I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
Of course it's my opinion, that's what discussion forums are, but it's very clear what is happening here.
The tax payer will lose out in all cases, that is factual, if RTE win, there will still be costs to pay that won't be covered. When this is revealed to be a SLAPPS, there won't be any hiding from that (though I do sense an attempt to redefine what "paying for it" means when all is revealed).
Indeed, it's a 'pattern' here that if it's a shinner, they're wrong.
If this was a malicious defamation I think MLMD is right to challenge it...anybody would be.
It's a tired old trick now to use a conflict/war, long over, to deflect from current events and government failures. No surprise either that there are a few here merrily jumping on the 'exploit a victim' if it hurts the shinners bandwagon.
The claim was we have a right to the claim details, because we are paying for it. We don't and will only be paying if she wins
However, this case isn't genuine, it's a pattern being followed to limit debate
This is bullshit. Its your opinion being put on a claim you only might know a little about.
If she wins it shows RTE need to improve their journalism, once again.
As a publicly funded body, any payout would be taxpayer funded or result in loss of service to the taxpayer on RTE to cover the cost. This shouldn't be a reason not to sue if the case was genuine.
However, this case isn't genuine, it's a pattern being followed to limit debate around certain politicians that will likely continue with other cases. This.is now plain to see for everyone (even those wiggling about trying to justify it).
It will be a low cash settlement or a loss for MLMD, at this stage, she will push for the former to keep up appearances, will be interesting if RTE play ball and risk future journalistic freedom.
Imagine someone taking anything The Sun would print at face value or the British establishment for that. Eek!
Yep, this exactly. No question of the taxpayer footing the bill, unless RTE lose, or decide they don’t want to take their chances at hearing, in which case they will probably have to offer her a financial settlement.
Lots of confusion and blind hate around these parts.
The public don't have a right to know. If the case proceeds, we will get details at some point. If she loses, she's lumbered with the bill. If she wins, RTE will have cost us money, again, due to shoddy journalism.
Why on earth would the taxpayer be footing the bill ?
You are the one bringing up and talking about local drug dealers and british tabloid gutter rag nicknamed gangsters up on here Donald, not f**king me.
Bring up Sir Jimmy again, I'll talk some more about that if you want, other 'Sir's' to go with him too.
You can publish their names on here if you want. Or stick up posters in your local area outing them as drug dealers. You will know they are drug dealers. Your neighbours will know. The guards will know. Lets assume they were never convicted of anything.
When they take you to Court, they need to just show that you publicly calling them drug dealers lowered them in the eyes of a reasonably member of society. That is defamation. You defence will be the defence of truth. You will need to prove that they are drug dealers in order for them not to win damages from you. You will likely lose.
Have you never noticed how journalists sometimes refer to gangsters only by a nickname? Why do you think that is?
Yeah that's true about my local drug dealers, can the police question them though? Can they ask anybody (including known local drug dealers) to come into make a statement? Because with Sir Jimmy, they weren't even allowed to do that.
The police likely know who is dealing drugs in your area. The police knowing something is not legal proof.
The journalists knew (some of) what Saville had done. That doesn't mean they would have been able to prove that in a court of law.
Irvine Welsh wrote a story about Savile back in the mid-1990s, called Lorraine goes to Livingston. His activities were clearly an open secret.
There's a couple of short extracts from the story in this link:
https://dangerousminds.net/comments/irvine_welsh_on_jimmy_savile_was_savile_a_necrophiliac_then_or_what
The police knew. The Yorkshire police even brought him into the investigation concerning the Yorkshire Ripper murders when one of the victims was found in a park at the back of one of his flats with two seperate sets of teeth marks on that victims shoulder. It may not have been public knowledge but people did know, same way that Saville probably knew $hit about other members of the 'highest in the land' too.
I don't support MLMD. I don't know the details of the case. Have you not understood that much?
Your logic defies logic.
The only comparison to the two is my supporting the right of whoever is suing the Saville estate, to sue. Where in this scenario, you'd be attacking the person claiming to be a victim for putting the case forward and you supporting Saville without even knowing the details of the case. You didn't think this through now did you?
Most of the stuff about Saville didn't come out until after he was dead. You cannot defame a dead person. So they were able to publish it then. At the time that journalist was talking about, it wasn't public "knowledge". Although didn't your man Louis Theoreax (however it is spelled) do some documentary on him being a weirdo.
Well the police try to do it every day of the week and are constantly pissing into the wind and treated like mugs by the legal racket , so why the f**k should I bother?
You are free to offer them your legal advice services going forward if you think you know the law better than their existing, or past, legal teams. It's probably a well paid job.
Articles from the same gutter media trash that actively harbored the likes of Saville and the likes of him in the establishment are of no concern to me. And they shouldn't be for you either.
That's fine. Jimmy Saville's case also hasn't proceeded to Court pleadings yet so I assume you will likewise support him.
I don't but you are entitled to if you want to.
To be clear
I absolutely DO NOT hate Sinn Féin
I just am at odds with too much of what they say
I'd congratulate them if they ever get into government because its going to be a coalition and they'll have had the courage to compromise enough to get FF in with them
SFFF
They were either wrong or right. Are we setting it up so that if MLMD wins, she loses because RTE just wanted an easy life so decided to pay? Is that the back up story?
You still don't get it or are pretending not to.
Feel free to be critical of the case when we know the details. Slamming and hounding her out of blind hate isn't comment on the case.
As I said, read the article. Their legal advice was that Saville would win any case stemming from it.
One could probably safely assume that their legal teams might have known a bit more than randomers on internet message boards (including me) who are learning about it for the first time
No
Insert a comma where I forgot one and apply the bit after the comma as another repeat of what RTE news said of what the case referred to and you have what I meant
OR just follow the thread because I've been saying prior to this that not accepting that the news division knows what the case involving their department is about,is a charade by posters here
A charade designed to avoid talking about that morning Ireland segment
A charade that's as obvious as the wetness of water
And what about when Testimony or evidence can't even be provided when the suspect can literally threaten investigators who are trying to carry out their duties, as what happened with Sir Jimmy and the Yorkshire police? What happens then?
Read the article. They didn't proceed because they knew Saville would win any case that stemmed from it.
Testimony (and there probably wasn't even any at the time the journalist is talking about) does not amount to legal proof.
You don't know any of that actually
I asked earlier is it conceivable that the leader of SF was not aware of the circumstances asked about in the segment
A court will need to decide that and in my opinion going to court risks the airing of a considerable amount of RTÉ archived investigative material
Precisely. A court will decide, not bored.ie or any of us posters here.
Journalists have been píssed off now
OOOOOh nasty!!!!!!
I'm surprised to be honest at the mis step in advice on how to handle this
Opening a potential hornets nest of up to now possibly un published material which can be reported on in court proceedings seems stupid to me
You might be right, but given your apparent hatred of SF I would have thought you'd be jubilant about SF taking a "mis step" as you call it.
Personally, I feel that SF have generally been very careful about this sort of thing, given the way they have always been treated by RTE in the past. I'd guess, whatever the details of the case, that SF believe they have a solid case that they cannot fail to win. I'd also guess that they are taking this case to ensure that RTE are very careful how they report everything to do with SF in the future. With a view, as someone said above, to RTE being very, very careful between now and the next election.
But that's just my opinion.
The British establishment knew full well that any sort of move against Saville when he was running rampant with his crimes would have resulted in other victims of other establishment/high profile rapists and abusers coming forward with testimony of the crimes inflicted upon them. Could have been the case that Saville actually knew the same criminals who were involved in the same sick activity he was and threatened that he would sing like a songbird if anything happened to him. Either way, that is why it was silenced by the establishment that he was a knighted up member of.
It sure is. S/he says, specifically:
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
I find it very strange that RTE doesn't seem to know exactly what the case is about, despite being the respondent.
RTE news would not have said that
Are you employed by RTE news to tell the world what they think? Or maybe you have a direct line to them?
Yes. I don't know a lot about Saville. But well put there. The cowardice of the media is not the same thing as being compelled into silence for fear of litigation.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)