Mary Lou MacDonald suing RTE

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987508#Comment_118987508

Where has it been confirmed that it is over a specific interview?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987561#Comment_118987561

I wasn't concerned about my reaction to your aggression earlier,just saying no need for it

Regarding the RTE article

You can bet your bottom dollar,that 'it is understood' is their way of telling us but conforming to top brass instructions not to discuss it

Anyway,hope it gets to court

brokenangel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987562#Comment_118987562

I refused to discuss it with you!!! Let's get the fact straight now.

A quick review of the posts you have put on this thread so far confirms I was 100% correct. Everyone is bored of keyboard warriors on these threads, time to cop on

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987508#Comment_118987508

Like bailey did on the swing, let it go (but watch your arse). Everyone and their dog knew bailey was grifting

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987609#Comment_118987609

So you don't know specifically what MLMD is suing RTE over, yet are happy to make scurrilous claims and diatribes.

When called up on it you run away. A discussion board where a poster refused to discuss the actual thread topic as they have made numerous declarations based on hearsay. Bravo!! Maybe another poster might ask you the same question, but I would imagine they too would be "a keyboard warrior" and not receive an answer.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118986972#Comment_118986972

Verdicts can be reached on foot of allegation 

Kind of funny give your own verdict in the matter of Leo.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987683#Comment_118987683

We know the allegation against Leo.

Have you any confirmation regarding what MLMD's case is in relation to?

maccored

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987548#Comment_118987548

wow - I think that reveals a lot. You are all for discrimination it seems

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987683#Comment_118987683

It's a specific allegation for which evidence and an admission of guilt is available.

Now CAN ANYONE supply the same in relation to this case = NOPE. Not one of you guys can, but get the firing squad ready...aim and fire. All done and dusted. 😁

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987730#Comment_118987730

Actually I would imagine it would be normal for that to happen between two parties in litigation.

I would imagine both parties will work a way around it, whereby if certain issues are being discussed then SF would put somebody else forward.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987485#Comment_118987485

You are confusing me with others. I certainly believe her claim frivolous and opportunistic.

Here you are again making an unrealistic comparison to have a go at MLMD. Its obsessive.

'Silence media opposition', give over. You'd say a shinner choosing marmalade over jam has a sinister obsession with hating jam. Its cartoonish dramatics.

The woman is suing RTE and the like of yourself are using it to scaremongering. Not a word when uncle dinny controlled most of the media. Complete hypocrisy. Not credible or even genuine. Anyone comparing this to Bailey or Farrell is making themselves look very foolish. Especially after playing down those claims and going after MLMD like attack dogs.

maccored

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987785#Comment_118987785

unless it was in relation to what the issue is about, and taking into consideration everyone is innocent until proven guilty, to deny someone access to a public channel would be discrimination surely?

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987335#Comment_118987335

Painfully obvious and boring at this stage. Bringing in Maria Bailey was amusing. There really is no lengths, or credibility for that matter.

You would think they'd be better off concentrating party resources on tackling their crises.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987683#Comment_118987683

Leo told the Dail he did it ffs.

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987730#Comment_118987730

But it's not discrimination really. In fact it might be advisable on both parts. SF have others they can send to be their talking heads.

seamus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987804#Comment_118987804

Discrimination is not illegal except in very specific circumstances. People like to throw it around like a bad word, but discrimination alone is neither illegal or unethical. It's the nature which determines that.

In this case, a company refusing to engage or provide access to an individual involved in litigation against them is discrimination, but it is perfectly legal and ethical to do so. Practically standard practice.

In terms of RTÉ, as a public broadcaster and subject to a number of different rules, it is unlikely that they could uphold a blanket ban on Mary-Lou without falling foul of the BAI.

However, they may be permitted to insist that Sinn Féin provide an alternative spokesperson on issues unless the content of the programme is specifically a "party leaders" confab.

There are "soft" ways in which a ban can take place though. For example, in a news piece about some government initiative or current affair, they show clips of other party leaders' reaction, and just don't broadcast hers. If she's not getting airtime, then it makes her less relevant and can hurt her approval ratings. Can still potentially fall foul of the BAI, but much harder to prove it's happening.

starkid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118984734#Comment_118984734

of course you aren´t SF, just like Francie. Funny how you clutch your pearls at being labeled, yet do the exact same. I´m not a government shill just an anti bullshit party enthusiast. .Clear SF tactic/populism 101...the others are shills or givernment stooges, the establishment etc etc.

and even if i was, Deflect what though? as i clearly state the problem i have is with the IRA killing women and children and gardai, and SF´s refusal to draw a line on that have a process, to deal with that and move the **** on. what difficulty do you have dealing with that simple premise? and its getting to dangerous territory if/when they start litigating against people who highlight links. which i accept isn´t what is happening here.

Obviously you can´t libel people and you can´t label some members of SF for the parties past, but if we get to a stage where say in the future Adams can sue somebody for what he long denies, we are in batshit crazy country and will clearly be used to silence people with long memories. also i´d accept more of the new SF if the links weren´t so tight. The party is run by Belfast, the old links and they commemorate the glory of the IRA on the regular. its all their own fault, all of their own making.

i am not out to get to SF. I detest SF, their hypocrisy, their lies, their history, their warped views and all the other bullshit. thats not out to get them thats just people like me calling out their utter bullshit.

Its getting to the stage where i´d actively emigrate if their style of politics permeated into the country.

Beasty

Off topic posts deleted

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987713#Comment_118987713

It seems to be very fluffy at best.

What we DO know is that people in power use Irelands defamation laws as a way to shut up journalists and stop any negative press being aired.

DoB used this tactic, and it now seems that SF are onto this as well, with 3 TD's suing RTE for frivolous stuff.

It is a shot across the bow.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987757#Comment_118987757

No, as usual, you are getting your wires crossed.

You alleged criminal activity in relation to Leo. That is a fact.

Meanwhile, you are trying to muddy the waters when it comes to MLMD and her motivation in suing the National Broadcaster for what it appears to be a nothing comment. One can read into that, that it is about censoring opinion and shutting down questions.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988026#Comment_118988026

Who makes the legislation? Why hasn't it been changed to stop this? Surely this tactic only works if you win, otherwise you've a large legal bill and costs against you.

Donald Trump

I actually find it very interesting - the cognitive dissonance of the posters who, even after being asked about Bailey, or reminded of their stances in relation to her, are able in their own mind to somehow double down and complain about Bailey but still swear black is white in relation to individuals who wear their own flag (so to speak).

I think that someone trying to sue a private establishment to get undeserved compensation should be called out.

I likewise think that someone who is trying to sue a State service provider in order to get undeserved compensation also needs to be called out. In the latter, it is worse as it a the public purse which is being directrly impacted. Plus it has the additional effect of trying to use the courts to stifle any publication of any criticism, or even possibly facts and victims that certain people want to keep swept under the carpet.

It makes zero logical sense for someone to be so against the lesser scenario and then be fully supportive of the greater one. Both parties have legal rights to file their respective cases. That doesn't mean that they should do it.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988042#Comment_118988042

I have no idea what her motivation is or her desired outcome and neither do you.

brokenangel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988186#Comment_118988186

It is fairly clear what her desire it, stop the media questioning her or Sinn Fein. Do so and we will sue you. Like all the other cases they have brought against the media

I would love to hear your reaction if FF or FG had multiple cases against the media?

It is also noticeable that SF and supporters spend a considerable amount of time trying to change the history of Ireland. Very strange carry on

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988155#Comment_118988155

Are you making all this up? I've seen plenty attack MLMD but none defend her case. Defend her right to bring it, sure.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987757#Comment_118987757

Well, let's use your analogy.

In this case there is a specific allegation (Mary-Lou accusing RTE of defamation), there is zero evidence (anyone who heard the interview is scratching their head as what could be defamatory) and there is no admission of guilt.

Therefore, using YOUR PARAMETERS, RTE is innocent, and Mary-Lou is making a malicious allegation. They are your parameters. So yes, RTE is innocent and the SF firing-squad aimed at it should be stood down.

Now, unless you have some evidence that Mary-Lou's accusation is true....................

Over to you...................

We are waiting..................................

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987790#Comment_118987790

Mary-Lou's claim is even more frivolous and opportunistic as not a single person on here, including many who heard the interview, have been able to point to a single part of it that might even come close to being defamatory.

If that is not the definition of frivolous and opportunistic, I don't know what is.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987997#Comment_118987997

I couldn't care less if MLMD wins or loses. Calling out hypocrisy and false claims, (the irony) does not a shinner make. I know claiming everyone is a shinner and out to get you is a comfort, but sometimes inward reflection is the way government parties should go.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988155#Comment_118988155

Very well said.

Anyone who is defending Mary-Lou's actions in this regard when they are unable to point to a single defamatory aspect of the radio interview is against free speech, against free democracy and is only interested in the tyranny or oppression of freedom.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988254#Comment_118988254

You do not know the details of the claim. Since page one you have been hounding MLMD and supporting RTE.

Even if completely baseless, comparing it to a boozy TD with drink in each hand, falling off a swing, is unbelievable. How do you keep a straight face?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118987804#Comment_118987804

No, it wouldn't be discriminatory under discrimination legislation.

Under broadcasting legislation, and the need to be impartial, it would be sufficient for RTE to offer an alternative SF spokesperson the opportunity to speak for Sinn Fein. Perhaps Violet-Anne, oops she's gone, maybe some other prominent female spokesperson?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988246#Comment_118988246

Read slowly - Can you point to what claim MLMD is making and what she is seeking?

No you can't.

QED

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988246#Comment_118988246

1. You are correct that there is a specific allegation.
2. We have no confirmation as to what the allegation is in relation to.

Therefore, we cannot make any claim regarding innocence, or maliciousness.

Now, unless you have some concrete evidence that this is in relation to the interview you have stated......................Over to you.

I've asked this questions multiple times and no one has been able to show anything concrete as to what the case relates to.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988326#Comment_118988326

Read again, your mantra means you should be defending RTE not Mary-Lou. However, you have switched principles again because Sinn Fein.

everlast75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118980038#Comment_118980038

What was the outcome of each of these cases?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988403#Comment_118988403

The allegation is against RTE. They are innocent until proven guilty, and there is a very high threshold of proof.

Until Mary-Lou produces evidence, the balance of the doubt goes to RTE, and the concerns about the threat to free speech are the most important factor.

Those defending Mary-Lou attacking free speech are the ones making judgement.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988416#Comment_118988416

I'm neither defending MLMD nor RTE.

I don't even know who may have uttered the offending words.

Nor do you.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988578#Comment_118988578

So like me, you have heard nothing to justify MLMD's defamation action.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988557#Comment_118988557

How on earth is she attacking 'free speech' when we don't know the speech she has issue with and we don't know if the speech was libelous, as in, not 'free' as such?

You picked sides on page one.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988589#Comment_118988589

She has every right to make the charge.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988589#Comment_118988589

Is that not obvious from the statement I made?

You jumped to a conclusion from what at best is guesswork in the media - 'i.e. 'it is understood...'

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988557#Comment_118988557

You've stated a few posts above that MLMD's claim is "frivolous" and "opportunistic" without even knowing what her claim is and here you are talking about "balance". Do you not see the cognitive dissonance??

MLMD will be required to produce evidence in a court of law, in what way, shape or form is that threatening to free speech?

If she wins, she will have been correct to bring the claim.

If she loses, she will have huge legal fees to pay, which I would imagine would put most people off making frivolous claims through the courts.

What is your specific issue with this?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988659#Comment_118988659

No, she doesn't.

People like Mary-Lou and Denis O'Brien engage in this kind of behaviour all the time. They send solicitor's letters threatening defamation, they commence cases that they never intend to pursue. It is media manipulation, designed to get the stories they don't like out of the public eye. It is a threat to democracy.

Bad when it is coming from a leading businessman, far worse when it is coming from a leading politician.

However, your cognitive dissonance will allow you to defend Mary-Lou and attack Denis O'Brien. Blatant politicking on behalf of a political party.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118988731#Comment_118988731

So until you have evidence, RTE are innocent, and the case should be dropped. That is all that one can say until you see the evidence, if there is any.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118989023#Comment_118989023

???

blanch, I am NOT taking the case.

Jaysus, the shark is getting jumped over and back here today. 😁

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118989018#Comment_118989018

FFS, that doesn't even make a modicum of sense.

Doing what MLMD has focused attention on whatever the story was. It was long gone out of focus.

A bonkers hypothesis.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118989055#Comment_118989055

You are defending Mary-Lou taking a defamatory action, for which there is no supporting evidence, in a blatant attempt to silence the media commentary and free speech in relation to politics. Not a good look, Francie, not a good look.

At the very least, if you have any belief in democracy and free speech, you should be expressing concern, if, like me, you have heard the interview, you should be very worried about this blatant action.

CarProblem

@blanch152 "People like Mary-Lou and Denis O'Brien engage in this kind of behaviour all the time."

Has MLMD a history of defamation cases? I hadn't heard of others (genuinely - I'm not saying they don't exist). Any links to these other cases seeing she does it all the time?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118989080#Comment_118989080

I didn't defend or condone what she has done.

Do you favour removing somebody's right to seek redress if defamed? Yes or no?

Sounds very undemocratic if you do.

Donald Trump

I seem to recall a situation about 10 years ago when a certain promotion company, maybe something to do with music, was suing an online forum for some reason and as a result it was not allowed to mention them at all.

And another case where a company, who had a partner who was someone's daddy, also had mention of their company shut down from any online discussion under the threat of expensive litigation.

Rolling out the big guns to suppress information and try try to control the narrative and allow space for your own propaganda isn't solely limited to politicians. It just happens that most decent people would see the issue with politicians who do that. Obviously not all people are decent though

A person or organisation with a big war chest behind them can still bully you into submission as they know they can drag you into a war of attrition that will destroy you before it ends, even when you likely win.