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

Iona vs Panti

1…457910…82

Comments

  • #182
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Suspect they've done more harm,don't think that even they expect to such a massive negative response. A week ago it was only known about online but now it's being discussed in the Seanad and Dail. Even my parents are aware of it by now and the guff about alternative views not being tolerated doesn't work when they themselves are arranging the censoring.


  • #183
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,144 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Sarky wrote: »
    That's the same Jim Walsh who complained about how he can no longer call gay people "fairies", isn't it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Walsh_(politician)#Views

    It smacks of Nick Griffin complaining that he can't use the N-word.

    Jim Walsh even LOOKS like the perfect example of a fundie gombeen!


  • #184
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,593 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/saturday-night-show-homophobia-debate-1291287-Jan2014/?utm_source=twitter_self

    Saturday Night Show will host a debate about homophobia this weekend. No panellists announced yet.


  • #185
    face1990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭face1990


    Penncil Dick wrote: »
    http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/saturday-night-show-homophobia-debate-1291287-Jan2014/?utm_source=twitter_self

    Saturday Night Show will host a debate about homophobia this weekend. No panellists announced yet.

    tCp90.gif


  • #186
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Penncil Dick wrote: »
    http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/saturday-night-show-homophobia-debate-1291287-Jan2014/?utm_source=twitter_self

    Saturday Night Show will host a debate about homophobia this weekend. No panellists announced yet.

    Since RTE will want to avoid any hassle from Iona, I hear they're having Jim Davidson and this guy :pac:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Cabaal wrote: »
    If you think its personal abuse then report it and stop your nonsense claiming it in posts...it looks seriously silly, your only looking for attention now.

    "Looking for attention" oh the ironing!


  • #188
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Cabaal wrote: »
    At this stage I suppose Iona have to ask themselves, have they do more harm to their image then good due to their actions.

    My take, they've done more harm.

    Had they done nothing the interview would have not been mentioned again a week later and that would have been it,

    Now due to their actions its gotten widespread coverage in the media, td's have picked it up and Iona are seen as the big bad bully taking money from the tax payer (rte).

    Most sane minded people view their views as not the social norm and they are certainly not in keeping with the majority of 20-40 year olds (the future old people in Ireland).

    Ultimately they've lost what is no doubt the first of many skirmishes that will take place around gay people and gay marriage rights in the coming year,

    I don't follow you. Iona and waters "won", whatever that means.

    Rory made an unfounded and damaging allegation via RTE. RTE apologised and settled to save themselves being sued.

    If it could be shown that Waters and Iona actually were homophobic then RTE's legal department would have advised to prove this in court. The legal department advised apologising and making a monetary settlement. It's not so hard to draw conclusions from this.

    Iona aren't taking money from the taxpayer, RTE are paying for their mistake. Just like every other defamation case that's ever been except this time the victims are the "bullies" somehow.


  • #189
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I don't follow you. Iona and waters "won", whatever that means.

    Rory made an unfounded and damaging allegation via RTE. RTE apologised and settled to save themselves being sued.

    If it could be shown that Waters and Iona actually were homophobic then RTE's legal department would have advised to prove this in court. The legal department advised apologising and making a monetary settlement. It's not so hard to draw conclusions from this.

    Iona aren't taking money from the taxpayer, RTE are paying for their mistake. Just like every other defamation case that's ever been except this time the victims are the "bullies" somehow.


    You've no idea why they decided to pay out, particularily in light of the fact that Waters comments seem to fit the bill. RTE did not make a mistake, save in paying out.


  • #190
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I don't follow you. Iona and waters "won", whatever that means.

    Rory made an unfounded and damaging allegation via RTE. RTE apologised and settled to save themselves being sued.

    If it could be shown that Waters and Iona actually were homophobic then RTE's legal department would have advised to prove this in court. The legal department advised apologising and making a monetary settlement. It's not so hard to draw conclusions from this.

    Iona aren't taking money from the taxpayer, RTE are paying for their mistake. Just like every other defamation case that's ever been except this time the victims are the "bullies" somehow.

    There was no defamation case, Rorys comments have not been tested in a court of law. It hasn't been proven that Iona or Waters were victims of defamation. there's been plenty of analysis to say that Rory expressed an honest opinion that is supported by the writings/press releases of those that sent solicitors letters.

    RTE just took the cheap option IMHO. It was a purely monetary decision rather than deciding that Rory was wrong.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #191
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Penncil Dick wrote: »
    False equivalence.

    You had already been told what his name was in this post which you responded to. Not only that, but your quote "nor do I care what drag queens say on what looks like an awful tv program" makes it sound like you're being dismissive of this man's opinions based on the fact that he is a drag queen, as opposed to being a gay man who is a popular and well-liked figure in the gay community on a TV show where in the section of the interview in question, he was talking about issues relating to gay people. Dismissing his extremely valuable and knowledgeable opinion based on the fact that he is a drag queen is why people took issue with how your posts were worded.

    Do you always refer to people by their occupation or hobby? In both a post you quoted and responded to, and the title of this thread, you had two names by which to refer to this person; Rory or Panti. You chose "drag queen". You weren't "referring to him by this fact", you were reducing him down to it as if being a drag queen is his only identity. If you can't see how that displays a dismissive and condescending attitude, you're doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

    As I've been censored in this thread I am unable to speak as openly and honestly as I would like. Needless to say there was no false equivalence. When you were in school did you not use "the author" interchangeably with the author's actual name when you were doing a book report? Of course you did, everybody did. Now what if you were doing a test on the book and you blanked and couldn't remember the author's name? You would use "the author" all of the time. Is this offensive to the author in question? Of course it's not!!!

    This is more or less what has happened to me here. Bare in mind I haven't lived in Ireland for years. I don't know anything about this Rory, least of all his actual name. I hope this help clear things up for you because you are seeing malice when it simply isn't there. If I wanted to degrade a public homosexual there are terms that we all know that I could have used if I was that way inclined, which I am not. I didn't, I used their job title - as in "the painter-decorator", "the Priest", "the plumber" and so on.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I don't follow you. Iona and waters "won", whatever that means.

    Rory made an unfounded and damaging allegation via RTE. RTE apologised and settled to save themselves being sued.

    If it could be shown that Waters and Iona actually were homophobic then RTE's legal department would have advised to prove this in court. The legal department advised apologising and making a monetary settlement. It's not so hard to draw conclusions from this.

    Iona aren't taking money from the taxpayer, RTE are paying for their mistake. Just like every other defamation case that's ever been except this time the victims are the "bullies" somehow.

    Nope,not at all. RTE in all likelihood viewed the court case as an unnecessary expense and uncertain in terms of PR so just compensated without going to court. I can comfortably say Iona and John Waters are homophobic, why not read up on them rather than making conclusion with no insight into subject?


  • #193
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    SW wrote: »
    There was no defamation case, Rorys comments have not been tested in a court of law. It hasn't been proven that Iona or Waters were victims of defamation. there's been plenty of analysis to say that Rory expressed an honest opinion that is supported by the writings/press releases of those that sent solicitors letters.

    RTE just took the cheap option IMHO. It was a purely monetary decision rather than deciding that Rory was wrong.

    How do you figure it is the "cheap option" to give away an undisclosed amount of free money for no reason when the alternative is to go to court, win, pay no money and have the others pay your legal costs?


  • #194
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Nodin wrote: »
    You've no idea why they decided to pay out, particularily in light of the fact that Waters comments seem to fit the bill. RTE did not make a mistake, save in paying out.
    ... and apologising and cutting out the offending comments....


  • #195
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    How do you figure it is the "cheap option" to give away an undisclosed amount of free money for no reason when the alternative is to go to court, win, pay no money and have the others pay your legal costs?

    Morally rather than financially 'cheap' is the crux of the argument I'd imagine.


  • #196
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    P_1 wrote: »
    Morally rather than financially 'cheap' is the crux of the argument I'd imagine.
    Not this time. From the same post.
    It was a purely monetary decision rather than deciding that Rory was wrong.


  • #197
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    How do you figure it is the "cheap option" to give away an undisclosed amount of free money for no reason when the alternative is to go to court, win, pay no money and have the others pay your legal costs?

    Because the right thing to do would be to get Iona + Waters up in the dock and have it legally recorded that what was said on air was accurate. But they didn't have the stones (and possibly the funds) to go through multiple defamation cases.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #198
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    SW wrote: »
    Because the right thing to do would be to get Iona + Waters up in the dock and have it legally recorded that what was said on air was accurate. But they didn't have the stones (and possibly the funds) to go through multiple defamation cases.
    I don't think you are understanding how this work. If the homphobe allegations had any basis in fact they don't need any "funds". They have their day in court and they win and it doesn't cost them anything.

    If the allegations are damaging and unfounded they are sued by people who understandably want to clear their name. The guilty party tries to cut a deal whereby they apologise to the innocent and wronged party and cut a deal which involves a pay-off so as to avoid being sued.

    This is exactly what has happened here, RTE have absolutely no reason to hand out free cash and make public apologies if they weren't in the wrong.


  • #199
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If the homphobe allegations had any basis in fact

    If? IF?!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhckuhUxcgA


  • #200
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I don't think you are understanding how this work. If the homphobe allegations had any basis in fact they don't need any "funds". They have their day in court and they win and it doesn't cost them anything.
    Only if their legal team is entirely careless. It would be daft not to have the funds just in case it all went pear-shaped in the courtroom.
    If the allegations are damaging and unfounded they are sued by people who understandably want to clear their name. The guilty party tries to cut a deal whereby they apologise to the innocent and wronged party and cut a deal which involves a pay-off so as to avoid being sued.
    It's also telling that those that sent the letters aren't too pushed about getting their names cleared. No one has said that the claims made were wrong or without evidence. Iona + Waters take the soft victory by taking the money and apology as I'd imagine they have no desire to be recorded in legal records as homophobes.
    This is exactly what has happened here, RTE have absolutely no reason to hand out free cash and make public apologies if they weren't in the wrong.

    I agree that RTE had no reason to hand out the free cash. Hopefully the minister for communications will be required to explain exactly what happened and how much was paid out.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #201
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    I'll be more than a tad pissed off if this is true.
    We have no choice but to pay an annual license fee, if my money goes to people like Iona that would be more than I can tolerate.

    complaints@rte.ie
    complaints@bai.ie (broadcasting authority).

    Given RTE's reluctance to even comment on the payments, and the payments being out of the remit of the BAI, might it be better to bring this to the attention of Public Accounts Committee? It's under the PAC's remit to ensure that taxpayers gets their moneys worth from where their taxes go, and as the RTE is a semi-state body funded by the public (soon to be every member of the public, when the broadcast tax comes in), it could be argued that RTE should be obliged to spend it's money (well, our money) in the interest of promoting open debate for all.

    Alternatively, maybe the next time either Iona or JW makes unfounded and damaging allegations against homosexuals, a large number of homosexuals should threaten lawsuits against them and whatever medium was broadcasting them.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Cabaal wrote: »
    You've got to be ****ing kidding me!

    John Waters’ replacement on the Broadcasting Authority is...

    Former Irish Times journalist Séamus Martin,

    You know, brother to this guy

    From anything I've heard he is the antithesis of Iona and his brother

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #203
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I don't think you are understanding how this work. If the homphobe allegations had any basis in fact they don't need any "funds". They have their day in court and they win and it doesn't cost them anything.

    If the allegations are damaging and unfounded they are sued by people who understandably want to clear their name. The guilty party tries to cut a deal whereby they apologise to the innocent and wronged party and cut a deal which involves a pay-off so as to avoid being sued.

    This is exactly what has happened here, RTE have absolutely no reason to hand out free cash and make public apologies if they weren't in the wrong.

    In court the innocent party doesn't always win and more pertinently, a law isn't always correct. Peregrinus, explained RTE's dilemma really well.


  • #204
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Alternatively, maybe the next time either Iona or JW makes unfounded and damaging allegations against homosexuals, a large number of homosexuals should threaten lawsuits against them and whatever medium was broadcasting them.

    It would genuinely tempt me to do so


  • #205
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Links234 wrote: »
    If? IF?!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhckuhUxcgA

    Yes, "if". I am a firm believer in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". How about you?

    Since RTE have swiftly apologised and paid out compensation it stands to reason that they cannot prove anything at all. So I consider Waters et al innocent.


  • #206
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yes, "if". I am a firm believer in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". How about you?

    Since RTE have swiftly apologised and paid out compensation it stands to reason that they cannot prove anything at all. So I consider Waters et al innocent.

    And RTE haven't been found guilty of defamation so they are also innocent. Just because they paid out doesn't mean they couldn't defend the charge if they went to court.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #207
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Given RTE's reluctance to even comment on the payments, and the payments being out of the remit of the BAI, might it be better to bring this to the attention of Public Accounts Committee? It's under the PAC's remit to ensure that taxpayers gets their moneys worth from where their taxes go, and as the RTE is a semi-state body funded by the public (soon to be every member of the public, when the broadcast tax comes in), it could be argued that RTE should be obliged to spend it's money (well, our money) in the interest of promoting open debate for all.

    Alternatively, maybe the next time either Iona or JW makes unfounded and damaging allegations against homosexuals, a large number of homosexuals should threaten lawsuits against them and whatever medium was broadcasting them.
    Could it be argued that RTE should be able to libel at will? Because if they keep throwing out unfounded and damaging allegations it is going to get very expensive for them because the same thing will just keep happening over and over.


  • #208
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    BB stop being disingenuous—you know full well that it's not quite as straight-forward as that. There may be plenty of reasons why they wouldn't want to go to court:
    –Being right isn't always enough—the court may take a different view to RTE's legal team. Why take the risk? Iona may have been happy with a token amount in the settlement.
    –Getting dragged into a high profile defamation case may not be the kind of PR that RTE are seeking at the moment. They probably would have been expecting that the quick settlement would end the matter.
    –There are suggestions of an improper relationship between RTE and Iona; maybe that was a factor? I'm not suggesting that there is, or that it was, of course.

    You can drop the faux-naïf act methinks.


  • #209
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    SW wrote: »
    And RTE haven't been found guilty of defamation so they are also innocent. Just because they paid out doesn't mean they couldn't defend the charge if they went to court.
    Could you explain the public apology then?


  • #210
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Bb,

    If someone sends in a legal request to boardsie about your post about 'drag queen' it will be deleted. Media sites like boards or even larger ones like RTE generally do not want to contest libel or defamation in court because they're way too costly. Especially if you lose. So, let me ask you this, would you consider yourself guilty simply because boards.ie wouldn't go to court over your comment?

    I wouldn't. I'd argue that your post shouldn't have you threatened with legal damages but that's not the way the law is. If someone reports that post. A mod or admin will delete it and a public apology may or may not have to be offered. The cost of losing is far too high.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Could you explain the public apology then?

    didn't want to go to court.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



Advertisement