Eoghan Harris terminated

AndrewJRenko

DeadHand wrote: »

Strange case.

Commentators can happily tweet “kill all men”, “kill white people”, “white people are subhuman and should be removed from society” (that one directly from the BLM), “white people are snivelling goblins” and be applauded for it instead of ruined.

The Pym tweets were caustic at most. An indecent amount of spin was required to now have them broadly accepted as abusive. It has been made received wisdom that having one’s backside mentioned non sexually in a communication and other, even milder, vagaries are police matters and traumatic events requiring counselling.

This was much more about the identities and politics of the sender and target than the content of the tweets.

Harris was foolish to play these stupid games on Twitter. He has been clearly psychologically unstable for decades and a break from public life would do him good.

For me, the issue is not so much about Harris. Much more undeserved, dishonest hatchet jobs were carried out against Myers and Hook. It’s about the fact that Ireland is becoming no country for contrary views. It’s about the worrying, increasing dominance of extreme progressivist ideology over Irish society.

This is an ideology that the great majority of the public has no time for yet is embraced fanatically by political and media establishments which have never been so detached from the Irish nation. And it’s currently expressing itself in infinitely more harmful ways than the ruination of Harris, ways which the same media that excoriates him will not subject to anything approaching honest, much less brave, examination. (See the changes to our asylum laws).

Twitter’s famously woke and biased standards are becoming our standards. The entire English speaking world is becoming an American campus.

It’s a bad path we’ve been placed on.

And yet, here you are, expressing your views openly and clearly, with the only risk being that others might disagree with you. You're not exactly silenced.

McMurphy wrote: »

Eoghan Harris 2008.



Eoghan Harris 2021.

https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21950950

Those are the ramblings of a lunatic.

I suspect that it's not so much lunatic as he's spent decades surrounded people who don't dare to disagree with him. He's never been openly challenged. He gets well paid to spout off opinions in a national paper, and doesn't have to face any disagreement of challenge.

So when he's faced with (shock horror) young women who can clearly and articulately put out alternative views, he struggles to respond rationally.

Rosita

Rosita wrote: »

What difference if we are journalists or not? What'd be wrong with that?

It’s hard to know if this is serious or not. His editor fired him based on the inappropriate tweets, not because it was a burner account . Maybe have a word with him?

You don't seriously think that journalists don't live on forums like this?!

What part of “well, most of us”, don’t you get?

Balagan1

Poor Brendan couldn't manage to address the elephant in the room during his 2 hours on RTE Radio 1 this morning. Said at the beginning, when doing the newspaper scan, that he was sure we'd hear more about Harris over the weekend but didn't even specify what the issue was. He's going to have to deal with it tomorrow, God love him.

Dyr

I think what other journos are starting to muse on is that Harris was not the only Indo writer using that twitter account. Be interesting to see if Indo columnists are directly questioned on it will they give a straigh answer

https://www.thephoenix.ie/2021/05/eoghan-harriss-sindo-tribe/



Harris always had his fanbase among those who look wistfully towards our neigboring island, no suprise to see that contingent tying themselves into knots to defend him. Amusing though.

FrancieBrady

Gas there are a few trying to make this about his interaction with one journalist and trying to defend him on a sexualising charge.

He was abusive to numerous people and has 2 cases for defamation to defend against him.

Also gas they are trying to say he didn't disgrace himself and his profession with Sarah McInerney. Might I suggest that people take a trip to Twitter itself and see what people (Using their real names) have to say about that and Sarah's performance as a broadcast journalist.

AndrewJRenko

Bambi wrote: »

I think what other journos are starting to muse on is that Harris was not the only Indo writer using that twitter account. Be interesting to see if Indo columnists are directly questioned on it will they give a straigh answer

https://www.thephoenix.ie/2021/05/eoghan-harriss-sindo-tribe/



Harris always had his fanbase among those who look wistfully towards our neigboring island, no suprise to see that contingent tying themselves into knots to defend him. Amusing though.

Jeez, the list of family connections at the SIndo in that article, worse than even I remembered. Though it leaves out the bould Shane Ross and son-in-law Nick Webb.

tdf7187

Harris's claim that he doesn't want to identify the others behind these accounts because they might end up being 'shot' is nonsense. If he genuinely believes that the likes of MLD has a literal hitlist of political enemies then he is genuinely delusionally paranoid, possibly clinical. In fact he is perfectly entitled to refuse to identify them purely on privacy and data protection grounds. Much as I despise Harris, it's not a reasonable request to demand that he identifies others. He could be placed in breach of data protection legislation by doing so. Twitter has always permitted anonymous accounts. And yes, I know there is no real anonymity on the net, but you know what I mean.

Interesting that the whole thing only came to light when the account was used to attack other journos. He could say what he liked about the large percentage of ordinary voters who freely and voluntarily chose to vote SF. Essentially Harris and others of his views are permitted to regularly commit mass libel (not in the legal sense) against hundreds of thousands of ordinary working and middle class people.

Him claiming that he doesn't have many outlets is such horses.hit and again proof of the delusional world in which he lives. He has, or until recently had, one regular prominent media outlet. That's one more than most citizens.

zanador

I love the younger generation and how they stand up to behaviour that isn't acceptable to them, and the impacts it has.

Some people commenting on the tweets remind me of people who say 'well I was smacked as a child and it did me no harm' - except for the fact that you grew up thinking it's ok to hit children.

gormdubhgorm

tdf7187 wrote: »

Harris's claim that he doesn't want to identify the others behind these accounts because they might end up being 'shot' is nonsense. If he genuinely believes that the likes of MLD has a literal hitlist of political enemies then he is genuinely delusionally paranoid, possibly clinical. In fact he is perfectly entitled to refuse to identify them purely on privacy and data protection grounds. Much as I despise Harris, it's not a reasonable request to demand that he identifies others. He could be placed in breach of data protection legislation by doing so. Twitter has always permitted anonymous accounts. And yes, I know there is no real anonymity on the net, but you know what I mean.

Basically the Independent have now completely pulled the rug from under themselves. The 'moral high ground' is definitely lost now.
This furore in theory now should increase SF support. As a new face of the Independent gradually emerges and the old guard 'Family Cartel' is removed - any future version of the Independent editorial culture will now have to tread very lightly on any SF/NI issue.

The SF powers that be must be in absolute knots of laugher. Rightly so
Because for all SF's shadiness and 'ducking and diving' aspects.
The Indo - Harris-Cartel have proven themselves to be just as shady, but not as adept at the ducking and diving.

There will be ballads written about Moore yet!

gormdubhgorm

zanador wrote: »

I love the younger generation and how they stand up to behaviour that isn't acceptable to them, and the impacts it has.

Some people commenting on the tweets remind me of people who say 'well I was smacked as a child and it did me no harm' - except for the fact that you grew up thinking it's ok to hit children.

Interesting spin on it. But look at the diverging approach of two strong intelligent independent female journalists (of differing political backgrounds) reacting to the Pym tweets they received -

One Sarah McInerney simply blocked the account and did not speak of it until yesterday's Harris interview. Calmly using it to discredit Harris's more idiotic statements live on air. It left Harris reeling. Adeptly and cleverly done by McInerney.

The other Aoife Moore - created a narrative about the tweets (fishing for sympathy on the same medium twitter) - called the guards and sought counselling. Maximum 'twitter impact' was aimed for in my opinion. A very cleverly forumalated tweet by Moore, adeptly done.

Differing strategies/reactions but the same results.

Cilldara_2000

tdf7187 wrote: »

Harris's claim that he doesn't want to identify the others behind these accounts because they might end up being 'shot' is nonsense. If he genuinely believes that the likes of MLD has a literal hitlist of political enemies then he is genuinely delusionally paranoid, possibly clinical. In fact he is perfectly entitled to refuse to identify them purely on privacy and data protection grounds. Much as I despise Harris, it's not a reasonable request to demand that he identifies others. He could be placed in breach of data protection legislation by doing so. Twitter has always permitted anonymous accounts. And yes, I know there is no real anonymity on the net, but you know what I mean.

Interesting that the whole thing only came to light when the account was used to attack other journos. He could say what he liked about the large percentage of ordinary voters who freely and voluntarily chose to vote SF. Essentially Harris and others of his views are permitted to regularly commit mass libel (not in the legal sense) against hundreds of thousands of ordinary working and middle class people.

Him claiming that he doesn't have many outlets is such horses.hit and again proof of the delusional world in which he lives. He has, or until recently had, one regular prominent media outlet. That's one more than most citizens.

I don't believe running a twitter with a few other individuals makes Harris a data controller or data processor which would then fall into GDPR. What's next? A criminal can't turn state's witness for data protection reasons?

zanador

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Interesting spin on it. But look at the diverging approach of two strong intelligent independent female journalists (of differing political backgrounds) reacting to the Pym tweets they received -

One Sarah McInerney simply blocked the account and did not speak of it until yesterday's Harris interview. Calmly using it to discredit Harris's more idiotic statements live on air. It left Harris reeling.

The other Aoife Moore - created a narrative about the tweets (fishing for sympathy on the same medium twitter) - called the guards and sought counselling. Maximum 'twitter impact' was aimed for in my opinion.

Differing strategies/reactions but the same results.

Possibly because they had different effects on them as humans?


I'm as cynical as the next person but I have very little time for elderly and middle aged men sending anything aggressive towards younger women (younger people) so even if it is strategy it's a refreshing one. I wonder over the years how many people this type of bullying behaviour has effected and been swallowed and ended up with huge mental health issues.

This generation get counseling over something very fast and it's done. They pinpoint something that will weigh them down and get rid. That's as tough as swallowing it down if not more so.

I would agree with the Twitter impact, it's gas because it's such a small microcosm of society that uses it but they think it's what rules the world. The only time it's of any import is when stuff like this happens and someone gets in proper trouble. The rest is just an echo chamber of self indulgence imo.

However I'm not going to argue with how a younger generation deals with stuff because really we made it all a bit **** for them.

I don't think any of the tweets are clever enough to be wit.

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Interesting spin on it. But look at the diverging approach of two strong intelligent independent female journalists (of differing political backgrounds) reacting to the Pym tweets they received -

One Sarah McInerney simply blocked the account and did not speak of it until yesterday's Harris interview. Calmly using it to discredit Harris's more idiotic statements live on air. It left Harris reeling. Adeptly and cleverly done by McInerney.

The other Aoife Moore - created a narrative about the tweets (fishing for sympathy on the same medium twitter) - called the guards and sought counselling. Maximum 'twitter impact' was aimed for in my opinion. A very cleverly forumalated tweet by Moore, adeptly done.

Differing strategies/reactions but the same results.

Did Moore make anything of the Pym tweets before Harris was outed?

Tony EH

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Interesting spin on it. But look at the diverging approach of two strong intelligent independent female journalists (of differing political backgrounds) reacting to the Pym tweets they received -

One Sarah McInerney simply blocked the account and did not speak of it until yesterday's Harris interview. Calmly using it to discredit Harris's more idiotic statements live on air. It left Harris reeling. Adeptly and cleverly done by McInerney.

The other Aoife Moore - created a narrative about the tweets (fishing for sympathy on the same medium twitter) - called the guards and sought counselling. Maximum 'twitter impact' was aimed for in my opinion. A very cleverly forumalated tweet by Moore, adeptly done.

Differing strategies/reactions but the same results.

I think you might need a bit of "counselling". This has obviously affected you on a very deep level.

FrancieBrady

Tony EH wrote: »

I think you might need a bit of "counselling". This has obviously affected you on a very deep level.

Exactly. It is deeply disgusting to try to reduce it to this. Attacking one journalist for her reaction and ignoring all the other actions and implications of what Harris did is becoming an obscene attempt to vindicate him.

gormdubhgorm

Tony EH wrote: »

I think you might need a bit of "counselling". This has obviously affected you on a very deep level.

i believe one of the tenets on boards.ie is 'attack the post and not the poster'.

I am merely a contributor/poster to boards.ie like yourself giving my opinion. If you do not like what I have to say or if you feel it grates at you at a personal level. There is a handy ignore function on this site.

--

I find the furore fascinating -

It entails a generational gap, differing strategies (rightly or wrongly) differing use of technologies. Underhandedness. Ideological differences bubbling under the surface. Journalist power plays.
A fight for the moral high ground, a public relations battle fought on various mediums. Creation of narratives on both sides of the argument.

Really fascinating stuff, people with baises only seeing one point of view on various mediums. Playing to the 'emotive' element of the story.
Nepotism in Irish media is another aspect (Sindo etc fall of a cartel) it will run and run and run.

But I suggest making personal insinuations just because you do not like a person's opinion is not the correct way to debate an issue. As like the Sindo have done you can quickly lose the moral high ground.

I suppose it happens now and again on boards.ie - have done it myself on occasion where I got 'emotive'. But it is not conducive to a real debate and dies very quickly or just repeats itself. Entrenching the positions on both sides. Waste of time.

So what is your opinion on the whole affair as it stands?

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly. It is deeply disgusting to try to reduce it to this. Attacking one journalist for her reaction and ignoring all the other actions and implications of what Harris did is becoming an obscene attempt to vindicate him.

Completely untrue, nowhere did I attempt to vindicate Harris's actions I have repeatedly said that they were wrong.


Plus I think the Independent coverage of SF has turned into a joke, and I have said it in a number of posts on a thread about 6 years ago.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92975895&postcount=20

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92975938&postcount=22


But I do believe the Moore is 'playing to gallery' and more power to her. That is her strategy it worked.

That is how I see it, why not just block the account like McInerney did? Why return to the same medium - twitter to give her 'take' on the issue?
Basically fishing as that is what twitter is.

McInerney took a different more traditional route that worked as well.

If you want to attack me do so.
But you should try do it it with reasoned argument instead of putting 'words in my mouth'.
An accusation you regularly accuse other posters of doing on this very site on issues 'close to your heart'.
So the irony is not lost on me.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Completely untrue nowhere did I attempt to vindicate Harris's actions I have repeatedly said that they were wrong.


Plus I think the Independent coverage of SF has turned into a joke and I have said it in a number of posts on a thread 6 years ago.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92975895&postcount=20

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92975938&postcount=22


But I do believe the Moore is playing to gallery and more power to her. That is her strategy it worked.

McInerney took a different more traditional route that worked as well.
If you want to attack me do so.

But do it it with reasoned argument instead of putting 'words in my mouth'.
An accusation you regularly accuse other posters of doing on this very site on issues close to your heart.

Ok GDG. Ok, we get it, now can you deal with the implications of what Harris did without the focus on just one exchange?
In other words what is the point of your focus on an exchange with one journalist when there were many others and 2 cases of defamation pending.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ok GDG. Ok, we get it, now can you deal with the implications of what Harris did without the focus on just one exchange?
In other words what is the point of your focus on an exchange with one journalist when there were many others and 2 cases of defamation pending.

Because that is the one that has garnered the most attention on this thread and another poster linked the Moore tweet, and I read them including the Pym tweets.

Mcinerney also highlighted the same Moore tweet and the tweets she received only yesterday. That is the simple reason why there is focus on 'one exchange'.

If you wish to broaden the debate to the other issues you mention I suggest you link them for others perusal on this thread. It is that simple.

I also find defamation cases fascinating believe it or not! Regardless of who is in them or isn't.

I have already commented how the upheaval of the Independent and Harris's actions is likely to affect the paper and SF going forwards. But you seem to have missed that bit.

wicklowstevo

gas that none of the blatant shinner bots on this thread or even site see any irony between harris and the ongoing and persistent social media campaign sf and its trolls run against any one identified as opposed to them

harris's stupidity is a party political policy for them

sf trolls have been abusing people here and on every other platform for years

gormdubhgorm

wicklowstevo wrote: »

gas that none of the blatant shinner bots on this thread or even site see any irony between harris and the ongoing and persistent social media campaign sf and its trolls run against any one identified as opposed to them

harris's stupidity is a party political policy for them

sf trolls have been abusing people here and on every other platform for years

As I said before pair of them in it. I have visualisations of party 'activists' on all sides tweeting and commenting on message boards. Looking for cracks and weakness and trying to 'break' the other.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/all-politics-is-social-how-fine-gael-and-sinn-f%C3%A9in-have-taken-the-fight-online-1.4552432

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40253849.html

Sure boards must be littered with feckers 'activists' popping up on the same threads ad nauseum and constantly

zanador

wicklowstevo wrote: »

gas that none of the blatant shinner bots on this thread or even site see any irony between harris and the ongoing and persistent social media campaign sf and its trolls run against any one identified as opposed to them

harris's stupidity is a party political policy for them

sf trolls have been abusing people here and on every other platform for years

Gas that none of the anti sinn Fein people have realised that they're the ones who bring sinn Fein into everything and provide free publicity as well as gaining support for sinn Fein through their use of aggressive and patronising language?

I don't vote party if I can, I'll go independent where at all possible before I'm accused of something I'm not, but am delighted Harris is being held accountable and if it turns out he's been advising government Id like them to say something.

This but what about Gerry whataboutery isnt pertinent to me so I'd appreciate another argument back if you have one.

zanador

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

As I said before pair of them in it. I have visualisations of party 'activists' on all sides tweeting and commenting on message boards. Looking for cracks and weakness and trying to 'break' the other.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/all-politics-is-social-how-fine-gael-and-sinn-f%C3%A9in-have-taken-the-fight-online-1.4552432

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40253849.html

Sure boards must be littered with feckers 'activists' popping up on the same threads ad nauseum and constantly

I very rarely post so when someone discounts arguments solely based on another posters political leanings rather than the argument made, and especially when it's done in the slightly moral superior way, I'd read the original poster with much more interest and disregard the off topic patronising one.

Tony EH

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

i believe one of the tenets on boards.ie is 'attack the post and not the poster'.

I am merely a contributor/poster to boards.ie like yourself giving my opinion. If you do not like what I have to say or if you feel it grates at you at a personal level. There is a handy ignore function on this site.

--

I find the furore fascinating -

It entails a generational gap, differing strategies (rightly or wrongly) differing use of technologies. Underhandedness. Ideological differences bubbling under the surface. Journalist power plays.
A fight for the moral high ground, a public relations battle fought on various mediums. Creation of narratives on both sides of the argument.

Really fascinating stuff, people with baises only seeing one point of view on various mediums. Playing to the 'emotive' element of the story.
Nepotism in Irish media is another aspect (Sindo etc fall of a cartel) it will run and run and run.

But I suggest making personal insinuations just because you do not like a person's opinion is not the correct way to debate an issue. As like the Sindo have done you can quickly lose the moral high ground.

I suppose it happens now and again on boards.ie - have done it myself on occasion where I got 'emotive'. But it is not conducive to a real debate and dies very quickly or just repeats itself. Entrenching the positions on both sides. Waste of time.

So what is your opinion on the whole affair as it stands?

LOL

That high horse you think you siting on is a Shetland pony.

Look, you've been beating this hollow drum for, literally, pages and are saying absolutely nothing new even with this post. Everyone gets it, but the vast majority of posters here don't agree with your assumptions and that's all you have on this.

You've taken the word "counselling" and ran with it to the tune of your own interpretation, when it could simply mean that Moore rang someone to seek their council on what to do next, if in fact she should do anything at all. A second opinion as it were. You seem to think that it meant counselling in Sigmund Freud sense of the word.

By this point your endless repetition smacks more of an effort by you to drag the thread off topic rather than one concerned with discussing Harris' actions that got him into the bother he's found himself in and it isn't going to gain you the agreement you're hoping for.

FrancieBrady

zanador wrote: »

I very rarely post so when someone discounts arguments solely based on another posters political leanings rather than the argument made, and especially when it's done in the slightly moral superior way, I'd read the original poster with much more interest and disregard the off topic patronising one.

They can't deal with the fact that it is Irish journalism that has been brought under the spotlight. This extends beyond Harris and they know it and bears no relation in import to random abuse.
This is systemic anonymous targeted abuse emanating from one journalist that we know about and with heavy implications that other journalists are involved.

They can't let that play out without focusing on the 'something something else' look over there rants.

wicklowstevo

zanador wrote: »

Gas that none of the anti sinn Fein people have realised that they're the ones who bring sinn Fein into everything and provide free publicity as well as gaining support for sinn Fein through their use of aggressive and patronising language?

I don't vote party if I can, I'll go independent where at all possible before I'm accused of something I'm not, but am delighted Harris is being held accountable and if it turns out he's been advising government Id like them to say something.

This but what about Gerry whataboutery isnt pertinent to me so I'd appreciate another argument back if you have one.

you see an argument where im pointing out and obvious double standard ? strange that


ya reckon this isnt a sf issue ? did you not listen to the interview ? the central topic seemed to be harris's weird obsession with the very real danger sf pose. that would seem to make them relevant dont you think ?

sf has a long history of doing exactly what harris himself did , people have been calling them out for years here and else where only to be met with abuse intimidation slander and aggressive patronizing language (o the irony )
im also happy he was caught out as i hope all horrible little trolls like him are regardless of their politics but you cant ignore that sf are still doing the same thing as he was

gormdubhgorm

zanador wrote: »

Gas that none of the anti sinn Fein people have realised that they're the ones who bring sinn Fein into everything and provide free publicity as well as gaining support for sinn Fein through their use of aggressive and patronising language?

I don't vote party if I can, I'll go independent where at all possible before I'm accused of something I'm not, but am delighted Harris is being held accountable and if it turns out he's been advising government Id like them to say something.

This but what about Gerry whataboutery isnt pertinent to me so I'd appreciate another argument back if you have one.

SF are one of fortunate parties. Due to their being not a 'normal' political party to quote Francie Brady who has said it often enough on this site.
As they are a party who is only emerging from a 'war' as he puts it. He has said that often enough as well.

But because of this fact there is no such thing as 'bad publicity' for SF. They can brush any fiasco off fairly easily water off a duck's back.
No other party can do that and it always amazes me. So many controversies 'serious' ones they get forgotten as SF are ready to brush off the next one.
No bother to them astute shrewd and patience, That is republicanism in a nutshell

It must have driven Harris to the point of insanity over the years? And he finally 'snapped'.

Plenty of issues that have hung over SF would have been the end of any other party leader or even the party itself, at times.

But the SF hierarchy are shrewd in their playing of politics they know there is a generation to whom 'The Troubles' are ancient history. But they play it up as glorious to the SF older hardcore at the same time. Wonderfully done, wonderfully played as it is well practised. A well worn path.

What Harris has done is play into SF's hands.

Ironically given 21st century climate on mental health, cyber bullying etc Harris can not even claim 'martyrdom' for his cause.

He seems to have learnt nothing from his time when he had a strong Republican leaning and all the history that goes with it.
He would have been better off going on hunger strike instead of sending anonymous tweets if he felt that strongly.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

SF are one of fortunate parties. Due to their being not a 'normal' political party to quote Francie Brady who has said it often enough on this site.
As they are a party who is only emerging from a 'war' as he puts it. He has said that often enough as well.

But because of this fact there is no such thing as 'bad publicity' for SF. They can brush any fiasco off fairly easily water off a duck's back.
No other party can do that and it always amazes me. So many controversies 'serious' ones they get forgotten as SF are ready to brush off the next one.
No bother to them astute shrewd and patience, That is republicanism in a nutshell

It must have driven Harris to the point of insanity over the years? And he finally 'snapped'.

Plenty of issues that have hung over SF would have been the end of any other party leader or even the party itself, at times.

But the SF hierarchy are shrewd in their playing of politics they know there is a generation to whom 'The Troubles' are ancient history. But they play it up as glorious to the SF older hardcore at the same time. Wonderfully done, wonderfully played as it is well practised. A well worn path.

What Harris has done is play into SF's hands.

Ironically given 21st century climate on mental health, cyber bullying etc Harris can not even claim 'martyrdom' for his cause.

He seems to have learnt nothing from his time when he had a strong Republican leaning and all the history that goes with it.
He would have been better off going on hunger strike instead of sending anonymous tweets if he felt that strongly.

More defence of Harris...'must have drove him to insanity' Dear lord..GDG has just managed to blame it on SF...somebody predicted this would happen earlier. They win the prize.

gormdubhgorm

Tony EH wrote: »

LOL

That high horse you think you siting on is a Shetland pony.

Look, you've been beating this hollow drum for, literally, pages and are saying absolutely nothing new even with this post. Everyone gets it, but the vast majority of posters here don't agree with your assumptions and that's all you have on this.

You've taken the word "counselling" and ran with it to the tune of your own interpretation, when it could simply mean that Moore rang someone to seek their council on what to do next, if in fact she should do anything at all. A second opinion as it were. You seem to think that it meant counselling in Sigmund Freud sense of the word.

By this point your endless repetition smacks more of an effort by you to drag the thread off topic rather than one concerned with discussing Harris' actions that got him into the bother he's found himself in and it isn't going to gain you the agreement you're hoping for.

Not true again it is bang on topic this thread boils down to an ideological divide a generational gap, and shady carry on by both hardliners on either side over the years and decades.

That is it at its most simplistic but it does not suit the narrative, some are trying to play and I see through it.

You say counselling could have been a phone call - very true. I 100% agree.

Because I believe the phrase was used by Moore to garner 100% melodrama and reaction. It could have been a half hour phone call it could have been months of counselling we do not know.

But judging how Moore pushed the 'sexualised messages' narrative when Pym tweets when read in context say something a bit different - I believe the word 'counselling' was played up for effect.

McInerney did not do that? Why because she does not have an 'agenda' and stuck to the facts to sink Harris.

I would not be surprised if Moore was 'advised' on the quiet - on which route to take by certain political activists from Derry/NI etc.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

More defence of Harris...'must have drove him to insanity' Dear lord..GDG has just managed to blame it on SF...somebody predicted this would happen earlier. They win the prize.

No where did I defend Harris I merely said he must have been driven to insantity

So none of my main what I said is true about SF ??? Or has any ounce of truth???

Paraphrasing yourself SF not a 'normal' party.

Come on....

I am not going on your merry go round this time and I will leave it there.

I will come back to this thread later and will expect that you will have those defamation cases linked for me by the way. Good man.