Outrage Outages


Tony Groves

We are an emotional species. Certain things catch the zeitgeist, and certain things fade into obscurity. When we read that Stephen Fry was under investigation for blasphemy we entered a collective secular outrage. The irony that the investigation was dropped due to a lack of outrage wasn’t, I hope, lost on us all.

This website was the target of a popular outrage for publishing a link to a video. The scorn poured forth was enough to get Broadsheet to remove the link. For my part, I did not view the video. I had read pieces by the woman in question and can only say I found her pieces beautifully written and brutally honest.

People who knew her were, and continue to be, rightly upset. I understand the outrage and find myself in agreement with much of it. Yet I am uncomfortable with the decision to remove the link. Let me explain my reasons.

Ray Rice was a Super Bowl winning running back with the Baltimore Ravens. He is the team’s second all-time leading rusher behind Jamal Lewis, and is also second in rushing attempts and touchdowns, and third in combined touchdowns. All this is to say, Ray Rice was very, very good at football.

But Ray Rice is also a perpetrator of domestic violence. In February 2014, he assaulted his wife (then fiancee) in a casino elevator he was arrested and charged with aggravated-assault. The incident was a scandal. The video, released by TMZ, showed him dragging his unconscious partner from the elevator. The NFL waited until July to act. Ray Rice was suspended for 2 games.

I’ll say that again, 2 Games.

The criminal charges were dropped after Rice agreed to undergo court supervised counseling.

I’ll say that again, the charges were dropped.

The Baltimore Ravens accepted the punishment and said they were satisfied Rice was getting help and that he was “part of the Ravens family”.

I’ll say that again, part of the Ravens family.

Then in September, TMZ released the video from inside the elevator. The video shows Rice punching his fiancee in the face. It is a sickening blow delivered by a terrifyingly powerful man. The video went viral and the outrage, belatedly, exploded.

Ray Rice had his contract terminated by the Baltimore Ravens. The owner of the team made a public apology. The NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell also apologised and changed the entire league’s Domestic Abuse Policy. The NFL even appointed a former FBI Director to investigate the debacle.

As saddenning as it is to admit it, it was the video that jarred people into outrage. It was the video that drove everyone to demand a change in policy and an end to tokenism. It was the video.

I’m not condoning Broadsheet’s publishing of the link. I’m certainly not condemning people for feeling it was the wrong thing to do. I am asking whether, in the age of 140 characters and 4 second vines, if we need to open our eyes to horrible truths sometimes, no matter how uncomfortable and upsetting they are?

I’m asking does a over-sanitising of events allow culprits slip away relatively unpunished? I don’t know. I know I’m outraged that a good woman is dead. I’m outraged that a rare diamond will no longer shine.

Again, I did not watch the video. I feel I don’t need to in order to know a despicable thing occurred. I’d love to harness the outrage. I’d love to aim it towards a government that has slashed the Mental Health Budget. I’d love for all of us disgusted by these events to email our local TD and tell him we are outraged about the state of our Mental Health Support Services, I know I am.

But that’s not how outrage works. In order for outrage to work effectively it needs a zeitgeist. Outrage needs a focus and a goal. But sometimes outrage needs a video.

Tony Groves is a full-time financial consultant and part-time commentator. With over 18 years experience in the financial industry and a keen interest in politics, history and “being ornery”, he has published one book and writes regularly at Trickstersworld

Yesterday: Disgusting

224 thoughts on “Outrage Outages

  1. Casey

    There is a fundemental diffrence here. In one video, a hideous crime was being carried out. The video was used to bring the perpetrator to call for his actions.

    In the other video, a mentally distressed women in filmed in distress for the purpose of mocking and deriding her.

    For the purpose of mocking and deriding her. By someone abusing their position. A guard. A Guard who role in society is to uphold the law and protect those who are weak and vunerable.

    If someone had filmed the Guard carrying out the filming, these examples would be comparible.

    These examples are not comparible.

      1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

        I didn’t see any apology.
        I don’t think there should be one.
        I don’t think the link should have been taken down.

        Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

      1. Casey

        So apples are oranges in your world? One video is the same as the other irregardless of what the content is.

        1. Joe cool

          of course you disagree Tony. They give you articles, there’s no conflict of interest at all in you backing them up

          1. Scroll to top

            A better way to put it would be to state they host your inane ramblings. Happy now?

  2. ivan

    You make a fair point, Tony. And if BS had perhaps accentuated more in the narrative the way Dara was treated, the reaction from commentators might have been different. They *did* mention how she was “arrested and dragged into a Garda car” but then quoted (count ’em) six paragraphs from the Sun about the fact that the incident was recorded and shared, allegedly, by a Garda.

    So the angle/focus of yesterday’s piece was slanted – by BS – in terms of wordcount/emphasis etc on the recording, rather than the way she was treated, and furnishing the link smacked of sensationalism.

    If the whole thing had been couched in different terms, “here’s how the Gardai treat our most vulnerable” and then described the contents of the video and then *perhaps* provided a link and outlined BS’s reasons for sharing it, perhaps it’d have gone differently. The crux is that no permission from the deceased could *obviously* be forthcoming, and there was no indication that Dara’s family felt that sharing the video further would help.

    Hindsight’s all 20/20, mind…

  3. Casey

    Broadsheet should have not put up the link to the video irregardless if YOU watched it or not.

    Broadsheet should not have put up the link and does not now get to say to people “here is where you should redirect your outrage” The presumption that individuals reading here are not already outraged and active in helping and advocating for mental health services is just dammed rude.

    People can be outraged by more than one thing at once.

    The site did wrong. This post does not make it better.

    1. phil

      Some people think that if the News showed the horror of war , the blood the guts the faces of the dead children , unsanitized , it would be impossible for people to support any war. I think I agree , and I think thats what Tony is trying to get at.

      1. Anne

        Men go to war and see all the horrors first hand. There are still wars.

        This is not a video of a war, it is a record of a mentally distrssed woman in a highly aditated state filmed for the purposes of making fun of her by a scumbag human being.

        The fact the Guard was not going his job was not part of the narrative surrounding the video. The fact the Guard is acting like a complete scumbag was not a part of the narrative.

        The narrative of the apology is a mealy-mouthed “Don’t look at us – look over there!” BS has fucked up and they know it. Would be just good if they had the balls to admit it without the parsimony of emotional intelligence.

      2. Casey

        So your reply boils down to “some people think something so it is ok that the link to this video should be shown”

        Jaysuz, the DCU debating team is misssing a true star.

  4. John Handelaar

    You mis-spelled “we made a horrific mistake, it absolutely won’t happen again and we’re sorry”.

    The mis-spelling could inadvertently cause a person to think Bodger is whining through a proxy.

    1. Dubh Linn


      This post reads like a toddler with their hand in the jam jar telling me it is my fault for buying the jam.

    2. Tony Groves

      Proxy cheap-shot aside, any apology Broadsheet want to issue is up to them. I believe they’ve done so already on twitter.



      1. mildred st. meadowlark

        With all due respect, I don’t believe that the apology posted on twitter reads as sincere.

        1. Dubh Linn

          Especially as if you read the follow up comments that they keep trying to justify having posted the video in the first place.

        2. rotide

          It’s bizzarre they would post an apology on twitter and not on the website itself

          1. mildred st. meadowlark

            I did wonder that myself. It would be better for them to acknowledge their misstep, explain their motives fully etc. I don’t think that their intent was deliberately malicious, if I’m being honest.

            (Incidentally lads, why did you remove the comment below mine?)

  5. MKG

    A good article. I heard Paschal Donohoe say he had confidence in the Garda Commissioner on a radio station while a dossier undermining the Commissioner was reported on that radio stations tv sibling. Paschal made it clear he would only trust his own eyes. Arghhhhh!

  6. Anne

    You were wrong to share it

    You were wrong to share it with the narritive you used

    You have mucked up your apology too

    Come on, you know how to hold your hands up (go and find the post about looking up the IP details of the solicitor firm that was leaving threatning comments on the sheet as an example)

    We get the fact that the site is run by humans, frail, stupid, misjudging humans. This is a learning oppertunity. Take it.

  7. bleeschmn

    I hadn’t seen that you’d linked the video until this article here.
    I’m disappointed that you did.
    I’m disgusted by the non-apology.
    I’m baffled by the approximation of a sports start viciously assaulting his partner with a private citizen experiencing a traumatic mental episode. The ridiculous false equivalence of the unaffected.

    I think this will the last Broadsheet article I open for a good long while. A lot of ill-thought-out things go on here that I don’t mind, but this is on another level.

    This author may not have posted the video link, but this patronising, (emotional species, are we? go flog yourself) indefensible defence is as bad.

    Good luck now.

    1. bleeschmn

      Even the use of the word outrage suggests that people are getting into a tizzy for no reason.

  8. Rob Hunt

    This is a baffling post.

    You claim you didn’t watch the video as if that’s an excuse for it being posted.

    You claim not to be condoning the post, then go on to argue that it might have done some good.

    You compare evidence of a vicious crime being committed by a private individual to a member of our police force mocking a disabled woman, and you aided this mocking by spreading the video yourselves.

    Claiming that you didn’t need to see the video to be outraged, while cynically posting the video to drive clicks, displays a baffling lack of respect for your readers (are we the unwashed masses who need to be titillated into outrage?).

    The correct response to this was to apologise and move on but your pride prevented you from handling even that correctly. It was a terrible decision, period.. I’ve been an avid reader of Broadsheet for a number of years but I’m reconsidering that position now.

  9. Cinnamon Girl

    Personally, I was not outraged. The term ‘outrage’ is fast becoming a missile to lob at anyone wishing to dissent emphatically. There are problems with its use, and its interpretation. It cannot be interpreted within the confines of 140 characters only. People’s views may be reduced to that, but their lateral thinking is broader. You guys probably heard about it somewhere. The Irish Times, maybe.

    I also believe there is a lot of hypocrisy surrounding the uses and viewing of disturbing footage: What we say privately & personally as well the contradictions around this. The case of Billy Connolly’s joke about the imminent beheading of a UK citizen some years back illustrated this; a brilliant follow-up piece written by Stewart Lee posed a lot of worth-while questions around it. I’m sure it’s still available, if Googled. It’s worth reading.

    The role and remit of citizens journalism in exposing callous behaviour of state services is also problematic. Ethically, in the minds of many, it may stand up, but there is always collateral damage, and an ethical editorial judgement is required to balance public ‘education’ with responsible reporting. There are more questions around this than answers, and if it this case highlights those, some good will have been served.

    Personally, I felt the wrong judgement-call was made in this instance. I felt it was emotionally rash to reconcile the rush (and it was a rush) to ‘educate’ the readership and ethically safeguard that decision by pointing to the need for exposure of police brutality. As emotional as some of the dissent that followed. It was emotionally charged given the association the victim had with the publication and the issues on which she fought and somehow a justification was fast-tracked. The presumed wishes of the family and the dignity of the individual was secondary to the prevailing emotion.

    There can be a rizzla-paper line between ethical exposure and invasion of privacy and dignity. In this instance, I felt it was crossed. I have no problem with my views being giving a good kicking, but news – sorry – content – makers must be open to having their practices given a similar kicking. And do so without recourse to closed defences relating only to an ideological side of the argument concerning the state while minimisation of the wishes of the family and the dignity of the individual. It doesn’t help to be blinded by seeming blanket ‘outrage’.

    I say all this without a flicker of outrage. Although I am feeling hungry so it could’ve gone either way.

  10. rotide

    You’re going to take a lot of deserved slack for this Tony.

    I actually see the point you’re trying to make with the Ray Rice thing, that even though the incidents aren’t in any way comparable the presence of a video changes perceptions.

    Unfortunately, that isn’t even close to enough to warrant linking the video. From what I read yesterday, the sharing of the video to facebook caused this woman huge amounts of stress at a horrific time for her. So it wasn’t her treatment by the guards but the presence of this video online which became a factor. Therefore the video shining a light on something is wholly outweighed by it’s negative impact on her and her family.

    It was a massive mistake by bs to link it and at least they had the decency to take it down eventually.

    1. Lord Snowflakee

      You haven’t a clue whether that fact of the video being shared was a causal factor in her taking her life, it might not have had anything to do with at all, or really have been the thin end of the wedge.

      1. know man is an island

        And what’s he taking ? “Deserved flack”

        For a start the word is “flak”

        Second who appointed this guy as cricket umpire?

        Rotide’s continuing monotone bleating, nitpicking and point scoring is far more offensive than some dumb video

      1. rotide

        Deserved might be a bit harsh, apologies.

        For what its worth, Even though I strongly disagree with the analogy used, I think this is your best article yet. It’s coherant, sticks to one point and raises some interesting questions. Good job.

        1. know man is an island

          The word is spelled “coherent”. I think we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black here folks.

          1. rotide

            Cheers for that, better than the non-existent spell checker on this browser.

            Maybe you could throw an eye on future submissions for Tony?

          2. The Lady Vanishes

            Very inadequate apology for your misspelling, Rotide. Do unto others as thou would have done unto oneself (your comments on Broadsheet apology issue above refer).

            Non-existent spell-checker? A poor workman blames his tools.

  11. Cinnamon Girl

    I forgot to say, fair play for opening up the discussion. If anything, a calm head is needed. Given the height of emotions all around it and bitter aftertaste, a reasonably cool-headed start is to be welcomed.

  12. Eamonn C

    The outrage of people is complex and this article does not properly reflect that.

    People are imo primarily outraged that the police (or a police) shared a video of her in serious distress while in a public place around as entertainment basically. People are outraged because it is most likely that someone in police circles then put it on facebook. People are outraged cos it was obviously in wide public circulation up until quite immediately before her death. People are outraged cos that kind of public humiliation could have pushed her over the edge.

    People are also outraged that Broadsheet took it upon themselves to link to the video without it seems any process of communicating with anyone really or looking for consent from anyone related to Dara to do so or thinking it through in any way.

    People are outraged with the have your cake and eat it approach of simultaneously taking down the link to the video and defending linking to it as the right thing to do.

    I’m personally shocked that – having argued here and there that the content of the video is why it was important to share – that Broadsheet – didn’t in the original post with the link – at least describe in text what was in the video that was so disturbing so that people could at least make an informed choice about watching it. I’m also kind of disbelieving that they haven’t done that since taking down the link.

    A video cannot reach the kind of numbers in a short period of time on FB that this one did without a tight cluster of particular people getting it traction. This is the expression of a cop culture imo – not the result of one bad apple + the internet. I’d also like to know if this was motivated by ptargeted malice on the part of those police.

    1. Lord Snowflakee

      The only thing I agree with here is that it shouldn’t have been apologised for and taken down, it should have been left up. Yea, maybe add a little more context for the real dumbasses as you suggest, but it was pretty clear to me what it was about from the text I read and it was exactly as described.

      1. Eamonn C

        I didn’t say that ‘it shouldn’t have been apologised for and taken down, it should have been left up’.

  13. richie

    weak sauce. tmz video was released after very public airbrushing by nfl and ravens brass. it was a long standing story. It’s OK to just apologise for the error in judgement instead of continuing to dig deeper broadsheet.

  14. RuilleBuille

    I didn’t look at the video but I see no reason why Broadsheet shouldn’t link it as long as they correctly describe what you are going to see.

    I am more outraged that a Garda would film this rather than assist the person in distress.

    1. Cian

      The mobile phone video was taken in the CCTV control centre – it was a video of a screen showing the output of one of the CCTV cameras that are dotted around the city. Whoever took the video was not in a position to assist the person in distress.

      1. Dubh Linn

        Were all the phones in the city mysteriously out of use that night for some reason?

    2. Cian

      Perhaps you should watch the video, then you would at least know what you could be outraged about.

      It looks like the video was taken in the CCTV control centre – of the monitor showing output of the CCTV cameras in the city centre. this is my recollection of it:
      It starts off with the CCTV tracking a naked woman walking down the footpath and crossing roads.
      About halfway through a Garda car pulls up beside her and 4 Guards get out and go over to her.
      They talk to her
      They start to guide her toward the back of the car.
      They try to get her into the car, but she resists and closes the door.
      There is a general scuffle as the Guards try to restrain her. (this is obscured by a Luas going past)
      They eventually bundle her into a car.

      This description is biased by my interpretation of what I saw. I originally typed “slams the door” but changed it to “closes the door” to avoid bias.

      The levels of outrage seem to be:
      1. OMG a guard recorded official CCTV and put it on Facebook
      2. OMG a group of guards manhandled a woman in distress into a car
      3. OMG Broadsheet put a link to the video
      4. OMG I’m generally outraged for no apparent reason

      1. Anne

        Let me fix that for you

        A guard recorded official CCTV and put it on Facebook
        The footage showed another Guard roughly handling a distressed agitated woman
        The footage was put on social media
        The woman killed herself
        The woman has a distressed and shocked family trying to comprehend what happened

        I’m specifically outraged for an apparent reason

        1. rotide

          You can’t know if the person who recorded it was the same person who put it on facebook. They might have just forwarded it on to someone else who in turn put it on facebook.

          1. Andyourpointiswhatexactly?

            The garda shared it on Whatsapp. Someone from his/her Whatsapp group shared it on Facebook.

          2. Anne

            I never said it the person who recorded it was the person who posted it.

            Glad you could use what you imaged I wrote to detract from what I actually wrote.

          3. Cian

            Anne you said “A guard recorded official CCTV and put it on Facebook”. This would be read as a single person both recorded the CCTV and the same person put it on Facebook.

        2. Cian

          Anne, you listed 5 things. Which one/some/all/(add other things here) of these are you outraged about?

  15. Lord Snowflakee

    Another good article Tony. I don’t agree with everything you say but your analogy with Ray Rice was quite apt. It’s funny because I was in the US when the first video came out, I hadn’t seen the follow up story, thanks for keeping me in the loop on this as well.

  16. Stewart Curry

    I thought the fact that the Garda made the video and shared it was the issue, and not the contents of the video itself. So I don’t get how making it easier for more people to see a video which clearly has distressed a lot of people helps matters.

    1. Spaghetti Hoop

      The video displays the rough treatment that Ms. Quigley received from the guards. That it distressed a lot of people I believe is less important than the above fact.

      1. Casey

        It is disgusting that a Guard filmed someone vulnerable with the intent of mocking them
        It is revolting that the footage was posted online
        It is fucking horrific that a family dealing with the shock of a loved one killing themselves find out about this video showing this sickening abuse
        It was wrong that BS waded into the mix by sharing the link to the video without a thought for the wellbeing of the family
        It was wrong that BS posted the link without the context of how horrific the contents were
        For the sake of other vulnerable people in the country, that Guard needs to be removed from his post
        For the sake of other vulnerable people in the country, the training that the Guards receive when dealing with the emotionally or mentally compromised people needs to be looked at and overhauled if needed.
        BS needs to grow some emotional intelligence
        Would be nice if everyone commenting here could chuck a couple of quid into the collecting pots of their local or national mental health charities. Happy to post links if anyone needs them.

      2. Cian

        If the intent is to show how the Gardaí arrest people/treat people with mental health issues, then the video *should* be shown, and in it’s entirety. [Like the water protest videos from last year]. A description would be biased and not show all the nuances.

        If the intent it to show that the Gardaí can video their CCTV and share it inappropriately then the video should *not* be shown. A description of what happened is sufficient – since the content of the video is not really relevant.

          1. Lord Snowflakee

            What? If you provided a link then by definition you wanted to get clicks.

        1. Andyourpointiswhatexactly?

          Why should it be shown? Ok, it would show police brutality but it also will show a very troubled woman in a very vulnerable state, who took her life soon after. I would think that her right to privacy and respect trumps the first reason 100%.
          There are other ways of solving this than letting every Tom, Dick and Harry see the incident.

          1. Cian

            Perhaps because it doesn’t show police brutality? If the video isn’t shown, I only have someone else’s word what happened in it.
            If the intent is to highlight the police “brutality” you have to show the video.

          2. sOCK pUPPET

            Your certainty is not worth distressing the family of the woman who was abused and killed herself.

          3. Andyourpointiswhatexactly?

            ” I only have someone else’s word what happened in it.”
            Why do you think you have the right to access and evaluate it?

          1. sOCK pUPPET

            Why not wait for the consent of the family before you linked to the video?
            Was it the rush to be the first news outlet to publish it?

          2. Nigel

            One injustice was the video of a vulnerable woman in distress being made available to the public for crude mockery. One commenter made a crude remark in yesterday’s post. The comment and one of mine responding was deleted. The commenter continues to contribute comments to this site. The commenter is usually obnoxious, bullying, insincere and generally unpleasant but this seemed to me to cross a line. I have to wonder why, considering the deleted comment, the subject, the person the comment pertained to, and the particular injustice that person was subjected to, they are allowed to do so.

          3. Spaghetti Hoop

            I recall the comment Nigel; it was low. The mods can delete a comment but otherwise it’s an open forum. You can’t pick and choose commenters.

          4. know man is an island

            Poor Nigel. Wants to regulate free speech so that the echo chamber is not disturbed.

          5. Nigel

            Spag – I was under the impression they’d banned commenters before, and they certainly have a comments policy. Perhaps I’m wrong about that. If that’s the case, fine. Otherwise it sits poorly with me that someone who offhandedly threw out that comment about a victim of public mockery and abuse in a site where she was a contributor under an article about how her dignity and privacy were violated. I’m sure the person is delighted they got away with it, and revelling in the effect of their comment, even if since deleted. I genuinely don’t understand how anyone who professes to care about Dara could let someone who said something like that hang around swaggering obnoxiously all over the subject.

  17. Cian

    I agree with Tony on this one.

    I think that there are a number of separate threads that should be looked as separately.
    1. Was the Garda treatment/arrest of Dara appropriate?
    Is the Garda treatment toward people with mental health issues in general appropriate?
    2. Are the Mental Health services (that failed Dara between her arrest and subsequent suicide) adequate? How should they be changed?
    3. Should BS have provided a link to the video? This was by far the talking point and drowned out, and is still drowning out the other points.

    1. Oneilla

      1) Dara was manhandled by a male Garda, shoved up against the back of a car, arm twisted behind her and handcuffed. No, it wasn’t appropriate. Guards treat arrests under the mental health as though they are dealing with someone dangerous and thus end up treating people appallingly.

      3)No not in the manner they did. Yesterday’s article had a stray link to the video thrown in with only a passing mention of the contents. The subsequent justification was that the arrest was also newsworthy. Bit of a balls up on Broadsheet’s part here. Incidentally, the video has been taken down by the uploader from the questionable site it was hosted on. Broadsheet ought to have a think over that.

      2)Stop arresting people who have committed no crime other than being suspected of having a mental illness. For starters.

      1. Cian

        She committed a crime.
        She was approached by the Guards
        They tried to guide her into their car
        She resisted
        *Then* she was roughly handcuffed.

          1. know man is an island

            It’s a crime to expose yourself in public and or to refuse to follow a Garda direction. The video showed her refusing to get into the squad car.

          2. Oneilla

            All reports I’ve read say that Dara was detained under the mental health act not some silly law about public nudity and not a public order thing.

          3. sOCK pUPPET

            Hello @ivan,

            We’ve chatted on here before – I’ve always enjoyed exchanging ideas with you. I have before suspected that you are the famous Legal Coffee Drinker.

            I was not aware of the concept of mens rea until I googled it 2 mins ago. What do you mean by bringing it up in this context?

          4. Casey

            So you are aware that Dara was not arrested or convicted of a crime. So as Sockpuppet says, what crime?

          5. ivan

            I’m not LCD

            What I mean – in general terms – is that many crimes require two components; the actus reus, and the mens rea. Actus Reus means doing the thing, and mens rea means knowing you were doing the thing and meaning to do the thing. So in some cases, if you don’t have the mental faculties – or they’re temporarily displaced – you may not be committing an offence.

            and if somebody, hypoethetically, was having some kind of breakdown, or episode where their mind wasn’t something they were 100% in control of, then it might be a bit of a rush to judgement, not to mention crass/insensitive in the extreme, to say, as Cian did, that “She committed a crime”

          6. know man is an island

            I didn’t say she committed a crime smartarse. Cian said that. However when the guards apprehended her perhaps they did not know of the other mitigating circumstances people allege are the case. They saw a naked woman on the street who then refused to follow their direction and arrested her for that reason. Subsequent to this it appears she was forced to stay in custody under the mental health act according to reports

          7. sOCK pUPPET

            You are really not helping your case with all your legal eagalise :)

            Thanks for the explaination, I had suspected it was something to do with diminished responsibility but it’s nice to understand the full implication.

          8. ivan

            dunno if you’re calling me smararse or not but in case you are, i’m not *saying* that you said she committed a crime, but I AM saying that Cian said she did, Sock Puppot asked ‘what crime’ and then you pointed out that it’s a crime to expose oneself and to refuse to follow a garda direction, and that certainly suggested (to me) that you were broadly in agreement with Cian that a crime had been committed, by her.

            If I’ve misread what you were trying to say, then my apologies.

          9. know man is an island

            That’s ok Ivan. You misread what I wrote but it’s not like I was a paragon of clarity either

          10. sOCK pUPPET


            You said “It’s a crime to expose yourself in public and or to refuse to follow a Garda direction” implying that Dara has committed multiple crimes.

            Again, she was not arrested, she was not jailed and she was not convicted of a crime.

            Even if she had, WHICH SHE DID NOT, there is no excuse for her footage to be shared on whatsapp or Facebook. This should not happen to anyone – criminal, mentally distressed or innocent.

          11. Cian

            I’m not a lawyer, perhaps “committed a crime” is incorrect. I should have said [quick google] “She commited an arrestable offence”.

            She could have been arrested for “Indecent Exposure”, and if she refused to get into the car with “refuse to follow a Garda direction” – or whatever the correct legal terms are.

            I don’t know about ‘Mens Rea’. Does that applies to a Guard arresting someone? Or only later in court to see if you are convicted of the offence?

          12. know man is an island

            I didn’t imply anything. That’s you reading a negative thing to confirm your own bias.

            The person asked what crime? I wrote that events depicted in the video show evidence of two crimes being committed and I said what they were ( if they were committed). Ivan then correctly points out that convictions wouldn’t have been sought or achieved if the defendant argued diminished responsibility due to her mental illness. However this is all speculation. What we do know is that she was walking in the street naked and didn’t get in the car and that the guards could have arguably sought to press charges for both of these cases.

  18. Charlie

    There’s only one thing ridiculous than a Broadsheet commenter being outraged and that’s a Broadsheet commenter.

    1. mildred st. meadowlark


      Fixed that for you, at the risk of making you look… ridiculous.

  19. know man is an island

    Great points by Cian above

    Tony you’re wasting your time trying to reason with a lot of them on here , fair play Broadsheet for keeping the clickbait game going again today though there is a sorry kind of recognisable pattern to it after a while

  20. Tony Groves

    A lot of feedback coming, so I’d like to state a few things.
    1. Broadsheet didn’t write this piece, or ask me to.
    2. It’s not an apology. It’s an attempt to open a more nuanced argument around outrage and turning it into something positive.
    3. I am not condoning yesterday’s article.
    4. I am not demeaning anyone by suggesting a video is or is not necessary .
    5. Thank you for the feedback.


    1. richie

      how is comparing apples to oranges facilitating a nuanced discussion? I’m very familiar with the Janelle Rice attack. But to compare it to this incident is more akin to a sleight of the hand than bring nuance.

  21. ahjayzis

    Think you’re wrong here.

    By the exact same logic it’d be reasonable for BS to publish someone’s revenge porn to somehow illustrate how awful it must be for the victim. But the victim is a victim purely because of the distribution of the revenge porn. So publishing it is just adding to the crime, not exposing it.

      1. know man is an island

        There’s no logic there to begin with in Ahjaysiz rant so it by definition can be “exact same logic”. The publication of revenge porn video is a private act not intended for public distribution , a compelling argument would be relating to a similar act filmed also in a public space, for example two people copulating.

        1. Andyourpointiswhatexactly?

          Again, no. She was clearly in a troubled mental state. There is no “consent” here.

      1. Harry Molloy


        last I saw he was over on the journal claiming that 4 million people died crossing the Mexican border

  22. Slan Go Foill

    Completely different situation to Ray Rice – and a pretty weak attempt at a justification to suggest it’s similar.

    The family have said the uploading and sharing of the video online was “deeply distressing” and that should be all that matters:

    But it’s clear that generating click-bait and “starting a conversation” were more important drivers than the concerns of anyone actually affected.

    I think it’s time to leave this website to the 7 or 8 of you who seem to spend your time every day commenting on every single link. Enjoy it dudes

    1. know man is an island

      Why should the family’s wishes be “all that matters”? The woman is dead now. Perhaps if her video leads to an argument about the treatment of the other similar cases in the future the public and maybe even perhaps the custodians of the peace might learn some things?

      1. Anne

        It is fupping horrific that a family dealing with the shock of a loved one killing themselves find out about this video showing this sickening abuse.

        You do not heap more worry on people who are already suffering.
        That is why the video should not be shared.

        I think even your 11 year old would have the emotional intelligence to understand that one.

        1. know man is an island

          The video was already in the public domain when Broadsheet published the link. In fact that was the whole point of why they highlighted that

  23. Ann O'n

    Is it at all possible that the Garda that made the recording was themselves uncomfortable with the treatment of Dara and was considering making a complaint?

    Obviously at some stage in the video making it in to the public domain somebody added the music and made the reference to the padded cell but for the most part has the reaction not been compassion towards Dara and a wish that the Gardai had shown her more compassion?

    I didn’t see the video on Facebook, so I don’t know what sort of initial reaction it got…..

    1. know man is an island

      People can’t wait for sequel: Live in a Dublin squat: Junkie Couple Get it On

    2. The Lady Vanishes

      This was precisely the point made in a rather beautiful comment by one commenter, Martin, at the very end of the original post.

      He pointed out that a second-hand account of the video allows people to construct in their heads, possibly with the best intentions, excuses for the garda concerned.

      I’m not suggesting you watch the video if you’re not comfortable with doing so, but rest assured this fellow wasn’t putting it up out of concern for Dara, but rather amusement at her plight. There was a reference to yet another looney heading off to the padded cell.

      1. Ann O'n

        Right, but there was also some suggestion that the person that before it was uploaded to the internet it was uploaded to a private WhatsApp. I.E. the person that recorded it and the person that uploaded it and added the reference to the padded cell might not be the same person.

        I’m not sure where I stand on the rights and wrongs of BS linking the video.

        On the one hand there is a lot to be said on the impact of the video in terms of highlighting her treatment which was the first wrong done to the woman.

        On the other hand there is a lot to be said for not being a part of the second wrong which was done to her, the sharing of a video intended to mock her.

      1. Lord Snowflakee

        It wouldn’t be broadsheet without some troll called sock puppet complaining about sock puppets

          1. know man is an island

            That’s funny. I’m into bottoms too. Who knew!!
            Maybe we are long lost cousins Lord Snowflakee?

      2. know man is an island

        That’s a bit nasty. I don’t know what the fupp jusayinlike is on about. He’s obsessed with stalking me though these days. Also obsessed with 9/11

          1. know man is an island

            That was nice. No one ever posted a great link like that for me before.

          2. jusayinlike

            “that’s a bit nasty”

            Yea OK.. yesterday you said nobody would give a tuppeny fupp if me and memes were run over by a bus.. you hypocrite..

            And labelling a conspiracy theorist only serves to show you have been banned many times before, in fact your last avatar was called nasty commenter and was banned for racist abuse on the bs on the tv live chat..

            Take from that what you will folks..

          3. know man is an island

            Genuinely no idea what you’re on about – bs in the telly live chat? when you see me on that will you please let me know as I’m sure I have no idea what that jazz is but it sounds funky. You’re a weirdo, troll, obsessed, get a life

          4. jusayinlike

            Yea that’s it play possum, and social justice for all or whatever your avatar is..

  24. The Lady Vanishes

    I’ve said all I have to say on this on the original thread.

    However: I hope all of you who will no longer be commenting on Broadsheet will be usefully using the time penning a letter to the cops about this.

    Irrespective of whether the guy concerned was in a position to assist, he should have been doing his job rather than using the information available on the CCTV making fun of a member of the general public appearing on it. Particularly when the gag was that the member of the public was a naked woman believed by him to have mental health difficulties.

  25. Kenny U-Vox Plank

    I agree with Tony, though i think the inclusion of a link to the video could have been handled much more elegantly.

    Those who yelled and screamed at Broadsheet were behaving exactly like the person who posted the video: “look at me”. So, the issue itself at heart was lost, ironically as it concerned someone who choose to be very public about things.

    The facts of Ms Quigley’s demise have yet to be established. “Compound” does not mean “Cause”.

    To wit: https://twitter.com/soundmigration/status/862304879745880064

    With the Kate Fitzgerald episode, her death became a vehicle for everyone who hated a PR founder and the Irish Times. Ms Quigley’s death is now a vehicle for those who hate the cops and have issues with public funding of services and “mental health” (translation: The Government).

    But unlike the Kate Fitzgerald episode, Ms Quigley’s family want privacy. Privacy does not exclude siding with them on social media or yelling about this on Broadsheet.


    Let’s respect that then.

    You can debate the merits or what can be disclosed, should be, or not on social media without this vehicle.

    And, you can flounce off BS without telling us (see above about like-minded behaviour) or Twitter.

  26. Frilly Keane

    the lot of ye


    Broadsheet hosted a link
    and they were right to
    because the Irish public need to know what their Police Force are up to

    that’s it
    that’s all

    and what the fupp any of that has to do with a American Pro Athlete is beyond me – maybe you started to write a different piece Tony and just u-turned badly and dinged the alloy

    I’m sorry too that its ugly
    and I’m sorry we’re discussing one of us
    and I’m sorry for Dara’s own closest that this is how she is being remembered
    But know this

    If Dara herself had this story
    She would not hesitate
    Not for a split second

    If ye all want to keep shouting and boo hooing bad Bodger
    bad Broadsheet
    down with this sort of thing
    speak proper English

    then please do fupp off

    all ye are is Loud
    and Wwrong

    The Public are better served for that video
    and make no doubt about it

    This is what will get Noreen and the Top Table Fired
    This is the story

    And I’m broken hearted that Dara isn’t around to see it happen.
    (even if she hated me)

    1. sOCK pUPPET

      Why was there no narrative with the link condemning the action of the Guards?

      In the rush to publish, your lords and masters did not consider writing a proper piece around it. Therefore, they published it gratuitously for clicks.

      The link was published to a video of a dead woman whose family have PUBLICLY STATED how distressed the video made them feel.

      1. Frilly Keane

        Who the puck do you think you’re fooling Cock Muppet

        if its not this
        tis sum’ting else you’re firing stones at

        and before you put on your other hat
        I don’t have any Lord or Master

        1. sOCK pUPPET

          (I will write this slowly since you don’t seem to read so good……

          Why was there no narrative with the link condemning the action of the Guards?

          In the rush to publish, your lords and masters did not consider writing a proper piece around it. Therefore, they published it gratuitously for clicks.

          The link was published to a video of a dead woman whose family have PUBLICLY STATED how distressed the video made them feel.

          1. Frilly Keane

            do you need a narrative accompanying all the videos you see online?

            cause I wouldn’t mind writing a few for you
            throw up a few links there Cock

            I’d be happy to help

          2. sOCK pUPPET

            Oh good. Now we are talking about need. That is progress. Excellent.

            Dara’s family did not need any further distress heaped on them.
            They did not need to know that the video of their daughter was available online for people to laugh and point.
            Broadsheet did not need to compound that problem by sharing the link.


          3. Frilly Keane

            ah give over
            yer just acting the bollix now

            sur you’re the ape still talking about it

          4. sOCK pUPPET

            Frilly – are you comfortable being a contributor to a site that causes pain and suffering to the family of a girl that committed suicide?

            Swearing at people online is grand if that’s your stick but you’re contributing to a site that has written multiple posts about the incident. Have you swore at Bodger et al for “still talking about it”

          5. Frilly Keane

            if you want to keep discussing the Quigley Family themselves
            then go and get their story
            the whole story

            in the meantime, just stick to what you know

          6. Frilly Keane

            and btw
            since you mentioned cursing

            when Bodger and I talk durty you won’t need a narrative

          7. Starina

            returning from exile to stir some sh1t. i gather from frilly’s spittle-flecked defense of broadsheet and her comment “when Bodger and I talk durty you won’t need a narrative” that she’s Bodger’s missus and doesn’t like us being mean to him. would account for how her illegible ramblings get published unedited, too.

            bye, now.

          8. bertie "The Inexplicable Pleasure" blenkinsop

            Starina – FWIW I hope you don’t leave, I think you’re sound.

          9. bertie "The Inexplicable Pleasure" blenkinsop

            Same goes for Brother Barnabas if he has left, be an awful shame, he’s a brilliant contributor.

          10. The Lady Vanishes


            You’ve already announced you’re leaving the site twice on this issue (you’ve done the same thing on numerous other issues since you joined).

            Could you just leave please?

            It’s getting really irritating at this stage.

          11. Anne

            I think she meant she’s leaving.. like for a cuppa tea or something.

            Just messin’ Starina. Don’t go. :)

          1. Andyourpointiswhatexactly?

            The know man is an island commenter (big proponent of leaving the link up) said he/she didn’t care what the family think.
            Comment was quickly deleted.

          2. The Lady Vanishes

            You guys might like to have a look at the end of this thread. And perhaps do some googling. Dara was estranged from her family at the time of her death. Things are sometimes not as black and white as we like to think.

  27. Ghost of Don Pidgeon

    BS is becoming like the daily mail by playing to the lowest common denominator. That piss take that was done on them before was just bang on.

  28. mildred st. meadowlark

    It reminds me of the issues many people had with the publishing of the last words of the crew members of R116 while the search for the remaining crew members was ongoing.

    On the one hand, the report was made public -and people do have the right to know- but, on the other hand, there needs to be a level of sensitivity, because you are dealing with the matter of death.

    As I said yesterday, I believe that BS had good intentions but executed them poorly. There are many ways they could have handled it, and this time they got it wrong. Their handling of the matter came across as tasteless and disrespectful to the memory of someone who was held in high regard round these parts. The (valid) point they were attempting to make was lost because of an error in judgement and a lack of tact.

          1. sOCK pUPPET

            is that what you say to people when you are not able to engage with them at any level?

          2. jusayinlike

            Frilly stop bullying, climb down off your high horse, calling people cock is unacceptable..

    1. Anne

      “It reminds me of the issues many people had with the publishing of the last words of the crew members of R116 while the search for the remaining crew members was ongoing.”

      Yeah, people were outraged by the words “and we’re gone” or something to that affect, wasn’t it?
      Someone speaking their last words, knowing they’re going to die is outrageous altogether.
      Is the consideration and outrage for the family? If they didn’t say any last word, they ain’t coming back either way.

      It’s like, let’s all protect ourselves from reality.

      People are very sure too of everyone else’s intent. You don’t know anyone’s intent only your own.
      People continually know the author’s intent around these parts, based even from exact transcripts.

      Whether you agree or not with the content or the sharing of the information is another thing, but saying you can get inside someone else’s head and know what their intention is ridiculous.

      If someone says their intent was to highlight maltreatment by the Guards, you have to take that at face value really.

      The video was taken down and an apology given, and if you’re still not happy, build a bridge for yerselves.

      And if people keep whinging about it continuously on posts that are not even related.. well, I’m going to shut down my laptop and consider leaving foreeeeva*

      *foreveeeva in internet time = 3-4 days, 5 max.

  29. Milo

    In a society where all institutions have lost their standing, where any sense of authority is despised, where long held principles are just something to be scoffed at, where every one is hell bent on smashing some imagined oppression that “silences” them- this is what you get. A moral meandering, a maze of confusion navigated by the loudest, a made up mess of outrage piled upon outrage. Pop will eat itself indeed. You dreamed of being free, yet you call for censorship, you acclaim your compassion yet you shout like dogs, you speak of unity against the man, yet you replace it with division among yourselves. What ye sow ye shall reap.

        1. The Lady Vanishes

          They’re just getting used to the concept of free thought you guys locked up for centuries, Milo.

          It’s a bit rough and ready at the moment and some are so slow they’ll never catch up but most will and we’re going forward not back to your way of thinking.

          Discussion of previously hidden subjects is only starting and will become more nuanced with time (and who knows, when we look back this debate on Broadsheet may mark an important step forward?)

          1. Milo

            Your ignorance is only matched by your arrogance. When the last group began to share the world they had Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. You have Moyest, Knowbody and a Ladygarden. Good luck.

          2. The Lady Vanishes

            As you’ve entirely misconstrued what I said, it was this: it will take time for online political debate to become more sophisticated, as we haven’t been doing it for very long. This is particularly true where the debate calls for consideration of complex issues discussion of which was not previously encouraged by society. That’s what my comment said and I don’t accept it was either arrogant or ignorant. I do however feel there is plenty of arrogance and ignorance in your own comment in misconstruing it.

          3. The Lady Vanishes

            ‘We haven’t been doing it very long’

            We for this purpose means the Irish public generally, not just Broadsheet commenters but a much wider pool.

  30. Enn

    I didn’t know Dara personally but we had mutual friends. Including on Facebook. There are still public statuses posted by Dare on her page, in the last weeks of her life, explicitly and in detail alleging sexual abuse by a family member and implying that this was a contributing cause of her personal problems, So far I have not seen anyone comment on this, in any commentary on her story. It is just as troubling as what this video (which I have not watched) seems to contain, but less nebulous in its provocation of outrage.

      1. know man is an island

        Yes we should care what the family think
        What a nice bunch of folks you all are

        1. The Lady Vanishes

          I read the Facebook posts.

          Utterly heartbreaking allegations and engagement but no clear denial.

          Huge callousness shown by at least one friend irrespective of her belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations.

          Just dreadful.

          1. Enn

            They are harrowing, aren’t they? They so not seem to be being addressed. I would not want to further upset a grieving family, but something is awry here. Miss Quigley’s story doesn’t just belong to her family, and more than Clodagh How’s or Mary Boyle’s.

Comments are closed.