Irish Daily Star to shut?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seanchai wrote: »

I accept that. But she chooses that lifestyle. It is her choice. If she threw in the towel like the English guy in the 1930s and chose a private life she wouldn't have this problem. The problem seems to be that the British royal family had made deals with the British media about not doing this sort of thing, but they never made similar deals with foreign media. What is unacceptable in Britain is unacceptable simply because of her position in that society. To people outside that society, she is just another celebrity.

Personally, I think it would be a better world without tabloids or any journalists who are not public interest journalists. But until that changes exceptions should not be made for a "celebrity" for political reasons.

i don't make any distinctino between celebrity and royalty when it comes to tabloids, but this is the kind of **** that led to people getting killed in the mid ninties.

While you can harp on about who she is, you can not condone the creepy behaveiour of the journalists: either taking a picture of someone topless and publishing it is illegal or immoral or it isn't. Who is in the picture doesn't make a difference.

kowloon

kowloon wrote: »

I have to wonder if there would be as much trouble if they'd published pictures of me topless on my estate.

Probably not! :pac:

kowloon

Scioch wrote: »

No because they would offer you a lump sum to drop all action and nobody would give a shít. Royals dont need money they cant be bought off, they need to protect their image and they have friends in high places who are prepared to go all out to help them. Hence the furore.

There's an interesting aspect. I also wonder if photographers who fail to get a market for their photos sometimes dabble in a bit of blackmail.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It goes to the accuracy of what you wrote.

A minor error on my part, pedantic on your part.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

While people who lose limbs in industrial accidents get thousands?

Never said that. For what it's worth, the losses incurred by someone as a result of a lost limb might run into millions too. Depends on their circumstances.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Thankfully the libel laws and other legal circumscriptions of media activity do not yet adhere to your bizarre standards.

And here was me thinking that the punishment ought to be proportionally to the crime and/or losses incurred by the victim. Oh well. Unfortunately, the law nowadays doesn't conform to these standards.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yes, and I already told you...

There was no need to repeat yourself.

hardCopy

I never heard of Northern and Shell before tonight, seems they item TVX and Channel 5, the home of Naked Darts!

Ridiculous hypocrisy complaining about this now.

hardCopy

hardCopy wrote: »

I never heard of Northern and Shell before tonight, seems they item TVX and Channel 5, the home of Naked Darts!

Ridiculous hypocrisy complaining about this now.

Not at all, there is a big difference between giving exhibitionists a platform and publishing photos taken without the consent of the people they have stalked!

Scioch

kowloon wrote: »

There's an interesting aspect. I also wonder if photographers who fail to get a market for their photos sometimes dabble in a bit of blackmail.

Quick google throws back plenty of cases and you'd imagine most would never see the light of day. Not as if they have any morals considering their line of work.

Cazale

I found the bloodied close-up pictures of Alan Ryan's last moments on the front page of the Star last week a little more tasteless than some blurry pictures of some saggy tits if I'm honest.

Scioch

Scioch wrote: »

Quick google throws back plenty of cases and you'd imagine most would never see the light of day. Not as if they have any morals considering their line of work.

Having played a part in the death of her mother in law, you're probably correct.

wicklowwonder

Not a fan of the paper but if it closes it will leave a gap in the market and a further loss of choice for the Irish people. The Sunday Tribune/News of the World readers still haven't returned to the Sunday newspaper market, I wonder will we see the same with the Star readers, will they buy another paper. Not sure how long the Sunday Business Post can last for either in this marketplace. Sad day for Irish reporting.

mikehunts

I seen her tits and they are nothing to write home about.

later12

mikehunts wrote: »

I seen her tits and they are nothing to write home about.

True. And they shouldn't be ; that's the woman's very point of view, I'm sure.

squod

I'll miss their in-dept reporting of.......

• Soccer
• xfactor
• Dublin crime news
• Soccer
• Celebs who watch xfactor

later12

There was another red top last week published a story about some TV presenter who was having an affair; pictured him having an intimate moment with his mistress. I think it was The People?

Where do these people get off thinking they have a right to involve themselves in individuals' private lives in such a catastrophic way ; and do they have that right, and if so, why on Earth should they keep it?

I'd cautiously suggest we move along the French model of privacy laws (yes, slightly ironic considering the original magazine who bought the pictures are French), but it usually seems to work quite well in France, where there is a culture of not commenting on public figure's private lives, even where there is some lurid (but ultimately meaningless) scandal or gossip to be discussed.

Helix

later12 wrote: »

There was another red top last week published a story about some TV presenter who was having an affair; pictured him having an intimate moment with his mistress. I think it was The People?

Where do these people get off thinking they have a right to involve themselves in individuals' private lives in such a catastrophic way ; and do they have that right, and if so, why on Earth should they keep it?

I'd cautiously suggest we move along the French model of privacy laws (yes, slightly ironic considering the original magazine who bought the pictures are French), but it usually seems to work quite well in France, where there is a culture of not commenting on public figure's private lives, even where there is some lurid (but ultimately meaningless) scandal or gossip to be discussed.

the problem is that the great unwashed really, really, really want to read that complete and utter garbage. the red tops are just providing what the people want

celebrity worship culture is the issue, not the ones offering it up, bad and all as they are

the most ironic thing about this is that the punters most offended by the topless pictures are likely the ones who pick up every single magazine or newspaper that has your woman in it

prettygurrly

I was really sad to see that this had happened because I was hoping that after all the crap we've had to go through to get on some sort of amicable footing with our neighbours who provide thousands of our families with jobs (and probably me when I finish my studies) we would have taken a moral high ground and just not published the photos. The other sad thing is that because an Irish newspaper has published these photos, all us Irish have now been tainted with the horrid voyeuristic brush.

Put it this way, if you're on a private estate and someone has to stand a mile away from you to take a pic with a long lens then there's something seriously wrong with that pic. No part of what happened was anyway endorsed by the couple. Indeed if she'd been on a public beach then what do you expect? But she wasn't. Of course if you were sunbathing on a beach with your bikini top off and some guy stood there and took your photo I doubt you'd be happy about it despite the fact that you are technically not on private property. In most cases the person taking the photo would be deemed a pervert and probably chased off...

I can't imagine what it will be like for Kate to be shaking people's hands at various events and wondering if they've seen her boobs (and possibly more if other photos get published it seems). I'd hate it anyway.

I've stopped buying anything that has tasteless photos of anyone in it and plan to continue that with not ever buying the Star again. I have a huge problem with my Dad buying the Sun due to the photos of the footballer when he was clinically dead and the response to the Hillsborough disaster but I have no control over what he buys. Essentially, if you are disgusted with these publications actions then DONT BUY THEIR PRODUCE! Loss of revenue is the only way these people learn.

The Idyll Race

wicklowwonder wrote: »

Not a fan of the paper but if it closes it will leave a gap in the market and a further loss of choice for the Irish people. The Sunday Tribune/News of the World readers still haven't returned to the Sunday newspaper market, I wonder will we see the same with the Star readers, will they buy another paper. Not sure how long the Sunday Business Post can last for either in this marketplace. Sad day for Irish reporting.

Ex Tribune reader, really don't think that either the Sindo or the Business Post are worth a damn. So I don't buy an Irish Sunday and read the Observer instead.

Aidric

later12 wrote: »

I'd cautiously suggest we move along the French model of privacy laws (yes, slightly ironic considering the original magazine who bought the pictures are French), but it usually seems to work quite well in France, where there is a culture of not commenting on public figure's private lives, even where there is some lurid (but ultimately meaningless) scandal or gossip to be discussed.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn is glad of this.

Cienciano

Latchy wrote: »

Like the sun newspaper when it published the front page picture of those two young sisters and other fans squashed up against the fence at Hillsborough and suffocating ,with no hope of been saved .It's one thing to hear your daughters have died at a football match but to see the horror of their gruesome deaths up close and splashed all over the front page of some rag is beyond any shred of decency .

This is worse, you can see Kates nipple.

Mal-Adjusted

Just saw them chatting about it on Sky News. I find it odd that they'll fall over themselves denouncing the pictures but 30 seconds later showed the images of the guy who made that anti-Muslim film what's causing all the fuss and an actress in it. Considering how far they went to conceal their identities, i'd consider that a far more serious issue

TheUsual

Storm in a b-cup if you ask me.

prettygurrly

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

30 seconds later showed the images of the guy who made that anti-Muslim film what's causing all the fuss and an actress in it.

well the actress would always be recognised as she's in the film. The director/producer guy was all covered up so showing those images aren't going to show who it is surely...

Drumpot

Dont really care about this story to be honest, millionaires t*ts on front of a paper, who gives a sh*t . .

That said . .

One thing I do wonder is if a journalist would mind me taking private photos of their wifes tanning topless and posting them in a public forum . . How would they feel or would they be ok with the fact that Im just trying to make money on pics of their wifes tits . .

TheUsual

Oh this is just brilliant -

Denis Leary on twitter ... https://twitter.com/denisleary

"Royal Family plans to sue over Princess Kate's topless photos. Me too: they're wicked blurry."

"WTF paparazzi? Kate nude - outta focus. Harry in Gestapo gear - crystal clear."

Cavehill Red

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

A minor error on my part, pedantic on your part.

A significant error, since you seemed to be seeking to justify the loss of Irish journalist jobs on the basis of this. No Irish person was involved in the commissioning or taking of these photos.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Never said that. For what it's worth, the losses incurred by someone as a result of a lost limb might run into millions too. Depends on their circumstances.

Care to give an example? The only medical compensation that runs into millions is that due to children whose birth results in mental deficiencies requiring significant lifelong care. Now explain to me how Kate Middleton's blurry tits are of similar damage and require similar compensation, please.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

And here was me thinking that the punishment ought to be proportionally to the crime and/or losses incurred by the victim. Oh well. Unfortunately, the law nowadays doesn't conform to these standards.

The punishment does fit the crime. In Ireland or Britain it wouldn't be a crime. In France, the crime has a maximum of a 60 grand fine, with the outside possibility of a brief interlude in prison for the editor.

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

There was no need to repeat yourself.

There is for slow learners.

later12

Aidric wrote: »

Dominique Strauss-Kahn is glad of this.

And so he should be.

Man should be entitled to as many mistresses as he should conspire to keep, or to which his friends should be so discreet as to refrain from telling his wife. Same goes for a woman.

DSK's responsibility to his wife ; her friends' responsibilities are to her too. The national media should not come into it.

There is another problem in France to do with the media sleeping with the political machine (in the figurative sense), and consequently being at risk of impartiality ; but that's not what I mean by referring to privacy law.

Kimia

later12 wrote: »

Is fragrant the new word for hot?

Genuine question btw, I'm still not quite used to "sick".

"I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems weird and scary to me, and it'll happen to you, too."

BorneTobyWilde

What i don't get is people at top positions in daily star are condemning decision to publish photos
''The newspaper - joint-published by Mr Desmond's Northern and Shell group - printed several photographs of the Duchess sunbathing while on holiday.''

''Mr Desmond said: "I am very angry at the decision to publish these photographs and am taking immediate steps to close down the joint venture.''

''Daily Star Sunday editor Gareth Morgan told Sky News: "We're absolutely horrified here in the office, and as a company. This has no merit as an editorial decision, it has no merit morally, it's frankly a horrible decision."

Then who the fcuk made decision, The blonde secretary

Owner and Editor seemed in dark
WTF

'Editor,'' How de fcuk do you miss a pair of tits

Cavehill Red

The Irish Daily Star is/was edited by Michael O'Kane. It is an entirely independent newspaper from the British paper of the same name and part-ownership. Unlike the Mirror, Mail, Sun, Sunday Times etc, it's not an Irish edition but a separate paper.

Odelay

RED TOP ****E, my girlfreind asked me to buy four papers to clean up the new dogs MESS/****e, I had to buy the examiner, the field, the farmerss journal and the the echo. cost a fcukin fortune but at least I didn't pay money toward that kinda ****e!

UKJon

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The Irish Daily Star is/was edited by Michael O'Kane. It is an entirely independent newspaper from the British paper of the same name and part-ownership. Unlike the Mirror, Mail, Sun, Sunday Times etc, it's not an Irish edition but a separate paper.

Presumably if Desmond pulls out, the other part owner will just carry it on with a slightly different name.

They could call it The Irish Start, and give it a very similar look. Thus picking up any former Star readers.

J. Marston

Odelay wrote: »

RED TOP ****E, my girlfreind asked me to buy four papers to clean up the new dogs MESS/****e, I had to buy the examiner, the field, the farmerss journal and the the echo. cost a fcukin fortune but at least I didn't pay money toward that kinda ****e!

Well, aren't you great?

UKJon

UKJon wrote: »

Presumably if Desmond pulls out, the other part owner will just carry it on with a slightly different name.

They could call it The Irish Start, and give it a very similar look. Thus picking up any former Star readers.

If the paper folds it's unlikely to be replaced as there aren't enough readers to support all the papers currently in circulation as it is.

A good excuse to kill it off!

Richard Hillman

The Irish Star is nothing but a force for evil. Their headlines and stories are nothing but repulsive and it will be a fine day if they go out of business.

Even the papers slogan is questionable "We're better because we are Irish" It sounds like something from the Nazi party.

suicide_circus

I think celebs should be allowed their privacy and dignity without fear of being paped by some bottom feeder journo, it's quite disgusting the way tabloid and celebrity culture has developed. What is even more disgusting however is the monstrous hypocrisy of the likes of Desmond in this matter. Well i suppose he dosnt like upsetting his fellow illuminati.

Cee-Jay-Cee

If they closed it down would anyone actually care?

oldmangrub

CJC999 wrote: »

If they closed it down would anyone actually care?

The staff would. Their families would too.

The Irish Daily Star is a tabloid but it's targetted moreso towards sports fans than dirty aul fellas so it was a particularly surprising and stupid editorial decision to publish these pics.

Not the staff's fault.

Originally posted by suicide circus: What is even more disgusting however is the monstrous hypocrisy of the likes of
Desmond in this matter

I agree.

pclancy

Youve got to think why do these kind of publications exisit?

Simply, because people want to buy them. If there wasnt a lucrative market to but this ****e there wouldnt be a billion dollar industry around it all.

People buy newspapers to read stuff like this. I know many women (my own partner included) that buy magazines full of photos of celebs at their worst where they are slagged to bits. People lap up celebrity reality TV bollocks like the Kardashians and the Ridge because their own lives are too dull and they need to peer into someone elses.

Cause and effect I think. If people didnt buy this crap then maybe it might go away.

I personally think the Royal family are a complete joke in this day and age considering the money they waste, I feel sorry for them somewhat for being born into it but I think as long as there are people willing to buy tabloid journalism then people are going to want to take photos of royal boobs.

Meanwhile, in the real world where stuff matters many people died today of actual bad things that happened such as crime, cancer, starvation, family violence. war etc etc etc....yet is that in the headlines? No, some toff's tits are making front page while the poor people continue to die....

Lord TSC

I'm sure there's others who have posted similiar or starkly contrasting opinions, but I want to vent on this anyway.

Is there a belief among some (especially those defending the Royal Family in all of this) that these pictures will not be seen should the Star not publish them? At this stage (and in fact within minutes of the news breaking originally), the pictures would have been widely available online. Suing anyone but the original photographer and the paper who originally published them is redundant, since all it does is continue to publicize the pictures and urge people to buy the paper and search them out online.

Meanwhile, the papers are put into a situation where they have to discuss a story without actually being able to publish the images which are causing the stir, knowing people will simply go and look them up online anyway. The print media faces enough troubles competing with digital distribution without having to encourage people to seek out the pictures online. Once they are in the public domain, they may as well publish them; the damage is done already, and it's stupid for the papers to have to discuss something that is freely available but they aren't allowed publish on "moral" grounds. It's like when everyone knew that Ryan Giggs was behind the injuction a few years back; it made print media redundant because they weren't allowed talk about something people already knew.

On top of all that, why should an Irish newspaper treat English royalty at all different than any other celebrity, pictures of whom appear in papers like this every day. Why should the French? Or the Italians? They aren't our monarchy (not a dig at previous historic problems by the way, just a general statement of fact). Why should we respect them any more than the royalty of any other country? What makes them so infallible in our media circles?

I get that we want to believe in the importance of privacy, but there's a direct co-relation between an increase in fame and a decrease in privacy. Kate and Will have lived the last few years of their lives in the public eye, moreso than pretty much anyone else in this region of the world. They have been actively seeking press attention. Yes, it is horrible that someone took pictures of her topless, but surely this was always going to happen eventually. If you're such a high profile person, and someone who is part of a "high class" group, then sunbathing topless on a balcony is always going to be a risk. Yes, the cameraman invaded privacy, but if it was me, if I decided to start sunbathing topless, I'd make sure I have thirty foot walls around me, and that there was ZERO chance of one of the hundreds of press who follow me round all day long was going to see it. At the stage of earning the title "Future Queen of England", I think I'd just give up on maintaining a good tan line for fear something like this would happen. :P

later12

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Even the papers slogan is questionable "We're better because we are Irish" It sounds like something from the Nazi party.

That's what annoys me about Dunnes' Stores too.

"Because we're Irish".

Eh, no. What a lazy slogan"

later12

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

On top of all that, why should an Irish newspaper treat English royalty at all different than any other celebrity

I think the first part of your argument is reasonable but not this. There's no good reason for publishing pictures of an individual whilst undressed, when they do not know they are being photographed. That's unfair on a very basic, human level.

JTMan

The closure of Independent Star LTD has had nothing to do with Kate's tits, and everything to do with financials. It was an opportunistic decision to do the inevitable.

Circulation:

The Irish Daily Star have lost 14% of their customers year on year. This follows years of heavy losses.

Their circulation is down at 75K from over 100K a few years ago.

Declining Profits:

Profits were down 10% in the last set of accounts from 2010. They have still not published their 2011 accounts which cannot be a good sign.

IN&M and N&S are in serious trouble:

IN&M and N&S own Independent Star LTD.

IN&M are balance sheet insolvent.

N&S have suffered massive declines in their magazines over the last year. Their flagship OK Magazine is down a whopping 25% year on year. . In fact all of N&S's publications suffered massive declines.

The whole Intraweb & tablet thing is only going to make things worse :

Smartphones are booming. Tablets are booming. Twitter is booming. The way we consume news is changing. All newspapers are on a terminal decline slope. There was no long term future for the Irish Daily Star.

In a nutshell, N&S used Kate as a cover story for a company that was going nowhere and needed to be closed.

Lord TSC

later12 wrote: »

I think the first part of your argument is reasonable but not this. There's no good reason for publishing pictures of an individual whilst undressed, when they do not know they are being photographed. That's unfair on a very basic, human level.

Which is why I said...

Yes, it is horrible that someone took pictures of her topless, but surely this was always going to happen eventually.

Yeah, it's horrible that it could happen. But surely they should know that's what the press are like nowadays. Given how intimate they are with the media, did they not think eventually someone would try and get such pictures? Given how much focus Pippa's clothed bum got at the wedding, did they not realise that the paparazzi would be seeking out pictures of her as scantily clad as possible.

I'm not defending the taking of the pictures. I'm more confused as to why they seem so shocked that...
1. There would be attempts to get such pictures.
2. Print media outside England would cover the story in full detail, and not respect their desires to publish such pictures that were widely and easily available days ago.

The "good" reason (and I use that word very, very loosely) is that people obviously want to see these pictures. They wouldn't be making such big waves in the news otherwise. The french magazine published them because they knew the fine would be nothing compared to the revenue generated. At that stage, surely we stop blaming the media and start blaming people, because if there wasn't a desire for pictures of naked celebrities, then they wouldn't publish them.

Meanwhile, Kate should know better than to sunbath topless on a balcony that's in anyway exposed; yes, it was private property and the photographer still had to get the pictures from a mile away, but he was still able to get them, and in a way, Kate needs to take responsibility for that fact.

As tough as it may be for her, her privacy (not the right to privacy but just her privacy) unfortunately went out the window when her wedding was broadcast to millions of people around the globe and she joined one of the most press-covered families in the world. Its rotten for her, but these pictures were always, ALWAYS going to be desired by the media and were always going to be a major danger when she went sunbathing.

later12

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Which is why I said...

Yes, it is horrible that someone took pictures of her topless, but surely this was always going to happen eventually.

Yeah, it's horrible that it could happen. But surely they should know that's what the press are like nowadays. Given how intimate they are with the media, did they not think eventually someone would try and get such pictures? Given how much focus Pippa's clothed bum got at the wedding, did they not realise that the paparazzi would be seeking out pictures of her as scantily clad as possible.

I'm not defending the taking of the pictures. I'm more confused as to why they seem so shocked that...
1. There would be attempts to get such pictures.
2. Print media outside England would cover the story in full detail, and not respect their desires to publish such pictures that were widely and easily available days ago.

The "good" reason (and I use that word very, very loosely) is that people obviously want to see these pictures. They wouldn't be making such big waves in the news otherwise. The french magazine published them because they knew the fine would be nothing compared to the revenue generated. At that stage, surely we stop blaming the media and start blaming people, because if there wasn't a desire for pictures of naked celebrities, then they wouldn't publish them.

Meanwhile, Kate should know better than to sunbath topless on a balcony that's in anyway exposed; yes, it was private property and the photographer still had to get the pictures from a mile away, but he was still able to get them, and in a way, Kate needs to take responsibility for that fact.

As tough as it may be for her, her privacy (not the right to privacy but just her privacy) unfortunately went out the window when her wedding was broadcast to millions of people around the globe and she joined one of the most press-covered families in the world. Its rotten for her, but these pictures were always, ALWAYS going to be desired by the media and were always going to be a major danger when she went sunbathing.

Most of your post is a repeat of what you've said but ultimately fails to respond to the actual point, in that it's not appropriate to print pictures of a person who is undressed, when they are not aware of that fact. No need to go off on a tangent about whether or not people should be shocked, and so on. The point relates to what the photographer and the publishers have done.

Secondly, on a smaller but nevertheless relevant point, why are you calling her Kate?

Her name is Kate Middleton or whatever her married name is ; I'm not saying this because I think she deserves respect as a member of whatever pantomime she's married to, but simply by observation of her private identity, as anybody else gets. This casual address of calling someone Kate belies the fact that neither do we know the woman, nor is she our property, it's the same sort of mentality that causes incredulity when someone makes the rather ordinary statement that we don't have some God given right to see her naked.

Dave!

Would the people defending this be okay with a photographer sticking a camera under the cubicle door of a public toilet and publishing those more "intimate" pics of Kate?

Everyone is entitled to privacy, and this was at a private party where she should reasonably be allowed to relax. Just because it's possible to see in by climbing up a tree and using a 15 inch lens to get a shot from a mile away does not mean it's the same as her getting her tits out on a public beach. Hope your toilet doesn't have a skylight, or a paparazzi scumbag will be in a helicopter taking snaps!

FWIW I hate all that 'celeb' bullsh*t of people being famous for being famous, and I also hate the vermin who's job it is to try and catch shots of women getting out of cars in case you catch a glimpse of their knickers. I wonder what they tell their kids they do for a living. "Look, daddy is a published photographer! Look at daddy's art!"

oldmangrub

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The Irish Star is nothing but a force for evil. Their headlines and stories are nothing but repulsive and it will be a fine day if they go out of business.

Even the papers slogan is questionable "We're better because we are Irish" It sounds like something from the Nazi party.

It won't be a fine day for the staff or their families.

As for "We're better because we are Irish"; this is an acceptable selling point for a paper selling to an Irish market. We all see tabloids that are jam-packed with British interest stories. It reduces expenses to do as little editing to copy as possible for the "Irish market". I wonder do some of the "Irish" tabloids even have any Irish staff? The Irish Star while they do have access to the British copy for common interest stories, do have a staff of a hundred or so in this country and they are certainly more "Irish" in terms of interest stories and editing.

There's nothing wrong with them wanting to distance themselves from other more British-focused/less Irish-focused tabloids and also from the Star in the UK.

Originally posted by Cavehill: The Irish Daily Star is/was edited by Michael O'Kane. It is an entirely independent newspaper from the British paper of the same name and part-ownership. Unlike the Mirror, Mail, Sun, Sunday Times etc, it's not an Irish edition but a separate paper.

There is something wrong with them publishing nude pics of anyone without consent. And disappointing to see them embrace the gutter press practises. But Desmond is a complete hypocrite and it disgusts me that ordinary workers are going to suffer for this.

GSF

Seanchai wrote: »

Why not? She doesn't work, and she lives off the publicity she gets from her position.

So by your arguements your rights are based off whether you work or not? That puts you on the right of the Tory party.

Wade in the Sea

Cant say i feel one bit sorry. The editor came across as a real jerk trying to justify his action by hiding behind our independence. You got to laugh, the reason they called it the Irish Star is precisely because it's a British paper, how did he think they would react? Seriously poor judgement and he really aught to resign to stop the split, if only to secure the jobs of his colleagues.

When you think about it, it is far more serious that he thinks we should allow our press to ridicule something our closest political and economic partner in the world holds in high esteem. Seriously you can't compare the future queen of England, or any country for that matter, to a bloody pop star. What a muppet!

oldmangrub

^
I agree with you on comparing the Duchess of Cambridge to a popstar. I don't think it should be legal to publish pics like this of anyone without consent; it's a horrendous violation of privacy - but the fact that it was a future head of state makes it a serious blunder as well as unethical.

I don't go the whole way with you on it being a British paper. See Cavehill's post and mine above. It's one of the few tabloids that are Irish. (somewhat) I do feel very sorry for the hundred or so Irish staff that will possibly lose their jobs, and I feel sorry for their families.

GSF

oldmangrub wrote: »

I don't go the whole way with you on it being a British paper. See Cavehill's post and mine above. It's one of the few tabloids that are Irish. (somewhat) I do feel very sorry for the hundred or so Irish staff that will possibly lose their jobs, and I feel sorry for their families.

There is some ambiguity as to who owns it. Desmond says he owns the title name but INM own 50% of the JV. If he refuses to allow the title name to be used, in theory the Star is closed. In practice INM could set up a new title. They could just run the Sunday World on a 7 day a week basis for example, folding the 2 operations together.