He had a certain fan base here and some weren't gone on him.
He disappeared very fast last year and now he's about to sue Twitter.
Good luck with the case :) But I would point out that the sample article allegations.
Though it will be interesting to see where RTÉ goes with this. Do they reinstate or will he sue? I thought it was quite a kneejerk reaction from RTÉ, so it will be interesting to see what their process and thinking was for his removal.
Then when it turns out to be fabricated, RTE will be sued, just like twitter.
Well I never would have suspected Marty Whelan of that. Jesus.
If it was seriously taken up by Marty's employer, yes I think they could have run an article.
An anon user of Boards .ie (known as Boggles) has claim of unwanted advances from RTÉ Marty Whelan. Whelan who has had various different roles in the national broadcaster along with a stint with the now defunct Century radio, was not available for comment but his legal team says he has nothing to answer for these anon claims. RTÉ have said they have a robust system and have taken the view that Marty will not be able to host the shows until the allegations are fully investigated. We reached out to Boggles but they were unavailable for comment.
#IbelieveBoggles
There is a court case against Twitter at the moment and you don't see the potential implications for Irish Media Organisations reporting on anonymous tweets which turned out be fabricated.
I hardly need to join those dots for you, do I?
I could start up a twitter account now, anonymously, and claim Marty Whelan touched me, do you think the Irish Media should report on that?
I want to know why no Irish Media outlet reported that the said presenter had left RTÉ due to an anon online complaint of sexual misconduct and why it took over a year for that reason to come out in any media, until the complaint was settled. I don't see the complications in reporting something widely known? Was there any benefit by not reporting this, instead they kept the guy in the news every month, who was replacing him on the breakfast show and how he was missing from the Love Island Aus line up.
In the case of Westwood (who I am now remembering as being a complete plonker) he and his team have come out and denied these charges, while his employer has stated he as left until such time charges are cleared.
While there is no Documentary of the anon complaints in this case, I still don't see why the media tip-toed around the issue for a year. Did they even do any of their own research to verify anything?
You want to know the difference between an anonymous tweet that was a fabrication and a BBC documentary which has testimony from several women who accuses him of "misconduct" and how they can be reported on differently?
Really? 😕
Very interesting case, it shows the presumption of innocence is under threat in society nowadays. Legally he was never found guilty of anything, but he still disappeared from the radio and TV overnight, due to allegations designed to harm him, which they did.
I think there’s no doubt he can win a defamation case against someone, the interesting question is can Twitterbe held responsible. I think that realistically they should be, given that they do suspend people and have moderated some content members of the public posted.
In terms of defamation, the burden of proof is really with the person who publishes the information. It’s on them to show the statements were true, not on McDermott or someone in his position to show they were false.
Not a fan of McDermott by any means, but his treatment is outrageous, he lost his career and all respect on the basis of lies.
someone tell me what the difference is here, with the following allegations, and I'd wonder why RTÉ would reprint this PA article for the DJ in England, strange
Maybe due to the doc on BBC Three, but the silence on the allegations in the Irish case was very apparent.
https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2022/0427/1294663-bbc-director-general-westwood-allegations-appalling/
amazing that you might have to lie about who you are and what you believe to get on in an organisation where the truth matters. The more w go with the woke agenda the more it looks like the straightjacket state we had up to the 1980's
Hard to say. It may well have been just a cloak he wore whilst working in RTE to build his career.
Must be getting old, had to google him as well.
Who is/was more woke Eoghan or Keith Walsh??
This is a bit off topic. I wonder did Eoghan McDermott believe in the woke agenda he preached or did he identify it as a means to fame..
He's not known for anything else really.
I'd even put myself in that group. I can't stand him and delight in the fact that he was hoist by his own petard. But the witch hunt has gone on long enough
So people who hate cancel culture are revelling in a gross example of it.
I'll update that to Hysterical Karen's and the dangerously stupid so.
😕
It's Hysterical Karen's, but also those that revel in schadenfreude that a Woke, vocal male Feminist, has been "found out".
You've repeated those thoughts ad nauseam throughout the thread but still haven't clarified any questions put to you (which is ironic considering your main gripe is seeking clarification).
Why would her being in school make a difference if she is over the age of consent? Would you feel the same if it was a 19 year old still in school? At what age should a woman be permitted to consensually engage in sexual activity with a 27 year old for it to be acceptable in your opinion? If you don't agree that a 17 year old should be able to have sex with a partner of their choosing, what age would you like the age of consent raised to?
Almost all of your posts have focused on your dislike for EMD's "wokeness" and metoo movement support. I get that he was a hypocrite and would have been the first to levy abuse at someone caught at what he was up to. But by your carry on, you are engaging at the same hyperbolic cancel culture bullshit you slate EMD for.
Hysterical Karens who believe everything that is written on the internet?
Hardly a club to be a proud member of is it?
Just to clear, why would Twitter want to question him about his private life relating to a person above the age of consent? Surely that would be counter productive as it would confirm the falsity of the allegation.
Well there you go thats my thoughts on it. And as you can see from this thread and other sites im not in the minority.
"At the same time for Eoghan Mc the questions around his alledged involvement with a 17yo school child havent been clarified."
Nor should they be. It's none of your business
Seriously lad.
She has accused him of a pretty grievous crime, but you are obsessed with the actual part that is completely legal.
What gives?
And that solicitor's letter could also be lies or contain more inaccuracies. Or EBingley could have been forced to write it under duress etc.
If Twitters defence team go into open court and claim her legal team coerced her into providing a false "confession", then they will be up next serving high court papers.
If you want to leave it there we will, the imaginary boundaries of how this case my play out are just becoming rather irrational to put it mildly.
The reality is Twitter will not touch the substance of the claims, primarily because they don't have to IMHO.
He shouldnt have been subjected to the calim of underage sex.
At the same time for Eoghan Mc the questions around his alledged involvement with a 17yo school child havent been clarified. Id imagine he is finished on the national airwaves.
His action against twitter? I dont know. Would twitter be potentially opening the floodgates by settling? There must he thousands of defaming posts amd comments a week being published. You'd imagine they are protected.
While we are making statements as our closer on this:
Eoghann McDermott is, in my opinion, a horrible man with horrible views, someone who has been shown to be a hypocrite and someone I would gladly never hear about again. This has no bearing on the accusations leveled at him.
The woman who accused him of statutory rape and other horrible things is a proven liar, I don't believe for one moment anyone could plausibly "misremember" their age when it comes to making such a serious allegation and therefore her credibility with regards any other accusation is shot.
The only fact we know that when McDermott and this woman met, she was above the legal age of consent, and therefore any sexual acts which she agreed to were absolutely nobody elses business, regardless of whether she happened to still be attending school or not.
With regards that the sexual act was not consenual, unless an official complaint or accusation was made, it should be held to the same regard as claims made on the internet by someone posting anonymously, especially considering the person has already admitted to not being able to remember something as simple as her own age.
The expectation that McDermott should need to clarify any claims made by anonymous people on the internet is astounding and only stems from peoples dislike of his persona and him as a person.
I have no opinion on him suing twitter. Couldn't care less. I don't like him but to be falsely accused of rape (statutory or otherwise) is absolutely disgusting and something should never have to experience. It does seem ghoulish that people are expecting him to clarify everything about a sexual encounter based on a flippant allegation on reddit/twitter.
Many companies won’t release personal information about their users without a High Court order- I’m not saying it’s the case here, but in order to sue users of Twitter other than the primary accuser, (who is know ) who retweeted the accusations and who may have slandered/defamed someone in the process, (but who may not be known) a high court order would be the way to go.
I wonder if this is the start of a bigger process?
I'm going to leave it after this because we are going around in circles.
McDermott has provided no proof whatsoever that he was defamed. He has alleged that he was defamed and has provided evidence that he was defamed which may or may not stand up in court. Evidence does not equal proof until it's ruled upon in court. As of now, it's an allegation that he was defamed, similar to EB's allegation that she was sexually assaulted (some aspects of which she has withdrawn).
I've lots of experience in legal strategy, albeit with personal injury claims and not defamation. That said, the process in court is pretty much the same. Establish if any harm occurred, and then make an appropriate award for the level of harm caused. McDermott has to prove he was defamed, just as much as an injured person making a claim for damages has to prove their injuries.
On your point that the client lied, that hasn't been established. It certainly looks like she lied, but they might claim that they were mistaken. Big difference. They could blame the fact that they made the allegations some 10 years after the incident occurred. They may allege they were traumatised and therefore misremembered certain details etc. I'm not standing up for EBingley here, nor am I saying I believe a single word that she has said, I'm just trying to portray what may be claimed in court. And that solicitor's letter could also be lies or contain more inaccuracies. Or EBingley could have been forced to write it under duress etc. You can be sure that aspects of the letter and allegations against McDermott will be questioned.
Another tactic might be to try get McDermott on the stand and embarrass him. Many people here are assuming that he was with EBingley when she was 17 and still in school. This may or may not be true. If this is the case and he was with the girl when she was 17 and he was 27, while legal, this might not portray him in a good light. Many people have very negative views of ex-teachers dating schoolgirls 10 years their junior. He might not be comfortable pouring over those details in a public forum. And if Twitter can portray him in a negative light, it might have the effect of reducing the damages (if any). I'm certainly not saying any of this is true because I don't know the details. But you can be sure that Twitter will at least examine this option and won't totally rule it out if it goes to court.
And all of the above might be moot if Twitter are successful with the Innocent Publication defence as that's probably what they'd lead with.
.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c33618a99b1d02afaf5370e8c02bf147.svg)
