I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
Nobody, and in particular, no politician or political party has a right to abuse the defamation legislation in order to censor free speech and damage democracy.
We don't know the details of them, just that they were settled out of court.
There have been clearly signalled problems with our defamation laws that the European Commission and independent bodies have criticised for quite a while, because they favour litigants over media companies, encourage libel tourism to Ireland and discourage free speech. The sheer number of previous cases involving Sinn Fein are a demonstration of this and show how Sinn Fein have a policy of using defamation litigation to censor the media.
That's sad Donald.
Could you match my opinion with anything SF have said on this?
Nope you can'5t because they haven't said anything.
But if you believe only SF believe 'everyone has a right to redress' (which has been my 'consistent opinion from the start) then you really are in trouble.
It's fine Francie. Although it has been entertaining seeing you contradict yourself and tie yourself up in knots by blindly trotting out party lines, eventually everything comes to an end. You don't appear to have the capacity, or perhaps permission, to form your own opinions. That's fine. You can stick to parroting the lines from the "party leadership" if you want. At the end of the day, you are the one getting used by them for their own personal gain. If you are happy with that, then so be it.
WTF 😁😁
You've never left it. It didn't start there, but you went straight there and are the only one to have done so. You have never left it because you have no basis to justify any other position. You might as well be coming on and making the point over and over again that the 2+2=4 in response to others posts. Funnily enough, although you might try to claim to have never left MB's right to take a case, you have clearly spoken negatively in relation to what she did.
Let's have a look at one of the top stories online. The front page of independant.ie has a claimed exclusive about Tony Holohan.
Would ya have any bad words to say about Tony? If he joined SF in the morning and anyone said anything negative about him, or criticised his performance at his job, then, true to form, no doubt you would just go on about his constitutional right to earn a living.
Here's one from the breaking news about a fella caught importing drugs from Africa:
No doubt, if someone said anything negative about the poor fella, and he was a paid up SF member, you'd come on saying "Everyone has a constitutional right to travel"
'We' never left supporting her right to take a case Donald.
'She' withdrew the case, nobody else.
What will be interesting will be the blind supporters position if she withdraws the case
Here's the interview Ms McDonald of sinn fein is suing rte about
anyone find anything remotely untrue or defamatory whatsoever?
Seems ms. Mc Donald has no problem with her sinn fein colleagues defaming people from the protected privilege of the dail, yet runs to sue for a compo payout from rte, paid for by the license payers, even though there's nothing there that warrant such a compo claim
Great. We are back then on the merry circle again. Now you are back to fully supporting MB for taking her action, and only have fault with the people who pressured her to withdraw her action. At least we have consistency again (albeit probably temporarily)
Man, if you are ranting and spewing it out at such a rate that you can't even remember it, then you must be panicking and backpeddaling pretty fast and trying to shout out anything at all. Let's remind you of the post below:
And plenty, including yourself, have compared her suing to Putin and MB,
If you are going to lie so blatantly, expect to be called out on it. The real world doesn't work the same as your local SF chapter where the plebs unconditionally believe what their masters tell them.
Not my fault the prose got the better of you once again.
Point scoring exercise by the looks.
Why would I criticise somebody for excercising a right I think is fundamental?
Have you found a post where I criticised anyone else for that?
You need to start making some sense Donald
I invite you to criticise MLMD for filing her case.
You can also criticise MB again too. You have already spoken quite negatively.
Until you solve the inconsistency, you have no credibility on the topic.
Donald lies again.
I didn’t laud anyone.
Your argument is in deep trouble for some time. Put the shovel down.
Again with the strawman. Nobody is saying there is not a right to proceed.
The divergence is after that step. I criticise both for proceeding. You laud one and criticise the other. Purely because of the jersey/badge they currently wear.
My answer is as simple as it was 40 posts ago…. Both have a right to proceed.
Do you understand that principle Donald.
If not, tell me where your difficulty is?
Hi Francie. Again you are imagining things. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of your logic. Perhaps you could try to use that imagination to imagine for a minute that MLMD has gone back to her spiritual roots in FF and see what you think of her actions then.
Lets try an alternative one last time
1) What MB filed was reported in the media. It was never published.
2) What MLMD filed was reported in the media. It was never published.
Keeping up so far?
Now
3) Based on what was published, MB appeared to have an actionable case. There may have been more claims which were not published in the media
4) Based on what was published, MLMD does not appear to have an actionable case. There may have been more claims which were not published in the media
Are you still with me? Now:
5) Let's propose that MB did indeed have additional claims which were not published but which would have strengthened her case more.
6) Let's propose that MLMD does indeed have additional claims which were not published but which would strengthen her case more
You appear to accept that 5 is extremely unlikely, yet you will blindly believe, with zero justification, that 6 is true. 🤣
I don't believe either has/had anything else than what has been reported. I merely take your private-schooled-MLMD-fanboy logic and transfer it to MB to see your reaction.
Please answer the question asked: what convinced you that there was an alternative reality than what came out about MB?
So what exactly is your issue Donald. If I might be so bold you seem all over the shop
Don't worry Francie. Have been trying to keep my posts short and small words just for you.
Now you are getting the idea. Some progress. I reckon it'll just go flip-flop like the last time. We'll be able to explain to you the concept that it is unlikely, given what was reported, that MB had anything else up her sleeve. Then we'll try to get you to apply it to MLMD. Your brain won't be able to handle that.
So we'll switch back to MB again. This time you will flip-flop to saying that MB would have had more secret actionable causes. Then when we point out that you are now agreeing with MB again, you'll accuse us of lying and then go on about some fundamental right that nobody is talking about.
Ah now, when you make what should be an easily verifiable accusation a couple of times, don't be surprised if you're called out on it. We're not all purveyors of the Kool-aid here where the master tells us black is white and we all lap it up and repeat verbatim
Well if they keep it up instead of tackling social issues like housing and health, Taoiseach MLMD might actually happen.
‘She’s trying to stop chat shows’ was one of the claims.
If ‘Michael D was a shinner he’d be trying to stop comedians’ was another.
No self awareness of the absurdity of the scaremongering is the real issue here.
I don't recall people, with no verified facts, calling MB all sorts for putting the claim in.
As the MB details were released they were commented on.
MLMD has been under attack from day one. If she were a FG'er we'd have claims of hate and mysogny ffs.
Plenty like yourself.
That's the only comment you have? Seems like a point scoring exercise.
Again only read the first few lines. What in MB’s reaction to what came out convinced you there was an alternative reality?
* grabs popcorn
Hi Francie, in both case we only know what was reported in the media. We have no way of knowing how accurate any and all of it is.
In the same way that MLMD might have some secret bullet-proof proof of defamation, MB might have had a bullet-proof proof of negligence on behalf of the hotel. I think that in either case it is extremely unlikely. But all I ask from you is consistency. So if you are willing to give the benefit to MLMD given you haven't read the court findings of her submission, you have to do the same to MB given you haven't read her court filings.
But based on what is reported in the media, MB had an actionable case (which I don't think she'd have won). MLMD doesn't. There may be more but we don't know. So it is a simple question which you have repeatedly avoided up to now, based on what we know - does MLMD have a strong case? Is it stronger than MBs case? I think MBs case was stronger, although I'd have hoped she would not have won.
Only read as far as…what are the facts…there are none Donald. We don’t know what she is claiming or what she wants.
You are clutching now…stop digging.
Such a bizarre reply to a simple question.
Ill try once more:
"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?"
