Sindo's take on Rosanna v Ryanair

thegreengoblin

Even by the Sindo's 'standards', this article surely stakes its claim for the most fawning, vomit-inducing piece of manure so far this year. The second last paragraph in particular genuinely turned my stomach when I read it.

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/independent-woman/celebrity-news-gossip/beauty-triumphs-over-beastly-remarks-as-rosanna-wins-the-battle-of-ryanair-2660688.html

kevin99

I couldn't understand why the media gave this story so much publicity.
Who is she anyway, apart from CDB's daughter.
Wonder if Ryanair will appeal the decision.

thegreengoblin

I can see why it drew the media's attention but that article took it to a new level entirely.

As many people put it, when you're cheering on Ryanair in a court case the world has officially gone mad.

not bakunin

"LEGS crossed, in an elegant soft grey suit and matching suede Louboutin heels, Rosanna Davison looked lost in her own world as she meticulously massaged hand cream into her palms."

Worst intro ever?

coylemj

I wouldn't have give her a penny, it's certainly a strange turn when you hear people supporting Ryanair. She only took them to court because her rich Daddy was there as a safety net if she failed to get an award bigger than what was probably already on the table.

My guess is that they offered her 10K to go away but with Daddy's money she was able to take the risk of going all the way. If the jury awarded her less than what (I'm assuming) was on offer then she would have been liable for all of the costs, hers and Ryanair's which is why the rest of the population can't afford to take on big companies in the High Court.

To answer kevin99, Ryanair said that an appeal to the Supreme Court would cost more than the award so it's not on the cards and they will pay out.

IRE60

1. She took an action because Ryanair inferred she was a racist – any individual would have done the same.
2. She won because 10 of her peers thought that the inference was unjust and that she what been liabled
3. Nothing was on offer as far as I am aware – not even an apology before the trail.
4. The judge warned the jury before hand to ‘keep their feet on the ground’ when awarding costs. That’s why it was “small” relative to some of the other awards made in the Golden Arches in the recent past.
5. I think Ryanair came across as arrogant and I was delighted to see that.

coylemj

1. Ryanair said that her comments 'bordered on racism', that is not the same as calling someone a racist

2. Nine did, three didn't

3. You don't know that. If a defendant in a defamation case makes an offer, it is usually conditional on it being accepted before the case starts in court at which point it is withdrawn and the case goes ahead as a bare-knuckle fight. The jury and the press don't know that an offer was previously on the table, otherwise it would undermine the defendant's defence as to justification and fair comment. You only hear about a prior offer when the plaintiff is awarded an amount which is less than or equal to what was on offer before the case started at which point the defendant is justified in applying to be awarded costs.