I see Mary Lou is joining the compo culture brigade with a defamation lawsuit against RTE.
If MC defamed MLMcD and ends up costing RTE (and taxpayers) cash then she does not deserve to be on RTE. If you tell lies on the national broadcaster you stop getting invites to return.
There is no presumption of innocence for a civil case. You're commenting on things you don't understand and then repeating them. Please desist.
Perhaps that would be mission accomplished? Perhaps it is a bit inconvenient for some for MC to be having access to the airwaves?
If she's telling lies. If she's not then no issue.
Lol. The burden of proof in a defamation case rests entirely on the plaintiff.
Keep talking to me about your knowledge of Tort. I'm all ears and I'm laughing my hole off here at you
Ah, so perhaps she made it all up?
How about Gerry's niece btw? Did she make it up?
Donald, the right to seek redress was already activated there.
YOU by criticising somebody before it gets into a court, imply that you want to curtail rights.
Own it lad.
Own your own support for the people who file SLAPPs. You know who they are and you know why they do it and you know you are supporting them.
Read the judgment. Educate yourself. It confirms the importance of public interest
There is no presumption of innocence in a civil case. It's a basic legal tenet and no amount of shouting at clouds will change that. You're using all the wrong teerminology on a case you don't understand and have no knowledge of as none has been disclosed. Keep going, I'm greatly amused.
Now, with no answer you resort to lies.
Rights were a hard fought for thing on this island. It will take better than you guys to remove them.
As I said clearly from the start, if MLMD has had enough of the kinds of insinuation and allegation we see here and in the media and even in the Dáil, then I support her in putting an end to that poison, if she is trying to silence the media telling the truth, then I don't and she deserves criticism.
Plaintiff must convince the court, on the balance of probabilities, of their case. The burden rests entirely on them. If they cannot prove it, then they get nothing. Nada. Zilch. Defendant walks away scott free.
I'm talking about proper courts now. Not kangaroo courts in basements where young rape victims are dragged in to "testify" in front of their accusers
Read the first paragraph. And learn. A long established international legal tenet, and no amount of waffle is going to alter it.
Seth, along with law, please learn some geography.
RTE is neither based in the UK or the US. While you may personally feel a spiritual allegiance to the UK and the Queen's courts, it's rulings do not have legal effect here, although they can be used to guide decisions in this jurisdiction, they are not binding.
So you are wasting your time there frantically googling. Perhaps there is a room of you there on the Saturday shift frantically googling?
Is this a backtracking on your earlier erroneous use of legalese? While you're at it why not also disclose that you've zilch understanding of defamation law, non-disclosure and SLAPPS. We'd be most obliged.
Lol
If the burden of proof is on you to prove something, I don't have to do anything. If you can't prove it I walk away. Not guilty. That is what a presumption is.
Rights were hard fought alright
Better try to squash those rights to a free press, eh Francie?
You missed the phrase 'international legal tenet' though I suspect deliberately so. Here's the Irish legal framework. Consistently using criminal law terminolgy and arguments for a civil case isn't flattering to you. Once or twice maybe dude, but come on, even the slowest of learners get it eventually.
Lol again
I'm fed up with this. Wasting enough time on this Shinnerbot crap. You can go back to reading up your beloved Queen's court cases
You are also aware surely of the shared basic tenets our legal systems share? This is not difficult stuff, yet instead of realising your (latest) error you try to bluff your way through with some added ad hominem stuff. Keep going dude, you're digging a deeper hole and every last incorrect pronouncement adds to the lack of respect for your every other declaration.
For me, on first glance at your posts, there was no credibility there as you've judging a case you don't know. Quite spectacularly foolishly. And yet since then you seem to have worsened your credibility. how did you manage that?
The press is not free to defame Donald, never was and never should be. The right to redress balances both rights.
Once more. It ain't a criminal trial dude.
Does that indicate a forthcoming apology for your ignorance of legalese? I'll happily accept.
And I'm not a SF supporter btw, though I'll give them one of my preferences in 2024/25. I'm just one of those people who takes issue with ignorance masquerading as knowledge.
Posting again for those running away, I would consider what MLMD said about Mairia as vitriol, backed up by Maria's own comments against MLMD and that Mairia was perfectly within her rights to say what she said about MLMD.
Remembering that MLMD has unreservedly and publicly apologised for what she did.
But as usual, the SF followers sole tactic is to keep on posting with 0 content to try and run the discussion down.
So, defamation or not Francie? based on what I provided above for a second time? (And do you expect others to always run around finding stuff you already know about?).
And just to include the dictionary definition for those who have trouble with dictionary terms:
Definition of vitriol
1
: bitterly harsh or caustic language or criticism
political commentators spewing angry vitriol
Rumor has always played a role in politics, but rarely have the backstage operatives been so adroit, and so cynical, in their use of vitriol.
— Walter Shapiro
Cascades of multisyllabic vitriol engulf us as Conrad communicates his utter loathing of television …
— Stanley Marcus
So, defamation or no?
Actually posting the previous post, boards seems to have issues with quotes.
Where?
Or MLMD might feel she was defamed. People deciding her motives for her isn't the same as 'fact'.
I stand corrected, MLMD said she did, but Mairia says that she was lying about that:
Sinn Féin leader wishes to ‘amplify’ apology to Máiría Cahill (irishtimes.com)
Ms Cahill said Ms McDonald had “never apologised” for her party’s “treatment of me after I waived anonymity”. She went on to criticise how Ms McDonald handled a meeting between the two women which was organised to address the matter.
So, at least publicly, MLMD has apologised.
The question remains, defamation or not? You're still stuck on that string.
You have been asked multiple times now to back up your claim that 'MLMD directed vitriol at MC', you haven't done that.
Then you asserted that she apologised for 'what she did'...that also turns out to be a bogus claim.
I hope MC hasn't retained your services.
Evidence of both were provided.
Or do I need to post the dictionary definition again?
Was there defamation?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/fd886e8068d0cf75a5ff800614b8489e.svg)
