Monica Leech V Bev Flynn V rte

dodgyme

I think with the generous out of court settlement for a callers comment Leech has done quite nicely outta rte as has Bev who only settled after every card played into her. If you want to rant or have any comparisons to make in relation to both, here is the thread for it. Certainly I know the ordinary Joe soap is not happy with either of these outcomes.

Akrasia

What really pisses me off is the fact that RTE settled out of court for a huge sum of money while the Independent brought her to court and won their case.

There was no way RTE libeled Monica Leech. There was one lunatic caller who was cut off immediately and Joe Duffy immediately condenmed his statement.

There is no substantial difference between what happened on RTE and what was printed in the Independent, and the Independent won, despite their refusal to apologise or print a correction

Zebra3

Leech by name....

mike65

Not sure I follow the logic, Leach lost and will have to pay every penny cos the indo certainly won't let her off the hook re RTE/Flynn, but then why should they?

Mike.

dodgyme

mike65 wrote:

Not sure I follow the logic, Leach lost and will have to pay every penny cos the indo certainly won't let her off the hook re RTE/Flynn, but then why should they?

Mike.

rte settled out of court with Leech 250K but yet were brought the whole way by Flynn. Flynn paid under half what was owed and yet the indo won their case against Leech, which seems to suggest that rte settle for less then they should in every possible sense of the word while the viewer always has to cough up.

mike65

Ah yes sorry I follow you.

Mike.

BBM77

Someone might correct me here, but wasn’t it The Star or Ireland On Sunday that started this whole Monica Leech story, if so why were they not sued?

Akrasia

Ballybrickenman wrote:

Someone might correct me here, but wasn’t it The Star or Ireland On Sunday that started this whole Monica Leech story, if so why were they not sued?

because it was a genuine story, a close friend of Martin Cullen being appointed as a personal PR consultant at a cost of €1200 a day.

That's cronyism without even having to imply any marital incongruity

Hobart

Ballybrickenman wrote:

Someone might correct me here, but wasn’t it The Star or Ireland On Sunday that started this whole Monica Leech story, if so why were they not sued?

She has not finished with her libel actions, and she is far from finished with the Indo.

rivers

I'm a little out of the loop. can someone fill me in? so Monica leech was alleged to have given sexual favours to martin cullen in return for her getting that job? where did these claims originate from?

dodgyme

And we're back to good old Cullen. why oh why? Maybe Monica can bring him out for a meal with the cash from RTE and they should get a table for 4 and join Bev and her rich BF who can enjoy a nice sherry after saving a coupla million thanks to RTE. Maybe Monica can get another 1200 euro a day for her amazing talents. :rolleyes:

Victor

rivers wrote:

where did these claims originate from?

Some caller to the Joe Duffy Show.

Hobart

dodgyme wrote:

And we're back to good old Cullen. why oh why? Maybe Monica can bring him out for a meal with the cash from RTE and they should get a table for 4 and join Bev and her rich BF who can enjoy a nice sherry after saving a coupla million thanks to RTE. Maybe Monica can get another 1200 euro a day for her amazing talents. :rolleyes:

Very constructive :rolleyes: Do you really have any idea about Leech, or are you just "jumping on the band wagon" vis-a-vis Cullen? I suspect the latter tbh.

BBM77

dodgyme wrote:

And we're back to good old Cullen. why oh why? Maybe Monica can bring him out for a meal with the cash from RTE and they should get a table for 4 and join Bev and her rich BF who can enjoy a nice sherry after saving a coupla million thanks to RTE. Maybe Monica can get another 1200 euro a day for her amazing talents. :rolleyes:

Did Cullen run over your cat in his ministerial Merc or something, because you seem the have serious unresolved issues with him?:D

dodgyme

Ballybrickenman wrote:

Did Cullen run over your cat in his ministerial Merc or something, because you seem the have serious unresolved issues with him?:D

the only thing that is cat is Cullens record in transport. I can guarentee there are lots of people with unresolved issues with Cullen.:cool:

Jackie laughlin

There is no comparison whatsoever between the cases.

Leech was certainly libelled on the Joe Duffy programme. Everyone knew it at the time. The caller had to be cut off. I along with anyone who heard it knew that this would cost RTE money but it's a risk implied in broadcasting live phone calls. RTE settled out of court. Leech sued the newspaper because she claimed that their report of the RTE incident was itself libel, whereas the report was the opposite, mentioning RTE's apology. The jury felt that the newspaper report was comprehensive and not a libel.

The daft amount of money paid to Leech by Cullen is beside the point but should be questioned along with similar "pay" levels.

Bev sued RTE for libel and lost. RTE were telling the demonstrable truth about her and 19 of her colleagues at the bank. (Why will none of the 19 face charges for aiding/encouraging tax evasion? Is there such an offence?) RTE were awarded costs. They settled for what they thought they could get rather than getting nothing by bankrupting the woman. She explained in Saturday's Irish Times that all of her salary for life will go towards repaying the loan raised to pay RTE and that she will have to live as the kept woman of a rich man. It is a pity that RTE could not dent her standard of living but her partner's property and income is not hers.

blast05

There seems to be a misunderstanding re the details of Flynns case.
Bev sued for libel on the basis of lies visa-viz what a Meath farmer told Charlie Bird. This was shown in court to be the case, i.e.: lies, or inaccuracies, call it what you like. However, the court found that despite this, it was their opinion that Flynn was nonetheless guilty of similar offences based on the evidence.
Could be considered similar to a case of somebody getting off for murder but being convicted on the probability that they were guilty of a similar offence.

Victor

No, it doesn't work like that.