I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
it was in the Irish Times article.
Do you know what grounds she is taking the case on? Or was that another cheap exploitation of Mairia?
I am looking forward to RTE defending the case, with witnesses like Mairia Cahill.
Absolutely, if you have an answerable case.
Yes blanch. We were talking about bogus claims made to bully media into silence.
Seems Mary Lou has put your money were her mouth is. Would that that other bluffers would do the same.
So I should be able to sue you?
And Leo should sue you as well?
Eh, I think the difference is Mary-Lou has actually gone ahead with it.
The only one you mention as actually suing is Albert Reynolds, who did so after leaving office.
As per usual, your whataboutery is weak at best. It is interesting that events of the 1990s are relevant, think that will be part of the RTE defence.
So, like many of us, you are unable to detect anything defamatory in the programme that was broadcast. If I remember correctly, you commented at the time as to how well she handled the interview.
Exactly. We don't know yet.
We know for instance that the attempt to bully is perfectly demonstrated when somebody threatens vociferously to sue, but then backs down as the harsh realities of proof begin to dawn on them. Plenty of examples of that.
Why? Most claims are settled before the steps. And if settled there would probably be a NDA as to the terms.
For the time being, RTE will be effectively silenced on the topic by the proceedings. So that is another advantage of issuing them.
Francie, the claim is understood to have been a result of a specific program which was broadcast. People appear to know the specific program in question and the specific broadcast.
If people cannot simply listen to that program and figure out what the claim is likely based on, then it must be tenuous.
People can issue proceedings for many reasons. Sometimes it is a strategy to bully others so that they know not to mess with, or question, them again in the future. If I have hte money and the backing, I can take you on, and even though I might "lose", I might still know that the attrition will do you a lot more damage than me. In that sense, I would alwys "win" even if I did not get the court decision. And sometimes a claim is opportunistic in the sense that a plaintiff just sees a potential opportunity for cha-ching. Sometimes they are genuine, but as said, given that it isn't obvious what MLMD took offence at, even though we have access to the recording, we can't know what she is claiming to have been offended or triggered by
We still don't know what the claim is.
If it was a malicious lie for instance...what recourse should somebody have?
RTE/anti-SF will also "claim victory" either way. Either saying she's grabbing taxpayer money with frivolous lawsuits if she wins, or that she brought a nuisance suit if she loses.
What do the blind SF supporters think of this story?
Would ya support, or even encourage, FG and LV to come out with a big war chest and have their solicitors and barristers file summonses immediately up in the High Court to have the Independent silenced and unable to report any further on the claims?
And that would be against a private company. RTE is the State Broadcaster. If LV took a case and silenced the Independent and got a big payout, it wouldn't directly financially hurt the taxpayer. I know a lot of SF supporters tend to think of hte State as a magical money tree where free money just comes from, but surely some realise that it comes from other people really.
Either way Mary Lou cannot lose - if she wins or rte makes a payout then she claims victory, if she loses it further feeds the "establishment are out to get us" narrative
So Mary Lou is suing RTE for saying something which is true, as I already said the picture of Mary Lou walking alongside one of the RTE members who was part of the "investigation" into her rape case couldn't have come at a worse time.
So this thread has from minute one had the usual people trying to deflect off the topic, which IF Mary Lou was right to sue you would expect them to have no issue actually discussing the topic.
The poor me from Sinn Fein and online supporters is getting boring, nobody has a vendetta against them in the press, if anything the government parties can feel more aggrieved than anyone which Sinn Fein for a significant period able to do interviews in the media without any hard questions, once the hard questions started like "who will pay for that" suddenly the media had a vendetta.
I will give the supporters a quick tip why some people don't like Sinn Fein, here are some of the reasons
If people can´t see the difference between questioning insidious kangeroo courts and a general defamation case, and why its important, there´s no helping anyone here. Ahern is Ahern, so should be excluded from the conversation.
Its basically getting to the stage where SF will try to sue anybody without dail privelege who mentions the ¨war¨. setting up the groundwork for a GE that will be bitter. and anybody who mentions the war could potentially be sued. again if they gave up their past, cut links nobody would care. but the fact they don´t makes them **** hypocrites.
Bertie Ahern sued politics.ie for defamation iirc.
there´s no anti SF agenda. there is an anti bullshit aagenda. many people despise SF because, and wait i don´t want to be sued, a group they knew in passing , the IRA (which has no known links to SF and is a completely different organisation) planted bombs in pubs, killed women and children, murdered gardai, robbed banks, covered up paedophiles and rapists etc. it just happens that some of those ex IRA lads still hang around in SF or even get elected on their tickets. but look sure, the past is the past. ho hum, a party of peace now. whats the IRA got to do with SF. move on etc.
Its highly ironic that SF want to use nuances of laws when the victims of the IRA had no such recourse . it was just a bullet, and a grave in the wilderness or a memorial in a garden. but that was a ¨war¨, this is post war politics which is of course all about fairness etc.
and its the balls to act as if the above didn´t happen that have many of us actively despise such a group. thats before you even get to the fantasy stuff.
i will say it is hypocritical of people in the ROI to chastise SF and then implore unionists to work with them etc.
IF SF weren´t such plebs then people like myself mught give them a pass. If they had a truth and reconcilation process, if they were more mature and less insular, less polarising then yeah i´d say the past is the past. but they can´t let go of it themselves, so why should others?
That was an answer. Just not whatever one you wanted.
If MLMD is debating LV tomorrow on radio and MLMD asks LV whether he passed on confidential information, the appropriate response would not be for him to pull the plug on all the mics and run up to the High Court and file a summons against RTE. Because he has a right of response and the public have a right to have questions asked and answered
Best of luck to SF and Mary Lou. The anti sinn feinn agenda that our MSM push is tired and of no relevance.
Please answer the general question asked Donald.
Thanks, yep, that's what I said. Right there for anyone who understands English to see. I assume you will be apologising for lying and claiming and I made any reference to this being "unique"?
Sure you didn't Seamus, sure! 😁
Anyway, yes, a potential future Taoiseach using the legal system to try and bully media into silence is concerning. This is what SF are doing now.
It depends on the scenario Francie.
If a person is a public figure who is given literally hours of airtime on any major media outlet she wants to, then she can use that to respond in kind.
Is someone lied about MLMD then surely people know what the lie was? Here we have a scenario where a public broadcaster apparently is accused of doing something, and despite it being public, nobody knows what it was. So that kind of defeats the claim in itself anyway.
Is it just SF people who should avail of the strict rules you want? Or would the likes of Varadkar also be entitlted to the same protection? I see a lot of stuff written about him and his dealings with handing over material he shouldn't hve. Should be not be allowed to mention that or ask about that?
We all are aware of the stories where the local "unofficial organisation" man does what he wants with impunity and gets away with it because of his position in that "organisation". It would be very sinister to be trying to supplant that to the national level.
I will wait, as I said way back, for the details to emerge before passing opinion on MLMD's claim, as you all should really.
I made no such claim. You came up with that all on your own.
Typical Francie, strawman builder extraordinaire. Always with the false claims about what other people said.
Anyway, at least we know now that you're happy with Sinn Féin having a political maturity level on a par with the Haughey and Reynolds era. When we find them embezzeling money and threatening Gardai and journalists, it won't be a shock.
What was the lie?
The only thing that was mentioned on thread was that there was a reference to women who were abused/assaulted by members of SF?
Do you think that there are exactly zero women who have ever been abused or assaulted by members of SF?
Did Gerry's oul' fella not pay his dues? I'll admit that you couldn't categorize the victims that were admitted to (or at least being accepted as true) as women at the time of his actions. But only due to their age
Well, you are the one making spurious claims about the uniqueness of SF making threats to sue.
A cursory dip in the archives show different.
Not what I asked. I have no idea what the case is about.
I asked you a general questiion.
If somebody is actually lied about Donald, what recourse do you think they should have?
The two Shinners maligned by markodaly also 'won' damages. Were the courts wrong or what is it you are saying?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)
