I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
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.
If you don't slander nor libel then you'll be fine. Good journalism has nothing to fear.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Lol.
So you dodge responses you don't like.
You didn't counter a single one of the facts in my post. I take it you accept them.
"depends on how the case goes" I suppose
You have to remember the rules.
One rule for Sinn Fein, another rule for everyone else.
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
They don't have anything to do with MLMD suing RTE. Your definitions are irrelevant. They don't support anything.
I explained fully. If someone wins, its a legitimate case.
If MLMD wins you'll accept it as such. Will you agree or disagree with the outcome?
You have a problem separating opinion from the law.
Says the man attacking MLMD only because she's the leader of SF.
Can you point to an example of me assigning different rules? You can't.
That's nice that you support Mr. Farrell for taking and winning his case.
I would criticise him for it, but you are entitled to fully support him if you want. I hope that you don't take it too personally or get too upset with me for saying that.
The alt-right on boards are completly demented,just raging at everything now....ya love to see em so rattled😅😅
Excellent counter point. Can't answer the poster's question, so call him alt-right to try to denigrate them. You must be the head of your local debating team?
There is no questions being asked,alot of heavily biased assumptions being thrown out as fact.....a lot red herrings being raised that have little to do with central subject matter
The standred of posting is much much below what would be acceptable for leaving cert level debating.....whole thread stands as a testamont to shít moderating tbh
It's entirely possible to believe her and still uphold the alleged's right to vindicate himself.
Of course, also possible to believe her and note that the case collapsed on a technicality for which she received an apology from the state and that he was not convicted.
No I don't. He had a right.
Its clear you cannot comprehend this. Can't help you it seems.
I suggest you read more.
It was amusing at first, but its a little weird to have them so hate filled and obsessed just because a shinner put in a claim.
The good news is they've not learned anything and ignore societal problems to personally attack MLMD and others. The electorate have more important adult issues to take up their time. This will likely show in the polling booths.
He won an award of 2,500 Brucie. I thought you guys said that if he wins then he is/was correct and justified and beyond reproach?
Bit hypocritical not to apply the same standard to everyone Brucie - no?
To be fair, it's quite funny watching the SF zealots contradicting themselves and being hypocritical and tying themselves up in knots over and over again.
Given the sparseness of the info surronding this....
The way they wholeheartly fall inbehind state media with no evidence to support either position either way,is a level of brainwashed by propaganda,that putin could only dream of achieving in russia.
Speaking of being taken in by Russia, has the cleansing of the Sinn Fein website been completed yet?
Are you not the guy argueing non-sequiters all over the place and simply ignoring/replying lol to posts that are beyond your level of engagement?
Whole subject matter,would be of interest,but the quality of posting allowed,is really poor
Blaaz, there is an interview on RTE website which is the source for this defamation action. I'll invite you to have a listen to it (it's only a few minutes long) and see whether you can find anything on it that you think might be defamation
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/fd886e8068d0cf75a5ff800614b8489e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
