I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
" Putin to Maria'... I did unashamedly lol.
I guess there's no way back for MB withe lads here.
You have no credibility dude. Just accept it.
Ah here Joe, I'm livid so I am. So you are calling in your second cousin's uncle at this stage, where will the laboured faux analogies end! :)
It's so hypocritical to castigate MB, yet cheer on Mary Sue. Disgustingly so.
Mamma mia! That's a spicy a meatball.
I support people having the right to sue.
I don't know the details of what MLMD is suing for, and frankly I'm not overly interested. MB was a chancer found out and made for good fun. I'm repeating myself.
I'm only in here to discuss the outlandish hoopage. She's gone from being like putin to being like Maria Bailey. The efforts to demonise her so your own lot don't look so bad, while entertaining, isn't really working is it?
FYI, I'd happily have the SD's or even PBP trade places with SF in the public support stakes. No never mind to me.
Jaysus.
She issued proceedings, one step more than Leo went. Has faced the same scrutiny as Maria and hasn't appealed to our humanity.
But hey blanch, you can sleep safe, the lads and lassies under your bed might be quiet tonight....legal case to prep etc
I didn't say that.
However, if you are so clear on how she was publically defamed, tell us.
Nobody else can figure it out.
What?
So in the pursuance of her job she can't be personally defamed or slandered? 😁 Brilliant! I think you are way out on a limb, as usual.
She was not on RTE as a private person, she was on RTE as a politician representing a political party.
Maria Bailey was in a personal space, not on RTE.
That you can't see the difference speaks to your cognitive dissonance when it comes to matters of Sinn Fein.
There is no doubt that Maria Bailey fell off a swing. There is no doubt that she suffered an injury. There is no doubt that many people have successfully sued in similar situations. All of this was known in public, however, she didn't sue in the end.
There is zero evidence of Mary-Lou being defamed. Certainly, not a single Sinn Fein quasi-supporter can point to anything. However, she is suing in an attempt to silence the media. Bad for democracy, bad for freedom of the press, bad for the people of Ireland. If you can't see this.....................
Why do you think you have a right to info?
She is making the claim as a private person. Same as M B.
That is the whole point. There is nothing obviously defamatory about any of Mary-Lou's interviews. The boys in RTE must be scratching their heads trying to figure it out.
This is nothing but an attempt by Sinn Fein to subvert democracy. Where you stand on this tells an awful lot. It certainly has exposed those who defend Sinn Fein to the hilt despite protestations to be neutral.
Some of the worst Orwellian predictions are happening right now thanks to the behaviour of Sinn Fein and their supporters.
It's not just you, it is everyone. Not a single person has a clue as to what might have been defamatory. Hundreds of thousands of people have heard her interview and they are as much in the dark as you. And you don't find that concerning, that Mary-Lou doesn't want those people to know something.
Your longtime support for all things Sinn Fein has blinded you to real threats to our democracy.
What you seem to be missing Francie is that there was information in the public domain that clearly demonstrated that both Maria and Leo had a case of some kind for legal action.
The difference with Mary-Lou is that despite hundreds and thousands of people having heard her radio and tv interviews and read all of the articles on the website, not a single person in the country, other than Mary-Lou and her lawyer seem to have a clue about what was defamatory. That can only lead one to the conclusion that there wasn't anything defamatory, and that this is a clear attempt to censor the media in a way that the European Commission and many international watchdogs are very concerned about. Read the links I provided and educate yourself on how defamation is used by scurrilous politicians like Mary-Lou to control the narrative.
P.S. I never attacked VAW personally, just her views, that is just another scurrilous attack by you on another poster. Despicable.
I have no idea what the claim is which is why I have not passed comment.
If anyone in a democracy feels they have been defamed or slandered they have a right to redress. Well done, you finally managed to answer.
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.
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?
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 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.
Drop the "Mary Sue" comments
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.
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.
Bizarre.
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.
I'll criticise both of them, but then again I like to be consistent
Yes. But wonder will Oliver Callan take this on.
Mrs. Brown's Boys funny.
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.
How did I “went after Chay Bowes”?
See below:
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
There's one example. So you never criticised him for the Leo the leak story?
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?
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.
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
Mary Sue is quite funny.
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.
