KPMG Drunk girl shutdown

gbee

jblack wrote: »

Back on point - I doubt the girl feels too proud of this. She is probably hiding in her (extensive) wardrobe behind some La Boutin shoes with the fear of god in her. She will suffer badly regardless of what happens here.

Why don't you rub it in, why don't you?

Jelly 292

Its on Live Leak for those interested.

Silly little rich girl. Cant believe the way its been shut down as a topic everywhere.

Dav

Lyaiera wrote: »

Personally I think that falls down on the basis that Boards is moderated, and therefore they have editorial control over what is published here. If nothing was deleted until subject to a legal threat then I think they could argue they are nothing but a service or a board on a wall somewhere. However I would be fairly certain they wouldn't be able to succeed with that defense with this place being moderated.

Just like a journalist and a newspaper, the poster is responsible for what is written, Boards is responsible for publishing it. Both are at fault and equally liable.

This is the biggest issue we currently face and because Irish law is so unclear as it's Case Law and therefore until someone bring a case with this issue to court and the judge clarifies his interpretation and therefore all future interpretations barring a change from a higher court, no one can say for certain what the law is.

The "mere conduit" defence works until the point where something in breach of law is brought to our attention. We contend that "Report Post" does not notify the office and so you'll see in our Terms and Conditions that all breaches of law need to be reported to the office to take action as our mods are not legal experts and shouldn't have to make the call on that sort of issue. The ambiguity exists, as Lyaiera has pointed out in that we do have pretty good moderation here and legally speaking, we'd be in a lot better shape if we had none at all, but that's not the sort of site we want and the fact that there are rules and standards here is why we're still the biggest and best at what we do in Ireland after 12 years.

I am an Agent of the company (this is the legal term). Further ambiguity exists as to whether or not our moderators are - we obviously say they are not as they are unpaid volunteers who haven't signed a contract and we don't even know their names and addresses even if we wanted to get in contact with them.

SYDEWYNDER wrote: »

There is no policy. We are being lied to simply put. This story could damage Boards as a business. Its a story that is too close to DistilledMedia and their affiliated ****heads so they will not allow it. KPMG and Shareholders are pulling the strings on this one ladies and gentlemen. As ''honest'' as Dav appears to be I cease to believe in Boards due to their skill and capacity for bull**** peddling.

Congratulations, you have defamed me and my employers and KPMG and one or all of us can now sue you. As I've already got your email address and IP Address, there's one less hoop I have to jump through in terms of identifying you and there's nothing stopping me walking into a Garda Station with these details and making a report and all they have to do is Section 8 your ISP and knock on your door.

It's that easy to break the law folks.

However, I'm only trying to make a point. He's right about one thing - this story could damage our business for the same reason that any story that turns "legal" could damage our business.

Folks, I've always tried my best to be honest and open and transparent about what I do, what the company does and what happens when something gets reported to us.

We didn't deal with this particular issue as well as we should have and so I apologise to you all for that. Several people have said that we should have put a notice up to say what was going on and why and they're probably right. But I can guarantee one thing, this thread would still have happened. No one (especially me!) likes being told we can't talk about X. We should be free to talk about things, but the reality is people don't know (or care) when they've broken the law and once the office knows about something, our only defence of "mere conduit" is done and the company now has a legal obligation to make sure that action is taken and stays taken.

So can I please ask you to let me take the rest of the weekend off and to come back on Monday with a more firm and definitive policy for all of us on these sorts of things.

GRMA

Jelly 292 wrote: »

Its on Live Leak for those interested.

Silly little rich girl. Cant believe the way its been shut down as a topic everywhere.

Like many people I wouldnt have seen it if there wasnt such a fuss over it, I think their plan to get rid of it backfired fairly spectacularly

HondaSami

I feel sorry for the girl, she got drunk, came across as a spoilt B, she has let herself down and im sure she wants to forget all about it.
The best option would be to let it run for a few days and it would be forgotten about. I don't think she deserves to be ridiculed, im sure we are all guilty of doing things while intoxicated only it was not caught on camera and posted on the internet.

Having read all this thread its hard not to think money/power played a part in the thread getting deleted on here. Personally my view is one rule for everyone, treat everyone the same.

well i say shame on boards as much as i like them wheres freedom of speech guess doesnt count if the other party is rich

gbee

HondaSami wrote: »

I feel sorry for the girl, she got drunk, came across as a spoilt B, .

Yes she did, as did other daughters and wives of former Taoiseach's as example. Just reinforces the divide that PC correctness claims does not exist.

jd007

Deleted User wrote: »

well i say shame on boards as much as i like them wheres freedom of speech guess doesnt count if the other party is rich

Jesus I'm sick of this freedom of speech shíte. This is a private website, you do not have freedom of speech here!

dvpower

Deleted User wrote: »

well i say shame on boards as much as i like them wheres freedom of speech guess doesnt count if the other party is rich

You're perfectly free to say whatever you want.
But why would you feel that a private website has an obligation to publish you?

clairefontaine

Freedom of speech does not exist in a country where there are blasphemy laws and such stringent defamation laws.

Secondly freedom of speech does not mean that other people have to listen.

Insect Overlord

HondaSami wrote: »

Having read all this thread its hard not to think money/power played a part in the thread getting deleted on here.

The reason you're getting that impression is because a succession of trolls, wind-up artists and idiots have kept repeating it.

They just keep ignoring the information to the contrary and insist that they are correct, trying to shout the loudest in the hope that they will be heard over the truth.

It's crazy that this thread has gone this far.

Downlinz

It's on ebaumsworld as well, 90,000 views. Was only linked to it because of the attempt to cover it up, there's no better way to get something viewed by everyone than to try and censor the information flow. Boards.ie was credited in the 4chan post I saw referencing linking to it as one of the primary cover up culprits so nice job aiding the spread of this.

True or false, the public believe the accusations to be true and this will damage boards.ie reputation which is a shame. Googling kpmg girl only to find a string of deleted threads only aids that impression.

Gyalist

Just did a search for the video to see what the furore was all about and quickly realised that I know all the girls in the group. Reminds me that Dublin really is a pretty small place.

School assembly for them on Monday probably isn't going to be too pleasant.

HondaSami

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The reason you're getting that impression is because a succession of trolls, wind-up artists and idiots have kept repeating it.

They just keep ignoring the information to the contrary and insist that they are correct, trying to shout the loudest in the hope that they will be heard over the truth.

It's crazy that this thread has gone this far.

You are probably right, I started reading it and had to continue to the end of it. i have to say i changed my opinion more than once during the thread.
I don't think it should have been left open if posters were going to slag her off, did not see the thread at all, first i even heard of it was when i logged on earlier.

I hate all this posting on u tube just to laugh at people, its ok if they agree to it but otherwise no imo.

yore

jd007 wrote: »

Jesus I'm sick of this freedom of speech shíte. This is a private website, you do not have freedom of speech here!

dvpower wrote: »

You're perfectly free to say whatever you want.
But why would you feel that a private website has an obligation to publish you?

Again, a point I made further back but so are Google and other search engines. If, hypothetically, they were filtering/screening their searches in say, China, they are a private company and perfectly allowed to do that.

Similarly, if you give Facebook all your details and they have a flexible enough TOS that you agree to by using the service, they are similarly entitled to use that information and/or sell it as they see fit.

Are you both ok with the above scenarios too?

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The reason you're getting that impression is because a succession of trolls, wind-up artists and idiots have kept repeating it.

They just keep ignoring the information to the contrary and insist that they are correct, trying to shout the loudest in the hope that they will be heard over the truth.

It's crazy that this thread has gone this far.

One of the mods explicitly said they took into account that the girls father might have been in KPMG when deciding to pull the threads. If you want the link to the specific post, I'll send it to you.

I have no problem with them pulling whatever. Just admit to the reasons though. Give the people some credit! Don't whitewash it and make up a bullsh1t excuse. just say "this girl has a wealthy connections and we don't want to mess with them". Don't paint it as a moral high ground

My name is URL

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The reason you're getting that impression is because a succession of trolls, wind-up artists and idiots have kept repeating it.

They just keep ignoring the information to the contrary and insist that they are correct, trying to shout the loudest in the hope that they will be heard over the truth.

It's crazy that this thread has gone this far.

But it's already been said that the threads were locked / deleted due to the fear of legal action (which is fair enough imo), that fear of legal action is bound to be down in part to the fact that the girl and her family are well off.

A homeless person for example wouldn't have the same amount of wherewithal to launch a defamation case, so Boards might be slower to act because of that. There have been plenty of videos posted in the near past involving poorer people in similar drunken states and they've remained intact for a lot longer than the video in question here.

In a roundabout sort of way at least, money does seem to make a big difference to how the site chooses to react.

gbee

Yes, and don't forget the bold mod warning not to talk about the KPMG Girl

What a way go like, to be fair, it's said already. But I just had to type the bold and her whole life spilled out.

Insect Overlord

HondaSami wrote: »

You are probably right, I started reading it and had to continue to the end of it. i have to say i changed my opinion more than once during the thread.

Same as myself! I saw some of the reported posts last night and thought it was an over-reaction, but the more I looked into it the more I came to agree with the AH mods, Rec CMods, Admins, etc.

Downlinz

HondaSami wrote: »

I feel sorry for the girl, she got drunk, came across as a spoilt B, she has let herself down and im sure she wants to forget all about it.
The best option would be to let it run for a few days and it would be forgotten about. I don't think she deserves to be ridiculed, im sure we are all guilty of doing things while intoxicated only it was not caught on camera and posted on the internet.
.

I'm sorry what? You think just because she was drunk her aggressive and insulting behaviour along with her claims of power abuse should just be brushed under the carpet? If she was sober would you have a different attitude to this video? Because if you think somebody should be absolved of all responsibility for what they say or do because they're drunk then that's a seriously disgraceful attitude to have.

philologos

Boards.ie: Nicola wrote: »

I am on my phone so I'll have to keep this brief (and repeat what I have said elsewhere). The video and discussions about it are a can of worms we don't want to open.

Ethical and cyber bullying implications aside, and while nobody was explicitly defamed in the video, there is a part of the Defamation Act which deals with damage to reputation and this video has the potential to do that for the girl and her family.

As much as I respect your decision to limit discussion on the video as a result of the Defamation Act. The reality is that the Defamation Act in the vast majority of cases is all but ignored on boards.ie. There are several hundred threads on this site which could be construed to be in violation of the Defamation Act which still are up.

If the boards.ie policy isn't enforced in a consistent manner, it's quite clear that people are going to be confused by it.

TheUsual

Downlinz wrote: »

I'm sorry what? You think just because she was drunk her aggressive and insulting behaviour along with her claims of power abuse should just be brushed under the carpet? If she was sober would you have a different attitude to this video? Because if you think somebody should be absolved of all responsibility for what they say or do because they're drunk then that's a seriously disgraceful attitude to have.

She made an embarrassing show of herself.
I don't think she killed anyone.
I don't think she feels proud of herself.

The over-reaction to this dumb-assed video is far worse. People need to get a hobby, they have wasted a lot of internet time with this nonsense.

Get a hobby.

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

well i say shame on boards as much as i like them wheres freedom of speech guess doesnt count if the other party is rich

First off, our Constitution does not give us untrammeled freedom of speech: it's a qualified right that has to be balanced with, among other things, each person's right to have his or her good name vindicated.

Second, if anybody on Boards set out to damage my good name, and Boards did not take steps to deal with that, then they would be dealing with my legal representative even though my income is a long way below that of the highest-paid partner in a major accountancy practice.

Do you believe Dav would drag the case into court?

K-9

Downlinz wrote: »

It's on ebaumsworld as well, 90,000 views. Was only linked to it because of the attempt to cover it up, there's no better way to get something viewed by everyone than to try and censor the information flow. Boards.ie was credited in the 4chan post I saw referencing linking to it as one of the primary cover up culprits so nice job aiding the spread of this.

True or false, the public believe the accusations to be true and this will damage boards.ie reputation which is a shame. Googling kpmg girl only to find a string of deleted threads only aids that impression.

You'd swear we thought that deleting it would stop it going viral. We look after our side and let sites like 4chan do there thing.

You'd swear 4chan or reddit was something to be congratulated on.

greenybaby

Unfollowing thread, it's getting boring now!

HondaSami

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Same as myself! I saw some of the reported posts last night and thought it was an over-reaction, but the more I looked into it the more I came to agree with the AH mods, Rec CMods, Admins, etc.

I think there are some things that have to be done for what ever reasons, be it right or wrong but it's the best decision for all involved at the time.

I honestly don't think the young girl what ever age she is deserves to be further humiliated on the internet, we are all aware of the recent suicides re bullying so no harm in being cautious.
Life is a learning experience, a thread that would have ran six months ago would probably be locked now. We all learn by our mistakes.

yore

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that there is a thread discussing Anonymous highlighting the way a case in America was whitewashed and glossed over by those who pulled the strings...........

...and yet here were have a new sacred cow in the form of the wealthy. The days of the priest/teacher/bank-manager being untouchable in society have thankfully finally gone, but unfortunately have been replaced by a more insidious fear. Fear of money. Or anonymous people with money. At least teh priest/bank-manager/teacher had some status/reputation that they "earned". In this case it's money and money alone.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

well i say shame on boards as much as i like them wheres freedom of speech guess doesnt count if the other party is rich

Freedom of speech is an Americanism. It doesn't apply here.

This whole thing smells to me like typical 4chan-esque scumbaggery. Sure, you can say what you feel about the girl, but to post her Facebook and LinkedIn profiles in an attempt to bully her is just wrong.

HondaSami

Downlinz wrote: »

I'm sorry what? You think just because she was drunk her aggressive and insulting behaviour along with her claims of power abuse should just be brushed under the carpet? If she was sober would you have a different attitude to this video? Because if you think somebody should be absolved of all responsibility for what they say or do because they're drunk then that's a seriously disgraceful attitude to have.

I don't think she was aggressive for one thing, she was loud same as most people who are drunk.

She was insulting to people who were egging her on for their own benefit, to post the u tube video.

I'm not saying she should be absolved of anything but it's not a big deal, she did what plenty other people do every day, get over it.

Nothing wrong with my attitude, I'm prepared to make allowances for people in certain circumstances.

dvpower

yore wrote: »

Again, a point I made further back but so are Google and other search engines. If, hypothetically, they were filtering/screening their searches in say, China, they are a private company and perfectly allowed to do that.

Similarly, if you give Facebook all your details and they have a flexible enough TOS that you agree to by using the service, they are similarly entitled to use that information and/or sell it as they see fit.

Are you both ok with the above scenarios too?

I don't see these scenarios as comparable.

If Boards was the only place where this video could be seen and discussed, or if they had a near monopoly, then I might be inclined to think they should leave it up.
Personally, I like the fact that Boards is moderated as it holds the site to a certain standard (even if I sometimes disagree with that standard). There are plenty of other places to view and comment on that video, but unfortunately they are cess pits.

philologos

By the by, the last time I saw an administrator invoke the Defamation Act on a thread (albeit in the Islam forum) I created a thread on the Feedback forum asking if boards.ie had a consistent policy on it. I didn't get much of an answer other than to say it is on a case by case basis, but how is one to know whether or not a thread is kosher by the Defamation Act if it is ignored in 99% of cases and applied in 1%.

Is there a clear boards.ie policy on the Defamation Act and what posts shouldn't be posted on, or is it something that boards.ie is entirely inconsistent on?