I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”"
......and his colleague Maria Bailey.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
If there's been good journalism then there's no concern. When it's shoddy and slanderous then there is.
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.
"Clearly you have no grasp on the subject". Says the fella who doesn't know the difference between being criminally charged and a civil case for damages. Not only that, you don't have the ability to listen to a recording a few minutes long because you have to be told by HQ where something is before it exists.
In summary - you do not have an idea what the crux of the defamation case is. Waffle is no substitute for details.
Haven't found anyone guilty of anything. All I have noted is that you don't believe the victim.
The whole point of a SLAPPs action is that the public do not have an idea what the crux of the defamation case is, so thanks for conceding that my main point has substance.
You've not seen the link between successful civil cases leading to the opening or re-opening of criminal cases? As with Cosby? I can do a fool's guide on the system for you, will post to your Mum and she'll drop it down to the basement. 😁
I brought up the point that Mary-Lou, like you would expect from a SLAPPs litigant, avoided going to the Press Council.
It is irrelevant but illuminating that she you think she prefers to seek monetary compensation. However, as I said already, if unable to answer my point please just simply say so instead of shoehorning in some irrelevant nonsense.
When the defamation laws protect the litigant more than the defendant, and are in need of reform called for by the NUJ, EU, media organisations and NGOs, then it is chilling.
Japers.
When the details come out, we can comment.
Alan Farrell had every right to sue. We found out the details and criticised him over his claim. Doesnt take away his right.
How are you still not getting this?
You probably need to re-read my post or I'll re-write it in bigger letters if that helps.
Successful civil suits often lead to criminal charges. See Bill Cosby. It ain't hard.
Bit hypocritical to criticise him now Brucie. Given that it was asserted by one of your buddy posters that if something is not a true claim then you wouldn't be awarded anything.
Farrell was awarded 2,500. Hence by your logic he had a perfectly valid claim. The court found he deserved 2,500 in damages for it.
What is your point? You don't like her, you don't like the type of action you think she's taking? A lott of bile based on assumption and guesswork designed to make someone you don't like look bad, am I right?
Where are RTE in all this? They are the ones being accused of wrong doing. Why go after the alledged victim? Just because you don't like her.
I'll invite you to read the original point which was that the bigliest had never been charged or convicted. To which you replied to the effect that he was and that there were 3 cases and that you were going to send me the links proving he was charged.
Like I said, morto for ya
He did not have the Constitutional right to lie in court. I believe that is perjury. He brought images of a completely different accident to court with him.
And i'm far from a SF supporter. I hope they never get near power. They'll finish the job of bankrupting us.
Well, I never said that, so you should take that to whoever did.
Here are some facts:
(1) SLAPPs defamation litigants avoid the Press Council
(2) SLAPPs defamation litigants hide the details of their claim but aim to suppress media investigation
(3) The EU, NUJ, media organisations and NGOs have criticised Irish defamation legislation as providing too much support to SLAPPs litigants
(4) Nobody is denying Mary-Lou her right to reply on RTE, her right to go to the Press Council and her right to go to Court.
(5) Mary-Lou has skipped the first two rights available to her and gone to the Courts
(6) The actions of Mary-Lou give rise to a reasonable conclusion that her case could have the appearance of a SLAPPs action.
Now, do you disagree with any of those facts?
The details will be forthcoming, at the latest post-settlement or post-trial. The proceedings are only eight days old and information drips out slowly. I assume you're labelling it a SLAPP as you're aware that she'll win which doesn't sit well with you. If the public agree with you then we'll see a major fall in polling for her and SF. That won't happen.
That's up to you to claim if you want to. You can defend that claim in court if he decides to submit a claim against you.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/fd886e8068d0cf75a5ff800614b8489e.svg)
