KPMG Drunk girl shutdown

IsaacWunder

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Guess who Boards.ie Ltd. and Distilled Media Ltd. use as auditors? KPMG

Yeah, man, it's all, like, a conspiracy, man. Building 7...controlled demolitions...

Or, more likely, it's just Boards being Boards: overcautious to the point of stupidity about being sued.

RainyDay

jonsnow wrote: »

Meanwhile the corkschoolgirls tearing each other apart thread is still open.Just posted on it. I guess they are at no risk of cyberbullying.

Wasn't this story given wide coverage in the Indo at the time?

jamesbondings

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.

Not to mention Kpmg

Higher

mackg wrote: »

I agree with you.

Funny thing is this just kind of proves her little rant right, her dad is in KPMG and she can do whatever she wants.

If this was some lad from a council estate going on about how tough he was and about how he knows some famous criminal it would be post of the day 2 days in a row and we'd all have a good laugh about it.

If this was consistently the way things were done I doubt there would be too much fuss but it's not.

Heres the difference, the girl in question was being bullied by the lads filming. The description clearly stated something along the lines that she was shoeless and eating scraps of pizza off the table.

Now do you think she went on that rant unprovoked or is it even slightly possible that those lads passed comment on her being shoeless and eating scraps?

Also what are your opinions on the lad filming twice trying to get the camera up a 16 year old girls skirt?

Oryx

IsaacWunder wrote: »

Yeah, man, it's all, like, a conspiracy, man. Building 7...controlled demolitions...

Or, more likely, it's just Boards being Boards: overcautious to the point of stupidity about being sued.

I have to point out its not stupidity. Boards deal with threats of legal action every single day. They cant talk about it, naturally, but its very real, and in this country with our defamation laws, caution is very necessary.

mackg

The King of Moo wrote: »

There is a double standard at play here, but I don't think it's one that Boards.ie can be directly held responsible for. It's a broader one, indicative of the overt class distinctions which are increasingly evident in this country.



I think it's right to remove the video from the thread if she's underage, because unfortunately it likely would end up in cyberbullying from a minority of people.
I also think it's a shame that we can't have a measured debate on this, because unlike others I do think the video begs a lot of questions about snobbery in Ireland and children growing up with this attitude.

I don't think Boards is consciously enacting a double standard, unless it did turn out that fear of legal action was a reason for threads being locked.
One good think I hope comes from this video is that Boards' policy about such videos encompasses people without her clout.

As long as it's consistent, then it's fair enough.

jonsnow

RainyDay wrote: »

Wasn't this story given wide coverage in the Indo at the time?

So? The indo have covered it lads cyberbully away...

Lyaiera

Oryx wrote: »

I have to point out its not stupidity. Boards deal with threats of legal action every single day. They cant talk about it, naturally, but its very real, and in this country with our defamation laws, caution is very necessary.

They did talk about it. It's already been said that the thread was taken down because of the legal implications of the Defamation Act.

Oryx

Lyaiera wrote: »

They did talk about it. It's already been said that the thread was taken down because of the legal implications of the Defamation Act.

They cant talk about the majority of issues the office deal with every day.

humanji

Lyaiera wrote: »

They did talk about it. It's already been said that the thread was taken down because of the legal implications of the Defamation Act.

As one of the reasons. Don't forget that. I know it may be implausible to some, but there really is more than one reason for it. The legal one is the most important to the site as it can result in the entire thing being shut down.

jonsnow

Sully wrote: »

As Nicola said, its not a 'one size fits all' rule. The two threads are completely different.

How are they fundamentally different.Vulnerable young teens captured on camera phones, posted to the internet and become a social media sensation.If anything the cork girls fight was even worse as they girls were doing more than just mouthing off and the fight actually became a national news story.

Now if the thread has been locked quicker this time round because lessons have been learned in the last few months then that is great but I call bull**** on the threads being completely different.

yore

Penn wrote: »

OH MY GOD!

So?

It wouldn't change anything. Notice how Youtube, Dailymotion etc have been taking down the videos? Do they use KPMG too? The fact remains that there are legal implications to showing the video and Boards doesn't want that trouble. Hell, the audience guy in the Late Late was bringing out injunctions and Boards removed the videos and pics. The guy who was alleged to have done a runner from a taxi hit Boards with an injunction

Do their fathers work at KPMG too?

Really?

So those other cases needed an injunction....but this one didn't

Must be nice to have money! I wonder if any of the Boards hierarchy have links to the people involved.

The gas thing is that I'd have never put any pass on the video if I hadn't seen the Taliban-esque censorship. The video is cr*p; I only watched it because I thought there must be something "explosive" in it. You're making an issue out of a non-issue

A precedent needs to be set -
Regardless of their class background, if a video like this is posted (the Cork girls was an example already given) then delete them all. Just because they are wealthy does not mean they are exempt from what anyone else would get.

With regards to that video -
Nobody in it came out well; she came off a privileged whiner and they utter scumbags. Both, to put it mildly, are idiots.

the keen edge

humanji wrote: »

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I've locked that now.

What, after 430 odd posts?

GRMA

This is ridiculous, the video is not defamatory, how on earth could it be? Why say it is and treat us like idiots?

ANXIOUS

Does anyone know who distilled medias auditors are? Did anyone else notice that a director of distilled media and a kpmg director judged a recent contest together? The defamation thing is BS, how come the ah here leave it out video was left up? I'm sure the kid getting the ****e kicked out of him wasn't more than 16. I'm honestly believe this is a watershed moment for boards and they have crossed the rubicon.

MugMugs

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Does anyone know who distilled medias auditors are? Did anyone else notice that a director of distilled media and a kpmg director judged a recent contest together? The defamation thing is BS, how come the ah here leave it out video was left up? I'm sure the kid getting the ****e kicked out of him wasn't more than 16. I'm honestly believe this is a watershed moment for boards and they have crossed the rubicon.

You're a bit late there tbh....

why did this video go viral its just some rich daddies girl living off his money

Higher

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Does anyone know who distilled medias auditors are? Did anyone else notice that a director of distilled media and a kpmg director judged a recent contest together? The defamation thing is BS, how come the ah here leave it out video was left up? I'm sure the kid getting the ****e kicked out of him wasn't more than 16. I'm honestly believe this is a watershed moment for boards and they have crossed the rubicon.

Can you not see the difference? The kid in question was engaging in criminal behaviour hitting innocent people with an umbrella until a guy responded in self-defence.

In this case, the girl was being slagged for being shoeless and eating scraps off the table and in her drunken state went on a massive rant that could potentially damage her career prospects for life. She didn't commit any crime except being provoked.

On top of that, the girl can be clearly identified and has received death threats and has had to close linkedins, twitter and facebook accounts. Ditto for her sister and father.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

jonsnow

Solicitors could probably seek a defamatory injunction on the basis of that video but IMHO it would never stand up at a hearing.Although that is still probably more hassle than boards wants

titan18

Either allow it along with everything similar that's allowed and has active threads on, or ban them all and anything where videos/news are involved that can lead to identification of people and potential cyber - bullying (in particular of minors) should be locked.

I don't see how there can be a middle ground, even for people who seemingly deserve it (like the Nodianos guy in the Is "Anonymous" right to expose possible small-minded sick town culture? thread on AH)

GRMA

Deleted User wrote: »

why did this video go viral its just some rich daddies girl living off his money

Mainly because daddy has tried to have it covered up, its made it a much bigger deal.


Best thing would have been to leave it for a few days/ a week, then try to get rid of it.

John_Rambo

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Does anyone know who distilled medias auditors are? Did anyone else notice that a director of distilled media and a kpmg director judged a recent contest together? The defamation thing is BS, how come the ah here leave it out video was left up? I'm sure the kid getting the ****e kicked out of him wasn't more than 16. I'm honestly believe this is a watershed moment for boards and they have crossed the rubicon.

ANXIOUS, I see you tried your best to name and shame the girl.

Why would you do something like this? Do you know her and have some sort of grudge against her that you would like to see her named?

<snip>

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

ANXIOUS, I see you tried your best to name and shame the girl.

Why would you do something like this? Do you know her and have some sort of grudge against her that you would like to see her named?

I think your a nasty little piece of work.

No, he didn't. There was no real attempt to name and shame.

Re: why did it go viral?
It went viral because of the heavy handedness of some sites (like boards) to stop it. Try to prevent people from doing it, they'll only want to do it more.

mackg

Higher wrote: »

Heres the difference, the girl in question was being bullied by the lads filming. The description clearly stated something along the lines that she was shoeless and eating scraps of pizza off the table.

Now do you think she went on that rant unprovoked or is it even slightly possible that those lads passed comment on her being shoeless and eating scraps?

Also what are your opinions on the lad filming twice trying to get the camera up a 16 year old girls skirt?

But it goes without saying that the guy from the council estate is the bad guy?

The video is what it is. You've made up your mind about it and that's fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else. Either we are all free to watch content like this, make our own decision and debate it or there is a blanket ban on this type of thread regardless of peoples views on the subject. That is the only way to do it fairly as Moo said. When I say debate I don't mean an unmoderated witch hunt either.

Personally I dislike to see what can be discussed on here reduced so I would fall in the camp of having all these videos open to discussion but if the decision is made and the threads are banned then fair enough as long as the rule is applied consistently.

As for the upskirt business, he didn't really manage it and I never ever claimed that the guy who made this wasn't a dick himself, far from it.

K-9

GRMA wrote: »

Mainly because daddy has tried to have it covered up, its made it a much bigger deal.

Posters have been told several times that this isn't the case with Boards but it keeps getting repeated, suppose that's the internet for you.

midlandsmissus

Penn wrote: »

And that's part of the problem too. Girl gets drunk and says things she shouldn't have, and now randomers are looking at her Facebook page.

One girl says her father is rich while being hassled by some lads who are videoing her (and we have no idea what was said before the video started recording), while she was drunk, and people seem to think this is some sort of topical video, important for highlighting "class divisions".

People are trying to turn her into a meme. People are looking at her Facebook profile and possibly sending her messages. People have found pictures of her earlier that day. And until we know better, it's widely reported that she's 16.

Leave the girl alone.

But......why was the ah here leave ih out, video posted no problem, showing people actually getting beaten up on the streets of Dublin?

Class divisions, class divisions, people with more power do not have their videos posted on these sites, at least be honest about it.

Is it because her Dad is from KPMG? (Potential legal action)

GRMA

Personally I think the girl is the bully and she has been exposed as what she is.


If it was some lad from tallaght doing similar I reckon it would have stayed up

But if the owners dont want it on the site then thats it I guess, I just wish we wouldnt be treated like we were stupid

GRMA

K-9 wrote: »

Posters have been told several times that this isn't the case with Boards but it keeps getting repeated, suppose that's the internet for you.

I never said it was? He asked why it went viral on the net, which is bigger than boards. And because daddy kept getting it removed from youtube etc it made it a bigger deal

Higher

mackg wrote: »

But it goes without saying that the guy from the council estate is the bad guy?

LOL. Sorry to ruin the narrative but the guy filming is also middle to upper class from his accent.