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…5681011…82

Comments

  • #212
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


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


    Defamation would end in the high court. Going on rough recollection, each case would cost roughly €80,000 - that's one sides costs, not awards etc.


  • #213
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    How about you?

    Iona are a deeply homophobic 'institution', whose membership are deeply homophobic people, like homophobe David Quinn, and they are constantly espousing deeply homophobic opinions. You might as well be saying to me that the sky should be innocent of being blue until proven guilty.


  • #214
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Links234 wrote: »
    Iona are a deeply homophobic 'institution', whose membership are deeply homophobic people, like homophobe David Quinn, and they are constantly espousing deeply homophobic opinions. You might as well be saying to me that the sky should be innocent of being blue until proven guilty.


    And certainly waters has two text book remarks in the public arena that clearly fall under the label 'homophobic'.


  • #215
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Nodin wrote: »
    And certainly waters has two text book remarks in the public arena that clearly fall under the label 'homophobic'.
    Not to mention misogynistic. ;)


  • #216
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Links234 wrote: »
    Not to mention misogynistic. ;)

    And that, and that.

    Amongst other things, the thought of such a loathsome creature receiving payment has prompted me to decide to attend Sundays protest, and thus drag my aging carcass out into daylight.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Btw: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfPlTWHCUAA9cMI.jpg:large


  • #218
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jernal wrote: »
    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.

    Point taken. Though you are shifting around the burden of proof. I hope the mods will excuse my use of the term "drag queen" momentarily given the context.

    It is a demonstrable fact that Rory is a drag queen. The truth is my defense. If I or boards were taken to court for libel then beyond a shadow of a doubt I/we win and the accuser pays the costs. If I was approached in the interim to settle out of court I'd tell the accuser to go **** themselves. I would continue to proudly proclaim this fact without any fear as it's the truth and the system doesn't punish truth tellers but tellers of falsehoods.

    Has Rory repeated his homophobic accusations? I doubt it, and if he hasn't then that is extremely telling as to whether Waters and co are homophobic.

    He has nothing to fear from speaking the truth. It is apparently not a demonstrable fact that Waters is a homophobe and this is where I apply the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".


  • #219
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Nodin wrote: »
    Defamation would end in the high court. Going on rough recollection, each case would cost roughly €80,000 - that's one sides costs, not awards etc.

    Here is a similar case. Frankie Boyle sued The Mirror for calling him "racist".
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221486/Frankie-Boyle-Comedian-wins-54-000-libel-payout-branded-racist-Daily-Mirror.html


  • #220
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Its unprovable. I doubt I'm gong to get any kind of agreement on this thread. Being opposed to same sex marriage isn't homophobic in itself. Some gay people are also against gay marriage. Guess what? They are not homophbes either.


  • #221
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Links234 wrote: »
    Iona are a deeply homophobic 'institution', whose membership are deeply homophobic people, like homophobe David Quinn, and they are constantly espousing deeply homophobic opinions. You might as well be saying to me that the sky should be innocent of being blue until proven guilty.

    How does that answer my question? I asked you if you value the principle of "innocent until proven guilty.

    All you have done is made more accusations.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Point taken. Though you are shifting around the burden of proof. I hope the mods will excuse my use of the term "drag queen" momentarily given the context.

    It is a demonstrable fact that Rory is a drag queen. The truth is my defense. If I or boards were taken to court for libel then beyond a shadow of a doubt I/we win and the accuser pays the costs. If I was approached in the interim to settle out of court I'd tell the accuser to go **** themselves. I would continue to proudly proclaim this fact without any fear as it's the truth and the system doesn't punish truth tellers but tellers of falsehoods.

    Has Rory repeated his homophobic accusations? I doubt it, and if he hasn't then that is extremely telling as to whether Waters and co are homophobic.

    He has nothing to fear from speaking the truth. It is apparently not a demonstrable fact that Waters is a homophobe and this is where I apply the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

    Nothing to fear from speaking the truth? Rory received multiple solicitors letters, was censored by the national broadcaster which subsequently apologised and paid off Iona + Waters.

    I doubt Rory has the deep pockets needed to go to court to defend the allegations of defaming Waters + Iona.

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



  • #223
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Here is a similar case. Frankie Boyle sued The Mirror for calling him "racist".
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221486/Frankie-Boyle-Comedian-wins-54-000-libel-payout-branded-racist-Daily-Mirror.html


    ...which he clearly wasn't, as he was making a joke that satirised racist attitudes and has a history of such.


  • #224
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Its unprovable. I doubt I'm gong to get any kind of agreement on this thread. Being opposed to same sex marriage isn't homophobic in itself. Some gay people are also against gay marriage. Guess what? They are not homophbes either.


    Thanks for the vague endlessly repeated generalties phill, the thread is better for your contribution.


  • #225
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    SW wrote: »
    Nothing to fear from speaking the truth? Rory received multiple solicitors letters, was censored by the national broadcaster which subsequently apologised and paid off Iona + Waters.

    I doubt Rory has the deep pockets needed to go to court to defend the allegations of defaming Waters + Iona.

    Feel like I am banging my head against a wall now.

    If Rory is going to make such a nasty accusation on national tv then he has already been exposed to this "proof" . If not, then what was he basing he accusation on?

    Why is this "proof" good enough for him to slander people but at the same time sub-standard for a court?


  • #226
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Feel like I am banging my head against a wall now.
    I can assure you, you're not the only one.
    If Rory is going to make such a nasty accusation on national tv then he has already been exposed to this "proof" . If not, then what was he basing he accusation on?
    Yes, he has proof. So what, doesn't mean he can afford multiple defamation court cases in the high court.
    Why is this "proof" good enough for him to slander people but at the same time sub-standard for a court?
    Never said it was sub-standard for court. Said Rory probably can't afford the cost of taking on the cases.

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



  • #227
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    @BB and now that I think of it, we don't know Rory isn't going to court. All we know is what Rte did.

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



  • #228
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    SW wrote: »
    I can assure you, you're not the only one.

    Yes, he has proof. So what, doesn't mean he can afford multiple defamation court cases in the high court.

    Never said it was sub-standard for court. Said Rory probably can't afford the cost of taking on the cases.
    If he has "proof" then there is no cost. He can represent himself and simply present this smoking gun "evidence". He wins and is vindicated.


  • #229
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If he has "proof" then there is no cost. He can represent himself and simply present this smoking gun "evidence". He wins and is vindicated.

    Childish simplistic tosh.


  • #230
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    How does that answer my question? I asked you if you value the principle of "innocent until proven guilty.

    All you have done is made more accusations.

    All I have said is that water is wet.


  • #231
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If he has "proof" then there is no cost. He can represent himself and simply present this smoking gun "evidence". He wins and is vindicated.

    Someone ban this guy please. Clearly trolling now.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Dave! wrote: »
    Someone ban this guy please. Clearly trolling now.

    How is he trolling? Also you should know better. Theres a "report" button on the left.


  • #233
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    How is he trolling? Also you should know better. Theres a "report" button on the left.
    He's trolling because I know he's not dumb enough to be genuine when he makes asinine points like the one I quoted.

    Yes I'll report it now...


  • #234
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Links234 wrote: »
    All I have said is that water is wet.
    Right, but what I am trying to establish is if you value the principle of innocent until proven guilty?


  • #235
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    SW wrote: »
    @BB and now that I think of it, we don't know Rory isn't going to court. All we know is what Rte did.
    And this "proof" you say that Rory is in possession of, that which makes his accusation truthful, why didn't he share it with RTE's legal department?


  • #236
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,528 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Its unprovable. I doubt I'm gong to get any kind of agreement on this thread. Being opposed to same sex marriage isn't homophobic in itself. Some gay people are also against gay marriage. Guess what? They are not homophbes either.

    Being opposed to equal rights for homosexuals when the arguments used against it are incorrect, or outright lies is indeed homophobic and even bigoted when one simply refuses to change their viewpoint when informed of this.

    The Iona 'institute' is guilty of this with their attempt to mislead the Constitutional Convention while John Waters persists in claiming that gay marriage is actually an attempt to destroy society by the gheys.

    Now can you provide a reason why two consenting adults who very much love each other cannot enter into a marriage?


  • #237
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    As usual, Phil is shooting in the dark and pulling made up facts out of the sky.
    You'd be hard pressed to find any gay people against gay marriage. They may not want to get married themselves, but they do want to enjoy full equality and the option to marry.
    Which is a totally different thing.


  • #238
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I like how BB is now calling for the presumption of innocence in the absence of legal proof when a month ago he was very falsely accusing people here of having a conflict of interest and of faking statistics.

    But then Boards isn't a national broadcaster, so I suppose you can claim whatever without proof as along as you're anonymous.


  • #239
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    david75 wrote: »
    As usual, Phil is shooting in the dark and pulling made up facts out of the sky.
    You'd be hard pressed to find any gay people against gay marriage. They may not want to get married themselves, but they do want to enjoy full equality and the option to marry.
    Which is a totally different thing.
    Here is one.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTBR1fcnfOw


  • #240
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    5uspect wrote: »
    Being opposed to equal rights for homosexuals when the arguments used against it are incorrect, or outright lies is indeed homophobic and even bigoted when one simply refuses to change their viewpoint when informed of this.

    The Iona 'institute' is guilty of this with their attempt to mislead the Constitutional Convention while John Waters persists in claiming that gay marriage is actually an attempt to destroy society by the gheys.

    Now can you provide a reason why two consenting adults who very much love each other cannot enter into a marriage?

    I can safely say no one is opposing equal rights. What Iona or Waters believe has nothing to.do with me and I don't need to comment.

    What you're doing here is trying to associate opposition to same sex marriage with homophobia. This is highly flawed and you know that. I have pointed this out earlier.

    Its not rocket surgery.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    david75 wrote: »
    As usual, Phil is shooting in the dark and pulling made up facts out of the sky.
    You'd be hard pressed to find any gay people against gay marriage. They may not want to get married themselves, but they do want to enjoy full equality and the option to marry.
    Which is a totally different thing.

    Reported


Advertisement