We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
OVER LAST WEEKEND, the creator of app game phenomenon Flappy Bird took the game down off the Google Play and App stores.
He, like many who reviewed the addictive game, said the game had ruined his life.
The removal of the game sparked panic, outrage and mild bemusement from those who had never yelled at a bird who can’t fly through the pipes from Mario.
Now, however, things have gotten crazy.
Classified sites have begun seeing ads for phones popping up, with some listed at an eye-watering €1,500.
Other, more realistic sellers are merely using the presence of the “collectors” app to sell an unwanted phone.
(DoneDeal)
Of course, the game isn’t really “gone”, because this is the internet age and people keep everything.
The apk file of the app is freely available and can be downloaded for Android here.
At its peak, the app was reportedly making Dong Nguyen $50,000 a day after being downloaded around 50 million times.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I would happily back a news blackout on such stories until slime sacks like Watkins are rotting behind bars. If saying the “wrong thing” could help his case in any way, then just shut up.
Eliza
Calling Watkins a slime sack, could lead you open to legal action for slander, however your defence could be honest opinion.
Until Watkins is convicted in court he is entitled to his innocence that is the law.
Regardless of the above I agree with you.
Not slander; libel, and if its true then its not libel or slander
Identifying the children involved is the issue, he’s already pleaded guilty.
Watkins has been convicted in court, go mad…
Actually the laws of libel and slander are gone, as it is all covered under defamation since January 2010.
One was the spoken word and one is the written word. Defamation covers both now.
Anti-social network, Also in relation to your comment about libel. The police are not looking at it as libel, as it’s clearly contempt of court and breach of subjudice as directed by the courts.
He admitted guilt,dirtbag should be set on fire
So its still ok to say what I like on thejournal.ie?
I’ve seen people in court cases identified on here and elsewhere by posters. The post gets deleted pretty lively when it does happen to be fair. But it only takes a few people to view it, and word of mouth and the rumour mill take over.
That’s the nature of realtime commenting, and as a result the net can be a dangerous place for online publications.
They should just jail your wan of the Geldofs anyway, it might shut her up for a while.
The Irish authorities will bring in similar legislation soon after the Brits do. That’s how our system works, just copy the Brits.
Like the smoking ban??… Ohhh wait…
Peaches is a dumb c***. what Watkins did is absolutely deplorable, no question. But now she not only selfishly compromised the case but the anonymity and safety that watkins victims deserve just for the sake of twitter hits
Censorship on the horizon lads. Best download all the kinky stuff while you still have the chance.
Shinnerbots beware :)
Do you ever give it a rest ken?
You spout libelous slander on here all the time and seem to know an awful lot about shady goings on. So you will need to shut up too. By the way do you ever go to the gardai with your evidence?
Im no fan of Peaches Geldof, but its sad she may be prosecuted for reporting valuable info about a predator. Its really getting to the stage that anything you say might get you in trouble, even when you’re in the right.
The issue is that by revealing the names of the women, she implicitly revealed the names of the victims. It’s the victims’ right to anonymity that’s the issue here, not the perpetrator’s. Hence Watkins does not have anonymity.
The difference is though its written. If you wrote something on the wall lets say in the 1970s like politician A is a paedo or whatever, you wouldnt be suprised in the albeit unlikely event of being arrested if identified
Its impossible to enforce this twitter thing. PErsonally I would ban twitter but thats not going to happen. For all newpsapers with comment sections below like this one they should not allow comments on cases involving an ongoing or upcoming court case or appeal.
If this peaches character had merely told a friend verbally on the telephone for example she knew the name the name would get out by the grapevine and she wouldn’t be in any trouble because it would be impossible to identify where the ‘rumour’ or ‘name’ came from.
Its almost impossible to cut this sort of event or similar from happening again. In this case Peaches was stupid and just stupid as someone who ran into a shopping mall and shouted the names of the children. The only solution is to get rid of brain fart media like twitter and fbook will never happen though for obvious reasons. It will be used as another excuse for governments to try and control anonymity on the internet. It will certainly create more work for lawyers.
Sean ffs would you ever just inform yourself. Your just like Peaches. The reason these women were not named in court was to protect the identity of the children/victims. Do you have an issue with protecting these victims as they would have gone through more than enough already. I think these women should be exposed but I’m willing to waive that to protect these children.
Mjhint As a matter of fact I agree with you re the protection issue and that changes my stance, but on a broader level I think its outrageous the way the media has synced with social media to make an even more contemptible, morally all over the place entity that allows footballers to seek injunctions when they cheat but not someone to give details to add to a criminal case. But I do agree now that protecting children, in such a case as this, is actually paramount.
Apparently the courts website published the names originally and that’s where Peaches Geldof got them. So what was viewed as a “clerical error” on the courts behalf is considered punishable on hers. Seems a bit unfair to me. I totally understand why the names have to be kept secret for the victims but the court did publish them first.
“This is not about telling people what they can or cannot talk about on social media; quite the opposite in fact, it’s designed to help facilitate commentary in a lawful way”.said Attorney General Dominic Grieve, the government’s chief legal advisor.
It sounds like that is precicely what you are doing Mr Grieve! This is more about scaremongering to bring in censorship of the internet now that the usual prattle about children being bullied on social media has died down. They don’t miss a trick! Now people can’t even have a good gossip online without them sticking their oar in. What they will publish next is a list of “pre-aproved, government sanctioned topics of conversation to be allowed on social media.
It’s beyond control whether they like it or not.
Shinnerbots- glorifying terrorism us a crime in the uk :)
Shinnerbots Is that the best thing you could come up with. Your after posting it so much today that it seems you think it’s the funniest thing since your mother got laid. Hears a hint for you spambot, it ain’t bloody funny. The only thing funny about it us that it makes you look like a tool.
have your say