KPMG Drunk girl shutdown

Sitec

I found the video, what an anticlimax, this happens all over the country.
People who think they're better than people because of money is nothing new.
Can't believe it's causing such commotion, who gives a sh1t about what some D4 young one thinks, bigger problems in our county than this drunk teenager in fairness.

gbee

Morag wrote: »

It's a fact of life an unpleasant one but it is a fact.

Thanks uncle Bertie, but I'll need a better dig out than tha!

logie110

Saw a lot worse myself after a Nite out..normal pissed teenager in my eyes

Jelly 292

Sitec wrote: »

I found the video, what an anticlimax, this happens all over the country.
People who think they're better than people because of money is nothing new.
Can't believe it's causing such commotion, who gives a sh1t about what some D4 young one thinks, bigger problems in our county than this drunk teenager in fairness.

I did and said far worse as a youth, I was a prize dik sometimes, its being young. Thankfully it was before camera phones were invented.

That's not the point though.

The vid being pushed under the carpet is the issue. That's only made it explode, its how I found out about it anyway.

gbee

logie110 wrote: »

Saw a lot worse myself after a Nite out..normal pissed teenager in my eyes

She's underage.

logie110

gbee wrote: »

She's underage.

Yes..and not the only pissed underage teen in ireland either.normal for this country.

HondaSami

gbee wrote: »

She's underage.

Thought she was 18yrs. someone posted here she was not underage.

Saganist

Sitec wrote: »

I found the video, what an anticlimax, this happens all over the country.
People who think they're better than people because of money is nothing new.
Can't believe it's causing such commotion, who gives a sh1t about what some D4 young one thinks, bigger problems in our county than this drunk teenager in fairness.

The commotion on here is caused by the perceived notion that some sort of cover up was under way, not the actual video. That's why we are posting in the Feedback forum.

gbee

HondaSami wrote: »

Thought she was 18yrs. someone posted here she was not underage.

17. but, I don't know the month.

yore

yore wrote: »

This topic got special treatment because of who was involved. Or their connections.

I'd hope any topic that features a minor making a major lapse in judgement would get special treatment. She's 16.

If any thread on this kid and her stupid rantings were kept open, she'd be eviscerated. Since she's being eviscerated on YouTube anyway this should be enough for those who want her to suffer for her sins. Again, she's 16.

Loads of people say and do stupid things when they're 16, loads of people of all ages do and say stupid things when they're drunk. Most of the time people forget about it and move on, but this kid has her name out there in the public domain. Yep, and she's 16.

She's not going to get off lightly, and it just looks like some people are complaining because they're being denied their chance to slag off a stupid kid who is unlikely to be logging on to defend herself. Plus, she's only 16.

I think there's probably a degree of reverse snobbery in that too, but not necessarily the way you'd imagine.

KPMG girl is on youtube for all the world to see in all her drunken glory complete with her name.Maybe her dad should get her a job on low wages in Mcdonalds or similar to take her down a peg or two.If she keeps talking to people like that someone is going to kick her to a pulp.No doubt if that happened the media would be full of crap about what a nice person she was and how she was battered "for nothing".

The implication seems to be that if a 16 year old gets battered for some drunk rambling that it won't have been for nothing.

The Sweeper

Folks, can we request please that you refrain from posting links to the video or to other versions of the video (including parodies).

Obviously you want to keep talking about it, but no more links please.

yore

Morag wrote: »

I am not trying to change the issue at all.

You are. I am focusing on the difference in treatments. You try to turn it against me to ask whether I had reported those posts. As if to imply that it is my fault that that other thread continued. I've told you that I did not look at it until today. And I've had discussions on this thread directly with an AH mod who locked it today and who decided not to delete it. I made the same points I am still making.

Morag wrote: »

Nah it was a hot topic nationally so there was a level of awareness of it which meant when it hit here it got actioned quicker then other things do.

In Dav's post he mentioned he heard about it in the office, it was doing the rounds so there was a heads up and a decision made. That's what it is.
Some times something will crop up on a quieter part of the site and may go unnoticed until a member flags it or instead of going to the cmods/admins comes here and starts a thread.

Someone said here that the other thread was featured in the Indo and on the six-one and nine o'clock news.

Morag wrote: »

There is a process that anyone who wants to can used to raise issues and flag posts/threads which are not on, doesn't matter who they are or who they know, there is a process and it works.

Again. I looked at that thread today. I had discussions on thread here with an AH mod who locked it. But didn't delete it. They were asked numerous times why the difference in treatment but never gave a coherent (in my opinion) answer. The point remains that flagging or not, that mod is fully aware of the issue and the inconsistency. Yet the thread was not deleted.

brokenarms

Dear god. Post 674

The relentless thread that wants blood from a rich guys child. And thinks they have been hard done by because they cant witness more pain.

Pathetic if you ask a normal person.

yore

Candie wrote: »

I'd hope any topic that features a minor making a major lapse in judgement would get special treatment. She's 16.

If any thread on this kid and her stupid rantings were kept open, she'd be eviscerated. Since she's being eviscerated on YouTube anyway this should be enough for those who want her to suffer for her sins. Again, she's 16.

Loads of people say and do stupid things when they're 16, loads of people of all ages do and say stupid things when they're drunk. Most of the time people forget about it and move on, but this kid has her name out there in the public domain. Yep, and she's 16.

She's not going to get off lightly, and it just looks like some people are complaining because they're being denied their chance to slag off a stupid kid who is unlikely to be logging on to defend herself. Plus, she's only 16.

I think there's probably a degree of reverse snobbery in that too, but not necessarily the way you'd imagine.



The implication seems to be that if a 16 year old gets battered for some drunk rambling that it won't have been for nothing.

Were the schoolgirls in cork over 18? Genuine question, I don't know. Just wondering

VEN

i'd an issue of a bullying nature here a few weeks back through pm's sent to me and granted the user was banned but the raw material they were using that i asked to be removed of something i said 1 year ago on another thread that had nothing whatsoever to do with this person nor was offensive but a request for info...is still up. long story, still waiting for it to be removed. my very first post, yep i get rent allowance, don't bully me over it though please, i don't have a lot of money to get it removed, i'm from a different class.

gbee

Candie wrote: »

want her to suffer for her sins. .

Unacceptable language, sorry if you are the first to bring up that ward and sorry on me if I missed others, but NOT ACCEPTABLE.

The girl mouthed off. On one hand I actually admire her, on another, it's not her fault, but she has not sinned and how dare you bring this archaic analogy to this situation.

yore

brokenarms wrote: »

Dear god. Post 674

The relentless thread that wants blood from a rich guys child. And thinks they have been hard done by because they cant witness more pain.

Pathetic if you ask a normal person.

Are you being serious in that you don't seem to understand the point or are you trolling?

Do you think people are writing here because they can't "witness more pain". There's no problem finding this video online. Not having it on boards doesn't stop me watching or downloading it. Having it banned on boards made me go and look to see what the fuss was about though

gbee

gbee wrote: »

Unacceptable language, sorry if you are the first to bring up that ward and sorry on me if I missed others, but NOT ACCEPTABLE.

The girl mouthed off. On one hand I actually admire her, on another, it's not her fault, but she has not sinned and how dare you bring this archaic analogy to this situation.

WTF? How dare I?

Its an expression, a turn of phrase, and I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Her perceived 'sins' of snobbery and arrogance are what people want her to suffer for, something I happen to disagree with.

gbee

yore wrote: »

Were the schoolgirls in cork over 18? Genuine question, I don't know. Just wondering

No. Secondary School. 13~20yrs, those were first years so just out of Primary upto 12~13 yrs normally.

AlmightyCushion

Insect Overlord wrote: »

C-. Needs more effort. Troll harder.

It's a valid point. Why should this video be pulled while scumbag Steve and various other memes are fair game not to mention all the other videos out there where people make fools of themselves (star wars kid, gingers have souls etc.)?

yore

yore wrote: »

Were the schoolgirls in cork over 18? Genuine question, I don't know. Just wondering

No idea, not familiar with that one.

FoxT

OK...almost 700 posts later....

Has anything been achieved?
Any conclusions?

gbee

Candie wrote: »

WTF? How dare I?

Its an expression, a turn of phrase, and .

Quite frankly is not acceptable.

The child [legally] in this case cannot be accused of sin.

And TBH, it's not any longer a turn of phrase.

titan18

yore wrote: »

You are. I am focusing on the difference in treatments. You try to turn it against me to ask whether I had reported those posts. As if to imply that it is my fault that that other thread continued. I've told you that I did not look at it until today. And I've had discussions on this thread directly with an AH mod who locked it today and who decided not to delete it. I made the same points I am still making.


Someone said here that the other thread was featured in the Indo and on the six-one and nine o'clock news.



Again. I looked at that thread today. I had discussions on thread here with an AH mod who locked it. But didn't delete it. They were asked numerous times why the difference in treatment but never gave a coherent (in my opinion) answer. The point remains that flagging or not, that mod is fully aware of the issue and the inconsistency. Yet the thread was not deleted.

Don't know if it's true or not, but I saw a tweet earlier saying that this is in the Sunday Independent tomorrow


https://twitter.com/JohnBurnsST/status/287676128162873344

Morag

VEN wrote: »

i'd an issue of a bullying nature here a few weeks back through pm's sent to me and granted the user was banned but the raw material they were using that i asked to be removed of something i said 1 year ago on another thread that had nothing whatsoever to do with this person nor was offensive but a request for info...is still up. long story, still waiting for it to be removed. my very first post, yep i get rent allowance, don't bully me over it though please, i don't have a lot of money to get it removed, i'm from a different class.

Contact Dav about it if the mods won't remove it, there is always scope to do such things for people.

gbee

gbee wrote: »

Quite frankly is not acceptable.

The child [legally] in this case cannot be accused of sin.

And TBH, it's not any longer a turn of phrase.

Once again, MY use of for her 'sins' is a turn of phrase. It has no religious connotations in my useage of it, and it certainly is a turn of phrase and commonly used in my house to describe the dog being put outdoors for bad behaviour, or a hangover or any number of things. TBH.

Do not infer something I've explicitly said is not implied.

Maybe you should re-read my original post, as you seem to be getting the wrong end of the stick.

Morag

yore wrote: »

You are. I am focusing on the difference in treatments. You try to turn it against me to ask whether I had reported those posts. As if to imply that it is my fault that that other thread continued. I've told you that I did not look at it until today. And I've had discussions on this thread directly with an AH mod who locked it today and who decided not to delete it. I made the same points I am still making.


Again. I looked at that thread today. I had discussions on thread here with an AH mod who locked it. But didn't delete it. They were asked numerous times why the difference in treatment but never gave a coherent (in my opinion) answer. The point remains that flagging or not, that mod is fully aware of the issue and the inconsistency. Yet the thread was not deleted.

I don't know the decision making process behind that other thread, I haven't read the other thread, if you want it look at then pm cmods/admins/Dav about it and it reviewed.

Like I said policies and best practice for the site are constantly evolving and when a state of play like this happens, often it's reviewed and changes are made.

Like how AH had a much better policy now on sexist twaddle then it did 3 year ago.

yore

Morag wrote: »

I don't know the decision making process behind that other thread, I haven't read the other thread, if you want it look at then pm cmods/admins/Dav about it and it reviewed.

Like I said policies and best practice for the site are constantly evolving and when a state of play like this happens, often it's reviewed and changes are made.

Like how AH had a much better policy now on sexist twaddle then it did 3 year ago.

I already talked to a Mod directly on thread about it. They said that that case was different in some way. Which is why it was locked today and not deleted. Perhaps another policy evolution since yesterdays "delete" policy

brokenarms

yore wrote: »

Are you being serious in that you don't seem to understand the point or are you trolling?

Do you think people are writing here because they can't "witness more pain". There's no problem finding this video online. Not having it on boards doesn't stop me watching or downloading it. Having it banned on boards made me go and look to see what the fuss was about though

Im not trolling if you look at the past posts.

But I think the people who feel they have been ripped of by boards as pathetic at best.

Have you ever considered they may be acting on good taste :eek:

Good taste. I would have thought that would be a basic thang.

gbee

Candie wrote: »

Maybe you should re-read my original post, as you seem to be getting the wrong end of the stick.

I did. And your reply hosted no apology,

Be aware that you can be drawn before a court of law, be aware that a minor is the subject of the thread, and be aware that you accused her of sin.

And be aware that I called you on it.