Savage bar attack leaves journalist terrified.

Carazy

It was like reading a fifth class student's creative writing homework. One of the worst journalists that I think has graced the pages of a national newspaper. Childish and poorly written articles every week.

Darwin

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

In fairness it's something I'd expect to see gracing the front page of a tabloid, not a so called "proper journalistic" paper.

God you are completely deluded if you think the Independent/Gutter press is capable of producing any kind of balanced journalism to be taken seriously.

Boombastic

mikom wrote: »

But wait........ there's more....

That's better investigative journalism than the sindo article:pac:

Fulton Crown

BarackPyjama wrote: »

If you find yourself 'out on the street' I would imagine it's down to the fact that you're barely literate rather than because of some evil developer bogeyman.

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

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

woodoo

goose2005 wrote: »

They know he's Tom McFeely, the Sindo really hates Shinners and probably wanted to provoke him into going mad.

http://bocktherobber.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/90238610-200x200.jpg
http://i828.photobucket.com/albums/zz209/What_Goes_Up_/Japlandic/GodSaveTheQueen.jpg

Ex-IRA hunger striker who claimed British bankruptcy on failed Irish developments.

I don't know why they're pretending not to know, how could they know he was a notorious developer and yet not know who he was? Maybe so they can have a follow-up next week crediting "Internet sleuths."

Don't think he is on hunger strike anymore

Colmustard

I hate getting my photo taken myself but I would not lash out at anyone for doing so.

girl in the striped socks

Darwin wrote: »

girl in the striped socks wrote: »

In fairness it's something I'd expect to see gracing the front page of a tabloid, not a so called "proper journalistic" paper.

God you are completely deluded if you think the Independent/Gutter press is capable of producing any kind of balanced journalism to be taken seriously.

Which is why I posted "proper journalistic" paper.
Your sarcasm detector may be faulty.

Biggins

Darwin wrote: »

God you are completely deluded if you think the Independent/Gutter press is capable of producing any kind of balanced journalism to be taken seriously.

Thats why I always read The Catholic Press - God writes that - and he's always right!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

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: »

She suckin some Dudes cock over in Talbot street....is that what your insinuating ?

... Niamh...??

BarackPyjama

Colmustard wrote: »

I hate getting my photo taken myself but I would not lash out at anyone for doing so.

How would you react to your photo being taken without your consent by a complete stranger in a sinister manner? Lash out, maybe not, but I can tell you that if someone did it to me, there would be a struggle to retrieve/delete those photos. An absolutely disgusting violation of someone's privacy.

Fulton Crown

BarackPyjama wrote: »

How would you react to your photo being taken without your consent by a complete stranger in a sinister manner? Lash out, maybe not, but I can tell you that if someone did it to me, there would be a struggle to retrieve/delete those photos. An absolutely disgusting violation of someone's privacy.

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 ?

Pantsface

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 ?

hohoho

BarackPyjama

Pantsface wrote: »

hohoho

No need to quote him. He's on my ignore list for a reason!

Pantsface

BarackPyjama wrote: »

No need to quote him. He's on my ignore list for a reason!

my bad, sorry about that!

SHOVELLER

The indo is a tabloid.

Anybody who buys it is irretrievably stupid. Unfortunately there are a lot of stupid people in Ireland.

Pottler

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 ?

I preferred when you just wrote stuff about struggling to take a shit. Well, preferred is not really the right word. What's another word for "cared even less"?

Pantsface

Pottler wrote: »

I preferred when you just wrote stuff about struggling to take a shit. Well, preferred is not really the right word. What's another word for "cared even less"?

Link?


:pac:

Fulton Crown

Pottler wrote: »

I preferred when you just wrote stuff about struggling to take a shit. Well, preferred is not really the right word. What's another word for "cared even less"?

Your "point" pilgrim ?

Is clarity always such a difficult issue for you ?

Colmustard

BarackPyjama wrote: »

How would you react to your photo being taken without your consent by a complete stranger in a sinister manner? Lash out, maybe not, but I can tell you that if someone did it to me, there would be a struggle to retrieve/delete those photos. An absolutely disgusting violation of someone's privacy.

I agree but what can you do, it is the world we live in. It is not against the law to take anyones picture in a public place, but it is to hit them for doing so.

Pottler

Pantsface wrote: »

Link?


:pac:

The only link I can come up with is that they let him out of the secure facility every few weeks to see how he gets on. When he gets too carried away, they haul him back in.

h2005

BarackPyjama wrote: »

How would you react to your photo being taken without your consent by a complete stranger in a sinister manner? Lash out, maybe not, but I can tell you that if someone did it to me, there would be a struggle to retrieve/delete those photos. An absolutely disgusting violation of someone's privacy.

When you have done what that scumbag has done you should expect people to be looking to take your photo.

Biggins

Normally when one writes a newspaper article, you write about Who, What, Where, When, Why...

The Indo' article has:

No who its is!

No what they are "Notorious" about!

No where they have supposed to be trouble previously and/or for whom!

No when any trouble was caused by them!

...Or even why, the woman was in a bar taking his picture and by some amazing miracle able to find a "Notorious developer" - but not know his name!

Its just one reporters flowery version of something that supposedly happened in a Portuguese bar - and no proof to back it up!
Nothing to back anything up - of any detail about a supposedly "notorious" man!

We have to take everything at her word - which again lacks a rotten amount of details and verification!

JupiterKid

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 ?

Loving the casual homophobia thrown in there FultonCrown...not.

Pottler

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Your "point" pilgrim ?

Is clarity always such a difficult issue for you ?

You're so funny! I love the way you use the word "pilgrim" so much, it's really endearing, reminds me of another delusional John Wayne fan I used to know. He was a complete tosser though, not like you at all. I've really missed you here, it's just not the same without you buddy. Did the food get any better in there?

Fulton Crown

Pottler wrote: »

You're so funny! I love the way you use the word "pilgrim" so much, it's really endearing, reminds me of another delusional John Wayne fan I used to know. He was a complete tosser though, not like you at all. I've really missed you here, it's just not the same without you buddy. Did the food get any better in there?

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

Jimminy Mc Fukhead

I don't think you should be repeating the obviously bu1lsh1t language they use to gild this non story cr@p.

I'd associate the word 'savage' maybe with a rottweiler attack on a child's head. Something in that scale of assault.

I think it's fair to say this situation is a man becoming angry and remonstrative when an untalented, unintelligent and universally derided bint intrudes on a private social outing to try and harvest some of her gutter ****e.

Pantsface

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

I think he reckons you're a complete tosspot.

Pantsface

Jimminy Mc Fukhead wrote: »

I don't think you should be repeating the obviously bu1lsh1t language they use to gild this non story cr@p.

I'd associate the word 'savage' maybe with a rottweiler attack on a child's head. Something in that scale of assault.

I think it's fair to say this situation is a man becoming angry and remonstrative when an untalented, unintelligent and universally derided bint intrudes on a private social outing to try and harvest some of her gutter ****e.

dunno why this made me laugh

BarackPyjama

Colmustard wrote: »

I agree but what can you do, it is the world we live in. It is not against the law to take anyones picture in a public place, but it is to hit them for doing so.

What if it was a paedo taking a photo of your 6-year-old daughter in her swimwear on the beach? A pretty extreme hypothesis, I admit. However when it comes to issues of personal security and protecting your loved ones - well sometimes what the law says is and isn't acceptable doesn't really matter when our safety and security feel threatened.

Pottler

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

You cussed me good there Fulto. Stiff shoe, I like it. You're not that fat lad in the picture are you?

missingtime

Misread the title as Savage bear attack....

Disappointed.

Colmustard

BarackPyjama wrote: »

What if it was a paedo taking a photo of your 6-year-old daughter in her swimwear on the beach? A pretty extreme hypothesis, I admit. However when it comes to issues of personal security and protecting your loved ones - well sometimes what the law says is and isn't acceptable doesn't really matter when our safety and security feel threatened.

That is against the law, you are not allowed to take unauthorised photographs of children.

In France you are not allowed take anyones photo without their permission but not here.

mcmoustache

Pottler wrote: »

You're so funny! I love the way you use the word "pilgrim" so much, it's really endearing, reminds me of another delusional John Wayne fan I used to know. He was a complete tosser though, not like you at all. I've really missed you here, it's just not the same without you buddy. Did the food get any better in there?

Pilgrim == pal. If you remember the flutt you'll understand.

Personally, I'm glad that the flutt is still with us. While I wouldn't always agree with him, this place hasn't been the same since he left.

Grayson

missingtime wrote: »

Misread the title as Savage bear attack....

Disappointed.

I thought it was about a comedian who attacked a journalist.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

[QUOTE=Colmustard;79975604]That is against the law, you are not allowed to take unauthorised photographs of children.

In France you are not allowed take anyones photo without their permission but not here.[/QUOTE]

You sure about that? If the child is the focal point, maybe, but general shots I think it's a public place...

Colmustard

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You sure about that? If the child is the focal point, maybe, but general shots I think it's a public place...

I don't think a stranger can take a camera to a plat ground, but I am not sure now.

I hope its illegal.

BarackPyjama

Colmustard wrote: »

That is against the law, you are not allowed to take unauthorised photographs of children.

Do you have a source for that? I know that it's illegal to publish photos of children without parental consent but not to take them, as far as I'm aware.

Anyway, my point being that if I feel intimidated or that me or my loved ones are under threat, I will react. End of story.

To put it into context, Niamh Horan got exactly what she deserved for taking someone's photo without their consent. A good bloody scare. Maybe she'll think twice next time before being a completely f**king idiot. Although considering she seems to have made quite a career out of it, I very much doubt it.

Biggins

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/4746/p1170461b.jpg

This is supposed to be a news article?

Where is the news, the details of who, what, when, how or why?

It just reads like a novel story!

---

As regard the right of taking pictures: http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

John_Rambo

BarackPyjama wrote: »

An absolutely disgusting violation of someone's privacy.

He built apartments ignoring the safety, health and well being of his customers. He destroyed some peoples lives, put families lives at risk for a quick buck, took their money and legged it. A true darling corrupt developer of the celtic tiger. She took an opportunity and photographed him enjoying the spoils... and he didn't like it, he reacted like any bully would.

And you defend him after he tried to glass her?

Were you were delighted when Veronica Guerin was shot? Were you disgusted when Jim Gallagher exposed the house of prayer and the millions they took from elderly, sick and gullible people?

I know it's terribly fashionable to be anonymously anti-media. You seem to be popular because idiots thank your posts, but even if the article may not be very well written, you need your little moral internet compass adjusted barackpyjama.

mikom

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

And on it goes......

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

heh heh... total load of bollox.

Some attention seeking gimp has copped the publicity gained by acting like an idiot.




Don't tell me you are taken in by that crap?.

Use of "gimp"............check

Use of "gimp" in conjunction with ............check

Colmustard

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Do you have a source for that? I know that it's illegal to publish photos of children without parental consent but not to take them, as far as I'm aware.

Yeah you are right about that I am wrong.

But it is illegal to assault someone for taking a picture. How could you claim self defence a camera is not exactly a deadly weapon.

But I get your point I hate having my pic taken, but I realise there is nothing I can do about it.

BarackPyjama

John_Rambo wrote: »

He built apartments ignoring the safety, health and well being of his customers. He destroyed some peoples lives, put families lives at risk for a quick buck, took their money and legged it. A true darling corrupt developer of the celtic tiger. She took an opportunity and photographed him enjoying the spoils... and he didn't like it, he reacted like any bully would.

Yeah, I'm sure he's a scumbag. In fact, I said that he was a scumbag in one of my first posts. My point was that invading someone's privacy and violating them by taking their photo is also scumbag behaviour.

John_Rambo wrote: »

And you defend him after he tried to glass her?

Did I? Link/quote?

John_Rambo wrote: »

Were you were delighted when Veronica Guerin was shot?

Yeah, me and my friends threw a party to celebrate. You utter moron. :rolleyes:

John_Rambo wrote: »

I know it's terribly fashionable to be anonymously anti-media. You seem to be popular because idiots thank your posts, but even if the article may not be very well written, you need your little moral internet compass adjusted barackpyjama.

Why? I'm not anti-media - I'm anti-irresponsible/s**t media and I hate po-faced rag journos behaving like victims when they're actually aggressive bullies. If you want to see a scumbag bully, Niamh Horan isn't a million miles away from the people she vilifies.

John_Rambo

BarackPyjama wrote: »

My point was that invading someone's privacy and violating them by taking their photo is also scumbag behaviour

No, it's not really, he ripped a lot of decent honest people off, why you think someone taking his photograph enjoying overpriced drinks on holiday while families suffer because of his greed is "A absolutely disgusting violation" of his privacy is beyond me.

He doesn't deserve privacy enjoying the spoils of his dishonesty. He needs to pay his bills and be exposed for what he is.

Do you know him by any chance?

BarackPyjama

John_Rambo wrote: »

No, it's not really, he ripped a lot of decent honest people off, why you think someone taking his photograph enjoying overpriced drinks on holiday while families suffer because of his greed is "A absolutely disgusting violation" of his privacy is beyond me.

He doesn't deserve privacy enjoying the spoils of his dishonesty. He needs to pay his bills and be exposed for what he is.

Do you know him by any chance?

No. Were you ripped off by him by any chance?

I'm simply stating that, while he's obviously a scumbag, so are journalists who invade peoples' privacy. Is what Niamh Hogan did in the public interest? Did she manage this spectacular piece of journalism in a way that it will have a deeply negative impact on the guy? I think the answer to all these questions is no. Regardless of how hysterical, irrational and stupid this might make you.

John_Rambo

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Were you ripped off by him by any chance?.

No.

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Is what Niamh Hogan did in the public interest?

Yes.

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Did she manage this spectacular piece of journalism in a way that it will have a deeply negative impact on the guy?

Unlike you, I hope so.

BarackPyjama wrote: »

hysterical, irrational and stupid

You, you and you!

She faced up to a bully, and you don't like it! Is it because she's a girl?

BarackPyjama

John_Rambo wrote: »

No.



Yes.



Unlike you, I hope so.



You, you and you!

She faced up to a bully, and you don't like it! Is it because she's a girl?

You're an idiot. Ignore list.

Biggins

Had Niamh Hogan wrote a piece about this mysterious un-named man (but still was able enough to know him, to know he was notorious! Thats very strange!) and state for the article what he did, where he did it, when he did it, against who he did it or anything in that regard, her article might have been conducive to the public interest.

What we got was a small chapter from a novel, lacking much detail but very flowery about her adventures in a bar - and thats it!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

John_Rambo wrote: »

He built apartments ignoring the safety, health and well being of his customers. He destroyed some peoples lives, put families lives at risk for a quick buck, took their money and legged it. A true darling corrupt developer of the celtic tiger. She took an opportunity and photographed him enjoying the spoils... and he didn't like it, he reacted like any bully would.

And you defend him after he tried to glass her?

Were you were delighted when Veronica Guerin was shot? Were you disgusted when Jim Gallagher exposed the house of prayer and the millions they took from elderly, sick and gullible people?

I know it's terribly fashionable to be anonymously anti-media. You seem to be popular because idiots thank your posts, but even if the article may not be very well written, you need your little moral internet compass adjusted barackpyjama.

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?

Biggins wrote: »

Had Niamh Hogan wrote a piece about this mysterious un-named man (but still was able enough to know him, to know he was notorious! Thats very strange!) and state for the article what he did, where he did it, when he did it, against who he did it or anything in that regard, her article might have been conducive to the public interest.

What we got was a small chapter from a novel, lacking much detail but very flowery about her adventures in a bar - and thats it!

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

John_Rambo

BarackPyjama wrote: »

You're an idiot. Ignore list.

I guess some people don't like to be caught out defending a corrupt bully being caught out by a woman!

Jimminy Mc Fukhead

BarackPyjama wrote: »

No. Were you ripped off by him by any chance?
Is what Niamh Hogan did in the public interest?

Agree with that. Either our legal system can deal with people like him. Or it can't. You're only running away from the real issue by wanting to give a mandate to some retard to harass people she unilaterally decides are guilty.

To allow corruption in all levels of society. To make no consequential response to it. But then say, it's all ok because we have some tabloid retards who will mount an ugly invasion of someones private life and harass them. It's a poor substitute for justice. 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.