Eoghan Harris terminated

volchitsa

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I had a good look through the Barbara J. Pym account before it was taken down and I didn't see much 'reassuring' going on...in fact, I saw zero.

Good point actually. By "reassure" I suppose he meant show loyalists that there were people in the south who thought the same as them - but you're correct that encouraging loyalists to persist in their views is not the same as encouraging them that their rights woudl be respected in a united Ireland.

And TBF Harris' panic over SinnFein would likely only lead loyalists to think the exact opposite.

FrancieBrady

HBC08 wrote: »

That's an excellent post.I was going to comment on this thread but you have summed up my thoughts exactly.

:D That has overtones of Barbara J. Pym singing Eoghan's praises TBH.

HBC08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D That has overtones of Barbara J. Pym singing Eoghan's praises TBH.

Haha! I have no come back to that.

Ps I've heard heard HBC08 doing a speech before and he is great craic and a tonic.

TheCitizen

Rosita wrote: »

Your points on that RTE interview are spot on. McInerney's own twitter experience with that account was irrelevant and thrown in without context. If she wants to argue the toss with him on her own personal experience she should go on another show and have it out.

To have it brought up in an interview where she was the interviewee was, like the "stop that ould nonsense", playing to the gallery. She was in a no-lose interview and got lazy. She's a good interviewer generally I think but the idea that she rolled him over in that particular interview is wishful thinking.

How is it irrelevant?

Thinkingaboutit

I half thought the Babs Pym twitter was about Eoghan Harris becoming transgender, although it seems more to have been used for the Eoghan Harass side of his personality.

Rosita

TheCitizen wrote: »

How is it irrelevant?

Because she said she muted the account with giving any indication why or what was said. For all we know she might have been completely disproportionate in muting it but since she didn't say why it is irrelevant. One person's "abuse" could be another's fair comment. Secondly she was making the issue about herself personally. Even if she could stand up the other matter it wasn't about her.

If she wanted to make it relevant then say what was said and let him defend/explain it, and acknowledge that she was going to pursue a personal gripe rather than give a broader interview.

My instinct is that she knew this guy was a beaten docket before the interview started and that her comments would go down well with the cohort which would enjoy a voyeuristic interview. Unfortunately this weakened her against an aggressive, assertive, and naturally angry interviewee. This allowed him to control the terms of the interview from a severely disadvantageous start.

TheCitizen

Rosita wrote: »

Your points on that RTE interview are spot on. McInerney's own twitter experience with that account was irrelevant and thrown in without context. If she wants to argue the toss with him on her own personal experience she should go on another show and have it out.

To have it brought up in an interview where she was the interviewee was, like the "stop that ould nonsense", playing to the gallery. She was in a no-lose interview and got lazy. She's a good interviewer generally I think but the idea that she rolled him over in that particular interview is wishful thinking.

By the way, she absolutely destroyed him, not that that would be hard with that lunatic these days and given that he hadn't a leg to stand on. The gibberish and bluster he got away with over the years doesn't wash anymore. When he dies it'll be remembered that when he was in a position of influence; instead of supporting those building the Peace Process and bringing an end to the suffering of the people in Northern Ireland he chose to be a malignant nay sayer and attacked and undermined those attempting to bring an end to the conflict. Let that be his epitaph.

He's thankfully irrelevant now. However, he hasn't gone away (yet) you know judging by the odd comment on here;)

TheCitizen

Rosita wrote: »

Because she said she muted the account with giving any indication why or what was said. For all we know she might have been completely disproportionate in muting it but since she didn't say why it is irrelevant. One person's "abuse" could be another's fair comment. Secondly she was making the issue about herself personally. Even if she could stand up the other matter it wasn't about her.

If she wanted to make it relevant then say what was said and let him defend/explain it, and acknowledge that she was going to pursue a personal gripe rather than give a broader interview.

My instinct is that she knew this guy was a beaten docket before the interview started and that her comments would go down well with the cohort which would enjoy a voyeuristic interview. Unfortunately this weakened her against an aggressive, assertive, and naturally angry interviewee. This allowed him to control the terms of the interview from a severely disadvantageous start.

Nope, that's nonsense, she didn't weaken her position at all, she was providing further proof that Harris is a malignant oaf.

gormdubhgorm

HBC08 wrote: »

That's an excellent post.I was going to comment on this thread but you have summed up my thoughts exactly.

You are one of the few who think so.

It is a bit like the Tayto ad there is always one!

I just thought I would sum up how I feel about SF and tie in bit of personal experience.

It is why I have never voted SF in a GE when it comes down to it.
As my criteria for voting for anyone is

1) Are they hard working ?

2) Can I trust them, do they seem sincere genuine and honest? As far as politicians can be in the normal sense of the word

3) Does the party who the individual represent 'negate' the individual candidate - orders from high etc

4) Is the party hypocritical, is there a consistency of views?

5) Would they handle the power responsibly if they got into government

Honestly I would prefer to vote independent - but in recent times in my constituency in the GE I felt forced to vote for other parties as there was lack of Independent representation. Based on my above criteria.

The irony is if SF 'cleaned themselves up' were more forthright honest and stopped the duplicity ie playing to elements - running from aspects of the 'past' while at the sometimes wallowing in them and glorifying, dodging them - that nasty edge)

I could vote for them if I saw the candidate as purely a hard working honest, individual and the party was predominately the same.

I think I might have voted SF on two occasions in my life one for Martin McGuinness in the Presidential Elections - a personality based election. As my view then was that at least Martin was honest to a point he was a member of the IRA. Plus it would throw some in NI a bone. Might calm them down a bit.

The second was in a at local county council level - where I saw the amount of effort a SF candidate was putting into local issues. But the crucial aspect to it was it was not power at a national level.

But it is SF/ SF supporters glee and reactions to events like these in which Harris gave SF a propaganda coup - it makes me think SF have a long way to go before a person like myself would vote for them in a GE where the real power is. I still wouldn't trust them when it comes to the real power the ROI - or as SF say - this state.

TheCitizen

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

You are one of the few who think so.

It is a bit like the Tayto ad there is always one!

I just thought I would sum up how I feel about SF and tie in bit of personal experience.

It is why I have never voted SF in a GE when it comes down to it.
As my criteria for voting for anyone is

1) Are they hard working ?

2) Can I trust them, do they seem sincere genuine and honest? As far as politicians can be in the normal sense of the word

3) Does the party who the individual represent 'negate' the individual candidate - orders from high etc

4) Is the party hypocritical, is there a consistency of views?

5) Would they handle the power responsibly if they got into government

Honestly I would prefer to vote independent - but in recent times in my constituency in the GE I felt forced to vote for other parties as there was lack of Independent representation. Based on my above criteria.

The irony is if SF 'cleaned themselves up' were more forthright honest and stopped the duplicity

(playing to elements - running from aspects of the past while at the sometimes wallowing in them and glorifying them - that nasty edge)

I could vote for them if I saw the candidate as purely a hard working honest, individual.

I think I might have voted SF on two occasions in my life one for Martin McGuinness in the Presidential Elections. As my view then was that at least Martin was honest to a point he was a member of the IRA. Plus it would throw some in NI a bone. Might calm them down a bit.

The second was in a at local county council level - where I saw the amount of effort a SF candidate was putting into local issues. But the crucial aspect to it was it was not power at a national level.

But it is SF/ SF supporters glee and reactions to events like these in which Harris gave SF a propaganda coup - it makes me think SF have a long way to go before a person like myself would vote for them in a GE where the real power is. I still wouldn't trust them when it comes to the real power the ROI - or as SF say - this state.

If you wouldn't vote for SF because they are celebrating Harris getting found out, then you're not being honest yourself. Why shouldn't they celebrate Harris getting a good going over, he deserves it for the malign influence he had on Irish print media in years gone by.

Imagine if you wanted to be a journalist back in the 80's and 90's and you had a balanced view on Northern Ireland as opposed to the extremist view that he and the other nest of vipers at the SIndo had? You wouldn't have had a hope of getting a gig at the Sunday Independent.

volchitsa

Rosita wrote: »

Because she said she muted the account with giving any indication why or what was said. For all we know she might have been completely disproportionate in muting it but since she didn't say why it is irrelevant. One person's "abuse" could be another's fair comment. Secondly she was making the issue about herself personally. Even if she could stand up the other matter it wasn't about her.

If she wanted to make it relevant then say what was said and let him defend/explain it, and acknowledge that she was going to pursue a personal gripe rather than give a broader interview.

My instinct is that she knew this guy was a beaten docket before the interview started and that her comments would go down well with the cohort which would enjoy a voyeuristic interview. Unfortunately this weakened her against an aggressive, assertive, and naturally angry interviewee. This allowed him to control the terms of the interview from a severely disadvantageous start.

So basically you think that she shouldn't have mentioned her own experience of Harris using his account to make personal attacks on someone because that's making it about her, but at the same time she should have gone into more detail on the nature of the attacks - and if she had done, you wouldn't have thought that was her settling scores??

(Ans: Of course you would)

Fann Linn

From reading this thread you'd almost be mistaken for thinking that it's Sinn Fein's fault that Harris got sacked. Not to mind that it was him bullying innocent parties and leaking info from his employer.

Just more of the same, '... but Sinn Fein. '

golfball37

Rosita wrote: »

Because she said she muted the account with giving any indication why or what was said. For all we know she might have been completely disproportionate in muting it but since she didn't say why it is irrelevant. One person's "abuse" could be another's fair comment. Secondly she was making the issue about herself personally. Even if she could stand up the other matter it wasn't about her.

If she wanted to make it relevant then say what was said and let him defend/explain it, and acknowledge that she was going to pursue a personal gripe rather than give a broader interview.

My instinct is that she knew this guy was a beaten docket before the interview started and that her comments would go down well with the cohort which would enjoy a voyeuristic interview. Unfortunately this weakened her against an aggressive, assertive, and naturally angry interviewee. This allowed him to control the terms of the interview from a severely disadvantageous start.

After he said to her “you’ve done your research I see” in a sneering how dare you tone she was well within her rights to bring up anything. He let that cat out of the bag not Sarah.

McMurphy

Fann Linn wrote: »

From reading this thread you'd almost be mistaken for thinking that it's Sinn Fein's fault that Harris got sacked. Not to mind that it was him bullying innocent parties and leaking info from his employer.

Just more of the same, '... but Sinn Fein. '

**Sinn Féin and Aoife Moores fault.

Rosita

TheCitizen wrote: »

By the way, she absolutely destroyed him, not that that would be hard with that lunatic these days and given that he hadn't a leg to stand on. The gibberish and bluster he got away with over the years doesn't wash anymore. When he dies it'll be remembered that when he was in a position of influence; instead of supporting those building the Peace Process and bringing an end to the suffering of the people in Northern Ireland he chose to be a malignant nay sayer and attacked and undermined those attempting to bring an end to the conflict. Let that be his epitaph.

He's thankfully irrelevant now. However, he hasn't gone away (yet) you know judging by the odd comment on here;)

That's not an argument. That's just name-calling, hatred and anger. You might as well not have replied.

Rosita

golfball37 wrote: »

she was well within her rights to bring up anything. /QUOTE]

I never questioned her right to bring anything up. I have no idea why you'd feel the need to point that out. Weird. I simply commented on the fact that the act of bringing it up doesn't make it a relevant or strong point.

McMurphy

Rosita wrote: »

That's not an argument. That's just name-calling, hatred and anger. You might as well not have replied.

I thought it was a well written and we'll thought out response tbh.

There wasn't any name calling, hatred or anger either, you sure you weren't confusing that post with one of the many articles penned by the same guy you've been defending since this story broke?

Odhinn

Rosita wrote: »

That's not an argument. That's just name-calling, hatred and anger. You might as well not have replied.

Ahh now. He's no Eoghan Harris.

jmcc

There does seem to be a big attempt by IN&M to put clear blue water between itself and Harris. The impending legal actions are probably the reason. It probably would not want to be dragged into those cases. The leaked poll information is a bit too convenient a reason.

Regards...jmcc

shockframe

Harris goes on about reassuring his readers in Northern Ireland.

What was reassuring about the last 35-40 years of absolute bile and hate?

TheCitizen

golfball37 wrote: »

After he said to her “you’ve done your research I see” in a sneering how dare you tone she was well within her rights to bring up anything. He let that cat out of the bag not Sarah.

He's an awful sneering pretentious character. I recall a studio radio interview with Fintan O'Toole a few years back. I think it was the Matt Cooper radio show. O'Toole was debating a point with him, indignant Harris full of self importance got all hot under the collar and starting shouting and up off his seat and walked out. Terrible that this chancer had such an influential platform for his extremist bile for many years.

There was a video of it, can't find it now.

tipptom

HBC08 wrote: »

That's an excellent post.I was going to comment on this thread but you have summed up my thoughts exactly.

Jeez,you sound just like how the Sunday Independant would forward the Harris Sunday piece on to their journalists beforehand and then they would start their own article on Sunday with;
"I was going to comment on SF/IRA/terrorists today but i saw Eoghan Harris"s article on it in this mornings edition,suffice to say it is anexcellant and astounding piece of brave journalism as usual on par with the man himself Winston Churchill,Myself Declan,Eilis,Ruth and a plethora of Fannings salute you and thank you for your service Sir,as you were".

gormdubhgorm

Rosita wrote: »

Because she said she muted the account with giving any indication why or what was said. For all we know she might have been completely disproportionate in muting it but since she didn't say why it is irrelevant. One person's "abuse" could be another's fair comment. Secondly she was making the issue about herself personally. Even if she could stand up the other matter it wasn't about her.

If she wanted to make it relevant then say what was said and let him defend/explain it, and acknowledge that she was going to pursue a personal gripe rather than give a broader interview.

My instinct is that she knew this guy was a beaten docket before the interview started and that her comments would go down well with the cohort which would enjoy a voyeuristic interview. Unfortunately this weakened her against an aggressive, assertive, and naturally angry interviewee. This allowed him to control the terms of the interview from a severely disadvantageous start.

TheCitizen wrote: »

By the way, she absolutely destroyed him, not that that would be hard with that lunatic these days and given that he hadn't a leg to stand on. The gibberish and bluster he got away with over the years doesn't wash anymore. When he dies it'll be remembered that when he was in a position of influence; instead of supporting those building the Peace Process and bringing an end to the suffering of the people in Northern Ireland he chose to be a malignant nay sayer and attacked and undermined those attempting to bring an end to the conflict. Let that be his epitaph.

He's thankfully irrelevant now. However, he hasn't gone away (yet) you know judging by the odd comment on here;)

I think McInerney played the Harris interview very well. Calm calculated, Harris was doing OK until the went on the SF/RTE conspiracy/plot line.

No way would McInerney be a SF supporter!

Harris said things like RTE did not have him on their media... Harris then said it was years ago, then two years.

McInerney: It was one year ago.

Harris blubbered from there on.

The more he spoke the more McInerney won the argument.

Harris could have came out of the interview OK if he kept it simple and played it different. Sticking to the tweets mentioned etc. Maybe even apolgising for any hurt the tweets may have caused as it was not his intent. He started off alright. But then lost the plot.

However, Harris went the other way and said SF as he saw them deserve such treatment. Digging the hole bigger for himself.

If he was less vehement and conciliatory he could have salvaged the interview.

But he not.

That is my take on it when I gave it a quick listen. a few days ago.

An Claidheamh

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Is this not just 'guilt by association'? I find it hard to believe she was implicated in or stood over the crude, sexist stuff just because they are broadly on the same page ideologically.

She is Irish and Catholic and supports anti-Irish terrorists and the Orange Order (not exactly fans of women)

No point expecting rationale from irrational people

Funnily enough, her brother Owen, is a Scottish Nationalist

jmcc

TheCitizen wrote: »

He's an awful sneering pretentious character. I recall a studio radio interview with Fintan O'Toole a few years back. I think it was the Matt Cooper radio show. O'Toole was debating a point with him, indignant Harris full of self importance got all hot under the collar and starting shouting and up off his seat and walked out. Terrible that this chancer had such an influential platform for his extremist bile for many years.

Harris got pissed off that they would not refer to him as "Senator Harris" and walked out. Think that Mick Clifford afterwards referred to him as "Appointed Senator Harris"

There was a video of it, can't find it now.

There was an audio recording of it on the radio station's website.

Regards...jmcc

TheCitizen

Rosita wrote: »

That's not an argument. That's just name-calling, hatred and anger. You might as well not have replied.

It is an argument. I'm arguing that he had a malignant, negative influence on the Peace Process, attacking John Hume one of the architects of it.

Do I hate him? I hated that when Hume put his personal ambitions to one side to attempt to bring an end to the conflict that Harris, Cruise O'Brien et al at the SIndo had the downright cheek and temerity to attack him for it.

This is a malign character who then sets up an anonymous twitter account to attack anyone he thinks that might have a different opinion than his with personal and disgusting sexist comments. Why are you defending him?

golfball37

TheCitizen wrote: »

He's an awful sneering pretentious character. I recall a studio radio interview with Fintan O'Toole a few years back. I think it was the Matt Cooper radio show. O'Toole was debating a point with him, indignant Harris full of self importance got all hot under the collar and starting shouting and up off his seat and walked out. Terrible that this chancer had such an influential platform for his extremist bile for many years.

There was a video of it, can't find it now.

I remember it. He insisted the presenter call him Senator Harris at one stage. I think it was Mick Clifford? He then proceeded to call him appointed Senator Harris

TheCitizen

jmcc wrote: »

Harris got pissed off that they would not refer to him as "Senator Harris" and walked out. Think that Mick Clifford afterwards referred to him as "Appointed Senator Harris"

There was an audio recording of it on the radio station's website.

Regards...jmcc

I remember now. Mick Clifford had a right cut at him on air another time as well I recall. Harris like the bully that he is wilted when confronted.

They use to wheel out Harris on the Late Late show to give a pundits analysis on an upcoming General election and Harris would be bigging up Bertie, this was after Bertie had appointed him to the Senate. Ridiculous carry on. Great to see him getting his comeuppance.

Jaysci20

golfball37 wrote: »

I remember it. He insisted the presenter call him Senator Harris at one stage. I think it was Mick Clifford? He then proceeded to call him appointed Senator Harris

That was the time the Sunday Independent were championing Fianna Fail and Bertie Ahern - over the course of a decade. Media, Sindo principally, did not hold our elected officials to account, with subsequent disastrous economic consequences. Harris was one of Bertie's main supporters.

shockframe

Harris on Drivetime is like Father Ted and the money resting in my account:D