I wonder how this will work out for him
Threadbanned Posters:
Hamsterchops
take everything
road_high
FixdePitchmark
gk5000
Latest case now concluded and thread re-opened
YAY! Favourite thread is back!
The defamation result was a bit of a ‘water is wet’ moment. I think everyone knew what the outcome would be. Is his official dismissal ever going to happen? I’ve honestly lost track of where it is. Waiting a judgement in another case, I think?
Enoch will be eligible for early retirement by the time this finishes winding its way through hearings and appeals.
Off topic perhaps..... but does anyone else think there should be something of a consequence/even just a slap on the wrist for just publishing lies for the newspaper..regardless of the fact it wasn't defamatory?
consequences from who?
just in case anybody missed the verdict. I think the outcome is no surprise to anybody here and was predicted. Yes, what was published was untrue but it didnt lower his reputation.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2024/0613/1454529-enoch-burke/
The big question of course is who is paying for all this.
Consequences from the law/govt/society in the form of a fine for publishing lies...something like that
Some people read some of the muck published today and take it as gospel.....I don't know, I think little or no consequences for publishing what turns out to be lies might be potentially damaging for society?
The temptation is there to sell newspapers, drive clicks with the right lies and even if they are not defamatory shouldn't that be discouraged? And encourage truthful/factual reporting ..might mean people have to use their noodles more rather than get outraged by whatever lies will generate the most revenue for the media outlet...etc
There's a nice irony about the notion of newspapers not being truthful, and it not being 'gospel'.
as my dear Mum use to say "there are none as queer as folk"
No Mention of costs in the article so each will probably pay their own. Enoch represented himself so no cost to him and he got a little time out of the Joy so win-win for him in that respect.
A lofty ideal but really not practical.
If you think this lie is bad, don’t look at YouTube, TikTok, telegram, Facebook, WhatsApp etc etc etc. Zero accountability. Zero regulation. Blatant lies that incite riots, genocides etc. This was a little porky in legacy media. Judge gave them a mild rebuke. Essentially, ‘if this was anyone else, you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on’. It was risk the Indo took to generate a few clicks. They’ve gotten so much coverage out of this by Enoch suing them, coverage they didn’t even dream of, they’re laughing all the way to bank!
For all their supposed intelligence, the Burkes are double losers out of this.
Hes still on his pay from the Department of education. So you are!
Hes back in court tomorrow for his contempt. School has broken up now so will he get his summer holidays before heading back to the Joy in September?
Every time an article was published stating "school teacher jailed for refusing to use preferred pronouns" it was untrue too.
It's what they do. It used to be to sell newspapers, now it's for clicks.
That’s what I thought, Slim.
And it shouldn't be let happen..or at least discouraged...that's what polarises people into two extremes and anyone that has a view and is open minded gets hammered by both sides with the paper never refused ink Crew profiting from both groups
As in its ironic I think that?
Because my post doesn't state that..if it did it might be ironic or naeive that I thought the papers were always truthful/accurate etc (clearly that's not the case)
Or its ironic I think that publishing lies/inaccuracies should come with more "make the media outlet think twice" type consequences....I fail to see the irony ...perhaps that's ironic too?
Is it really that impractical to add in more of a deterrent for what I think is a pretty corrosive thing.....
It was just a thought about a phrase we use all the time, not really about your post at all 😁
"179. My provisional view on costs is that the defendants, having been entirely successful in their defence of the claim, are entitled to an award of costs in their favour, to be adjudicated in default of agreement. Should the plaintiff wish to contend for a different form of costs order than that proposed, he should deliver short written submissions within ten days of the date of this judgment. The defendants will have ten days thereafter to respond. A costs ruling will then issue (if required)."
Above is what the Judge said on costs. I think Enoch would have some case to say reduced costs because what they published was untrue even if not defamatory, and that they did not publish a retraction/apology for several months…but think he's on the hook for lots of it.
Is there a link to the full judgement? I was just going on the rte article. While the judge make an order for costs I think the papers chances of actually getting paid are slim.
https://www.courts.ie/judgments So www.courts.ie/judgements and its on the landing page: Recently Uploaded Judgments
Date Delivered
Title
He could have taken the issue of the untruthful reporting to the relevant regulator at the Press Council for a ruling, but instead he chose the route that would maximise his payout if successful. Unfortunately for him, it was never going to be successful as defamation.
I found it ironical that Enoch would seem to be in denial [I was not moved to another part of the prison because I was talking about religion too much to other prisoners and upsetting them] and not taking one for his beliefs, choosing instead [as it were] to suing the paper and hoping to gain in the process. I cant imagine that he would go on a rant in a corner blaming the almighty for failing him in his hour of need but….
Somewhat reminiscent of Albert Reynolds' libel 'victory' against the Sunday Times where he was awarded 1p in damages… the law in both the UK and Ireland was changed as a result to prevent meaningless 'wins' in such cases where the plaintiff's reputation had not in fact been damaged.
IIRC he is a 'supernumary' paid by Wilson's Hospital School out of their private resources?
They must rue the day they didn't do a quick Google and bin that CV…
It did have consequences.
They had to go to court and face the prospect of a large payout.
Even before going to court, they incurred legal expenses which they wouldn't get back if the case was dropped.
Then they did have to go to court, and that's when the meter really starts spinning.
Despite costs being awarded in their favour, what are their chances of collecting?
So you can be pretty sure someone in the Indo will have got a rap across the knuckles for this.
I'm no lawyer but 'entirely successful' etc. seems to me to indicate the court's opinion was that Mr. Burke had not got a leg to stand on in relation to the defendant's costs. He is free to argue otherwise of course but we'll see how that goes. If he tries the whole "but it wasn't true" thing it would seem like an attempt to re-argue the facts of the case at the costs stage.
He is well known to be a frequent proclaimer of his religious views - getting into 'trouble' over such a thing, had it happened, would only enhance his reputation in the eyes of potential US donors, surely… but no had to play the victim card again.
(For a reasonable fee, my "how to be a more financially successful religious nutter" consultancy services are available 🤪 )
I think it's actually disgraceful that a paper like the Sindo, which would regard itself and be regarded, as a cut above the likes of the Sunday World etc would blatantly publish a pack of lies and get away with it completely! Even though I have zero time for the Burkes or any other religious cults I would have thought the sindo should have been told to print a front page apology for the story they made up about him.
APOLOGY
ENOCH BURKE IS IN FACT NOT A PERSON WHO PREACHES HIS RELIGION ALL THE TIME
Then he'd go for libel again… oh and the Sindo hasn't been a cut above anything except the gutter for going on forty years now.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
