Mary Harney alcoholic allegations

RATM

Where Nell McCafferty alleged that Harney is an alcoholic and unfit for office last March on Newstalk, story here http://www.independent.ie/national-news/harney-slur-forces-radio-boss-to-ban-mccafferty-2098879.html

Did she sue, if so who- Newstalk or McCafferty? I felt the way in which McCafferty said it -she's a "practising or recovering alcoholic" was almost saying it in a way that hoped McCafferty got sued for slander- i.e. Harney would have to prove that she isn't a ""practising or recovering alcoholic" for the charge to stick.

But either way I havent heard anything about it since and am wondering does anyone know what is happening with the case.

Nodin

Minister for Health Mary Harney has issued defamation proceedings in the High Court against Newstalk over comments made by journalist Nell McCafferty during a broadcast on the radio station last week.
Mrs Harney’s spokesman confirmed last night that she has commenced a libel action against the broadcaster.
The comments were made on Tom Dunne’s show last Thursday morning.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0316/1224266353898.html

RATM

Nice one Nodin- have you any ideas about how long it will take for the case to come up?


Also why sue Newstalk? I know they broadcasted it but they didnt say it, McCafferty did. Surely any member of the public could ring up a talk show and allege things on live radio, hardly the broadcasters fault such is the nature of live radio, no?

Nodin

A few months, I'd imagine. An exact date I don't have.

It's up to the broadcaster to manage the content, regardless of whether its a direct employee, or a guest/caller using the broadcaster as a medium (afaik). Lucky for oul Nell, in ways.

mike65

Newstalk have a live delay and still managed to let her rambling nonsense drone on as Tom Dunne sat there like a fool.

Nodin

Dear o dear....

Poly

DERIXON wrote: »

Being an alcoholic does not mean that you do a bad job.

regardless of the alegations, she is doing a sh1t job!!!! she has destroyed the health service to a point where it will take decades to rebuild.

Nodin

Currently its not clear if anyone is or was an alcoholic, and such claims have - as mentioned above, funnily enough - have ended in legal action....

mrboswell

mike65 wrote: »

Newstalk have a live delay and still managed to let her rambling nonsense drone on as Tom Dunne sat there like a fool.

Not really up to Tom - its down to the producer - he should be sacked

Cavehill Red

I would advise anyone who believes they have evidence of problem drinking or alcoholic behaviour by Mary Harney to contact Newstalk with it and aid them in their case rather than airing it in here and getting a ban and the thread closed.

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I would advise anyone who believes they have evidence of problem drinking or alcoholic behaviour by Mary Harney to contact Newstalk with it and aid them in their case rather than airing it in here and getting a ban and the thread closed.

Or indeed getting boards sued and possibly closed. At least one post deleted - please mind your allegations.

moderately,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

I have no knowledge or opinion about what Nell NcCafferty said. But the fact that Mary Harney has initiated proceedings tells us nothing.

Very often a person in the public eye is subject to claims that might be true or false, and are damaging. The "victim" issues defamation proceedings. It's a handy way of implying that whatever was said or written must be false, else why sue? Fast forward a few years, and nothing has arrived in court, because the plaintiff hasn't been advancing the case.

Pot Noodle =

DERIXON wrote: »

Does being an alcoholic disqualify you from being a politician? There are plenty of people who do a great job in their fields of work who also are alcoholics. Being an alcoholic does not mean that you do a bad job.

Explain please

scallioneater

Pot wrote:

Explain please

Being a TD is a pretty tough job. Of the few I know, I can count an alcoholic, a heart attack, and one who pulls his own hair out.

I know people will go on about expenses, but there are far easier jobs with equally good pay out there. In many ways, I pity them.

ArmaniJeanss

RATM wrote: »

Did she sue, if so who- Newstalk or McCafferty? I felt the way in which McCafferty said it -she's a "practising or recovering alcoholic" was almost saying it in a way that hoped McCafferty got sued for slander- i.e. Harney would have to prove that she isn't a ""practising or recovering alcoholic" for the charge to stick.

Fairly sure that the burden of proof is the other way round and that Harney doesn't have to prove anything.

expectationlost

one explaination , i think at one time she said she enoys wine which led to

She has also shown remarkable courage at a tender age in the face of deep hostility. In 1985, she was kicked out of Fianna Fail after defying Charlie Haughey's opposition to the Anglo-Irish agreement.

Vicious rumours were spread about her - that she was an alcoholic, she was having affairs. Her life was threatened by an anonymous telephone caller.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/theres-something-about-mary-79909.html

magicbastarder

Nodin wrote: »

It's up to the broadcaster to manage the content, regardless of whether its a direct employee, or a guest/caller using the broadcaster as a medium (afaik). Lucky for oul Nell, in ways.

yep, i imagine that it's better for a station to indemnify guests in the long run as the cost of not having guests on (in fear of being sued) would outweigh the cost of defending the odd case like this.

expectationlost

tom dunne's inabilty to broadcast created that situation

DeVore

The burden of proof is on the person who said the derogatory remark.

In defamation the person claiming they have been damaged must do two things:

1. prove it was published (well, duh)
2. prove it lowered them in the eyes of their right-thinking peers (pretty much "duh" too)


Whats interesting is that the defence of "but its true" is solid but as pointed out, its up to the station to show that it is true (if it is).

I would put the vast bulk of my jelly beans on this never ever seeing the light of day in court. I will be gob smacked if it does. Either its true that she has a drinking problem and she wont want that examined in a court room, or its not and the station will settle to avoid huge costs and damages.

Its pretty sick that the radio station can be brought into this. Its an amazingly efficient way of shutting down the free press. It terrifies me as a director of Boards and is the reason I get so angry at muppets who come here and slam us for "censorship doood!". Knuckle dragging idiots, go ask Politics.ie if I'm lying.



lets keep this to discussion of defamation and law rather then speculating on the truth or otherwise of this specific allegation.

DeV.

Amalgam

DeVore wrote: »

go ask Politics.ie if I'm lying.

DeV.

Bad example, a particular person was caught out posting anon. You know who I'm talking about, if you carry on like that, you deserve some time being called to account.

Pot Noodle =

I like a drink and IF she likes a drink then thats ok but i am not in charge of a Billion plus portfolio

Nodin

Over on P.ie I got the impression that it was the poster rather than the site...then again, I haven't been there in a while so maybe it's changed...

mrboswell

expectationlost wrote: »

tom dunne's inabilty to broadcast created that situation

He interviews and it was his producers job to kill the live feed once she started spouting. She should have been prep'd by the producer beforehand and obviously wasn't.

Guy:Incognito

Pot wrote:

I like a drink and IF she likes a drink then thats ok but i am not in charge of a Billion plus portfolio

Is there a requirement (or a need for that matter) that government ministers be teetotal

I cant see how likeing a drink matters.

mrboswell wrote: »

He interviews and it was his producers job to kill the live feed once she started spouting. She should have been prep'd by the producer beforehand and obviously wasn't.

Prep'd not to say unsubstanciated libelous comments? Would that not be a given when beign interviewed?

BluntGuy

Personally I think she was already pretty low in many people's estimation anyway. The possibility of her liking her a bit of drink is the least of my issues with her.

Still though, the fact that the person in question wasted time making claims which are difficult to substantiate instead of grilling her on far more pressing issues is my main problem.

DeVore

aye, there are many things I would take Ms Harney to task for but liking a glass of wine isnt the first on my list.

Christ if saying you like a glass of wine makes you an alco.... I regularly try to fill my body to the brim with the stuff!

DeV.

PeterIanStaker

BluntGuy wrote: »

Personally I think she was already pretty low in many people's estimation anyway. The possibility of her liking her a bit of drink is the least of my issues with her.

Still though, the fact that the person in question wasted time making claims which are difficult to substantiate instead of grilling her on far more pressing issues is my main problem.

True, also if she did resign, who'd take her job? Nobody. Its political suicide, which is why she was left in the post aprés the reshuffle.

Laminations

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

True, also if she did resign, who'd take her job? Nobody. Its political suicide, which is why she was left in the post aprés the reshuffle.

I'm pretty sure James Reilly is keen to take her job and I'm equally sure he'll make a better go at it than Ms Harney, who hopefully has had a political suicide and no one will care about her drinking habits, where she gets her hair cut or her husbands role in FAS

PeterIanStaker

I didn't mean after a general election. I meant the time Biffo did the reshuffle and left her in place. If she were forced to step down, no FF'er would want it, is what I'm saying.

DeVore

I would give up my position in Boards to take on the Healthcare system. I genuinely mean that. I'd do it for minimum pay too but only on the condition that I could re-engineer it as I saw fit and unions be damned.

It would be good news for the front line people, and very very bad news for everyone else. :mad:

DeV.

Rosita

RATM wrote: »

Did she sue, if so who- Newstalk or McCafferty? I felt the way in which McCafferty said it -she's a "practising or recovering alcoholic" was almost saying it in a way that hoped McCafferty got sued for slander- i.e. Harney would have to prove that she isn't a ""practising or recovering alcoholic" for the charge to stick.

The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused - just as well really or you'd have every crackpot going around making all sorts of allegations which probably could never be disproved.

And in cases of defamation nearly anyone connected with the publication/broadcast/distribution is potentially liable. This is one of the great bugbears of those in the media with defamation laws.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

peasant

DeVore wrote: »

Christ if saying you like a glass of wine makes you an alco.... I regularly try to fill my body to the brim with the stuff!

DeV.

Boards.ie director in alcoholism shocker

read it here first

nuac

Some of these posts are sailing close to the wind defamation wise.

If I were a moderator or owner of the board I would close down this thread.

It is a fallacy that it is OK to repeat an allegation made elsewhere, quoting the source. You can be held liable for publishing the defamatory words.

DeVore

I dont think anyone here is suggesting that those allegations are true. I do agree that we shouldnt repeat them (for reasons of *fairness*).

I think we have gone off topic a lot though and I'm not sure I want to return to the OP topic either so perhaps letting this thread go and starting another on the state of Irish Healthcare (something of considerable interest to me) is the best route?

DeV.

DeVore

Rosita wrote: »

The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused - just as well really or you'd have every crackpot going around making all sorts of allegations which probably could never be disproved.

And in cases of defamation nearly anyone connected with the publication/broadcast/distribution is potentially liable. This is one of the great bugbears of those in the media with defamation laws.

Its should be an issue for every single adult in the country. Its a deliberate method of control on criticism of politicians and in the past, priests etc.

In China whistleblowers get shot.

In Ireland whistleblowers not only get shot but the people who give them a platform get shot too.

Pretty soon, the platform owners are too scared to allow anything.

DeV.

Sparks

Funny really. I wouldn't have thought that calling someone a recovering alcoholic would have been derogatory, anymore than saying someone was recovering from pancreatic cancer was derogatory. They're both classed as diseases by just about every reputable medical group out there, they both are diseases that we have either no cure at all for, or no effectual cure for (which, for the cynical, is why I chose pancreatic cancer - we have effectual cures for many other kinds of cancer), and both diseases carry the risk of relapse.

If anything, I'd rather we had a minister for health who needed the healthcare system to work. Same way I'd want the minister for transport to take the bus to work in the morning.

Pot Noodle =

I was at a Luncheon with her as guest speaker and she was xxxxx it down and making jokes about her weight

Pot Noodle =

I was at a Luncheon with her as guest speaker and she was xxxxx it down and making jokes about her weight

Essexboy

Pot wrote:

I was at a Luncheon with her as guest speaker and she was xxxxx it down and making jokes about her weight

Was she drinking beer - what the Scots call "Heavy"?

It wasn't me!

Possibly more for the legal discussion forum, but is there not a caveat within the law which not only places the burden of proof on the person making the allegation, but forces them to defend their having said it even if it is true? That is that even if the allegation is true, to have made it with the demonstrable intent of lowering the person concerned in the eyes of the public is still to be guilty of libel, with the implied defence being that the allegation was in the public's best interest?

RATM

What way does the whole defamation thing work in the UK- is it the broadcaster who is liable or the person who uttered the defamation in the first place?

Devore is very correct though- by making the broadcaster liable for comments, even during a robust and heated debate scenario, means that broadcasters have to thread very carefully on who they have on radio/TV and how likely they might be to open a can of worms about someone else in political circles.

But sometimes these allegations are in the public interest. For instance ATM I know through a contact of a senior government official who is considered by the civil servants working for him to have "hit the bottle in a big way since the start of the financial crisis". The guy is in a very senior position at a time when the country is in the can, he's hit the drink big time but it can't be reported in the media for fear of defamation proceedings. But it is still in the public interest to know that this is going on especially at a time when the economy is on tender hooks.

It wasn't me!

RATM wrote: »

What way does the whole defamation thing work in the UK- is it the broadcaster who is liable or the person who uttered the defamation in the first place?

Devore is very correct though- by making the broadcaster liable for comments, even during a robust and heated debate scenario, means that broadcasters have to thread very carefully on who they have on radio/TV and how likely they might be to open a can of worms about someone else in political circles.

But sometimes these allegations are in the public interest. For instance ATM I know through a contact of a senior government official who is considered by the civil servants working for him to have "hit the bottle in a big way since the start of the financial crisis". The guy is in a very senior position at a time when the country is in the can, he's hit the drink big time but it can't be reported in the media for fear of defamation proceedings. But it is still in the public interest to know that this is going on especially at a time when the economy is on tender hooks.

Why is that so important to the public's interest that it would justify libel and so act as a defence?

DeVore

What about Haughey, it was an open secret what he was up to with his mistress and the brown paper envelopes etc.... but no one could report anything, even if they had proof, because the newspapers couldnt afford the court case costs.

DeV.

ballsymchugh

DeVore wrote: »

What about Haughey, it was an open secret what he was up to with his mistress and the brown paper envelopes etc.... but no one could report anything, even if they had proof, because the newspapers couldnt afford the court case costs.

DeV.

dermot morgan got away with it all in the name of satire on scrap saturday!!
that's how i found out about it anyway, when i was a young fella!!

Guy:Incognito

DeVore wrote: »

I would give up my position in Boards to take on the Healthcare system. I genuinely mean that. I'd do it for minimum pay too but only on the condition that I could re-engineer it as I saw fit and unions be damned..

It's quite easy to say that though when your not in a position to have to deal with them.

The poxy unions have the country by the balls.

hinault

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It was a superb performance by M Harney.
I said it at the time.
She spoke without notes, she quoted statistics, she had the facts to hand and was able to put her case across in simple, clear and concise way.
It was a very very impressive performance and I agree it was the best performance I have seen from any govt minister in a very long time.

For the record, I am neither a FF and/or PD member.

Sparks

Stekelly wrote: »

The poxy unions have the country by the balls.

Gosh, unions who put their own members' interests above other peoples?
What's next, companies who only pay dividends to their shareholders?


(And the unions might have the balls, but it doesn't matter because the balls have all been sold to pay for Anglo...)

sceptre

Mod note: discussion of the influence or lack of same by the unions in the Irish economy is not on-topic. Nor is whether or not they have the country "by the balls".

On-topic is requested and expected. Discussion of Harney's management of the HSE management is OK as it's relevant to the effectiveness of the minister. Please keep in mind though that this is as far as the tangent is allowed to go in this thread - going off on one about the unions etc is not relevant and not on-topic so a little more movement back to the point, please.

/mod

expectationlost

mrboswell wrote: »

He interviews and it was his producers job to kill the live feed once she started spouting. She should have been prep'd by the producer beforehand and obviously wasn't.

givem his name i'll blame him to

caseyann

If the allegations are founded and true and proven.She should be sacked and other members of the Fianna fail etc... who knew of said alleged alcoholic dependency during her time as minister and kept it hidden,should also be sacked and fined.An alcoholic is not emotionally or mentally capable to make correct stable decisions.
She is always missing.