I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
It is not that the cases are frivilous, it is, as in Mary-Lou's case, that they are designed to silence the media. A threat to freedom, not the first threat to freedom that Sinn Fein have supported over the years.
The other one I forgot was the campaign by Paddy Cosgrove to attack trolls on twitter, clearly it should have been a campaign against all trolls but only attacked those who didn't support Sinn Fein.
Along with the issues on boards , with Paddy on Twitter, the group "who haven't gone away" looking after local visits, the online mob attacking anyone and everyone, Mary Sue and TD's attacking media forms with defamation cases. It certainly is a concerted campaign against dissenting voices.
Again, is your contention here that Dáil privilege's should not exist?
They were not invented by Mary Lou.
If anybody abuses DP then sanctions should apply.
QED.
If you didn't fear the answer to the questions you wouldn't run from them.
The answer is in this question blanch if you would answer it.
Should nobody have a right to redress?
Yes or No?
So herself and Denis broke the law or have different rights than you and I? Please explain?
Poor auld Dinny. Was a time people would jump down your throat for mentioning him, now they're using him.
We all have the right. I support that for everyone. Besides the comedy milage from swing gate was almost comparable to all the other government minister guffaws combined.
This is brilliant, it really is. Loving the hyperbole and pearl clutching.
Keep it up.
What constitutes 'an online mob'? Is it lots of people with opinions you don't like or the likes of yourself and the others comparing MLMD to putin for suing RTE? :)
Are you talking about how you and blanch etc. went after chay bowes because he'd a hand in the Leo leak story? Or the many times on here lads are critical of a journalists private life because he/she has a story making politicians they like look bad?
A look back at these guys reaction to the media revealing what a Tanaiste and former Taoiseach confessed to and apologised for after threatening to sue, will tell you all you need to know.
Juicy stuff there if you read the relevant thread.
'It's great when we can score political points, not so great when the media goes against our guys'. 😁
How did I “went after Chay Bowes”?
I mentioned Chay recently after he was confirmed to be running fake accounts and also after numerous articles and posts online which he was told was incorrect yet he has never apologised or withdrawn
So are we not allowed question a so called journalist for this carryon? Or because he is clearly aligned with SF he should be given a free pass?
The broken record keeps on playing, 'if they criticise my guys they be Shinners'.
It's not like Sinn Fein and their previous leader haven't tried to gag bad press for the party before.
100%
If DoB had taken this action against RTE the usual crew would be up in arms about it, saying that a powerful businessman is trying to shut down journalists.
Now we have one of the most powerful politicians on the island doing the same, the same old crew are rowing in and defending her action.
Laughable really. The hypocrisy of the highest order but it's to be expected tbh.
Mary Sue is quite funny.
She had a right to sue. If there was negligence on the behalf of the owner, she'd have been awarded damages. It is up to the judge to assess and determine damages if it goes to court. If they settle in advance then it is an agreement between parties.
I personally think that such an action would have been an opportunistic money grab, but she was perfectly entitled to do so. Which apparently makes it ok in your books.
MLMD (henceforth MS for Mary Sue) is also entitled to access to the Courts (in the absence of an Isaac Wunder order). The same as the SF fella from Cork was entitled to bring his action against Joe Duffy and RTE. Which was reported to have been settled for in excess of 150k. What do ya think about that tax free windfall for him - guffaws or not? Let's put it this way, if he was already receiving income of 100k a year (ballpark for TD), he'd have had to earned in excess of an additional 310k that year to make that extra 150k ...... ya think that whatever was said that hurt his snowflake feelings justified that ..... or are we back in guffaw territory
See below:
There's one example. So you never criticised him for the Leo the leak story?
I'm cool with people posting criticism and the like but maybe talk to this fellah:
Along with the issues on boards , with Paddy on Twitter, the group "who haven't gone away" looking after local visits, the online mob attacking anyone and everyone, Mary Sue and TD's attacking media forms with defamation cases. It certainly is a concerted campaign against dissenting voices
So didn't go after Chay Bowes except when you did. And going after critics is a concerted campaign against dissenting voices, unless you agree with the critics. Got it.
I support her right to Sue. Her making an arse of herself repeatedly was great.
'Snowflake' nice, not up there with Mary Sue, but you take what you can get I'd say. Quality....
If MLMD loses, grand. If she wins, RTE dropped the ball and the tax payer has to foot the bill. If that happens I suppose you'll blame MLMD? Explains why FF/FG still have people willing to go to bat for them.
Like I say about Denis O'Brien, he's a businessman. Any deal he got where the tax payer got rode is on government.
Mrs. Brown's Boys funny.
Yes. But wonder will Oliver Callan take this on.
MB would likely have won some damages either through a settlement or in the court. That's just the fact. You might think it is ridiculous, but you could equally think that 150k for someone saying something slightly negative about you to Joe Duffy might be equally as ridiculous but there you go. Your buddy got that.
MB should not have done what she did. But if there is one tiny positive in her favour (which in no way cancels out the negatives), it would be that she had enough shame/embarrassment to withdraw the case. She didn't have a neck like a jockey's bollox. She also didn't have a party goal of silencing any negative truth from being mentioned.
It's so hypocritical to castigate MB, yet cheer on Mary Sue. Disgustingly so.
I'll criticise both of them, but then again I like to be consistent
Bizarre.
You have no credibility Francie if you will happily castigate MB but blindly support Mary Sue for attempting worse.
Be consistent. Either support both or support neither. If you decide to support one and not the other, at least make an attempt to support the one who was marginally less wrong/dangerous.
What issue ? You and I have no idea what the issue is. A bogus claim that she dropped like a hot potato once it got scrutinised and then played the victim? The humanity Sean, wither the humanity? That was MB.
Drop the "Mary Sue" comments
So she didn't fall off a swing? I think you are wrong there Francie. She fell off a swing and was going to claim for it. It was never alleged that the incident never happened or that she suffered no injury. I would have hoped that the claim would not have resulted in an award of damages, but she definitely had a claim. She should not have issued proceedings and should be called out on it, but it was not a bogus claim.
You'd wanna hope she hasn't got MLMD's legal connections or you might find yourself at the end of a High Court summons.
MLMD, on the other hand, was apparently publicly defamed to the extent that nobody can figure out how it was she was defamed. lol. I'd say that MB at least had a bit of a bruise as evidence.
Let us look at this again.
Leo was accused of breaking the law and had clear and obvious grounds to sue for defamation. He was the big man and stepped back from that because he would have put the media outlet out of business.
Maria Bailey suffered a personal injury and had clear and obvious grounds to sue for personal injury. Questions over contributory negligence and extent of injury would be answered by the court, but again she stepped back.
Mary-Lou, well not even you, who has probable listened to more Mary-Lou interviews in a week than I have in a lifetime, cannot find a single reason for her to pursue a defamation case. In fact, nobody anywhere, in media, on boards, on social media, has been able to identify a single time when Mary-Lou may have been defamed. Think of the hundreds of thousands of listeners and not a single one can point to anything that might remotely be considered defamatory. Obvious conclusion is that there isn't anything, and that she is doing this to silence the media and censor discussion of uncomfortable topics for Sinn Fein. That this is defended by her online army, revealed by the nakedness of defending her in this situation, is only to be expected. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that this is the most serious attack on our democracy since CJH.
So tell us what you know of the claim? I feel a long period of longuers here. None of us know.
Did Maria or Leo have a right to seek redress? Yes or No?
What is Mary-Lou seeking redress for? Nobody knows. Nobody can tell us what possible defamatory thing was said.
Sure people should have a right to redress, but in the case of politicians trying to silence the media, we have a right to know what it is about. Otherwise there is a real threat to our democracy.
