I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
And Sinn Fein oppose it. Will Mary-Lou and others be sanctioned for opposing party policy?
Great, you accept the equivalence between CJH bullying the media and MLMD doing so. Progress.
I think I have already said that if this case is frivolous or an attempt to silence the media then MLMD is wrong and deserves criticism. You are not reading posts blanch.
If that is what she is doing. No problem criticising her.
Will you accept she was defamed if she wins her case?
Just to be clear,the segment remains untill someone injuncts its presence, an argument hard to make at this stage I should imagine as its been there so long
Secondly RTÉ must be confident as they haven't took it down of their own accord
Thirdly RTÉ news the editor of all RTÉ news and current affairs programmes have reported that they understand that piece(linked in this thread) to be what the case is about
They should know 🙄
All of this you know and all of this you reject, making your position Silly
In that case, if true, should she resign?
They are likely related to the case but my point stands, why support Bailey with the details of her drunken clownish behaviour, but not MLMD who's case details are not released? Why support a TD looking to make money over a TD claiming to have been defamed? Political bias.
You don't get to ask questions when you have sidestepped one.
I think it best not to conflate like some of you are doing here, the right people have to go to court,with whether it is right for them to do so
Posters here in general on the opposing MLM's action side are complaining about the latter not the former
Thats been made clear
Conflating the two is misrepresentation of the issues I and others have here
Misrepresentation is par for the course.
If she wins her case, she will have been defamed under laws that her own political party want to change, and if they had been changed already, she may not have been defamed. That should still cause a problem for her party.
Take the Maria Bailey example. She commenced a case under negligence law and was likely to win, before she was persuaded to drop it. However, her taking of that case was incompatible with her political party's view of the law. Therefore, even though Maria Bailey had every right to take that case, she was dropped like a hot potato by her party because her case was incompatible with their view of the need for reform of the law.
Applying the same principles to this case, you have acknowledged that Sinn Fein want the defamation law amended to prevent the type of apparent SLAPPs case being taken by MLMD. The taking of the case would not be possible under SF's amended law. So, while MLMD, like Maria Bailey, has every right to take her case, and every right to redress under the current law, her doing so is incompatible with the SF official position on the law. Accordingly, her party should drop her, or acknowledge their hypocrisy in not doing so.
I don't why you are supporting MLMD but not Maria Bailey, that is something you will have to figure out for yourself. Neither am I interested, as this discussion is not about what posters do and don't do, despite your best efforts to always attack other posters, but rather these discussions are a commentary on politicians and political parties.
I am interested in why SF are continuing to support MLMD when she is taking a case in breach of party policy to change a law, while FG did not support MB when she took a case in breach of party policy to change a law.
Both politicians have the right to redress even though their parties wanted to change the law, but one party (SF) hypocritically supports their members while the other party (FG) stood up for what they believed was right.
All predicated on the word ‘apparent’.
If MLMD wins her case it wasn’t a SLAPPS.
Even if she loses it may not be either because it would have to be proved she did not genuinely feel defamed.
After all these pages and all these posts, you clearly still don't have a single clue about what a SLAPPs case is about (or maybe you are gaslighting).
The purpose of a SLAPPs case isn't to win or lose a defamation case (winning is a bonus) as the whole reason is to silence the media. The real aim is to get the media outlet to settle with a promise never to repeat anything close to a similar report. Media silence is achieved and the case never goes to court.
It's quiet clear that these folk don't know the difference between defamation and injunctions. You'd think they would with the rate their parties and associated billionaires use the latter.
"RTÉ news the editor of all RTÉ news and current affairs programmes have reported" - You'll have a quote from Jon Williams to back this up I'm sure.
Also important to note that due process was allowed around MB with the party being clear they did not support the case and then following the selection procedures to remove MB from the ticket.
In this case, it's one rule for SF and one for everybody else, mostly because they are building a cult of leadership around whoever is in charge (only 2 leaders in all their history, it will take a while for this to sink in).
And who is competent to rule on that?
Not you and not me.
So it will HAVE TO BE proved in a court that her intention was to do the above. And that won't be the outcome of this case, she will either win or lose it. A simple point blanch and not hard to understand.
Probably pointless but other than supporting her right (and everyone else's) to redress, who is 'supporting' her? It has been repeatedly pointed out there are no details of what her case is to support or not support.
The issue and question was why support MB, considering what we know and not support MLMD's right, while we don't know?
When you get into the case of MB and her party blaming claims like hers for rising insurance rates, well, awkward.
They keep repeating that. It helps their agenda.
The news report I refer to was posted on this thread
But you know this already
Is it your position that RTE news and current affairs don't know what RTE news and current affairs programme the suit is about and that they pointed to some random piece for the crack in the article and news programmes where they stated what it is understood to be about?
What next,the earth's Square?
Ger up the yard
We do know for MLMD, it's been repeated multiple times (what Mairia Cahill said about MLMD due to the abuse suffered by Mairia Cahill which MLMD took part in then apologised), just as everyone knew it was Ryan Giggs, Hugh Bonneville and Jeremy Clarkson launching cases in the UK but it wasn't able to be printed, that's why a SLAPP was used.
Funny that the biggest effect of the SLAPP has been on the amigos, I guess they support them wholeheartedly.
Or maybe just on this thread...
That is a complete nonsense.
It is not illegal to take a SLAPPs case, so how can that be proved in court?
This is unbelievable stuff. It has been explained to you many many times what a SLAPPs case is and how the legitimate right to a good name can be abused by public figures to take a SLAPPs case. Winning or losing, proving in court, doesn't mean a damn to the person taking a SLAPPs case. All they want to do is silence the media.
The proof that this is a SLAPPs case lies in the fact that the details cannot be talked about.
So the editor of all RTE news and Current Affairs, Jon Williams, has said absolutely nothing. You've put words into his mouth. Very devious on your part.
Why are you trying all the time to make it about other posters?
The issue is clear. FG didn't support MB when she took a case that ran against party policy. SF are supporting MLMD when she is taking a case that runs against party policy.
It doesn't matter which poster said what about which case when, where or how, even though you desperately want it to be about those posters. The real question is why SF have such lower standards than FG.
What abuse did MLMD take part in?
Ryan Giggs had a super injunction: Ryan Giggs has been named in court for the first time as the Premier League footballer behind a high-profile injunction against the Sun.
Pier Morgan had a super injunction: Jeremy Clarkson has lifted an injunction banning the publication of details about his private life after the claims were published online.
Hugh Bonneville had a super injunction: Now it has come to light that yet another UK family man, who holds international celebrity status, got a court injunction five years ago to keep his secret under wraps. Downton Abbey star Hugh Bonneville allegedly hired renowned prostitute and ex-Big Brother star Helen Wood.
Mary Lou does not have any super injunction. They are a lot harder to get in Ireland.
Could a super injunction be obtained in Ireland? It is possible, though only in very exceptional circumstances.
I have been accused of a lot of things in my time on these boards, but this is probably the first time I have been accused of being a SF supporter.
I am not aware of any other political party leader having taken out an injunction against a national broadcaster in the last 30 years. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to why you think it is so bad for parties like Sinn Fein to use injunctions?
I KNOW what a SLAPPS case is blanch.
And I also know that you or I are not in a position to claim one is and one isn't a SLAPPS case.
There are no details in the public domain because both parties are not revealing them. But if your bias would let you have patience all will be revealed when it goes to court.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)
