Social Media caused the suicide of a politician?

expectationlost

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/tdssenators/registerofmembersinterests/

MCENTEE, Shane
Occupational Income …….. (1) Landlord: 4 Priory Park, Navan, Co. Meath;
(2) Landlord: 7 Foster Close, Ardee, Co. Louth;
(3) Publican: Dee Local, Nobber, Co. Meath.

a pub, and two houses...
http://propertypriceregisterireland.com/details/9_priory_park_johnstown_navan_co_meath_ireland-52266/
some priory house were sold for 172k in 2010 now going for 115k,
no record of any house near foster close being sold

how much he could rent them for must have gone down too

had both house declared in 2006 his first time he needed to register them as td

...because the media won't do it

bbam

In fairness it seems he was taking serious flack for his comments on the reduction of the carers relief... If the fallout from something like that was driving someone over the edge surely you'd come out and make an apology or retraction as he obviously spoke out of turn on something he knew nothing about..

I'd be a bit worried that politicians are jumping on the band wagon now using his death to stamp out anonymous posting and comments from the general public.. People deserve to be heard.

I don't accept that one issue such as this caused this man to kill himself, suicide is rarely about one issue, yes there may be a trigger incident but that could have been anything if as person is right on the edge anyway.. Its possible that if it weren't this then something else would have driven him over the edge

Anonymous postings or texts perhaps allow too much "free speech" without recourse to what is said, but then it doesn't have to be taken too seriously, if a person really meant their comments to be taken seriously then they would give their name too...

leggo

Can we kill the 'landlords=evil' narrative before it begins? That attitude is so 1850's.

And no amount of what you see as dirt is going to be able to justify hounding someone until they ended their life. Sorry.

spikethedog

leggo wrote: »

Can we kill the 'landlords=evil' narrative before it begins? That attitude is so 1850's.

And no amount of what you see as dirt is going to be able to justify hounding someone until they ended their life. Sorry.

Was Shane McEntee 'hounded until he ended his life' now?
FFS, it just gets better.

Paddy De Plasterer

a landlord is an awful term in Ireland. Sometimes means a person who has been transferred elsewhere, renting a house short term who has been transferred. Hit with NPPR, House tax, Insurance, probably a yob tenant who will not pay despite sometimes getting rental supplement and who has no respect for the property.

AllGunsBlazing

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1227/social-media-committee.html

The Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications is to hold a special meeting to examine the role of social media in public debate.

The committee will investigate whether there is a need for regulation or legislation of public comments.

Committee chairman and Fine Gael TD Tom Hayes said it was a very difficult issue but must be dealt with.

Online bullying has been referenced in some recent high profile suicides, and Mr Hayes said the committee would be prioritising the matter early in the New Year.

He said he would convene a special meeting of the committee to deal with the issue of social media and anonymous comments.

Mr Hayes said the committee would then draw up a report examining whether there was a need for regulation or legislation and present the report to Government for a decision.

Deputy Hayes said he had also been subjected to vile anonymous messages "like every other TD".

He said something must be done and a situation couldn't be allowed to continue whereby people were being subjected to unfair, unjust and vile comments.

Slideshowbob

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1227/social-media-committee.html

"Oireachtas committee to examine social media role"

So quick to set this up once one of their own is a victim

spikethedog

Slideshowbob wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1227/social-media-committee.html

"Oireachtas committee to examine social media role"

So quick to set this up once one of their own is a victim

Sure you know what we'll do lads, we'll set up a committee to look into it and then a sub-committee to look into what the lads are looking into. Then we'll head off on a few junkets with the wives & girlfriends to far away and exotic places at tax payers expense, we'll come back and decide that the best way forward is to set up a quango called 'the anti cyber-bulling group' and we'll appoint our buddies onto the board of that quango and they can hire 'special advisors' to 'advise' them on how to do their 'job'.
Result=more millions of our money down the drain and no effect on 'cyber bullying' at all.
But, hey, that's the way Ireland works.

Shea O'Meara

Social media is a fact of life. What are they going to do get all China on us? In an attempt to yet again sweep depression and suicide under the catholic rug...we're left with a scapegoat called 'social media' which unpopular politicians would be glad to see the back of. Simple as.

Also I'm really ****ing sick of our politicians and cynical do-gooders being at least a year or two behind on topics of public concern. Wasters.

Slideshowbob

What can the committee achieve?

Do away with anonimity online???

Or get people to be "nicer"?

Slideshowbob

Did Enda Kenny ask for this committee to look into social media?

Was his emotions from the death of a friend at play??

Would it not be more effective to track down what was said to McEntee and about him. If illegal goings on, then prosecute. This would set a or evident for such carry on.

Sledgehammer / nut

Going Forward

Another question must also be asked: was government policy in any way responsible for the mans death? Or, what kind of party was he a member of which looks as if he was left to handle the pressures of the decisions of Budget 2013 alone?


I'd guess austerity has caused a number of suicides.

I just hope Enda and co. of ALL parties believe its all worth it.

The social media thing is a red herring.

bmaxi

I'd bet austerity has caused more than one suicide, but the politicians tell us we'll just have to suck it up, no committees set up to investigate them. I don't bear any ill will toward the man who committed suicide, never heard of him but it just pisses me off the way they jump on the bandwagon. Why don't they drag that little prick Ahern off to the nick for inciting people to commit suicide. Fcuking hypocrites.

Slideshowbob

The future of social media in Ireland is safe in Tom Hayes hands.

Wonder will the amount of jobs in social media in Ireland need to be considered as part of the findings?

Darsad

Looking at Tom Hayes on the news just now typing away with two fingers and very slowly too I reckon he has some catching up to do.

What is the point in having a man who is clearly not up to speed with modern technology chairing a coommittee on such an emotive and important issue.

ebbsy

Have'nt heard too many politicans talk about the recent suicides in Rathangan, County Kildare.

No votes in that perhaps ?

RIP to that poor man in Meath by the way.

expectationlost

we'll just ignore that this whole story is based on anonymous quotes in the sun newspaper

maringo

A Dail Committee looking into social media is a joke. Surely it should be the Law Reform Commission if it still exists to look into the law as it stands and make its recommendations on any improvements. Can't see the point in censoring social media - like holding back the tide - but persons giving virulent abuse should know they will be held to account and they might think twice. I think a lot of politicians are trying to do their job like anybody else. If they were not on such fat salaries and getting paid an allowance for "turning up" to work while people are being crucified financially I would have some respect as I do think most of them work hard and put in long hours. I felt so sorry for the family facing into Christmas after such a shocking loss. Don't think a Dail Committee will prevent one single person from committing suicide.

tayto lover

leggo wrote: »

Can we kill the 'landlords=evil' narrative before it begins? That attitude is so 1850's.

And no amount of what you see as dirt is going to be able to justify hounding someone until they ended their life. Sorry.

You seem to be trying to convince yourself that social media insults and abuse caused this death even though I believe you really don't think so. Maybe you have an agenda here. Do you not like social media or do you not like politicians getting a bit of flack? I see Gerry Buttimer spouting the same kind of dribble in a clear effort to prevent people venting a bit of anger too.
As already said there will always be anger when people are suffering cuts in their living standards especially when they didn't contribute to the problem but are expected to pay for it.

leggo

Do I really need to say the words 'social media' in the same sentence as 'only a medium' for a third time in one thread (first time on page 1; second time on the last page, I believe)?

I definitely believe it's possible that his suicide had a lot to do with public abuse though, and I think it's a good opportunity to address how we participate in politics in this country. I've said since page one that there is a right way and a wrong way. Mindless abuse, through whatever medium, is obviously the wrong way and totally counter-productive. If only for the fact that it creates a wall between you and the people who can potentially help you (if, that is, such small matters as 'not treating other people like dirt on your shoe' means nothing to you). The people that we CHOSE to make these decisions, voluntarily.

However, I think the disturbing vibe that has emerged in this thread that almost defends people's right to abuse public figures however they like has proven that it is a real problem.

I get that attempting to bully government ministers might be easier than taking the time to learn how to engage them intelligently and meaningfully, or getting up off our arses and create real change for ourselves, but that doesn't make it the right way.

tayto lover

Ah no. Sure they're all perfect and doing a great job on our behalf for a pittance.

They stopped calling to my door or canvassing me in the last 20 or so years. That's probably because I keep telling them exactly what I think of them. I'd say they have a big red line through my name and address. I'll have to resort to social media now to have a go at them. It will take a lot with their brass necks and all.

On a serious note though, they are employees of the people and if they are not doing their jobs satisfactorily then the people are entitled to have a go at them as long as there are no threats of violence made.

Going Forward

I cant help being reminded of the furore a couple of years ago when we coughed up for councilors (who probably couldnt switch on a computer) to learn how to use "social networking sites"?


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/taxpayer-to-foot-bill-for-crash-course-on-facebook-2390334.html

leggo

tayto lover wrote: »

Ah no. Sure they're all perfect and doing a great job on our behalf for a pittance.

They stopped calling to my door or canvassing me in the last 20 or so years. That's probably because I keep telling them exactly what I think of them. I'd say they have a big red line through my name and address. I'll have to resort to social media now to have a go at them. It will take a lot with their brass necks and all.

On a serious note though, they are employees of the people and if they are not doing their jobs satisfactorily then the people are entitled to have a go at them as long as there are no threats of violence made.

But do you not see that there is a way to convey your opinion without having to resort to being abusive? I mean, spade a spade, said canvassers probably aren't 'afraid' of you, or whatever helps you sleep at night. They probably just think you're a bit of a knob who they wouldn't bother trying to convince because you just react aggressively to any attempt to engage you. An abusive attitude is silencing your chance to be actually heard.

That's not a personal insult or comment on you, btw, just an indication on how people view others when they become abusive.

I'm not even saying that these people are doing an all-around fantastic job or don't deserve criticism. I'm simply saying that if you're going to bother to abuse or threaten people, then you could use that energy to educate yourself to the point that you could actually do something about it instead.

tayto lover

leggo wrote: »

But do you not see that there is a way to convey your opinion without having to resort to being abusive? I mean, spade a spade, said canvassers probably aren't 'afraid' of you, or whatever helps you sleep at night. They probably just think you're a bit of a knob who they wouldn't bother trying to convince because you just react aggressively to any attempt to engage you. An abusive attitude is silencing your chance to be actually heard.

That's not a personal insult or comment on you, btw, just an indication on how people view others when they become abusive.

I'm not even saying that these people are doing an all-around fantastic job or don't deserve criticism. I'm simply saying that if you're going to bother to abuse or threaten people, then you could use that energy to educate yourself to the point that you could actually do something about it instead.

I actually voted for this shower. I took their word that they would end cronyism and clean up politics. Why would I not be angry with them now? I'm entitled to be angry and to voice my opinions of them. I don't miss a chance to tell them when I see them. They actually blame Labour ???? They say Labour stopped them doing what they promised. They have no morals or decency left. Didn't Rabbitte even say "sure that's just politics" or something similar and I have heard the same from the FG supporters on these threads.
I have educated myself to the point of not believing a word coming from the mouth of any politician anymore.

leggo

Nobody is saying that you don't have a right to be angry, though. But use that anger to channel something productive instead of spewing enraged bile that just gets caught in a vacuum of negativity and goes nowhere. If anything, look towards the Arabic Spring for inspiration as to how people being clued into politics in their country can actually affect change and take the power back. I'm not saying that's necessarily the solution to our problems, but it shows how passion and anger can be channeled towards something constructive when the public are educated on the issues involved. That's not the same as sending a TD a pissy text message. Can you not see how ridiculous that is, in context?

tayto lover

leggo wrote: »

Nobody is saying that you don't have a right to be angry, though. But use that anger to channel something productive instead of spewing enraged bile that just gets caught in a vacuum of negativity and goes nowhere. If anything, look towards the Arabic Spring for inspiration as to how people being clued into politics in their country can actually affect change and take the power back. I'm not saying that's necessarily the solution to our problems, but it shows how passion and anger can be channeled towards something constructive when the public are educated on the issues involved. That's not the same as sending a TD a pissy text message. Can you not see how ridiculous that is, in context?

I don't send them texts, I tell them to their faces. That gives me great satisfaction because they have simply no answers. They lied and they know it.
What is my recourse? Vote in another shower of liars next time? No thanks.

leggo

You say that as if I haven't just given a perfect example of an alternative in the post you quoted...

But if that sounds like too much hard work, why do you feel that politicians owe you anything if you aren't even bothered to play your own part?

And we go ALL the way back to an earlier point of mine: THIS is why politics doesn't work in Ireland.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

It is ironic that in a thread about online abuse of public officials, we have a number of posters who are veering towards abuse of other posters. If you cannot post in a civil manner, then don't post here.

On that note, a word of advice: if your comments on this thread boil down to "you and your ilk think that x, y, z..." or "you must be one of those people who..." you will be infracted. Play the ball, not the man.

Finally, stop with the petty sniping - several of the posts on here amount to little better than 'I know you are, but what am I?'

dvpower

maringo wrote: »

A Dail Committee looking into social media is a joke. Surely it should be the Law Reform Commission if it still exists to look into the law as it stands and make its recommendations on any improvements.

That has also been announced.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1108/1224326308706.html

The Law Reform Commission has been asked by Minister for Justice Alan Shatter to examine difficulties in prosecuting for cyberbullying.

Mr Shatter told the Dáil bullying was a form of harassment and, as such, fell
within the provision of the non-fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.
However, he had been made aware of difficulties in bringing successful
prosecutions, especially relating to the need to demonstrate persistence in the
harassment.


“I have asked the Law Reform Commission to examine this difficulty,” he said.
“I understand that the issue has already been examined elsewhere, including in
Scotland and Australia, and I hope that we can learn from other
jurisdictions.”


Mr Shatter said he was aware of growing public concern about the issue,
especially after a number of recent tragic cases. Heightened public awareness
could only contribute to a recognition that such behaviour was unacceptable in
schools, in the workplace or any other place.

tayto lover

dvpower wrote: »

That has also been announced.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1108/1224326308706.html

Given Mr Shatters views on the harassment being suffered by the Palestinians from the people he supports then I will have little faith in this initiative solving anything.

20Cent

Has any journalist actually gone and looked at his timeline on these social media sites? To document the abuse he was getting, not denying there was but sounds like an excuse to crack down on criticism of the Gov on social media rather than a real concern. The whole Dervish "shocking vile abuse" fell apart when someone actually looked at what was said on their timeline.

Chips Lovell

His family removed his Facebook page.

Slideshowbob

Wonder how long this Twitter account can last:

https://twitter.com/tominvestigates/status/284664292769411074

liammur

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Wonder how long this Twitter account can last:

https://twitter.com/tominvestigates/status/284664292769411074[/QUOTE]

I may be going off on a a bit of a tangent here, but I can't for the life of me understand why these people have twitter accounts etc. I know some will say could get a few votes, but all I see from them is trouble.

tayto lover

liammur wrote: »

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Wonder how long this Twitter account can last:

https://twitter.com/tominvestigates/status/284664292769411074[/QUOTE]

I may be going off on a a bit of a tangent here, but I can't for the life of me understand why these people have twitter accounts etc. I know some will say could get a few votes, but all I see from them is trouble.

They are so full of themselves they just don't see that.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Please don't speculate about the legal or financial situation of public figures in this forum (or this website) without a link to a reputable news source - there are serious legal issues around these kinds of claims.

hyperborean

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1227/social-media-committee.html

Its starting, be wary of looking to closely at the sun. They will try to blind social media to their cartels

thebman

hyperborean wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1227/social-media-committee.html

Its starting, be wary of looking to closely at the sun. They will try to blind social media to their cartels

Deputy Hayes said he had also been subjected to vile anonymous messages "like every other TD".

Nice to see he is impartial so...

what they seem to be talking about is so open to abuse by authorities that it doesn't seem to be workable if we want to claim we have free speech.

TomOnBoard

southsiderosie wrote: »

MOD NOTE:

It is ironic that in a thread about online abuse of public officials, we have a number of posters who are veering towards abuse of other posters. If you cannot post in a civil manner, then don't post here.

On that note, a word of advice: if your comments on this thread boil down to "you and your ilk think that x, y, z..." or "you must be one of those people who..." you will be infracted. Play the ball, not the man.

Finally, stop with the petty sniping - several of the posts on here amount to little better than 'I know you are, but what am I?'

Time and again, I see threads on Boards (and other Fora/BBs) descend into mob-rule, whereby within the first few pages of a thread a majority opinion becomes apparent leading to the personalisation of comment around page 8 or 9 and absolute evisceration of minority opinion by page 20.

And God help anyone with a reason (ed/able) argument who might come to the defense of those posters who have presented a minority view!!:- Despite the quality of their previous contributions, they lend themselves to be rounded upon by the majority..

And you know, since the birth of reasoned argument and democratic opinion making & presenting, none of the above would be a problem, EXCEPT that all of the comment is Anonymous, so it's a free for all; and up to this Moderator input, has been without censure.

I therefore express my thanks and welcome for that censure, and sincerely hope, in the context of this thread's title, that MORE and not LESS regulation will follow.

ednwireland

funny how politicians were trying to use any social media possible when it suited them now it has backfired (allegedly, i personally think the whole facebook thing is overblown)
seems to me its been used as a good excuse to try and clamp down on criticism and use it to spin their own point of view.

anyway if threats against persons or there families were issued i would have thought current law pretty much covers that, doesn't it?

thebman

ednwireland wrote: »

funny how politicians were trying to use any social media possible when it suited them now it has backfired (allegedly, i personally think the whole facebook thing is overblown)
seems to me its been used as a good excuse to try and clamp down on criticism and use it to spin their own point of view.

anyway if threats against persons or there families were issued i would have thought current law pretty much covers that, doesn't it?

You'll find you can still anonymously praise politicians online once your done without ending up in a garda station

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Time and again, I see threads on Boards (and other Fora/BBs) descend into mob-rule, whereby within the first few pages of a thread a majority opinion becomes apparent leading to the personalisation of comment around page 8 or 9 and absolute evisceration of minority opinion by page 20.

And God help anyone with a reason (ed/able) argument who might come to the defense of those posters who have presented a minority view!!:- Despite the quality of their previous contributions, they lend themselves to be rounded upon by the majority..

And you know, since the birth of reasoned argument and democratic opinion making & presenting, none of the above would be a problem, EXCEPT that all of the comment is Anonymous, so it's a free for all; and up to this Moderator input, has been without censure.

I therefore express my thanks and welcome for that censure, and sincerely hope, in the context of this thread's title, that MORE and not LESS regulation will follow.

Are you serious? You think it will be used for Joe Soap? LOL!

TomOnBoard

thebman wrote: »

Are you serious? You think it will be used for Joe Soap? LOL!

Just had my cuppa Barry's. Mebbe I'm a bit too chilled, but, what's your point?

thebman

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Just had my cuppa Barry's. Mebbe I'm a bit too chilled, but, what's your point?

The point is none of things you complain about will change if the government regulates the Internet because the government doesn't care about any of those things.

Unless your just on an off-topic rant on thread in which case good luck

TomOnBoard

thebman wrote: »

The point is none of things you complain about will change if the government regulates the Internet because the government doesn't care about any of those things.

Unless your just on an off-topic rant on thread in which case good luck

WTF?

Sorry all, but I don't understand this response.

I mean,

a) did I introduce the Govt? Or

b) had they been brought in earlier and I missed them?

If not b) what are you asking in this regard?

As to "Unless your just on an off-topic rant"

Sorry, I'm really not that big into Off Topic Rants. I actually spent quite some time READING earlier postings and tried to make a CONSIDERED response..

Net point.. I try to stay ON-Topic.

And the topic of this thread is about a poor man who is now Dead, and his poor Family is in torment- tell me how is anything I said represents an "off- topic rant".

PC CDROM

Who knows why the poor fella killed himself?

Social Media?
Wife saying she was leaving him?
Drunken feel up with a young wan?
Financial burdens?
Mid life crisis?


No one bar him will know. Debating everything on the social media angle said by someone in the media is just plain wrong.

TomOnBoard

PC CDROM wrote: »

Who knows why the poor fella killed himself?

Social Media?
Wife saying she was leaving him?
Drunken feel up with a young wan?
Financial burdens?
Mid life crisis?


No one bar him will know. Debating everything on the social media angle said by someone in the media is just plain wrong.

And that very fact is awaiting a change in the Status Quo..

dvpower

PC CDROM wrote: »

Who knows why the poor fella killed himself?

Social Media?
Wife saying she was leaving him?
Drunken feel up with a young wan?
Financial burdens?
Mid life crisis?


No one bar him will know. Debating everything on the social media angle said by someone in the media is just plain wrong.

He did get take a lot of abuse online and that factor was identified by his brother. I somehow doubt that is was the reason for his suicide, but I can see why there is speculation about it.

I don't know why you would raise any of the other reasons you list - seems very unfair.

oscarBravo

As I've followed this discussion, I've noticed a tendency to shy away from the topic into hyperbole; possibly on both sides.

What strikes me as strange is the whole idea that social media must remain beyond any possibility of control or influence by the rule of law; the idea that anyone should be allowed to say anything whatsoever they want without repercussions, no matter the potential consequences of what they say.

As with any such issue, there is a continuum, with (what I percieve to be) unworkable extremes at both ends. One extreme is government censorship of social media, where the government can prevent criticism of its actions on Facebook. That's the spectre being raised by many of those who are arguing here, and it looks awfully like a straw man to me.

The other extreme is that someone can post a message on a social media site to the effect that amounts to a death threat; that they can post such a message anonymously and that they can do so without fear of repercussion. If there's anyone who feels that this is a desirable state of affairs, I'd be interested to know why they feel it is so.

The continuum I spoke of falls between these extremes. There needs to be a point along the continuum where fair - even heated - criticism of a public figure is acceptable, but where anonymous posters can't say things that they wouldn't dare (or be legally allowed) say to a person's face without consequence.

It would be nice to get away from arguing against extremes, when nobody's really arguing for them (unless, as I've said above, someone can make a case for being allowed to issue death threats without repercussion).

leggo

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Time and again, I see threads on Boards (and other Fora/BBs) descend into mob-rule, whereby within the first few pages of a thread a majority opinion becomes apparent leading to the personalisation of comment around page 8 or 9 and absolute evisceration of minority opinion by page 20.

And God help anyone with a reason (ed/able) argument who might come to the defense of those posters who have presented a minority view!!:- Despite the quality of their previous contributions, they lend themselves to be rounded upon by the majority..

And you know, since the birth of reasoned argument and democratic opinion making & presenting, none of the above would be a problem, EXCEPT that all of the comment is Anonymous, so it's a free for all; and up to this Moderator input, has been without censure.

I therefore express my thanks and welcome for that censure, and sincerely hope, in the context of this thread's title, that MORE and not LESS regulation will follow.

Agreed, having a rational argument means nothing in places like this if you're against a majority with time on their hands. It's like pissing in the wind. I mean if you think in the context of a moderator in an actual debate, that simply wouldn't happen.

BUT you'd need hundreds of people available 24/7 to do it properly. And, to be fair, boards is more often than not better than most places for moderation standards (because it's so high profile in Ireland and has to be).

bmaxi

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Time and again, I see threads on Boards (and other Fora/BBs) descend into mob-rule, whereby within the first few pages of a thread a majority opinion becomes apparent leading to the personalisation of comment around page 8 or 9 and absolute evisceration of minority opinion by page 20.

And God help anyone with a reason (ed/able) argument who might come to the defense of those posters who have presented a minority view!!:- Despite the quality of their previous contributions, they lend themselves to be rounded upon by the majority..

And you know, since the birth of reasoned argument and democratic opinion making & presenting, none of the above would be a problem, EXCEPT that all of the comment is Anonymous, so it's a free for all; and up to this Moderator input, has been without censure.

I therefore express my thanks and welcome for that censure, and sincerely hope, in the context of this thread's title, that MORE and not LESS regulation will follow.

Presumably the majority opinion is contrary to yours.