I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
One side have given no opinion at all as they maintain its all a big secret
The other side have given an opinion based understandably on what rte have reported as understood to be the interview with the alleged defamation
Noone can find anything that could be defamation in it
Maybe there's some secret code in there hidden to boards users but visible to everyone else ,I dunno
In summary this thread is pretty much the same as all SF threads
An absence of movement
I've just skipped a few pages. Have we got any info yet? Or are we still guessing and presenting opinions as fact!
Stop being so childish. I'm not a shinner and I'm not too arsed about the case. I was drawn in by the outrageous claims by people like yourself, blueshirts.
He said that, on this occasion, Fine Gael members in Dún Laoghaire asked the party to review the ticket.
so I i wasn't being revisionist and Varadkar's hand was forced.
You tried to bluff again Astro. You said ' MB lost party support surprisingly quick' but she didn't. She had Simon Coveney supporting her and advocating for her FFS. :)
You really need to review what you type. She had support in FG.
Eh, yea?
even as a motion of no-confidence was tabled in her constituency
I'm not a big fan of Coveney, but in this case the party moved fairly quickly:
When the scandal first broke about the claim Ms Bailey made after she fell off a swing while holding drinks in both hands, the Tanaiste urged the Taoiseach not to withdraw the party whip from the TD.
And Coveney is of course entitled to his opinion, which he aired, unlike some who like to hide it lest they be exposed.
(and you realise, in this MLMD case, you're the Coveney right? Or has that sunk in yet?)
She lost party support pretty much immediately
Oh yeah?
At least one good shinner thinks it's defamation, will the others follow suit.
The revisionism is the timeline, MB lost party support surprisingly quick and was made an outcast soon after as the details came to light. We're usually slow in Ireland on these things (the Brits used to head chop much faster) but I was pleasantly surprised to see it dealt with in the way it was and even follow through properly on deselection which gave MB no cause to take a case about it (speaking as a centrist floating voter).
How did she defame her?
Look you have been caught with no back up, might be better just to admit it. Rejecting allegations is not defamation, if that is what MC is going to use for a defence, well, as I said, she is on a shaky wicket.
Unlike you, I can't claim to know how she thinks. I think RTE are fucked on this.
Point out the revisionist part? I said public opinion and the local branch, with public feeling on insurance rates caused Varadkar to elbow MB out. Tell me which part is revisionism?
So you believe she defamed Mairia Cahill then? We can get into what is and isn't abuse when your own opinion based on the publicly available evidence has been declared.
If this was easily proven by MLMD, she would have gone other routes and had a decision soon, got her fine and had the clip taken down and an apology. She could even have gone the lawsuit route after if she wasn't happy with the outcome.
She chose not to go that route and instead go for one which takes a long time, costs a lot more money but crucially curtails the media from discussing it due to the ongoing case. It's also a route that means that many more people will listen to the clip and make decisions based upon it (as you have now done), which is usually the opposite that a claimant wants (well, unless they are after money). It will be interesting to see if RTE give Mairia her day in court over the case and if #IBelieveHer will be trending at the time.
This is a bit of revisionism (unsurprisingly), the party didn't know of the suit till later on (apart from Madigan) and it only came to light after MB became a TD. She lost party support pretty much immediately and then lost her place on the ticket as part of the official process by deselection (as well as putting in a procedure that candidates have to declare all pending legal actions before selection). MLMD is using a procedure her party wants to outlaw, yet the cult of personality that exists in SF will mean no one challenges her on it even though it's damaging to SF.
What abuse Astro?
You have supplied comments which are repudiation of claims made, perfectly justified.
What abuse did she direct at MC.
If this is the kind of insinuation and guilt by allegation that MLMD wants to put a stop to, then I have not a qualm in the world in supporting her.
Cut the cod.
He mentioned MB and he raised how they were similar. Just cut the bull. If you didn't want to engage, don't.
You are trying very hard to make this about people.
Varadkars hand was forced by public opinion, the insurance rates and her local branch. Brave my hole. Also getting gee eyed and falling off a swing then having the brass neck to try sue is not comparable.
I've listened to the clip. Den, den, den!!
If its the reason, for what it's worth, I think RTE are fucked. It was either a hatchet job or sloppy journalism.
They claim MLMD supports not believing abuse/rape claims and supports the IRA interviewing victims of abuse.
I'll be darned if I know how they'll prove that.
However, hopefully it puts an end to Varadkar/Martin style inferred unsubstantiated cheap shots instead of answering questions. I can see now why all the government party boys are so obsessed.
Everybody knows what you will think, but you will continue to refuse to say it.
But you are using this thread as a spoiler on the subject of MLMD and the abuse she directed towards Mairia Cahill both publicly and on record and in private as reported by Mairia Cahill, you have given your opinion on Leo on the public evidence, yet refuse for MLMD for the public evidence, that is the definition of a hypocrite. If people refuse to give their opinions, there is nothing to discuss with them (hence you repeating "it's defamation" like a parrot and refusing to engage on the subject in any way).
And Brucie stuck in repeat mode on the right to take a case arguing with their own shadow.
Correct, you asked a poster about why they could support one and not the other. That is getting into personal stuff with posters which we have all been instructed by mods not to do. You were making it about the poster, not the issue.
So, to help you out of your predicament of having a go at other posters, I brought the discussion to the level of the parties and asked why SF support MLMD while FG did not support MB. Now, you can keep going on asking other posters, or we can have a discussion about the politics of it.
It is the same discussion but instead of talking about why posters support MB or MLMD, we can talk about why one party supports their litigant and the other party drops theirs, even though both litigants were taking cases against clear party policies.
Like MB, MLMD can take any action in her private capacity. But also like MB, there are clear political consequences. FG were brave enough to drop MB because she went against party policy. SF are not brave enough in a similar situation.
As for the law, Sinn Fein have told us that the defamation law in Ireland is wrong and should be changed. So why should we be content?
Thats bullshit
I did not mention anyone's name ,YOU did
Not me
I simply said RTE news edit all RTE news programmes, which is the case and asked in a follow up post,is it your position that their report on their understanding of a suit against one of their programmes is wrong
There it is in screenshots below,all in plural
Your contortions are even silly In your silly efforts to maintain your silly position and now your silly misrepresentations
Ger up the yard with the pretending
Ok. Well I cannot be bothered discussing it with you.
I suspect you were supposing again.
No. Stop being dishonest. I didn't raise MB. I asked him how he can support one and not the other. You tried to divert. You shouldn't have quoted my question if you were going to ignore it.
You are attempting to claim MLMD is wrong or nefarious in some way for putting in the claim.
We should all be content that the law will decide and either she's wrong or RTE were wrong. I would have thought we'd all welcome that. Is the worry it might put an end to loose unsubstantiated claims? That would really damage FG's bag of tricks as its all they seem to have. So I get it.
45 pages later, you cannot claim not to understand that point. That is pedantic nonsense for deflection.
Bringing people's name into it??
You are the one that said "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". That person's name, the editor of all RTÉ news and current affairs programmes, is Jon Williams, YOU brought him into this, not me.
It's literally in your post 1273, as part of your third point when you lied about him reporting something.
Anything I say is predicated on your supposition Astro. I have no idea what the details are here.
On that basis, (your supposition), I don't know if she defamed MLMD...that is why we have courts in this country, it is their job, based on the details and the facts to decide.
In everything on here I am very careful in how I refer to things were there is no court conviction or finding...alleged collusion, alleged rapist etc etc. I gave my 'opinion' on Leo Varadkar because his confession and other details were in the public domain...but that was only my opinion. Why do I do that, because of the hard fought rights of everyone.
You have given your opinion too and given you cannot show any vitriol directed at MC by MLMD, I would say that your 'opinion' is on shaky ground.
Both got injunctions, and they did work. Giggs was only found out due to parliamentary privilege and Morgan due to him cancelling his injunction. It is a hell of a lot tougher to get an injunction in Ireland than the UK.
For clarity I already knew you were saying RTE news don't know anything and put out a report about what it is about referring to a random piece for the crack
The question was rhetorical
After all the news report is there and you are just rejecting it
As for your further codology bringing people's names into your Silly position,do that as much as you like if you want but really there's no need,it's already silly enough
In your opinion, did Mairia defame MLMD on the Morning Ireland show?
I mean, that is central to the discussion over the suit. No one is disagreeing that MLMD can sue, but not even the most ardent SF supporters are saying she was defamed, which is central to the suit.
It took 30 pages to agree the suit was over comments Mairia Cahill made, will it be 60 pages before acknowledgement over whether defamation occurred due to those comments?
As I've said, they're on the end of a string now, flailing widely.
Not to me.
How will they 'intimidate them' if they have a strong case as you suggest?
I am suggesting that SF have lower standards than FG based on the evidence available and the coherent logic supporting it.
That isn't insulting any poster or people on here, unless they are members of SF and consider themselves the personification of the party.
Yes, you asked another poster a question trying to take the discussion down a cul-de-sac of what poster said what, when and to whom. Rather than going down that rabbit-hole, I am attempting the drag the discussion back to the real issues in the real world.
This has been explained to you already.
No idea.
But if she said 'MLMD directed vitriol at her' and she can't prove that, it doesn't take a lawyer to work out that she is on a sticky wicket.
How will they intimidate them?
Surely if they believe there was no defamation they should fight the case.
So, did Mairia defame MLMD on the Morning Ireland show?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c50f1c871638bccbbf9aa952593dd0cd.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/06cc0fe609177756245ce5c91011153d.svg)
