I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
As a democrat, if it was examined by a court I would have to accept it. I might not like it but accept it I would.
It never got to court. If MLMD’s is similarly spurious it won’t get to a court either.
Plenty of ‘spurious’ cases make it to court.
A case not making it to court doesn’t mean it was ‘spurious’.
Rte have had serious allegations made of SF Td's that they had to later retract and in some instances pay out because of these accusations. My question would be why is RTE so sloppy with reporting? Is it because the public purse is there to fund any defamatory remarks made? Also the fact that they apologized to pascal Donohue for a factual item on a historical policy of FG tells you just how biased and captured they are by the Government parties. It's gone the way of RT.
Anyone comparing MLMD to Putin.
Answered this for you the other day. Everyone has the right to sue or claim.
If/when we get the details about MLMD we can discuss it.
You ain't pointing out ****. You are trying to create perceived inconsistencies.
Harris and Varadkar have every right to sue. We know they didn't in the end. We can discuss why. That doesn't take away their right.
We have people here comparing MLMD to Putin and MB because she is suing. Vastly different my friend.
When we know the details we can comment on the case. Attacking her because she brought the case is a desperate attempt to try create some kind of scaremongering fantasy. Its highly embarrassing for those people.
Remember RTE being forced to include MLMD in the debates in run up to election? Farce of an organization really when you think of it. Great to see them being taken to task with the vendetta against ML.
What about Matt Carthy? Most cases don't go to court. The Cork SF TD was said to have gotten more than 150k and he didn't go to court.
Anyway, we have your answer - You'd have supported MB if she had persisted with her claim and gotten either a payout or an apology from the hotel. Given that she likely would have, we'll put you down as "Team MB"
Seems if you throw a nick name you get warned here.
Ok, so let's do it very very carefully.
Ms Mc Donald of sinn fein will have a fight on her hands with her defamation case as rte are not rolling over to her demands
Ms. Mc Donald of sinn fein has failed to have rte take down the broadcast she is complaining about.
It now seems that Ms. Mc Donald of sinn fein who is suing rte will have to go to court and have her grievances heard there.
I've listened to the broadcast and cannot find anything defamatory or untrue in any aspect.
You can't assume that, that is in your own head, a creation of your imagination, all part of a desperate deflection attempt.
What is clear though, is that you have zero problem with politicians and political leaders using SLAPPs to silence critics. You have welcomed that potential outcome.
Great news, those like Mary-Lou who repeatedly attempt to bully the media need to be confronted.
Mairia Cahill's take on it in today's Irish Independent is well worth a read.
You and Francie are the only ones mentioning teams.
The rest of us are talking about Mary-Lou's disgraceful attempts to silence free speech in the media, while to deflect, you talk about other posters.
Well then, shouldn’t democrats wait until it gets to court before deciding
You guys want it every which way and will trample all over rights you will defend for others.
Predictable.
The previous cases involving SF that we know the detail of.
Do you support the outcomes?
MB didn't make it to the courts, yet you are happy to judge her (I'm happy to do that too.... would just be nice to have a bit of consistency from yourself Francie)
She filed her case (Same as MLMD has) but it was withdrawn before it was heard
We knew the detail ffs of that other case.
I get it Donald you want to selectively deny the right of redress by announcing a verdict before we have any substantive detail.
Please don’t try to discuss other cases as I have just got an off topic warning and won’t be replying
Can you send me a link to the details? The court never made any findings as regards the details so what you might have are some claims from either side. What appeared to have been accepted by both sides of that case was that MB fell off a swing on a premises.
Can we just agree at least that as of know, there is as of yet no known cause of action for MLMD, whereas at least there was a known cause of action for MB.
I can say no more than you will find NO posts from me denying anyone’s right to redress. Zero. It’s a fundamental and inalienable right in my opinion.
Look to our neighbouring island to see the consequences of allowing media do and say as they please.
No that's fine Francie. You support ML and you supported MB. Given that MB was outed by the media and forced to withdraw her case under public pressure, you presumably don't agree that that pressure should have been applied and you would have supported that pressure being swept under the carpet in order for her to be able to proceed with her claim.
I’d expect anyone seeking redress not to fold like a wet suit screaming about humanity.
Key thing is Donald I never stood in her way or denied her right to seek redress. You and the rest wish to do that only for a specific set of people while giving the media every right to say what they, DESPITE clear evidence of the dangers of that.
Neither she nor MLMD has a right to deny me or you a view on the case when it becomes public knowledge.
A case will not become public knowledge unless it is heard in the HC (or above) and it is reported. Most judgments in lower courts are unreported. Most defamation lawsuits are settled before the courts - presumably with an associated NDA
No some of us are pointing out the insane nonsense, while others are creating it.
The teams thing is the best outcome. Otherwise its just hypocrisy to a completely insane level, for no reason.
"Silence free speech and the media" :) rotfl as the kids say.
Which generally suit both parties. If not they have a right not to agree.
Maybe your real issue is with how the law generally applies Donald? In which case that is an entirely different matter
No I understand the law. I just don't understand inconsistent people whose stances change depending on the badge or jersey the subject is wearing.
It reminds me of where you'd see some football "fan" defending some player some player from their team to the hilt for doing something nasty. The next year that player is bought by a different team and does something similar, but only half as bad, and you'll have the same "fan" calling for their head for it.
There isn’t a single inconsistent thing in believing that EVERYONE has a right to redress Don.
Having an opinion on the known facts is fine as long as you do not seek to deprive somebody or a certain group of that right.
Say it loud and say it proud - Francie supports MB for taking her case against the hotel. There is nothing wrong with that Francie. I don't have the same opinion but you are entitled to think she was doing the right thing if you want.
Fast forward to 2025 and MLMD has become Taoiseach would you not find it bizarre that the Taoiseach of the country is trying to sue the national broadcaster?
Absolutely Donald, I support everyone’s right.
Not sure how somebody who understands law couldn’t grasp that earlier.
I will ask you again…do you support that right?
*I am not asking for your opinion on a case BTW
If a newspaper lies…they should expect consequences.
So if MM feels defamed he has no recourse because he's Taoiseach?
Why are you trying so hard? Supporting having a right is not the same as supporting a specific claims details.
MB had a right to submit a claim. We can then judge based on its merits. Even falling off a swing with a booze in each hand, she had a right to try if she wished. Completely different to telling her she's out to destroy the hotel industry and raise rates for the public...before we even knew she was on the piss chancing her arm.
Why the inconsistency then Brucie?
Anyone who tried to say that it appears that MLMD has no legitimate case to answer (given what is reported) is drowned out with "but she has the right to do it. Why are you trying to deny her legal right to seek redress..." ... a bit of consistency goes a long way.
Playing your own game, you cannot prove what MB was going to claim under. There was no court case and no court report of what was alleged or the court findings. Does that mean we cannot criticise her now?
And nobody had issue with her moving the case in 2015. When the details came out the case fell apart and SHE dropped it voluntarily…nobody else did that.
