TDs and Fair Comment?

Art_Wolf

I am trying to figure out if oppions about TDs come under Fair Comment. The background idea is that we are trying to improve student's knowledge of who represents them, to what individual TDs represent. We aim to achieve this by creating a game based on Top Trumps with a card per TD, which contains beyond their name, picture, party and constitutency a brief description of what they stand for and categories that would be for the game. The categories so far considered are :-

* Sex Appeal
* Scandals
* Bribe Level
* Votes
* Constitutents
* Dáil Attendence

Bribe Level.. well we are going to see if we could get the details of donations to TDs (their Donation Statement) and use this at the indicator, cleary stating in the rules that this is what it is.

Sex Appeal and Scandals are the main question in terms of Fair Comment (Votes, Constitutents and Dáil Attendence all being in the public domain I belive..).

Wishbone Ash

Art_Wolf wrote:

I am trying to figure out if oppions about TDs come under Fair Comment. The background idea is that we are trying to improve student's knowledge of who represents them, to what individual TDs represent. We aim to achieve this by creating a game based on Top Trumps with a card per TD, which contains beyond their name, picture, party and constitutency a brief description of what they stand for and categories that would be for the game. The categories so far considered are :-

* Sex Appeal
* Scandals
* Bribe Level
* Votes
* Constitutents
* Dáil Attendence

Bribe Level.. well we are going to see if we could get the details of donations to TDs (their Donation Statement) and use this at the indicator, cleary stating in the rules that this is what it is.

Sex Appeal and Scandals are the main question in terms of Fair Comment (Votes, Constitutents and Dáil Attendence all being in the public domain I belive..).

"constituents" "attendance"


(Sorry I couldn't resist it - Wishbone Ash braces himself for the onslaught :eek:)

focusing

If you use the word "bribe" in the same sentence as a TD's name, unless with the words "they would never seek or take a", you'll guarantee yourself a lost libel case.

Game over.

padser

focusing wrote:

If you use the word "bribe" in the same sentence as a TD's name, unless with the words "they would never seek or take a", you'll guarantee yourself a lost libel case.

Game over.

I disagree. Calling the section 'bribe level' but clearly stating and taking the information from undisputed information already in the public domain would be quite legitimate I feel.

Additionally no politician wants any newpaper colums talking about money etc they receive, any case they took would gaurrentee lots of media coverage in an area they really dont want it, and may or may not suceed.

In the unlikely event they did take a case, the profits made from the high profile nature of the case, and knock on sales of the game would pay for the defence and any compensation that might arise.

hullaballoo

It sounds like a legal death-trap. I wouldn't go near any of those categorisations without the express consent (by way of a waiver) from the deputies involved.

That would probably be the most practical approach to be honest. Ring them up and ask them what they think. They'll let you know and you could always bullsiht them about who has already agreed to do it.

Definitely don't play a game of defamation wait-and-see.

By the way, you're not allowed seek or give legal advice in this forum.

focusing

If padser thinks it's safe, maybe they'll underwrite the cost of your defence in the High Court.

While it's unlikely that an individual politician would take an action, you only need 2% of TDs to send you a plenary summons to line you up for half a million in legal costs.

For hullaballoo's benefit, you should ask a solicitor to give you some legal advice on this. Should cost about €500 for them to tell you exactly how bad an idea this is.

Our man in Havana

Where does 2% come into it?

focusing

Someone suggested that TDs might be unlikely to sue and I was pointing out that even if 98% didn't, you'd still face 3 very expensive trips to the courts.

civdef

The background idea is that we are trying to improve student's knowledge of who represents them, to what individual TDs represent. We aim to achieve this by creating a game based on Top Trumps with a card per TD,

Is it just me that thinks this whole idea is incredibly condescending?

stevenmu

The words 'Deliberate Misrepresentation' come immediately to mind. You are knowingly mis-categorising donations as bribes and therefore implying that any politician who accepts donations is corrupt. You are also implying that whoever gets the most donations is the most corrupt. To top it all off, this is a misconception which you are deliberately trying to spread and "educate" people about.

I'm picturing the scene from the commitments where they're auditioning for band members and there's a huge queue of people outside the door, except instead of musicians, they're lawyers

Art_Wolf

Right, I guess it will just be called Gifts or something similar so.. In the odd chance that it does matter, this will not be sold or anything but is a student endevour which (bar some sort of funding) will have to be printed out to be played. We will be seeing how much it might cost to get a few packs to be produced to hand out at Fresher's Week or such but thats months away

Is it just me that thinks this whole idea is incredibly condescending?

To who? To students for not knowing who represents them? Well thats reality. To TDs? Yeah I guess, but I think its the best way to get student's attention. Will post in politics when we are furthur along

Dave!

civdef wrote:

Is it just me that thinks this whole idea is incredibly condescending?

Sounds like a good idea to me -- it woulda helped me to learn the TDs' names during CSPE class!

Dunno about the bribe level thing though... It doesn't really seem necessary. Donations aren't bribes, and I think it blackens the whole idea to put it in there.

It's a good idea overall, but leave out the bribes.

Chakar

If you're going to document scandals and bribes by a politician make sure that it is correct such as Michael Lowry and G.V. Wright for his DUI

Lplated

Chakar wrote:

If you're going to document scandals and bribes by a politician make sure that it is correct such as Michael Lowry and G.V. Wright for his DUI

I'd be very careful about comments such as this. If you are going to accuse someone of bribery, you would either need to be in a position to prove it, or be in a position to rely on a finding of bribery by a qualified body, ie. the standards in public office commission or a court of law.

Danger illustrates the lunacy of this idea in the first place. I can't think of any politican who has been found guilty of taking bribes. I can think of at least one who has been found by a Tribunal to have received millions BUT the tribunal specifically found NO EVIDENCE of any favours being done in return.