I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
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..................................
Are you making all this up? I've seen plenty attack MLMD but none defend her case. Defend her right to bring it, sure.
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
I have no idea what her motivation is or her desired outcome and neither do you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Off topic posts deleted
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.
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.
Leo told the Dail he did it ffs.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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. 😁
wow - I think that reveals a lot. You are all for discrimination it seems
We know the allegation against Leo.
Have you any confirmation regarding what MLMD's case is in relation to?
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.
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.
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
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
Where has it been confirmed that it is over a specific interview?
You've refused to discuss it. Do you know specifically what MLMD is suing RTE over?
The only story I can find on RTE states "It is understood the action relates to a radio interview about a rally organised by the National Women's Council outside Leinster House in early March.", "A spokesperson for RTÉ said it does not comment on legal matters.".
So until it is actually confirmed what MLMD is suing over, we have no idea what it is about. I am not aggressive, it is words on a screen. God help you in the real world.
Have you a quote from MLMD or RTE confirming your suspicion?
Wouldn't it be great if RTE said that "due to ongoing legal action we are unable to offer any interview slots or commentary to Ms McDonald"
Another big man who was able to make his mind up very quickly about Maria Bailey without knowing the details of the grievance or what she was seeking and was condemning her based on media reports and wasn't there that evening either.
In this case, many of us heard the actual interview and can see no basis for what Mary-Lou is doing.
It's a thread about Mary Lou and Sinn Fein, it seems to be a certain few people think aggressive/abusive posting is the answer. Whatever happens don't let people have a discussion about this.
The "drunk with booze" got hounded by you for suing for personal injury.
However, when Mary-Lou sues in order to silence media opposition in a sinister attempt to control democracy, you give her carte blanche to do what she likes.
Pretty blatant politicking for one side.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)