I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
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
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.
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.
We still don't know what the claim is.
If it was a malicious lie for instance...what recourse should somebody have?
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
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.
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.
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.
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 I should be able to sue you?
And Leo should sue you as well?
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.
I am looking forward to RTE defending the case, with witnesses like Mairia Cahill.
Do you know what grounds she is taking the case on? Or was that another cheap exploitation of Mairia?
it was in the Irish Times article.
Who were guessing/supposing as well.
Ms McDonald’s claim is understood to relate to
why would I want to sign up when Im already a member?
Didn't the lady in question come out to dispute that scaremongering story saying she didn't find it intimidating at all? Also 'heavies'? It was a man she knew from her branch. 'Sinister' right?
Jaysus the spin merchants are on everything.
The claim was no other party has a problem with RTE. Keep it honest if you can.
Did MLMD firebomb a house? Do you know SF did? Jackanory hasn't aired in years.
Thing is MLMD is suing and some don't like her doing what many others have.
Albert Reynolds did one of the papers.
Says there's no anti SF agenda then goes off on a rant because MLMD is suing RTE. Sure.
So, given your links involve people making simple complaints, you appear to think that "suing" someone means to make a complaint?
That makes a lot of sense now. It's just that you don't understand the meanings of words. That is where your confusion stems from
Albert Reynolds sued an English paper because he was called a liar. He won, but was awarded 1p damages. Upon appeal, that was upgraded to 1 pound damages.
On an unrelated note, there are of course, somewhat apocryphal stories of men being beaten to death because a local member of a political party, who was also involved in a parallel criminal structure, took a personal dislike to the deceased and had them killed. In those stories, witnesses were intimidated against giving evidence or speaking up. I say "apocryphal" in the sense that authorities might know it went on, but because the intimidation was so effective, nobody would be ever held accountable as nothing would be "proven" in a court of law. What would be certain would be the dead body. If, hypothetically, legal mechanisms were now being used to silence witnesses, it would at least be a step up from that kind of scenario. Not a massive step up, but a step up nonetheless.
Everyone has a right to access the Courts. It doesn't mean they should do it, But they do have a right to do it.
Seeing as you are now believing the lady in question, will you accept her assertion that she was bullied out of Sinn Fein, that she was intimidated by fellow party members and that she was prevented from tweeting about homophobia and racism within Sinn Fein?
I see the shinnerbots have got their orders from belfast to defend the case and play dumb on the facts
took a while though , i guess thats the problem with a non democratic party controlled by criminals terrorists and god knows who
You all seem to have 'facts'. Any chance you could share them with us all?
What exactly is the case?
? what do you mean , where did i say i had facts re the case , i was noting the clearly organized and coordinated response from the "party",
stop trying to deflect and muddy waters already will ya
Once again you are misrepresting and not being truthful.
The claim was no other party had a problem with RTE. I gave examples.
Point was they sue. There was the 'gombeen man' one too.
What do you mean 'are now'? You really can't help fabricating on the behalf of others.
The claim was they sent heavies around to intimidate her. Thats not true. I assume you believe the lady.
'clearly organised ... response from the party' - can you outline where this is 'clearly organised'?
