Kellie Harrington. Was she hung out to dry or did she hang herself out to dry?

Is nineTEEN not a teenager now? Have the wokerati changed how numbers work?

Haha.

Defending a d1ck like hannon?

19 is an adult.

Mong, roscommonretard is okay by you.

Hold on. There is a big difference between 16 and 19.

19, he is an adult and a third level student. In his statement he said "16", but didn't take account of anything he said as an adult. So obviously lying to try and sound like he was just a silly child, when clearly he was proved wrong.

He used mkng and roscommonretard when he was an adult. Why is there still people defending him?

Again I ask the question, can we all just admit that they've said silly things on social media and move on?

The abuse kellie has gotten is horrendous. His tweets are definitely worse, albeit 10 years old. The hypocrisy is what is annoying me. Mainly how smug hannon and his pals were directly after the interview. A gotcha moment.

And I spelled your name correctly because I looked back twice to be sure, to be sure

Yeah, subscribe to the journal of common sense and you'll find out.

Anyone can think what they like and say what they like, but anyone who thinks that actions don't have consequences, is stupid.

Hypocrisy from public figures gets called out and challenged. QED.

Can people not see that a public figure, receiving public money and sponsorship will always be held more accountable for their comments than what was said when someone was a teenager.

And even so, as soon as Hannons tweets were dug up he released a statement saying he was ashamed, embarrassed and apologised. Where he talked about wishing he could have told his teenage self about the damage language can do and called out that he is also accountable to the standards he holds his guest to. So owning his actions and not in any way hypocritical.

The pile on against the interviewer however is yet another incidence of shooting the messenger rather than addressing the issue. You can legitimately seek to hold him to account over his actions, but that does not de-legitimise the question like many seem to think.

On Harrington, she is a public figure in receipt of public money and private sponsorship where her public image is used, so anything she says in a public forum is a legitimate source for debate. It highlights that you must be thoughtful when reacting to emotive topics

Yep- and if you’re going to take shilling to promote whatever it is she’s now promoting, you absolutely have to watch what you say and what you tweet- indeed, you need to assume that all of your communication will be scrutinised.

And also, considering she quickly deleted that tweet, she obviously knew she did something that would affect her “brand”- why she didn’t have a prepared statement or couple of sentences to rattle off in response is just plain dumb- it was an obvious question to be asked- it’s now much bigger a story than it should be.

The other voice was the Spar PR person afaik.

It certainly highlights how the contemporary thought police work if nothing else. One hopes they can one day contemplate a visit to Spar, after an appropriate healing period, without their world caving in.

Did you listen to it at all? She wasn't badgered, wasn't harangued, wasn't criticised by the interviewer, just given the opportunity to comment on her tweet. It seems those who need a healing period or those who can't countenance someone in the public eye being asked about something they choose to bring into discussion in a public forum. The "world caving in" appears to be around people getting triggered by other people being asked to talk to views that they expressed.

Just saying "be like Elsa and let it go" is a much better approach eh?

And the rest of you post strikes me as inverse snobbery at actually being able to express yourself. Monaghan of course being where the elite reside in their ivory towers.

If you compare

a sportswoman whose forte is her sport, not criminology, politics or immigration policy, who retweeted a post about a particularly horrifying crime and quickly deleted the retweet when she was made aware of the background of the original tweeter

and

a third level educated, articulate journalist whose abilities wold include careful use of words, communication, investigation, analysis, understanding and illuminating potentially complex issues; posting in his own words, what could be construed as hate speach - distasteful and insulting at a minimum, availble to view online for years, only attempting to clean it up when it appears it might come back to embarrass him, misleading the public about his age when the posts in question were made....

I know who I'd have more questions to ask.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Cop yourself on

Ok, so you have chosen the "i wont cop myself on" path