I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
Putin?
Am happy for you to give me the link where I compared anyone on this thread to Putin.
Why the hypocrisy then Francie?
What are the facts of this case which make it legitimate versus the facts of MB case? For both cases, we can only go on what was reported in the media. One report said that the MB fell off a swing and injured herself. That she fell off a swing was never challenged. For the other case, the only thing in the press is a radio clip where nobody can find defamation. Based on what we know, MB had an actionable case. There is zero evidence that MLMD has one.
How can you justify supporting someone for whom you have zero evidence/reason over someone where you had some evidence/reason?
And again, lest you get confused, I do not think MB should have taken her case and I think it was right that she suffered consequences for doing so.
Jesus, getting ridiculous now.
I support her right to take a case Donald.
I didn’t flip or flop from that for a second.
You flipped that to lie and say I supported her case.
Plenty have accused her of silencing free speech and censoring the media because she is suing. And plenty, including yourself, have compared her suing to Putin and MB, before we even know the actual details. Isn't that attacking the woman because she's suing? You can claim to believe everyone has the right, but it's plain MLMD is being attacked for exercising that right.
Again Francie, look up the definition of "Strawman". Nobody has said that any individual should be denied access to the courts. I can probably quote back a dozen of my own posts stating that everyone is entitled to access the courts (I even noted the only exception which would be on foot at an Isaac Wunder order)
A strawman is when you try to change the topic to a different one which nobody is talking about, in order to try to deflect from the topic at hand.
Again you were flip flopping on MB. What was mentioned was her taking the case and whether she was right to do it (not whether she had the right to do it). You appeared to disparage her for taking the case (I agree on that) but then you changed so that you fully supported her taking the case and appear to only speak negatively about her withdrawing the case (implying that she should have continued)
You don't know what 'inconsistency' means I think. This is the third time you've compared apples to oranges in an attempt at claiming witnessing 'inconsistencies'.
I've only commented on the loolahs comparing her to Putin or her silencing free speech, for her suing RTE.
Nobody worth taking seriously has claimed she has no legitimate case as nobody knows the details. I've no idea what her case is about and have not once commented on it other than to say she has a right to sue and certainly a right to sue without politically motivated hypocritical fantasists comparing her to Putin for doing so.
We know all the details about MB, she was a boozed up chancer likely advised by Josepha or someone else there at the time, to put in a compo claim, at a time when FG, their party, were blaming frivolous claims on rising insurance rates.
Both MLMD and Harris and Varadkar and MB and whomever else have the right to sue if they so wish.
Again, if we learn the details we can draw conclusions, that still doesn't mean they didn't /don't have the right. You really should be grasping the difference at this stage Donald.
It's really bizarre stuff. Trying to link MLMD to a chancer like MB to discredit MLMD when we don't even know the details and even if MLMD loses, I'd imagine it's not as ridiculous as MB's boozy fall.
And I was at pains to say I had no comment to make as we don’t know Donald.
You lied to say I ‘supported’ MBs case’ I never said that of course
I said I support her right to take a case. A distinction I’m surprised some who says they understand the law, missed spectacularly.
See Francie, I'm not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or whether you are just continually trying to create a crude and unsophisticated strawman. So you've flipped back to being inconsistent and hypocritical depending on the persons badge/jersey? I thought we were making progress there for a while.
I have many posts where I said that MLMD is entitled to sue. The exact same as MB was entitled to sue. There is no benefit to you continually throwing that up as a strawman as everyone can see it is purely a sad attempt at deflection and distraction.
Going next to whether they were right to sue, I do not think either was right to do it. Both come across as opportunistic based on what we know. In MBs case, there was a definite cause of action. In MLMD case, nobody has been able to identify even a possible cause of action. I think it was you that first called MBs case a "bogus case". It wasn't a bogus case at all. A bogus case is where there was no incident. There was definitely an accepted incident for MBs case. In contrast, there hasn't been anything identified that people could reasonably guess that might be actionable.
So can we agree on two things? :
1) That we don't know the exact details of what MLMD has claimed. We don't know what the incident was or when.
2) That there is nothing which is defamatory in the interview which has been reported (but not confirmed) as being the one that caused the issue. (She may of course be filing on a completely different issue)
Ms. McDonald and other sinn fein TDs seem to like using dail privilege to make defamatory and false statements on a regular basis.
They avoid repeating these statements outside the protection of the dail.
One rule for them etc etc
We seem to be at the stage where the question is,are you right to do it,just because you can
I may stand corrected but no politician wrongly accused of breaking pandemic laws in clifden have taken a case
Theres no doubt in my mind that their reputations were damaged
So they've taken the higher moral ground
Sadly they do, all the time.
and if a politician lies ..... ?
Now you are having to lie. Sad but not surprising.
I support her right to take a case Donald and yours and Leo and MLMD.
Once again…do you?
So we are back to what I said. Francie supports MB and her case and is against those that bullied or pressured her into withdrawing it. That's fine Francie. You can support her if you want to. I think she was wrong to do it (even though she was entitled to do it). You think she was right to do it. We can agree to disagree
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.
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?
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.
If a newspaper lies…they should expect consequences.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)
