Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Convicted child killer canvassing for sinn fein[Mod warning-First Post]

1…4142444647…50

Comments

  • #1292
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    The statement you made, which I quoted. Sorry, can't be any clearer than that.

    I'm not trying to be difficult, but what do you reckon was a "sweeping generalisation"?

    Also, what are you getting at that was" absolutely not true"?

    If it's the claim that Jean was passing information to the British army, how can you dismiss this?

    Why would the person on the tape make such false accusations on Gerry and Jean, or was he telling the truth about Gerry and lying about Jean?

    You really gonna cherry pick bits to be complete BS or just the parts you don't like, because that, I'm afraid isn't how it works.


  • #1293
    dj jarvis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,485 ✭✭✭dj jarvis


    Banjo String wrote: »
    I'm not trying to be difficult, but what do you reckon was a "sweeping generalisation"?

    Also, what are you getting at that was" absolutely not true"?

    If it's the claim that Jean was passing information to the British army, how can you dismiss this?

    Why would the person on the tape make such false accusations on Gerry and Jean, or was he telling the truth about Gerry and lying about Jean?

    You really gonna cherry pick bits to be complete BS or just the parts you don't like, because that, I'm afraid isn't how it works.

    you cant interrogate a dead person , so none of it can be proven on their word , im intrigued that you see this either back or white when it comes to the allegations on the tapes,

    the part i have highlighted is as likely as any other , i dont understand why you cant see that , they could be lying about jean for some reason we dont understand , but still be telling the truth about Gerry

    each is not mutually exclusive from the other


  • #1294
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Okay, we're having a sensible discussion about this, so I'll try and break it down like this:
    Banjo String wrote: »
    I'm not trying to be difficult, but what do you reckon was a "sweeping generalisation"?

    "Everyone who thinks A also thinks B". You're talking about the Boston tapes - whereas I'm talking about the media in general.
    Also, what are you getting at that was" absolutely not true"?
    It is not true that everyone who thinks GA was involved in the JB killing also thinks JB was a BA informer.
    If it's the claim that Jean was passing information to the British army, how can you dismiss this?

    I'm not dismissing it. It is obviously important to you, and presumably to the people who killed her, and their supporters. But it wouldn't have any bearing on the libel claim - unless, of course it cast doubt on the veracity of the Boston tapes - which I think is the point you are making.
    Why would the person on the tape make such false accusations on Gerry and Jean, or was he telling the truth about Gerry and lying about Jean?
    I have no idea if either of the claims are true, but that's not the point.

    The thing is this.

    Some newspapers say things about GA.

    He says they are not true.

    Should he sue for libel?

    Should he threaten to sue for libel, and then not go ahead?

    What would you do in his position? What would you like him to do?


  • #1295
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    dj jarvis wrote: »
    good point
    But unanswered. I was asking when does it stop, at what point does it infringe your civil liberties?
    If the available 'evidence'is useless in a court, how ethical is it to use the exact same info to insinuate in a newspaper?


  • #1296
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    dj jarvis wrote: »
    the part i have highlighted is as likely as any other , i dont understand why you cant see that , they could be lying about jean for some reason we dont understand , but still be telling the truth about Gerry

    How's about focusing on something we do understand, the people in the tapes had a deep grudge against Gerry Adams, this is a fact, they viewed him as a sellout.

    Maybe they were lying about both as some kind of revenge from the grave.


  • Advertisement
  • #1297
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Banjo String wrote: »
    How's about focusing on something we do understand, the people in the tapes had a deep grudge against Gerry Adams, this is a fact, they viewed him as a sellout.

    Maybe they were lying about both as some kind of revenge from the grave.

    Forget the tapes for a moment - do you think that if a politician is saying newspapers are telling damaging lies about him, he should sue? (GA hasn't done this, at least not yet)

    Do you think he should threaten to sue? (He has done this)


  • #1298
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    Forget the tapes for a moment - do you think that if a politician is saying newspapers are telling damaging lies about him, he should sue? (GA hasn't done this, at least not yet)

    Do you think he should threaten to sue? (He has done this)

    Honestly, I couldn't care less. If Gerry Adams was to sue every media outlet that printed some smear attempt story about him, I reckon he'd be more time in high courts than in politics tbh.

    I did hear that his lawyers are currently in the process of taking action against the Indo, though how far on these proceedings are, I've no idea.


  • #1299
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Banjo String wrote: »
    Honestly, I couldn't care less

    That's a straight answer, and I appreciate it.


  • #1300
    dj jarvis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,485 ✭✭✭dj jarvis


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    But unanswered. I was asking when does it stop, at what point does it infringe your civil liberties?
    If the available 'evidence'is useless in a court, how ethical is it to use the exact same info to insinuate in a newspaper?

    and as i said , it will stop when they prove it or he sues them , he wont sue for some reason only known to him , i can only think of one reason why

    up to him to prove them and me wrong i suppose.


  • #1301
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 57,077 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    It is the accuser who has to prove the case. Always.


  • Advertisement
  • #1302
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,069 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    dj jarvis wrote: »
    and as i said , it will stop when they prove it or he sues them , he wont sue for some reason only known to him , i can only think of one reason why
    And they won't prove it for some reason only known to them. I can only think of one reason why.


  • #1303
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    tayto lover wrote: »
    It is the accuser who has to prove the case. Always.

    Almost always.

    But crucially, not in a libel case, where the person who brings the case has nothing to prove in the decision - they will have to demonstrate damage to reputation, consequential losses, etc, but it's the other guy who has to prove their innocence.

    I could accuse you of libel against me, and I would have nothing to prove in court - it would be up to you to prove that what you said was true, (or fair comment, getting a bit technical now).

    It's the only legal situation I can think of, apart from immigration law, where that standard applies, and is very much a legal anomaly.


  • #1304
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 57,077 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    Almost always.

    But crucially, not in a libel case, where the person who brings the case has nothing to prove in the decision - they will have to demonstrate damage to reputation, consequential losses, etc, but it's the other guy who has to prove their innocence.

    I could accuse you of libel against me, and I would have nothing to prove in court - it would be up to you to prove that what you said was true, (or fair comment, getting a bit technical now).

    It's the only legal situation I can think of, apart from immigration law, where that standard applies, and is very much a legal anomaly.

    No. I wouldn't have to prove anything.
    You make the accusation, I remain silent.
    You take me to court you have to prove.

    If you libel me and I say nothing and ignore it then you have no case to answer.


  • #1305
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    If detectives can't find evidence to charge him, and a judge deem him guilty, how does one prove innocence in a libel case?

    Kind of contradictory tbh.


  • #1306
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    tayto lover wrote: »
    No. I wouldn't have to prove anything.
    You make the accusation, I remain silent.
    You take me to court you have to prove.

    Donkey Oaty vs Tayto Lover

    I bring the case against one of your posts against me [there isn't one, and don't get any ideas, but let's say there is]

    I say to the court: "Tayto said Donkey Oaty screws goats" or whatever, and produce the screen prints.

    I prove you said it, okay, and that is rarely in doubt in libel cases, because it is mostly about print or broadcast journalism.

    But the question is whether or not it is true.

    Tayto remains silent.

    Court must find for Donkey Oaty.
    If you libel me and I say nothing and ignore it then you have no case to answer.

    Sorry, don't know what that means - I think you are confusing "no case to answer" with "no case brought".


  • #1307
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Banjo String wrote: »
    , how does one prove innocence in a libel case

    It's a civil case, so there isn't "reasonable doubt" - and the burden of proof is on the one who made the allegedly libellous statement, not the accuser.


  • #1308
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 57,077 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    Donkey Oaty vs Tayto Lover

    I bring the case against one of your posts against me [there isn't one, and don't get any ideas, but let's say there is]

    I say to the court: "Tayto said Donkey Oaty screws goats" or whatever, and produce the screen prints.

    I prove you said it, okay, and that is rarely in doubt in libel cases, because it is mostly about print or broadcast journalism.

    But the question is whether or not it is true.

    Tayto remains silent.

    Court must find for Donkey Oaty.



    Sorry, don't know what that means - I think you are confusing "no case to answer" with "no case brought".

    The first is an example in a criminal case where the prosecution have to prove the charge.
    The second was the libel case, a civil case, where as you say if you accuse me and I don't bite then there is no case.


  • #1309
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    tayto lover wrote: »
    The first is an example in a criminal case where the prosecution have to prove the charge.
    The second was the libel case, a civil case, where as you say if you accuse me and I don't bite then there is no case.

    No. Wires are crossed here.

    If the police want to prosecute A of doing XYZ, they have to prove in court that "A did XZY" beyond reasonable doubt.

    If a newspaper says "A did XYZ" and A sues them for libel, the newspaper has to demonstrate in court that "A did XYZ" on the balance of probabilities.

    In either case, A has to prove nothing. But the newspaper does.


  • #1310
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    It's a civil case, so there isn't "reasonable doubt" - and the burden of proof is on the one who made the allegedly libellous statement, not the accuser.

    Yeah, i get that bit. I'm curious as to how you can prove an innocence on something though, especially if detectives can't prove guilt.

    That's some messed up system tbh.


  • #1311
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 57,077 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    No. Wires are crossed here.

    If the police want to prosecute A of doing XYZ, they have to prove in court that "A did XZY" beyond reasonable doubt.

    If a newspaper says "A did XYZ" and A sues them for libel, the newspaper has to demonstrate in court that "A did XYZ" on the balance of probabilities.

    In either case, A has to prove nothing. But the newspaper does.

    Exactly. Gerry Adams is A.


  • Advertisement
  • #1312
    dj jarvis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,485 ✭✭✭dj jarvis


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Exactly. Gerry Adams is A.

    then why not sue ?

    only reason i can think of is he does not want to be questioned under oath , say something and , later , it turns out he lied

    becasue most people who are innocent would fight to the end to prove their innocence, but strangely he does nothing.

    i would love to see him sue TBH.


  • #1313
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Banjo String wrote: »
    I'm curious as to how you can prove an innocence on something though, especially if detectives can't prove guilt.
    .

    You can't, and don't have to, prove innocence. The other guys have to prove that what they said is true.

    You can win a libel claim of malicious falsehood, even though it is of course true what the other guys said about you, simply because they can't prove it in court.

    Historical footnote: Liberace's case against the Daily Mirror is probably the best example of this.

    It's the bane of journalists everywhere.


  • #1314
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Exactly. Gerry Adams is A.

    So the question is, why doesn't he sue the papers?


  • #1315
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    So the question is, why doesn't he sue the papers?

    He's suing the Indo AFAIK.

    Edit, and the Belfast telegraph.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/gerry-adams-liam-adams-claim-psni-untrue-1466330-May2014/


  • #1316
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 45,738 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So I'm guessing the Indo's cheap article didn't work then :pac:

    Horrible rag of a paper.


  • #1317
    dj jarvis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,485 ✭✭✭dj jarvis


    Banjo String wrote: »
    He's suing the Indo AFAIK.

    He is , but in relation to the Jean murder arrest and allegations

    but not over the comments made in relation to the non reporting of child endangerment

    edit , just seen the link - ok , so this is going to get to the end of this , why it was not reported


  • #1318
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    dj jarvis wrote: »
    He is , but in relation to the Jean murder arrest and allegations

    but not over the comments made in relation to the non reporting of child endangerment


    Nope.


  • #1319
    dj jarvis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,485 ✭✭✭dj jarvis


    Nodin wrote: »
    Nope.

    ? ok , im good , but at this distance , i cant read your mind
    care to fill in the blanks ?


  • #1320
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Banjo String wrote: »
    He's suing the Indo AFAIK.

    Edit, and the Belfast telegraph.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/gerry-adams-liam-adams-claim-psni-untrue-1466330-May2014/

    Hence this discussion.

    He threatened to sue the Herald in 2011 over JB allegations - what they called a "first" - but seemingly didn't follow through. It certainly didn't make it to court.

    But he has never actually issued legal proceedings against any newspaper, and that is why this is worth watching closely - some real implications here.


  • Advertisement
  • #1321
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    What's your take on this Nodin - would you be in favour of GA suing newspapers over serious allegations about him that he declares to be untrue?


Advertisement
Advertisement