrote:

I hope they are sued out of their tiny little minds....

The Observer should deffo go on a case, ditto with MRBI. Bacik probably won't, she'll take the high moral ground as a politician I'd say.

I doubt that Bacik can sue, as it was satire, like you'd see in the Phoenix magazine.

Vainglory

They probably can't be sued as there's nothing official on the "paper" saying it was produced by YD. They'll probably deny it and have probably covered their tracks as well.

Although - A reporter from the Tribune rang the YD Head Office, didn't identify himself, and said he wanted to talk about a pamphlet that was circulating. The receptionist said "Oh, are you from UCD?" before he had said anything about what pamphlet it was or where it was being circulated. Dunno if that's admissable proof of guilt but it confirms what everyone knows already as far as I'm concerned.

rainbow kirby

Just the sort of thing to make me angry getting on my bus home. YD make my blood boil.

hullaballoo

The_Minister wrote:

I doubt that Bacik can sue, as it was satire, like you'd see in the Phoenix magazine.

Nah, it's not satire. It would need to refer to itself as a satirical publication for that to work.

TheVan

The_Minister wrote:

I doubt that Bacik can sue, as it was satire, like you'd see in the Phoenix magazine.

Don't think that defence would work. It purported to be the Observer, from using the motto (or what looked like it) to a similar font etc.

There is a reason (believe it or not!), the Turbine has "its satire stupid!" on it every week!

The_Minister

hullaballoo wrote:

Nah, it's not satire. It would need to refer to itself as a satirical publication for that to work.

The article was written by "A. Spoofer". I would qualify that as satire.

panda100

What was written in this paper?
They obviously thought better of giving it out in the terrace.

TheVan

True, but you had to read carefully to get that. I think they crossed the line in purporting to be satire. Phoenix is blatantly satire with cartoon speech bubbles on the cover.

Panda100 wrote:

They obviously thought better of giving it out in the terrace.

Cos we're living in fear of the terrace

The_Minister

panda100 wrote:

What was written in this paper?
They obviously thought better of giving it out in the terrace.

The guy who handed it to me flew by, practically threw it at me, I'd say they wanted to get out as many as possible without getting caught.

fish-head

Ah Yewt Defednse... pack-o-tossrags.

tintinr35

love it they make this grand bit statement and dont have the balls to stand behind it......typical

Red Alert

We're getting very hot under the collar about it aren't we?

pretty*monster

I could have (grudgingly) admired the gesture if the mock paper had been done with an ounce of style or real wit, but as it stood the whole thing was so bad, and made pro-lifers look so stupid I was half-tempted to believe it was a false flag operation.

Might not be too difficult to prove what group was responsible for the stunt though, the newsletter was obviously printed professionally and there’s only so many companies that could have done it.

the evil lime

I wish I could have seen a copy of that...

Garret

i thought it actually was the observer:p

granted i read the headline and put it down

but boy am i scarleh now:D

The_Minister

the evil lime wrote:

I wish I could have seen a copy of that...

I have one in my locker (keeping it for someone) so ask me if you see me and I'll show you.

elmyra

What I thought was best about it was that it was wrong....that thing on the back page about 'top ten reasons to like unborn babies' or whatever...no. 1 being that they have no rights...when in fact they do. The right to life, if I'm not mistaken, at least in this country. Whoopsies, YD, not so clever...

Garret

elmyra wrote:

What I thought was best about it was that it was wrong....that thing on the back page about 'top ten reasons to like unborn babies' or whatever...no. 1 being that they have no rights...when in fact they do. The right to life, if I'm not mistaken, at least in this country. Whoopsies, YD, not so clever...

i always thought that the problem was that the constitution does not define at what point something becomes a human being and thus gets all those rights



maybe im wrong

dirtydress

I found one outside 911 last night, I thought it was just ridiculous. Rather than officially complain to the paper about the article they decide to resort to childish name-calling in this ridiculous "publication". YD should be extremely ashamed, they've completely let down their entire organisation and now look like a big farce. Join me as we point and laugh at their sorry, cowardice asses.

Sangre

The problem is when the rights of the mother and the unborn child conflict and question arises of which should take precedent.

There obviously needs to be rights to have a conflict in the first place.

ferdi

Red Alert wrote:

We're getting very hot under the collar about it aren't we?

we sure are. wonder why that is;)

Garret

Sangre wrote:

The problem is when the rights of the mother and the unborn child conflict and question arises of which should take precedent.

There obviously needs to be rights to have a conflict in the first place.

ahh coolies;)

Raphael

Tbh I thought it was better than the observer normally is. Twas laminated, kept the rain off better.

singingstranger

Garret wrote:

i always thought that the problem was that the constitution does not define at what point something becomes a human being and thus gets all those rights

Isn't that case about the seperated couple, the woman of which wanted to use the man's frozen sperm to undergo IVF, still in the High Court trying to wrangle that point out?

Also, doesn't the first reason in the Top 10 Reasons thing Elmyra mentioned seem a bit satirical, rather than just stupid?

FionnMatthew

This stunt proves one thing for me.

YD are not a serious pro-life outfit. They are a defamation outfit, an organisation motivated simply by hatred for the pro-choice lobby, and for anyone they see as connected with it.

The fake Observer was not a pro-life pamphlet, but an expensive, time-consuming hate-mail campaign. It does nothing with respect to the abortion debate; it merely calls names and blows raspberries in the most juvenile way possible.

Pro-life politics are merely an excuse for YD to make character slurs against the opponents of the real pro-life lobby.

If it weren't abortion, it'd be something else. They are not fighting for the lives of aborted foetuses. They do aborted children a greater injustice than pro-choice lobbyists supposedly do, by making them an equivocal motivation, using them as a mere pawn in the furtherance of their own goals. They are fighting for themselves, and they just want a scrap, to scratch, bite and sting as much as possible, to do as much damage as they can, on the way to the bottom of the barrel.

I think we should recognise the fake Observer for what it is; not another hard-hitting assault by one of the players in the abortion debate, but something which has little enough to do with abortion, which has more to do with a facile, arbitrary vendetta between a group of people which let's face it, isn't that large.

It's like something out of the Beano. The Toffs and the Geordies, with their banal history of inexplicable opponentship. It's comedy, without the funny part.