Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

DCUFM and Redbrick

124»

Comments

  • #92
    boredofwork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭boredofwork


    DCU Fm Manager wrote: »
    You've raised an interesting point there, MPS will not sue a student, I will take action against someone who defames me.

    If you were hoping to come here and explain dcufms position then you've completely failed. The "judge and jury" will probably feel quite vindicated by your utterly insane post. And I'm quite certain many MPS members may take issue with you posting with an account called "DCU Fm Manager", that certainly appears to be some kind of "official" account, especially if your only representing yourself here.


  • #93
    lil_cain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭lil_cain


    DCU Fm Manager wrote: »
    Now that the judge and jury have decided on the outcome of the trial, I'll say one thing before you take on the role of executioner as well. And let me assure you that I will not reply to any further posts here. If I have any inclination that they are in any way defamatory there will be a solicitor's letter to greet the author of said statement on Tuesday morning.

    The message that was put on what is known to the public as the DCUfm stream was defamatory. If a statement is published in any form and tends to injure the reputation of a person/s it is defamatory unless it can be proven to be true. The message that replaced the DCUfm stream ticks all the boxes. Imro had explicitly told DCUfm that the stream was covered during the process of applying to renew the licence.

    This means that any statement from Redbrick saying that DCUfm was, at any stage, broadcasting illegally is defamatory. Unless this statement can be proven true in a court of law then it is defamatory and has caused injury to the reputation of the management of DCUfm. I would advise all posting on this thread to be incredibly careful as to what is said. Further slurs will not be tolerated. Reproduction of a libel is still a libel.

    If you can't prove it, don't write it! This is a matter for the management of DCUfm and Redbrick. Everyone has had ample time to vent their anger and the arguments have been well-aired.

    I find it interesting how quick the media are to jump to use the libel law that tends to be criticised for its harshness when used against them.

    Irrespective of that however, if it is the case that you have the right to broadcast, why are you still off air? Have IMRO been unable to provide you with evidence of this license? Or have Redbrick merely been unwilling to accept the evidence provided? Or have you not bothered to give it to them?


  • #94
    gerrowadat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,226 ✭✭✭gerrowadat


    I reckon DCUFM are definitely due their hosting costs back from Redbrick, lolz.


  • #95
    Green Hand Guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭Green Hand Guy


    DCU Fm Manager wrote: »
    Now that the judge and jury have decided on the outcome of the trial, I'll say one thing before you take on the role of executioner as well. And let me assure you that I will not reply to any further posts here. If I have any inclination that they are in any way defamatory there will be a solicitor's letter to greet the author of said statement on Tuesday morning.

    The message that was put on what is known to the public as the DCUfm stream was defamatory. If a statement is published in any form and tends to injure the reputation of a person/s it is defamatory unless it can be proven to be true. The message that replaced the DCUfm stream ticks all the boxes. Imro had explicitly told DCUfm that the stream was covered during the process of applying to renew the licence.

    This means that any statement from Redbrick saying that DCUfm was, at any stage, broadcasting illegally is defamatory. Unless this statement can be proven true in a court of law then it is defamatory and has caused injury to the reputation of the management of DCUfm. I would advise all posting on this thread to be incredibly careful as to what is said. Further slurs will not be tolerated. Reproduction of a libel is still a libel.

    If you can't prove it, don't write it! This is a matter for the management of DCUfm and Redbrick. Everyone has had ample time to vent their anger and the arguments have been well-aired.

    Wow. Legal threats for talking about the station in a way you don't approve? Very Stalinist, I must say. DCU FM REALLY aren't good at this PR stuff, are they?

    Also, notice redbrick didn't play the legal action card in the face of the facebook group, defamatory blog posts, email, etc.


  • #96
    spockety
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,577 Mod ✭✭✭✭spockety


    This thread has now run it's course. I trust everyone has had sufficient time and space to air the views they wanted to air.

    Threats of legal action do not belong on boards.ie. If you have an issue that is really that serious, I suggest you consult a solicitor rather than brandishing pseudo-legal talk on this forum.

    Anyone who attempts to resurrect this thread under a new thread title will be banned immediately.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement