I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
They don't have anything to do with MLMD suing RTE. Your definitions are irrelevant. They don't support anything.
Man, you are making yourself look really pathetic here. Lets try one last time.
I informed you that the bigliest president was never been charged or convicted for assault even though plenty of people attested that he did assault them
You said that was incorrect and that, quite ironically,
Three assault cases against Donald Trump thus far. Best to research before posting.
I simply pointed out that you obviously don't understand the difference with being charged with a crime and a civil case. It is fact that he has never been charged for any of those claims
Now you are going on to say that the proof that he has been charged is that you think he might be charged in the future. 🤣
L O fu^king L
You have to remember the rules.
One rule for Sinn Fein, another rule for everyone else.
Lol.
"depends on how the case goes" I suppose
You didn't counter a single one of the facts in my post. I take it you accept them.
So you dodge responses you don't like.
Depends on how the case goes. How in the name of Eoin O'Duffy has this got anything to do with MLMD suing RTE? Sometimes cases go one way or the other. We can still form an opinion. If MLMD wins , you'll be cool with that?
Yes, I'd agree. We can still be critical of the decision. Getting it yet?
If the courts decide it was a winner, then its legitimate. We can still pass our own judgement.
MLMD has the right to sue. Yiu are trying very hard to attack the woman.
If Trump loses civil cases regarding sexual assault the authorities will then be obliged to investigate him on criminal matters appertaining to the former. The evidence produced in any civil case will be significant and he is doing his utmost to suppress these cases.
To make it even simpler for you, should Johnny Depp in his civil case against Amber Heard be found responsible for repeatedly beating her then he will undoubtedly face criminal charges owing to the facts arising.
It really ain't difficult. It really ain't.
It's not a "claim". He admitted it, his engineer hung him during cross examination. He was 100% allowed to make a claim, he was not, however, allowed to lie in court.
"One collection of photographs, which the judge said had “unusual aspects” — were taken by the driver who “rolled into” his Audi A6 in April 2015.
Naomi Sheard’s snaps showed there was no visible damage to the posh motor immediately after the “very minor” accident in Drumcondra, Dublin.
The other set was taken by Farrell’s engineer sometime later and features marks on the rear bumper.
But under cross-examination, the engineer confirmed that the damage was “new”, adding that the Fine Gael deputy had told him the car was in subsequent accident, not linked to the personal injury claim.
It was evidence that the case defendants declared as only just coming to light."
All based on a feeling in your waters. The definition of items you are attaching so you can continue to hound a prominent female politician you don't like, are completely irrelevant until the details come out.
Essentially all you are saying is someone you don't like is suing and you are creating what ifs and commenting like they are facts. Its obsession.
1) Do you disagree with the other poster who said that if a claim is not legitimate, that no damages will be awarded?
2) The contrapositive of that is necessarily that if damages are awarded, then the claim is legitimate.
1 & 2 above are logically the same thing. Either both are true or neither are true. If you accept 1, then you must accept that an award of 2,500 means a claim was legitimate.
If you don't slander nor libel then you'll be fine. Good journalism has nothing to fear.
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.
No its not. Should I add 'hypocritical' to words you've an issue with?
He had a right to sue. Like MB before him, we can make comment on the case. You don't understand the difference between the right and opinion on the details.
All this because you want to tar MLMD with the FG brush.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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. 😁
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.
Haven't found anyone guilty of anything. All I have noted is that you don't believe the victim.
In summary - you do not have an idea what the crux of the defamation case is. Waffle is no substitute for details.
"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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/fd886e8068d0cf75a5ff800614b8489e.svg)