I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
Sure how would I know what it is in relation to. I'm neither party, nor representing either party. It HAS to be SLAPPs otherwise?? Well aren't you quite the oracle, no need for confirmation for you eh?
Let the case run its course and we'll find out who is right in course.
SF have the most votes, and far ahead in polls. Hence the expected media representation.
Since you've gone over the case and found nothing defamatory you can now declare the case as a loss for MLMcD. Alas she will not have gone into this without taking lengthy legal advice and is very unlikely to take the risk of a very public court loss. RTE will make an apology, pay out and be more careful about who they invite onto live programmes.
In terms of stifling press freedom, our media do not have carte blanche to defame nor give a platform to those who do.
Yes. And conversely, defamation laws hit bad reporters and broadcasters in the pocket.
Personally I cannot understand why RTE is responsible for the inane and defamatory utterings of some guests. They have an obligation to vet interviewees but it's unfair to hold them liable for all the idiocy that's spouted on our national airwaves.
A journalist committed to telling the truth has nothing to fear. Those journalists who are sloppy or agenda driven do.
Everyone's rights have to be protected surely?
You know full well thats the interview
Rte news said it was understood to be that interview
They are the feckin subjects of the suit 🤣
Your continuing to go on as if it's something else is makey uppy because you don't want what looks like to people here the farcical reason for the suit discussed
How's that going for you ?
What if she feels she is being directly linked to the events?
To my mind, if she can prove she wasn't, or that the events are not proven to have happened at all then she has every right to take action.
*And I don't care if you believe the events happened or not, that is totally beside the point.
This is what RTE have said: "RTÉ said in a statement that it does not comment on legal matters."
Why the need to lie about things that are easily found??
I didn't complain about RTE indulging in favouritism towards SF, at least in terms of airtime. My real gripe is the lack of critical questioning of SF members on the airwaves. You know its someone from FF or FG if they are getting a hard time from the RTE interviewer. With SF it's literally "Good morning Mary Lou and welcome to the programme", which is unseemly to sat the least.. I heard that once and it has put me off RTE big-time.
I'm not lying
But your posts are a charade
You'll be able to back up your assertion with a quote from RTE stating that the case was in relation to this?? Since it wasn't an easily disproven lie. 🙄
Good journalism protects reporters.
Don't print hearsay and guess work.
Its an editor and producers job to look behind their back. They are the gate keepers. Their job is literally to make sure they don't sell lies or hearsay as fact.
If MLMD loses, that's on her. If RTE loses, we pay. RTE shouldn't be putting themselves in these situations.
As I said the above is a charade because you don't want to discuss the frivolity of the case as RTE news understands it
The case is a mis step
You are happy to invent the case details to claim its frivolous.
A simple "No" would have sufficed.
But like,that wouldn't have been correct and wouldn't have called out the charade
Always the contrarian.
The poor politician who tells lies should be 'protected'
That's an entirely different take on RTE's treatment of SF than I've ever heard before.
The reason for the soft touch when it comes to Sinn Fein is the fear of being sued. There have been quite a number of lawsuits under Ireland's litigant-friendly legislation by Sinn Fein, in an apparent attempt to limit discussion. This latest lawsuit has all the appearance of such a SLAPPS-type action.
RTE has made no formal comment whatsoever about the MLMcD case.
You said they had.
Ergo you re telling porkies or you don't understand the legalese. Which is it?
Unless invoking Parliamentary Privilege (and then subject to reprimand) and politician telling lies will not be protected. All subject to the same defamation law.
Codswallop.
Is that why they initially wouldn't have MLMD on the leaders debate? Is that why they'd an entire show called 'the rise of sinn fein'?
You are making up things about MLMD suing RTE and then complaining about what you made up.
Here is an example of a journalist telling the truth who was unable to publish due to defamation laws in the UK
Jones said the newspaper knew Savile was highly litigious and if they published a story they “would be facing the best QCs money could buy, representing a man who could potentially call Prince Charles, Margaret Thatcher, the heads of charities, the head of the BBC and the pope as character witnesses.”
The journalist, who features in a recent Netflix documentary about Savile, said: “The best guess of the lawyers was that a libel action could cost £1m and the Sun would definitely lose. The story was canned and the journalists and editors were furious. But this wasn’t the first or last time that Savile escaped because of our libel laws, which rewarded his deliberate targeting of vulnerable victims.”
And there are as many examples of UK media getting it wrong. There is a current one involving Keir Stammer running at the moment.
If you remove the right of redress you open the door to that.
Not a single person has suggested removing the right of redress.
Another in the long list of strawman arguments to defend Mary-Lou.
So what's your problem then?
You seem to have issue with somebody using their rights.
Remember the case has nothing to do with how you feel, that is irrelevant.
The criticism here is at her taking a case.
No I did not say that
I said they reported the suit and said it is thought to be in relation to the interview with Bríd and Regina on the women's protest
RTE news would not have said that if the suit was in relation to something else
Posts dismissing that are shinners just not wanting to talk about the frivolity of it
The only thing reasonably unknown is who advised this mis step
Whoever they are should be fired
Just MLMD.
You and others have been hounding MLMD for exercising her right and are using made up claims based on feelings in your waters to do so.
You have tried the case. That's a neat trick.
So why the complaints against her legal action? The details of which you are unaware of.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/fd886e8068d0cf75a5ff800614b8489e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)
