Savage bar attack leaves journalist terrified.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Wibbs wrote: »

No doubt it'll be made plain as both her and her co "journalist" and flatmate IIRC are quick to point lawyers at dissenters, or at least the amateur hour threat of them. I like how Broadsheet.ie respond. Clearly they can afford to respond in such a manner as sadly the solicitors letter attack is an all too easy way for people to quell dissent in this country due to the very real risk of expensive court cases even if you win.

Fair enough. I'm in a foreign jurisdiction, so I look froward to a letter. Or a camera shoved in my face...

Fuinseog

bluewolf wrote: »

That's so thick the whole thing

them are her words not mine.

Biggins

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

So admits knowing who he was but still asked if we kne who he was? Sweet Jesus, not naming him is one thing, but surely some idiot should have spotten the hole in the plot?
Couldn't read the article becaue the photo is too small - did she actually mention boards or politics.ie or say where the abuse came from?

She says social forums and Twitter on the internet. She is clever not to say exactly because god forbid someone might go to those exact locations and see the possible accurate criticisms she has gained.
...So she cleverly stayed away from naming them exactly.

One other thing, NOW she says she did not name the man for legal reasons - but she knew him, as she says herself "immediately"...
If thats the case and she did want to be open to a case of liable - why did she then have a photo of an 'unknown' and attach the title of "Notorious" to him - which in itself is casting aspurtions upon an exact photo supplied person without having to name him!

A person can be publicly ridiculed and slandered without their very name attached - an attached image of a very said person is enough to establish a case for liability.
This 'legal department reason' stinks to high heaven - as did her whole crappy original article.

The whole farce is a case of journalism at its worst.

Fuinseog

Grayson wrote: »

If I kept a camera in someone's face and taunted them, how long before they scream "get the **** away before I ****ing kill you" Or something along those lines.
So she claims to have been threatened. In the same piece she claimed not to be able to identify a developer. And in the same piece where she said she just happened to be in the same random bar.

Honestly she's as bad as paparazzi who taunt celebrities to try and get an angry photo. It's not journalism and she shouldn't be lauded for it.

I don't like the guy she was photographing. I think he's scum. But she deliberately provoked him and is trying to claim she's the victim.

there was a letter in yesterdays sindo praising her so she has fans somewhere.

Fuinseog

Fuinseog wrote: »

them are her words not mine.

yeah of course, forgot to change the quote tag

Martyn1989

My name is URL wrote: »

I like how they appear to be unable to identify him yet got his weight spot on :rolleyes:

Noway that man is 16 stone, hes at least 18 stone

Pantsface

Thttp://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/anne-harris-double-blow-for-brave-reporter-under-attack-3203458.html


this gave me a great laugh this morning!!!

donvito99

crazygeryy wrote: »

Savage bar attack

Anyone else read it as Savage Bear attack?

BarackPyjama

Loving the repeated use of the words 'abuse', 'victim' and 'misogynistic' in the above article. Ironically, people who define themselves so vehemently as victims are, from my experience, some of the most abusive people there are.

Just because a lot of people dislike Niamh Horan, doesn't mean they hate all women. Most women aren't Niamh Horan. Thankfully.

Biggins

BarackPyjama wrote: »

...Just because a lot of people dislike Niamh Horan, doesn't mean they hate all women. Most women aren't Niamh Horan. Thankfully.

To be also fair to other females - most women (and men) could have written a better article than the piece of schite that was previously put on the front pages of the Sunday Indo!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

This is it: Whatever about the cicumstances and glossing over the fact that she started it, they simply can not defend the atrocious article that followed it. And THIS is the problem - the Sindo can not seem to understand (or do not want to understand) the fact how bad that the journalistic piece that thet ran.

They would save so much face if they just came out and said, "we will continue down the path of investigative jouanlism and tracking down criminals, but we apologize for lack of professinoalism and for publishing such flowery crap. It won't happen again."

bonzos

I refuse to buy a paper which employs Willie O Dea and Celia Larkin! The likes of these people and their friends have done enough damage to our country. They are only in the papers for their own interests.

Q_Ball

Pantsface wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/anne-harris-double-blow-for-brave-reporter-under-attack-3203458.html


this gave me a great laugh this morning!!!

Why did I give that page my hit

Biggins

She at it again - this time making the Quinns out as pure innocent and repeating Quinns claims that the "authorities" is bugging them and tailing them.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/quinns-united-on-visit-to-jail-3216974.html#disqus_thread

They must be short of reporters at the Indo.
All the stories the have on their webpage front page, four of them in bold show her name.
Is someone at the Indo trying to improve her credentials by sticking her name under so many headlines in one day?

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/3949/capturewai.jpg

John_Rambo

Biggins wrote: »

She at it again - this time making the Quinns out as pure innocent and repeating Quinns claims that the "authorities" is bugging them and tailing them

Seems like a normal mundane report on the ongoing Quinn saga, I wouldn't be a fan of the Quinns and their carry on and I don't see any support for them in that article. I think your dislike for the journalist is fogging your mind Biggins!

Biggins

John_Rambo wrote: »

Seems like a normal mundane report on the ongoing Quinn saga, I wouldn't be a fan of the Quinns and their carry on and I don't see any support for them in that article. I think your dislike for the journalist is fogging your mind Biggins!

Its a fair comment but again by journalistic standards, while bringing their side of the story, there is not much equal balance in it.
She don't bother her backside to explain how they continuously broke the law, even in summary detail, just that they seemingly are just victims.