I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
You brought up the Press Council as a resource. It's pretty useless. When someone defames you and you hit them in the pocket that is an inherently better resource.
If there's been good journalism then there's no concern. When it's shoddy and slanderous then there is.
Given someone else brought him up Francie, what do you think of Alan Farrell case?
Do you remain fully supportive of him for proceeding with his claim for personal injury? He did get 2,500 Euro for it. Not as much as he asked for, but he did get a payout.
Laws and rights and all. And another poster asserted that one wouldn't get a payout unless damage was proven. Therefore he was injured and justified - right?
(I don't think he was right to proceed with the case)
That's not true. You may have another claim but the one I was referring to stated we had a right to the details as we were paying for it.
I have not claimed the claim is anything. Your obsession is blinding you. All I commented on is the outlandish claims, guess work and hounding carried out by yourself and others because she exercised her right.
Far from it, its a claim you made based on no facts that suits your agenda and attempt at silencing people you don't like.
Once again you have found somebody guilty on foot of an allegation. Just noting that.
I said it doesn't matter whether I believe or you do.
If you are 'lacking in information' perhaps it would be advisable to say nothing at all?
All you are doing here is showing that the law and rights go out your window when it comes to Shinners.
No, I'm well aware of the case. Despite what you were implying, it was never reported that he was on his tenth conviction or had received hundreds of thousands in previous settlements or awards. I will, however, happily criticise the man for what he did.
Even though you and your SF buddies will obviusly support him as:
1) He had a Constitutional right to access the courts
2) He did get a payout, therefore he was correct and justified to do what he did.
Ye wouldn't be hypocrites now, would ye?
Again. Basic 101. You apparently don't know the difference between being charged with a crime and someone filing a civil case.
Scarlet for ya.
And that neither MLMCD nor RTE have identified the points on which the case rests is exactly why this particular case has all the hallmarks and appearances of a SLAPPs case. Nobody knows what it is about except Mary-Lou and the media organisation and that creates the possibility that the whole thing is just about scaring the media organisation away from an effective investigation.
The EU, the Irish Times, the NUJ, NGOs, all want change to Irish defamation law to prevent these types of cases being taken.
......and his colleague Maria Bailey.
All explained many times who SLAPPs actions work.
"Ms Clarke said: “We’ve been working on defamation in Ireland for a long time as [the law as it stands] poses enormous concerns.” She added: “Particularly, post-Brexit we’ve seen concerns about Dublin becoming a new libel hub.
“However, we are really heartened to see the anti-Slapp and new defamation draft laws that the Minister of Justice has brought in. But we need to see them passed quickly because defamation reform has been going on in Ireland for years.”"
We're discussing defamation. You're discussing personal injury. Clearly as you have little to no grasp of the original subject. But that's okay, we're here to enlighten. And we won't charge.
What is the purpose when neither MLMcD nor RTE have identified the points on which the case rests? As before, MLMcD hasn't taken this action lightly which means there's very solid legal reasoning encouraging to do so. Thus she will almost certainly win.
SLAPPs litigants avoid the Press Council, that is my point.
If unable to answer my point please just simply say so instead of shoehorning in some irrelevant nonsense.
Civil cases, reports freely available online - court filings and cases by E Jean Carroll, Summer Zervos, Ivana Trump, Jill Harth and Alva Johnson. More to follow, and as with Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein and others this then leads to retrospective criminal suiits.
It's googlable. I'll keep this thread on topic.
The chilling effect occurs long before those legal actions conclude, which has been my point from the start, which you completely missed in your failed attempt to try and teach me about your view of the legal world.
Run away and aviod the point if you want. I wasn't expecting anything better
I don't know. Feel free to tell us on here what he did.
If unable to answer my point please just simply say so instead of shoehorning in some irrelevant nonsense. I'm expecting your comments on Real v Man City at your next failure to counter a point.
Like FG TD Alan Farrell tried??
You don't need access to court filings to answer the question. You can answer it on a hypothetical basis. Let me explain it to you with a similar example.
Task 1. Look at the most recent Late Late Show and try to identify whether you can find any statements that could potentially be considered to be defamatory against Eamonn Ryan.
So you can look at that program and see if you can find any. Now I picked Eamonn Ryan randomly. And I picked the LLS randomly. There is no suggestion that there were any defamatory statements in the most recent Late Late Show. And no suggestion that anyone is considering taking any action over anything. I'm just asking you whether you can identify any that might potentially be defamation.
Task 2: Listen back the the RTE radio interview linked earlier on this thread. Try to see whether you can identify anything that might be considered potentially defamatory towards MLMD in it.
I'm unsure whether it's accidental or proud ignorance.
Press council has insufficient teeth.
Man, this is basic 101. Your ignorance is astounding.
Feel free to provide any links where the bigliest has been charged or convicted
Neither RTE nor MLMcD have commented on the case yet you've got privileged legal info that you're asking me to comment upon.
When the public are made aware of the contents of the defamation suit then I, and others, will pass comment. I don't do so on the merely hypothetical.
Three assault cases against Donald Trump thus far. Best to research before posting.
Saville media reporting would have forced contemporaneous police investigation and victims coming forward. As with every other similar case in the past two decades.
Do you not find it ironic that the lawyers of Rupert Murdoch would supposedly be fearful of Saville's lawyers?
Same as a personal injury I suppose.
Next time you read about some lads who have been in their tenth car accident, after getting settlements and awards of hundreds of thousands for their previous incidents, don't forget to remind yourself that they wouldn't have gotten previous settlements or awards had they not been bona fide claims and injuries.
Don't come back on here complaining to us about your mate who grazed the bumper of someone else's car at 2mph and the other person got 30k for whiplash. If he got the 30k, your mate caused him 30k worth of damage.
England & Wales is an entirely different jurisdiction to the Republic of Ireland. You hopefully realise that? Different defamation laws.
The claim was we have a right to the details because we are paying for it. That's false.
If MLMD loses what costs will the tax payer bear?
Did MC sue RTE? I'm not sure what the link is.
Or does the law, her right to Sue, which you allegedly support, depend on other issues from the past that you don't like? Is that your point? Do you know how the law works?
It's been explained multiple times. It just doesn't seem to be getting through.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/fd886e8068d0cf75a5ff800614b8489e.svg)
