Broadsheet.ie & IT deleting articles relating to Kate's death

AnonoBoy

hardCopy wrote: »

I thought the original article made it quite clear that they knew she was suffering from depression

It did seem that way alright.

bijapos

Terry Prone and her family are imo essentially nothing more than paid media whores, they will back anyone up, push any policy, change any camp just for a few quid. Prone has worked for FF, PD's, Labour and FG several times over the years, has gladly spouted lies, spin (essentially political lies) innsinuations and innuendo to further whatever her clients want.

She was/is closely connected to Haughey, Reynolds, Ahern, Fitxgerald, Spring, Bruton and now Kenny. I gave up on her years ago, no substance and as a poster said earlier neither she nor her family have contributed anything meaningful to this country, if anything they have made it worse.

Bertie has her to be thankful for, it was only after she dealt with him that he got the sharp suits and the sharp haircut.

Her former company was Carr Communications:

Irish Examiner 15.06.1998
TDs thank Carr for gift of media gab

by Seán McCárthaigh
THE company that put the silver spoon in the mouths of many of the country's best-known politicians yesterday marked its own silver anniversary.
Carr Communications, the famous grooming school for TDs, celebrated 25 years in business by opening its new headquarters at the Communications Centre in Blackrock, Co Dublin.
On hand to perform the official ceremony was one of its most famous pupils — an Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern.
Other guests, indeed clients, included EU Commissioner Pádraig Flynn, Environment Minister Noel Dempsey, MEP Mary Bannotti and former Taoiseach Dr Garret Fitzgerald.
Although he was never advised by the company to lose the anorak, the Taoiseach admitted that it was with severe reservations that he first visited Carr for media training. "I expected that they would want to transform me into something false, an imitation of some model communicator," said Mr Ahern.
However, according to the Taoiseach, he soon realised that Carr Communications taught people to be the best version of themselves.
"They don't put words in our mouth — they just push you to find the most interesting way to say what you want to say.
"That sounds simple, but it isn't. Particularly when what you have to say might be dangerous if misunderstood," said Mr Ahern as several heads nodded in agreement.
The company which was established by former Quicksilver presenter Bunny Carr, pioneered media training in Ireland and it quickly earned the reputation for being the first port of call for politicians anxious to polish up on their TV and radio performances.
Yesterday's ceremony saw Carr completing his career full circle as the company's new premises are in the refurbished building where he began his media work with the Catholic Communication Centre.
He recalled that when he established Carr Communications it seemed "a foolhardy and grossly unstrategic decision."

AnonoBoy

bijapos wrote: »

Terry Prone and her family are imo essentially nothing more than paid media whores, they will back anyone up, push any policy, change any camp just for a few quid. Prone has worked for FF, PD's, Labour and FG several times over the years, has gladly spouted lies, spin (essentially political lies) innsinuations and innuendo to further whatever her clients want.

Couldn't the above apply to any PR company?

Corruptable

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Couldn't the above apply to any PR company?

Or any:

• Solicitor
• Doctor (apart from Conrad Murray)
• Accountant
• Hit man

seeing_ie

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Couldn't the above apply to any PR company?

Don't know of any other PR company where:

Father of a family is managing director, mother and son directors.
Father is also Chairman of the State Broadcasting Authority.
Mother works in the media, also advises politicians on how to manage
the media.
Son also works in the media, and advises head of state (among
others) on how to manage the media. Son also interviews politicians. We don't know what politicians are clients of his.

The conflicts of interest are staggering.

On a basic level, is there no other journalist, whose mother isn't Terry Prone, or who didn't go to Belvedere college, that applied for the jobs Anton got?

Why PR companies like TCC won’t ever own the Interwebs.

AnonoBoy

seeing_ie wrote: »

Don't know of any other PR company where:

I just meant that most PR companies aren't exactly paradigms of virtue. They'll do whatever the money tells them to.

Kimia

There is no credibility in the Irish media, in particular - RTE (:rolleyes:), Indo and the Irish Times. It's all half truths & selective nonsense build on a foundation of nepotism and corruption.

Amalgam

PR companies operate best in a vacuum, with no resistance.. They shouldn't really have that much power or influence, in a healthy society.

Fair play to broadsheet.ie for just posting what was originally submitted, by a person who is sadly, now deceased.

I can't reach the site now, which seems a tad ominous..

Kimia

Amalgam wrote: »

PR companies operate best in a vacuum, with no resistance.. They shouldn't really have that much power or influence, in a healthy society.

Fair play to broadsheet.ie for just posting what was originally submitted, by a person who is sadly, now deceased.

I can't reach the site now, which seems a tad ominous..

Me neither!! hmmmm

mikom

I can.

Sooopie

Good on the Metro - Piece on the whole debacle this morning - and it named & shamed said PR company

Pdfile

dav3 wrote: »

Fair play to broadsheet.ie. Disgraceful and disgusting behavior from that PR company. A company, who in my own opinion has contributed nothing positive to this country.

do any PR company do anything positive really ?? :rolleyes:

The Sparrow

Sooopie wrote: »

Good on the Metro - Piece on the whole debacle this morning - and it named & shamed said PR company

Anyone got a link? Fair play to the Metro!

The Sparrow

Update from Broadsheet.ie

It is now six days since the Irish Times’ article about Kate Fitzgerald, who took her own life in August.

To recap. The piece did not mention her employer The Communications Clinic. It did however refer to Kate’s original article (which was available on the Irish Times website), written anonymously, where she made a number of allegations against the company.

On Monday, after we posted that Kate had worked for The Communications Clinic (alongside a July employment tribunal hearing report about a employee alleging bullying and intimidation at the company), Kate’s article which had been on the paper’s website since September 9 was edited without any explanation

The paragraphs that contained the claims against her employer were removed. In fact so clumsy was the editing it appeared that she had no issues with The Communications Clinic. Kate’s parents were not told in advance that this was happening.

Following a warning that we were facing a ‘libel landmine” (see previous post, link below) and after taking our own legal advice, we took our posts down.

On Tuesday we received an email from The Irish Times online editor Hugh Linehan which asked:

“Was wondering why you took down that post. Was pressure applied?”

We replied that we had received a late night warning and added:

“This was to be expected but [we] noticed you guys had pulled extracts from Kate’s original piece (referring to her employer) presumably on legal advice (?) and became anxious as our posts were based on that piece. [we] spoke with a barrister friend at about 1am who advised us to remove the two posts about Kate.”

We said that we had tried to get contact details for Peter Murtagh, the author of Saturday’s article, but it had been too late. Mr Linehan sent us Peter Murtagh’s phone number and email.

The conversation we had with Mr Murtagh was off the record but on Wednesday morning when, following a conversation with Kate’s parents, we published our article about the editing of Kate’s article we received an email from Peter Murtagh asking to contact him “urgently” about “refs to us [Irish Times] that are incorrect”.

He told us that the The Irish Times did not edit Kate’s article because of a threat of legal action from The Communications Clinic (as was our understanding based on our conversation) but on legal advice from the paper’s own lawyer(s).

When we asked Mr Murtagh if the Irish Times had acted solely on its own volition he said that The Communications Clinic had been in touch “with the paper” and had “registered its unhappiness” about the allegations contained in Kate’s original article.

Much about this story doesn’t make sense but this sounded especially odd as the paper regularly offers a right of reply to people who feel they have been misrepresented.

Also, to have edited an article that had been the author’s last words – described by her mother as Kate’s “suicide note” – on the basis of someone’s “unhappiness” as opposed to a substantial legal threat simply beggared belief.

However, we amended our post to reflect the clarification from Mr Murtagh.

What we know is that Kate wrote an anonymous article about attitudes by employers towards people with depression. That she was dead before that article was published in The Irish Times. We know that Peter Murtagh was contacted by Kate’s father Tom Fitzgerald, who confirmed his daughter was the author.

And that her article alleged wrongdoing at The Communications Clinic, a company that a month earlier had faced accusations of bullying and intimidation by another young worker.

And then. Nothing.

If this had happened in a local branch of Tesco you might expect a newspaper such as the Irish Times, would investigate.

It is very possible that Mr Murtagh, in his article on Saturday – three month’s after Kate’s death – included her claims about the difficulties at her workplace in his article and it was removed on legal advice during the subbing process.

But if there were concerns why did Kate’s article, in its original form with the allegations, remain on the paper’s website site until Monday before it was, in her mother’s words, “butchered”?

We know from talking with Kate’s parents that Mr Murtagh has acted in their interest and has helped to raise the issues surrounding depression and mental illness that she attempted to put into the public domain. We do not know Mr Murtagh. But he is known as a journalist of the highest integrity and in a tough, often unpleasant industry, is extremely popular and respected.

On Wednesday night we were told and it has since been confirmed to us that Peter Murtagh has had a professional relationship going back more than 25 years with Terry Prone, owner of The Communications Clinic. We were surprised that Mr Murtagh had not told us about this. Particularly as we had spoken candidly with him of our fears (real or imagined) and those of Kate’s mother about the influence and reach of The Communications Cinic within political and media circles in Ireland and that we had mentioned Terry Prone by name.

But we also realise that many journalists on most national newspapers know Ms Prone. It would be perhaps more unusual if Mr Murtagh did not know Terry Prone. We also understand that the Communications Clinic was unaware that Saturday’s article about Kate was about to appear.

But it is a question of transparency or, as media training consultants call it, the ‘optics’. Mr Murtagh wrote in some detail about Kate’s working life. The article did not mention her time at the Communications Clinic. Peter Murtagh is a friend of one of the owners of that company. Perhaps it should have been left to another journalist to cover that important area of Kate’s life? We asked Mr Murtagh yesterday morning on the record about Ms Prone but he said he did not wish to speak to us anymore.

The Irish Times is a newspaper with a record of demanding extremely high standards from others. Certainly standards this website regularly fails to reach.

This was Kate Kitzgerald’s version of Kate Fitzgerald’s life and it was altered and revised by the paper that she went to for help.

Why?

seeing_ie

Crusading journalism by Broadsheet.

The question is what is the *exact* nature of the “professional relationship” between Peter Murtagh and Terry Prone?

How many other journalists in Ireland have a “professional relationship” with Terry Prone or the Communications Clinic?

If other “professional relationships” are discovered, should previous articles be examined for bias?

grizzly

I imagine this will get buried very fast. Will be surprised if this thread will still be on the boards servers in a few months. In my mind Anton Savage's grin has just been downgraded to shít eating.

splitrmx

Any easy way for the average joe to save a whole thread himself apart from taking a ton of screenshots?

Dionysus

This Broadsheet.ie seems to be very impressive, comparatively very courageous, here. The entire Savage/Prone spindoctor machine has always been ugly. And fair play to the posters here who have outlined its incestuous relationship with RTÉ, the Irish media generally and most of the political parties. Their attempt to kill this story is stupidity on an extraordinary scale, but not surprising. The Irish Times editing of the final letter of a deceased person is shocking and should lead to resignations.

But who owns and is the principal editor of Broadsheet.ie? I can't find any 'About' section on their website, which is not exactly transparent.

SEPT 23 1989

grizzly wrote: »

I imagine this will get buried very fast. Will be surprised if this thread will still be on the boards servers in a few months. In my mind Anton Savage's grin has just been downgraded to shít eating.

I hope the owners of this site dont do that

seeing_ie

Dionysus wrote: »

This Broadsheet.ie seems to be very impressive, comparatively very courageous, here. The entire Savage/Prone spindoctor machine has always been ugly. And fair play to the posters here who have outlined its incestuous relationship with RTÉ, the Irish media generally and most of the political parties. Their attempt to kill this story is stupidity on an extraordinary scale, but not surprising. The Irish Times editing of the final letter of a deceased person is shocking and should lead to resignations.

But who owns and is the principal editor of Broadsheet.ie? I can't find any 'About' section on their website, which is not exactly transparent.

Very good question it has to be said.

I recognise some of the contributors' names. Some are/were bloggers I think. Was John Ryan involved with "Blogorrah" back in the day?
I loved that blog. Very funny.

splitrmx

Metro article: http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/5894/metroarticle.png

strobe

Dionysus wrote: »

This Broadsheet.ie seems to be very impressive, comparatively very courageous, here. The entire Savage/Prone spindoctor machine has always been ugly. And fair play to the posters here who have outlined its incestuous relationship with RTÉ, the Irish media generally and most of the political parties. Their attempt to kill this story is stupidity on an extraordinary scale, but not surprising. The Irish Times editing of the final letter of a deceased person is shocking and should lead to resignations.

But who owns and is the principal editor of Broadsheet.ie? I can't find any 'About' section on their website, which is not exactly transparent.

seeing_ie wrote: »

Very good question it has to be said.

I recognise some of the contributors' names. Some are/were bloggers I think. Was John Ryan involved with "Blogorrah" back in the day?
I loved that blog. Very funny.

http://www.broadsheet.ie.ipaddress.com/

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/magazine/2010/0807/1224276105588.html

Anyone have an Irish Times subscription and want to screen shot or transcribe the above Q&A with John Ryan for the rest of us?

Edit: Here's a brief 'Independent' article.
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/john-ryan-is-back-with-the-mutant-child-of-blogorrah-2199699.html

Johnny Handsome is back.

After Stars On Sunday, The New York Dog and RTE sitcom This Is Nightlive, The Diary can exclusively reveal that former publisher John Ryan, right, is back in Ireland and working on a new media project.

Having spent much of the last year overseas penning his autobiography, the rover is now based in Kinsale, west Cork, and about to launch a new website which he claimed would be a successor to his former satirical website Blogorrah.

Called Broadsheet, the 36-year-old described his new project due to go online shortly as "the mutant child of Blogorrah", which he said would feature many of his website's former writers.

"I got the idea from being back in Ireland the last few months and seeing nothing on TV or radio which represented my view. I want this Broadsheet to take over where Bloggorah left off so I'm getting a lot of the guys back from my old website involved. It's like reforming the band," Ryan told The Diary.

But like just before This Is Nightlive aired, when Ryan told me that he expected to be "taken out the back and given a good kicking", he said that he anticipated more of the same treatment this time around.

Ryan joked: "As alcoholics say, I think I have a drink in me but maybe not a recovery. Publicity is usually a poisoned chalice."

However, cynics should remember this is the same man who founded goldmine VIP magazine and TV Now before selling out his stake to fellow founder Michael O'Doherty.

Ryan certainly still has plenty of friends in the Irish media, given how warmly he was received at last weekend's TV Now Awards ceremony.

He said he remains immensely proud of his sitcom This Is Nightlive, whose best ticker-tape gag was surely: "Katie Melua admits she may have been wrong about the number of bicycles in Beijing."

Welcome back, John. It's been dull without you around.

...and contributing to a Podcast on journalism, where the media will be in ten years, etc.
http://www.mixcloud.com/banter/banter016-publishing-2020/

RachaelVO

I have to say the more I see of this, the more it's making my blood boil!

I have just read the latest broadsheet article
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/12/02/the-irish-times-and-kate-fitzgerald/

I won't quote the article as it's already linked an quoted a page or two back.

I know I said this in an earlier post, but maybe it merits repeating. I have never rated Terry Prone very highly, but I never really had a problem with Anton Savage, I have to be honest and say that I always found him really rather inoffensive. Can't say that I'll be watching or listening to him again.

Makes ya wonder though, how he has managed to get the high profile jobs like filling in for Ray Darcy (I always thought he was alright doing that). Then the Sunday radio show, and then the Apprentice You're fired... On his own merits? Does that even look likely after you join all the dots of connections.

My heart goes out to Kates family, the grief they have already been made to suffer is being compounded by the Times and The Communication Clinic.

Would it be accurate to think, that if the IT hadn't done any editing to the original piece, and if the CC had actually just released a statement of condolences to her family and said that they would look into the content of her piece this wouldn't have blown up the way it has. I now the PR industry is pretty cut throat, but all this makes me think it must be the worst industry imaginable to work in!

Someone needs a good b1tch slapping, when it does happen I hope they sell tickets, I know I'd buy one!

AnonoBoy

Sean Moncrieff covered this today on Newstalk did he not? Anyone hear it?

seeing_ie

Missed it.

He should have said on #katefitzgerald that he was going to talk about it.

Somehow I doubt he covered any connection to the communications clinic, or the wider issues involved.
Sean has an expensive mortgage in Howth to think about.
He's no different to many in the small pond of Ireland's media.
The small pond in which the media/political/business establishment socialise together. Very hard to conduct a hard-hitting interview in the public interest with someone you see across the horseshoe bar.
If they rock the boat, media work opportunities will mysteriously dry up.

There are so many issues bound up in this tragic death, for me.

Suicide, depression, (alleged) workplace bullying, nepotism, and the PR facilitators that contrive with our media/political/business establishment and bullshjt us to look after each other at the expense of those "outside the tent."
Those who didn't go to the right school to "develop the right connections".
Those who don't have the right accent.
Those whose mammy isn't Terry Prone.

This generation deserves a fresh start.
We’ll be paying for the corruption of the last for long enough.

RayM

The Irish Times has apologised....

And in doing so, they have basically accused Kate FitzGerald of being a liar.

El Weirdo

RayM wrote: »

The Irish Times has apologised....

And in doing so, they have basically accused Kate FitzGerald of being a liar.

Jesus Christ.

The Irish Times wrote:

No legal representation was made to us on this matter.

"... but our mates in TCC asked us to help them out so we duly obliged."

strobe

RayM wrote: »

The Irish Times has apologised....

And in doing so, they have basically accused Kate FitzGerald of being a liar.

Ugghh...

Don't say what was 'not factual' IT. That would leave you open to all kinds of come backs, wouldn't it? Ambiguity, that's the word. The 'journalist' kevlar...

johnny_ultimate

The plot certainly thickens. Again, I can only admire broadsheet (thus far a website I only really went onto for lighthearted chuckles about the Dylan Haskins elections campaign) for putting themselves on the line to report such things.

No doubt libel laws are there for good reason (RTE need to be kept in check after all) but its also vital for journalists to be able to tackle risky subjects like this when there's justification.

RayM

Just because you can print pretty much whatever you like about somebody when they're dead, without fear of legal recourse, it doesn't mean that you should. Even if the reputation of your mates in the PR industry is on the line.

This whole thing stinks.

WoollyRedHat

Since when did The Communications Clinic word become gospel? That's what it comes across as... Irish times have been told that points made in that article are infactual, but yet fail to elaborate, leaving the reader to just accept it as it is. A load of bull**** tbh and an insult to both Kate and the Irish Times readership

El Weirdo

I'd wager that the phrase, "You can't libel the dead" was uttered at least once in Tara Street yesterday.

strobe

“The theory of the free press is not that the truth will be presented completely or perfectly in any one instance, but that the truth will emerge from free discussion."

As admittedly clichéd as the sentiment is becoming, let me just say, thank fuck for the internet.

Dionysus

Just caught the apology from The Irish Times in this morning's edition:

---

The Communications Clinic

An article was published in the edition of September 9th last in which the anonymous author detailed a personal history of depression.

That article included allegations that friends and her employer, none of whom was identified, had let the author down as she struggled with her illness. Since then we have learned that significant assertions within the original piece were not factual. It is clear that their publication was significantly damaging to the staff and management of her employer, the Communications Clinic. This was not intended and we apologise for it. The Irish Times fully acknowledges the bona fides of the Communications Clinic in this regard. No legal representation was made to us on this matter.

---

Prone, that spindoctor parasite on our taxes and our democratic system, has triumphed. For now. Let's all make it our business to remember this stunt, what in effect amounts to calling a woman who is no longer able to defend herself a liar and attempting to sully her reputation in the process. The implicit "she had mental illness" "she wasn't right in the head" attack on this deceased lady's character is shameful. Even this Irish Times apology which Prone and The Irish Times agreed basically calls Kate Fitzgerald a liar: "Since then we have learned that significant assertions within the original piece were not factual." The cowardice of that paper, a paper which has been bought in my home all my life, is breathtaking.

No amount of spinning by Terry Prone, Tom Savage or Anton Savage can take away from the thuggish behaviour of these so-called "public relations consultants". Next time we hear any of them on radio or television, may we all remember their nepotism, the money and mouthpiece they are given by RTÉ and Irish political parties, and their graceless, cowardly and machiavellian behaviour in the case of Kate Fitzgerald. Oppose them everywhere, and their abuse of power. Remind people of this story. Remember their string-pulling, and remember the behaviour of Irish Times journalists like Peter Murtagh, a friend of Prone & Savage, in this saga. The undeclared conflicts of interest everywhere were extraordinary.

As for The Irish Times, their behaviour in editing the writing of a now deceased person is despicable, the sort of thing one would expect from The Sunday Independent. Irish Times editor, Kevin O'Sullivan, this cowardly and spineless deed will be remembered by many for a long time.

sureitsgrand

Sickened.

Don't know what else to say...

RIP Kate.

expectationlost

peter murtagh messed up he should have foreseen this problem when he was writing the follow up article last week, changing the previous article from anonymous to specific, he didn't anyone a favour by printing the follow up

its all peter murtagh's fault

midlandsmissus

Poor Peter Murtagh, Id say he'll be sweating it. When he wrote a moving piece dedicated to her. Why should the Irish Times have to apologise?This is in fact a huge breakthrough media case where we for once get to see what goes on behind the scenes: the broadsheet bravely publishing exactly what happened: getting legal advice to pull the articles, detailing the content of the email from IT asking Broadsheet why they pulled their articles,(no doubt starting to worry that there was pressure out there and they would be next in the firing line), the threatening voicemail, the illegal erasing of said voicemail, the subsequent conversation with Peter Murtagh who was no doubt under pressure and then reinstating the articles. Very brave reporting on a level I dont think seen In Ireland before.

beks101

I just feel sick to be honest.

I and many of my friends knew Kate, and felt the enormity of her loss once again on reading Peter Murtagh's article last week. It brought her original anonymous article to my attention - I missed it the first time around - and her eloquence, intelligence, talent and the magnificent power and strength of her voice as a writer...made it once again so hard to believe that she's actually gone. She truly had so much to say, so much to give.

That letter was so important, and I really wish that her message could become the focus of all of this once again, because really, all these other issues just pale in significance to the fact that no-one is immune to depression, anyone can be prone to suicide and it's beyond time for a serious discussion and far more importantly - ACTION, maybe legislative changes, new policies, educational measures, whatever it takes - when it comes to the treatment of mental illness in the workplace. That anyone can be made to feel ashamed, embarrassed, a disappointment, an outcast in their place of work, because of their mental struggles, is just disgusting beyond words and so obviously very dangerous. So obviously a matter of life and death.

The IT has played its part in stigmatising this taboo subject once again, by essentially libeling someone who struggled with a mental illness by calling her a liar when she has no means to defend herself. And the CC will forever have blood on its hands over its ruthless and completely transparent way of exercising damage control.

Rest in Peace Kate x

Sooopie

RayM wrote: »

The Irish Times has apologised....

And in doing so, they have basically accused Kate FitzGerald of being a liar.

Disgraceful.

Those Savage's are bullies.

Dotsie~tmp

El Weirdo wrote: »

I'd wager that the phrase, "You can't libel the dead" was uttered at least once in Tara Street yesterday.

Not doubt "you cant criticise the dead" seems to apply to this thread too. There are two sides to every story. An employee unable to carry out their duties past short absenses for ilness should be terminated. No doubt this will leave the employee bitter. Its not the public service and there is no infinite well of money to put people on leave indefinitely. You need to run a small business to realise how the paid absense or deriliction of an employee can sink you quickly.

People who commit suicide arent victims. They leave victims though. Rage on, no doubt.

Sooopie

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Not doubt "you cant criticise the dead" seems to apply to this thread too. There are two sides to every story. An employee unable to carry out their duties past short absenses for ilness should be terminated. No doubt this will leave the employee bitter. Its not the public service and there is no infinite well of money to put people on leave indefinitely. You need to run a small business to realise how the paid absense or deriliction of an employee can sink you quickly.

People who commit suicide arent victims. They leave victims though. Rage on, no doubt.[/QUOTE]

Aren't you a wonderful, lovely person.

El Weirdo

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Not doubt "you cant criticise the dead" seems to apply to this thread too. There are two sides to every story. An employee unable to carry out their duties past short absenses for ilness should be terminated. No doubt this will leave the employee bitter. Its not the public service and there is no infinite well of money to put people on leave indefinitely. You need to run a small business to realise how the paid absense or deriliction of an employee can sink you quickly.

People who commit suicide arent victims. They leave victims though. Rage on, no doubt.

You be sure to stay classy there.

Fuck cancer sufferers too, eh?

desertcircus

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Not doubt "you cant criticise the dead" seems to apply to this thread too. There are two sides to every story. An employee unable to carry out their duties past short absenses for ilness should be terminated. No doubt this will leave the employee bitter. Its not the public service and there is no infinite well of money to put people on leave indefinitely. You need to run a small business to realise how the paid absense or deriliction of an employee can sink you quickly.

People who commit suicide arent victims. They leave victims though. Rage on, no doubt.

I'd leave an ironic reaction, but I'm not in the mood for irony. People with mental health issues aren't simply being lazy, no more than someone going through chemotherapy is just being lazy in not turning up for work. If you have an issue with people not losing their jobs over getting sick (because let's face it, you did nothing to differentiate between mental and physical health issues) then be honest and write about that. But that's not what this is about; this is about someone who was treated in a way someone with an obvious physical illness wouldn't have been. Have the courage of your convictions and tell us why companies should be allowed to fire people for something they have absolutely no control over. And while you're at it, take a swing at seeing what kind of effect a law like that would have on the economy.

"People who commit suicide aren't victims" - given that you self-evidently haven't committed suicide, would you care to explain how you arrived at this conclusion without backing it up with anything?

stringy

I know and knew of all of the parties involved. What frustrates me is that everyone here is assuming they knew all of the facts, when in fact no one, if even a minute few, knew exactly what was going on. It's irresponsible of a paper to publish something when they only know half the story, it's also irresponsible for them trying to back out of something they got themselves deep into. ALL parties here are being libelled. It's an awful story that has materialised. Whether you like or dislike someone for what they work hard at, does not or should not give people the power to damage a person's reputation.

A poor girl has died and people are looking to blame someone. A lot of time there is no one to blame, it's a disease, it's a medical condition. People can often have everything and still remain infinitely unhappy.

Making blind accusations on staff of TCC, based on previous personal prejudices is unjust. Historically jury members found people guilty because of prior prejudice based on race, religion etc. Was that fair? No it wasn't. A person shouldn't be blamed for something, that has not been proved true, based on personal prejudices or dislikes.

The sad thing is that no one will ever know the truth, as the two sides of the story will never be told. An old woman told me a few weeks ago, there's three sides to every story - his side, her side and the truth.

If anything is to come of all this, is that depression is an illness, a debilitating illness, sadly still stigmatised in Ireland. The consequences for all concerned are destroying.

desertcircus

stringy wrote: »

Making blind accusations on staff of TCC, based on previous personal prejudices is unjust. Historically jury members found people guilty because of prior prejudice based on race, religion etc. Was that fair? No it wasn't. A person shouldn't be blamed for something, that has not been proved true, based on personal prejudices or dislikes.

But those accusations aren't blind. They're based on an article written by a now-deceased woman who avoided mentioning her employer, her own name, or her field of business - so there's absolutely no reason to assume Kate was telling untruths in what she wrote about her experience. They're also based on the fact that at the time of Kate's suicide, the Communications Clinic was already involved in a court battle with a former member of staff over allegations of bullying. We can't be absolutely certain the management of the company behaves in a certain way, but the assumptions being made are far from being based on "previous personal prejudices"; they're based on reasonably strong evidence.

El Weirdo

stringy wrote: »

A poor girl has died and people are looking to blame someone. A lot of time there is no one to blame, it's a disease, it's a medical condition. People can often have everything and still remain infinitely unhappy.

I don't think people are blaming TCC for Kate's death, but they are more concerned by the treatment that she seems to have received from them when she was ill.

stringy wrote: »

The sad thing is that no one will ever know the truth, as the two sides of the story will never be told.

TCC seem to be doing their darnedest to ensure that.

stringy

desertcircus wrote: »

But those accusations aren't blind. They're based on an article written by a now-deceased woman who avoided mentioning her employer, her own name, or her field of business - so there's absolutely no reason to assume Kate was telling untruths in what she wrote about her experience. They're also based on the fact that at the time of Kate's suicide, the Communications Clinic was already involved in a court battle with a former member of staff over allegations of bullying. We can't be absolutely certain the management of the company behaves in a certain way, but the assumptions being made are far from being based on "previous personal prejudices"; they're based on reasonably strong evidence.

I envisaged this response. Just because someone has previously been in court, doesn't make them guilty. It's a rule of law that prior convictions or charges cannot be given in evidence because it inevitably prejudices the accused, even if he/she has been found NOT guilty on previous occasions. The person accused in the previous hearing wasn't a manager or TP or AS, yet now people are blaming them for what another person allegedly did.

As for the anonymous assertions made, well it's difficult and impossible to see if they had any merit because the person making them is sadly no longer with us to justify or rescind them.

I guess my main point is, no one knows or will know the whole truth.

johnny_ultimate

Whatever about the truth of the accusations, it's the conflict of interest / relationship between the Times and CC that leaves the bitter taste concerning this whole affair. Makes it even harder to separate truth from lies.

desertcircus

stringy wrote: »

I envisaged this response. Just because someone has previously been in court, doesn't make them guilty. It's a rule of law that prior convictions or charges cannot be given in evidence because it inevitably prejudices the accused, even if he/she has been found NOT guilty on previous occasions. The person accused in the previous hearing wasn't a manager or TP or AS, yet now people are blaming them for what another person allegedly did.

As for the anonymous assertions made, well it's difficult and impossible to see if they had any merit because the person making them is sadly no longer with us to justify or rescind them.

I guess my main point is, no one knows or will know the whole truth.

But there's a world of difference between "no evidence whatsoever" and "fairly strong circumstantial evidence". This isn't a criminal trial, and nobody is at risk of being sent to jail, so the rules of evidence as they apply in criminal trials (which are substantively different to the rules of evidence in civil cases) aren't relevant. This is about whether there's enough evidence for people to make a judgment call about what they perceive to be the apparent behaviour of the Communications Clinic, and to be honest, there is enough.

As for the assertions, it's impossible to know beyond all reasonable doubt if they were merited. But it's not impossible by a long shot to deduce that it's unlikely that someone would make up untrue claims about their workplace then disguise their identity, disguise their employer's identity and disguise what they do for a living. Surely if you're spreading lies about someone, an anonymous article that doesn't mention the person, what they do, or the other party involved is a pretty bad way of doing it?

HellFireClub

stringy wrote: »

I envisaged this response. Just because someone has previously been in court, doesn't make them guilty. It's a rule of law that prior convictions or charges cannot be given in evidence because it inevitably prejudices the accused, even if he/she has been found NOT guilty on previous occasions. The person accused in the previous hearing wasn't a manager or TP or AS, yet now people are blaming them for what another person allegedly did.

As for the anonymous assertions made, well it's difficult and impossible to see if they had any merit because the person making them is sadly no longer with us to justify or rescind them.

I guess my main point is, no one knows or will know the whole truth.

The reason (in my opinion), that The Communications Clinic are being slated on here, is not because folks are necessarily blaming that organisation for the death of the author of this article. It's because of the clear attempts to deprive people like ourselves of the right to discuss this whole matter. Is it a matter of public importance that a young girl takes her own life, in the expressed belief that whatever inner problems that she was experiencing, that she believed in good faith that these problems were substantially added to by the subsequent undertakings of her employer???

I believe this is a public interest matter, and that we should be allowed to discuss it. I don't believe that the common good is best served here by the story being effectively terminated because the business interests of The Communications Clinic, would have been clearly best served, if the story had never made it into the papers to begin with.

Any legal resource who engages with The Communicatons Clinic for the purposes of attempting to further supress this matter, should be held to account by the rest of us who can see that there is a public interest matter here to be discussed, and the same should be said for The Irish Times.

It will all come out at the inquest anyway, and it'll be public information then, so I don't see the logic behind threatening legal action to keep information away from the public, or to attempt to deprive the public of a basis for discussion, etc.