I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
Nobody questioned her right? Are you fecking serious?
Here, away and jump Donald.
Not getting into this round and around nonsense again.
Yes, you are the only one that keeps going on about her right. Here is a post where I said explicitly that everyone has the right. Subsequent to that, you have just kept going on and on about how I, and others, are trying to say she doesn't have a right.
The reason that people are questioning/criticising is that the cause of the action has been reported as being an interview, in which nobody can identify the defamation.
Her law firm was is a significant and experienced one. They’d have advised against proceedings unless a very high probability of success. Ditto her shadow cabinet colleagues.
RTE will settle or lose.
The courts don’t censor as you said. They penalise defamation. Your post clarifies that you don’t understand the workings of the judiciary yet have no hesitation in posting about it.
Actually no. The courts don't necessarily "penalise defamation". One defence to a charge of defamation is the defence of "truth". You can establish that I defamed you. If I show you that the defamation was true, then you will not recover for it. I'll still have defamed you. The difficulty can be in showing it was true. For example, one might claim that an individual was a member of a ruling council of a paramilitary organisation. All intelligence and other sources might assert this as incontrovertible but there might be no actual legal proof
The Courts do not censor anyone in the exact same way that the Courts did not censor reporting of Jimmy Saville. He just used his connections/power to take advantage of the system to censor the press. The bould Jimmy was abusing kids. Plenty of people knew what was going on. But there was no legal proof. So he would have won any defamation case against the press. As the article said, he had the litigious reputation so they knew what he would do
He is correct, nobody has questioned her rights. You have made that strawman accusation against me, yet I have asked several times for you to produce the quote where I questioned her right to take a case.
The defamation laws are in need of reform because they are over-protective of the rights of people like Jimmy Saville. Do you agree? Or are you happy with the rights that Jimmy Saville availed of?
Nonsense, I wasn't suggesting that the courts censor. That is your misunderstanding.
In my opinion she is not looking to win, she is looking to scare RTE off investigating Sinn Fein.
If you adamantly post that she is engaged in a Slapps action you are belittling her right to begin proceedings. You want a situation where your boogeymen and women can have anything said about them and have no right to redress. You have been advocating it from the get go.
so you agree she is within her rights - and you cant disagree with her reason as you don't know what it is.
What are you disagreeing with exactly? Are you being a political Karen?
So the presenter said:
"Good morning Mary Lou and welcome to the programme"
Is this not the standard greeting for all guests on a radio programme?
Yet you find it
unseemly to sat the least.
I'd love if you could explain that - or do you expect MLMD to be treated differently to other guests? If so, you might want to explain why. Or maybe you expect her to be treated as Gay Byrne treated Gerry Adams, while he fawned over certain others?
I heard that once
Really? I've heard that and similar hundreds of times, with all sorts of guests. It's pretty standard. It also shows that RTÉ expects SF to be in government sometime soon, and to be doling out the grants.
How do you mean in the case of Sir Jimmy Saville 'there was no legal proof'? There was plenty of it, including testimony of actual victims who existed at the time, but they were all silenced by the British establishment, the same establishment who knew what was going on and gave the sick f**king piece of $hit a knighthood from her majesty to go with it. You trying to equate the shinners to the likes of Sir Jimmy is beyond laughable, I suppose the shinners can rely on the same establishment protection that Saville got, yeah? Can they f**k
This is a very interesting post.
"the frivolity of the case as RTE news understands it", you say,
Are you claiming to speak for "RTE news" now? because this is what it looks like.
Lol
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/fd886e8068d0cf75a5ff800614b8489e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)