Uneven banning in Politics

Sparks

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52499216&postcount=46

Tristame wrote:

sparks wrote:

What Nally did, however, was not to stand his ground; he chased after an injured Ward and shot him like a dog in the street and then lied about it.

You mightn't mind boards being sued as a result of those types of allegations but I do.
Please continue to hold your opinion in that matter but preface it with 3 words " in my opinion".
You may repeat why you hold that opinion as often as you like as long as you state it as opinion and not a proven fact.

I do realise where you are getting that opinion but without investigating exactly the variation between the RTÉ interview you cite and what the state pathologist has said,then it is only your opinion.
There is also the definition of a deliberate lie as opposed to a best guess here to consider.
You have no evidence to suggest that Nally deliberately lied as opposed to making a best guess,so your use of the word appears objective at best.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52499300&postcount=55

Then stop worrying. I'm reporting on court proceedings (specifically the state pathologists official report), and as I pointed out to civdef earlier, that's specifically exempted from defamation torts in this country.

You have no evidence to suggest that Nally deliberately lied as opposed to making a best guess,so your use of the word appears objective at best.

His freedom was at stake; he gave a version of events that was wildly at odds to the physical evidence, as pointed out to the court by the state pathologist.
Now, shy of developing telepathic powers and reading his mind, no better proof of lying can be found. He had motive to lie; his story didn't match physical evidence. You can't prove lying any more definitively than that anywhere, not just in this case, not even with a confession from the person involved (because if you have a confession, was he lying when he said he lied, or is he lying in the confession? You have no way to prove it either way).

also:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52499279&postcount=51

sparks wrote:

civdef wrote:

I'm going to call you on this one. Provide evidence (at the very least reliable media reports) to back up your claims. Otherwise retract your serious allegations.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1207/nallyp.html

Mr Nally said he went and got cartridges for the shotgun and reloaded. He followed John Ward to where he was walking on the road and he shot him again.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0713/wardj.html

Dr Marie Cassidy said Mr Ward's injuries were consistent with being struck by a piece of wood and the fatal shot suggested the gunman was standing above him when he was shot at close range.

and later
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52499614&postcount=67

You've pointed out an apparent contradiction between two RTE reports

Quoting the RTE reports was the easiest and fastest way to point out the evidence. In the actual interview, broadcast again yesterday on RTE Radio One just after the verdict was announced, Nally himself clearly states that he shot Ward from ten yards away while both of them were standing (and Ward was walking away) and that he didn't mean to kill him. This is not only at odds with the testimony of the state pathologist, it is also at odds with his later testimony in court, where he said he shot him because he thought his life was in danger. You can listen to it for yourself:
http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/230-2201808.smil

Now to me it appears that I've proven my assertion; Nally's version of events did not tally with either his statements in court or the physical evidence. That's a matter of public record, not an opinion, and I've shown this.

That however, is not the point I'm making here.

The point I'm making here is that I've been barred from that thread and forum for making unfounded allegations. However, no further warnings or bans have been issued to other posters, and unless they've changed the law, this post is still perfectly valid:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52499472&postcount=60

And would someone care to tell me why I must prove Nally was lying, when not one person here has been asked to prove their unfounded allegations that:

• Ward was there to rob Nally.
• Ward would have come back to do Nally harm.
• Ward did steal from Nally.
• Ward stole from Nally in the past.
• Anyone stole from Nally in the past.
• Travellers are generally criminals.
• Ward's son was lying.

And probably a few others that I've forgotten.
What's the difference between what I've listed and what Civ is saying I've alleged without foundation, other than that (a) I've given proof, and (b) the above list isn't popular?

I'm not questioning the ban - I think it's unfounded and wrong, but that's not the point. What I want here is consistency. If I'm to be banned for unfounded allegations, so be it - but I should not be the only one, not by a long shot.

hullaballoo

I can't follow that post at all, any chance you could re-edit the quotations to make it a bit clearer?

Sparks

hullaballoo wrote:

I can't follow that post at all, any chance you could re-edit the quotations to make it a bit clearer?

Better?

hullaballoo

Sparks wrote:

Better?

Much.

I'm going to take a strict legal perspective on this, since you've brought the law up, and I think it's very relevant to the thread in question. Apologies to anyone who doesn't like reading legal analysis.

Legal Bit:
I'm not interested in whether you adduced "evidence" to speak to your allegations, because as you say, that's not at issue. However, I will point out to you that you said, "What Nally did, however, was not to stand his ground; he chased after an injured Ward and shot him like a dog in the street and then lied about it". You have not backed this claim up, nor can you back this claim up. Producing RTÉ reports on the case gives you no right to infer mens rea for murder - this is something for the finder of fact at trial only (id est, the jury).

In addition, how can a ban be unfounded when it strictly comes down to moderator's discretion? That's an abstract point though, so there's no real need to address it.

Non-legal Bit:
So, my analysis comes down to two points: 1. You made unfounded allegations againt Nally, and; 2. Other posters made unfounded allegations against Ward.

If that's the case, then maybe there is reason to look into the ban - not from the point of view of your case; I think you deserved the ban - but from the point of view of mutuality - other people may be in need of a ban.

I'll talk to Tristrame about it to see what he wants to say to you, but I've a funny (non-legal) feeling that he's going to tell me that you were thought to be disrupting the operation of the forum, which is reason enough to single someone out for a ban.

Sparks

hullaballoo wrote:

In addition, how can a ban be unfounded when it strictly comes down to moderator's discretion? That's an abstract point though, so there's no real need to address it.

Leaving the other legal stuff aside (I disagree with your analysis, but this isn't the place), the reason I said "unfounded" was because after the warning I made no further claims of the nature I was asked not to make.

If that's the case, then maybe there is reason to look into the ban - not from the point of view of your case; I think you deserved the ban - but from the point of view of mutuality - other people may be in need of a ban.

Thats precisely what I was asking for.

hullaballoo

Sparks wrote:

Leaving the other legal stuff aside (I disagree with your analysis, but this isn't the place), the reason I said "unfounded" was because after the warning I made no further claims of the nature I was asked not to make.

Maybe you'd PM me the parts of the analysis that you disagree with. To be honest, I don't think the law in that area could be more clear-cut. If you disagree with the sustantive provisions of the law of evidence, that's another matter.

Talliesin

Am I missing something, or did a court of Irish law not make a decision as to the facts of this matter?

Sparks

Did a court of Irish law decide that we had to be even-handed in the Politics forum? Not that I recall...

Sparks

This is going from bad to worse. Ward, being dead, can't sue for libel nor can his family sue on his behalf; but they most certainly can sue on their own behalf following recent posts, such as those stating as fact that Ward was at Nally's farm to commit a crime, which would imply his son was an accomplice and is certainly defamation, as would be the posts stating that Ward would have come back with friends to commit murder, which is definitely defamation allowing any known associates of Ward to sue. Perhaps it's time to start banning some of the pro-Nally side?

hullaballoo

I suggest you go to your local library and look at a book called The Law of Torts in Ireland, by McMahon and Binchy.

You really need to brush up on your law before you go around accusing people of defamation and trying to argue legal nuances. Honestly, you can't just go around pretending you know the law - that's for the barristers.

Sparks

Thanks hulla, McMahon and Binchy was where I learnt about tort law. Formally. And frankly, even leaving aside the very real legal opening those posts create, the other references to Ward are as low as it gets. Had Ward won the struggle and shot Nally with his own shotgun, would we now be seeing this degree of protectionism of Ward's name in that thread? Given the mod's posts, I frankly don't believe so. As I said, the whole thing is not even-handed.

hullaballoo

How long ago did you read it?

Anyway, letting alone that you apparently read a different McMahon & Binchy book, and studied a different law course to me, the decision to ban you from the Politics forum is being looked at by the mods.

I'm not going to comment on it because I know nothing about the Politics forum rules.