What's your attitude to Caroline Lynch: in today's paper?

Snickers Man

There's an interesting story in both the Times and Indo today about a former Aer Rianta telephonist who sued the company for damages after claiming to have suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder following an incident that took place while she was doing her job. Both papers also publish the same picture of the lady in question.

You can read the Irish Times version here (paid subscription needed), or the Indo's version here. Free subscription needed.

OK I've printed the IT version below. Both articles are written in a very matter of fact straight narrative style. Neither offer an opinion other than those expressed during evidence in court.

I would love to know what feelings these articles engender in people towardsw this woman. Please read and take the poll.

From Irish Times Friday April 28 wrote:

Telephonist settles airport bomb hoax case for €15,000
Mary Carolan




An Aer Rianta telephonist suffered posttraumatic stress disorder, nightmares and flashbacks, her hair began to fall out and she stayed in bed for 1½ years just days after she took a phone call claiming there was a bomb at Dublin airport, which turned out to be a hoax, the High Court was told yesterday.

Caroline Lynch later yesterday settled her action for damages of €15,000.

Her counsel told the court that "a gentleman with a foreign accent" had made the hoax call and Ms Lynch had associated the voice "with an Afghanistan background - an Osama Bin Laden-type background ".

Ms Lynch (41), of Maolbuille Road, Glasnevin, Dublin, told the court that after she received the early morning call at Dublin airport she was upset, her mouth later came out in ulcers, her stomach was "in bits" and she stayed in bed for 1½ years.

After Ms Lynch had begun giving evidence yesterday in her proceedings against Aer Rianta, there were talks between the sides and Mr Justice Vivion Lavan was later told the action was settled.

There was no public confirmation of the sum involved but sources indicated the settlement was in the region of €15,000.


The court heard that, half an hour after the phone call was received in 2002, it was deemed to be a hoax.

In its defence, Aer Rianta had denied it failed to provide adequate supports to Ms Lynch or that she suffered the injuries alleged.

Opening the case, Pádraig McCartan SC, for Ms Lynch, said she had worked with Aer Rianta since 1984 and had "to fight" to get the telephonist's job.

On April 28th, 2002, while she was on duty at 3.30am, she got a call saying there was a bomb in the building. This was just a short time after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, counsel said.

Ms Lynch had phoned the airport police and the airport duty officer. However, counsel said, Ms Lynch was left alone and she felt unsafe and concerned.

At 5.30am two airport police came to her when she was in "a fair state of terror and nervous shock".

Counsel said she had wanted to go home immediately but had stayed until her shift finished at 8am and she had carried out the necessary paperwork surrounding the call.

In the days that followed, she "fell asunder completely", mouth ulcers developed and her hair began to fall out.

Ms Lynch was told by a person in Aer Rianta, who was not a doctor, that she was not suffering post-traumatic stress "because she did not see any dead bodies", counsel said. He said Ms Lynch had no training to deal with calls such as the one she received, was never debriefed, was left on her own and suffered appalling symptoms immediately.

While it was a hoax call, it had a devastating effect on Ms Lynch, counsel said. She had fought tooth and nail for the job but could not go back to it.

In her evidence, Ms Lynch said she had spent 20 years trying to get the telephonist job and the hoax call came after two years in the job. She had answered saying: "Good morning, Dublin airport, can I help you?" A voice, "in a Bin Laden accent," said: "There is a bomb in your airport." The call lasted a second.

Ms Lynch said she was nervous but proceeded as trained. She felt she was sitting on this bomb but she would not run and felt it was her duty to stay at her station.

Half an hour later, the operations room rang back to say it was a hoax. However, as the night went on, she became frightened and by the time two airport police came to her, she was really shook up. Another person had told her the bomb did not go off and there was "no big deal".

When she got home, she was very nervous and could see mice running around the floor, even though there were not any mice.

She felt she had to go in to work the next day but felt vulnerable and jumped in her seat any time a male voice came on the phone. "I was at the end of my tether at the end of the shift and my stomach was in bits," she said.

She later went to her GP and was referred to a psychotherapist. "I never slept. I was in bed a year and a half. The two discs collapsed in my back a month after the call. I had lost four stone in weight and put it back on. I was in bed all the time.

"I was distressed and upset for my two children to see me like this," she said.

In July 2002, she took an overdose of pills but would not go to hospital and slept it off.

Sherlock

Sounds like she had severe psychological problems before the phone call and anything could have set her off.

JackieChan

....serious mental issues before the incident. From a one second hoax call she ends up 18 months in bed!!!!

Anyway How could it take 20 years of fighting to get a telephonists job!!!
Its not like she was looking to fly a plane.
My attitude is that she was not cut out for the job.I bet this is why they held off on giving her the role for so long. Probably some union pressure placed to give her the role and then she turns out to be unsuitable for it...
I'd say the average person would have totally forgotten about this incident within a few days.

godtabh

A one second call got her €15k. Not bad!

Seems very strange. I would wonder about her state of mind before hand.

Many people get hoax calls. How many would the emergenc services get per day? Yet this is the first time I've heard of some one in a call centre doing something like this

toffeeman

I reckon it was a ruse by Osama, herself and the magic mice to raise funds for Al Queda.

lynch,0.jpg

JackieChan

I reckon it was a ruse by Osama, herself and the magic mice to raise funds for Al Queda.

lynch,0.jpg

at least we know where Osama is hiding now!

Snickers Man

IU'm just curious whether the story arouses any emotions. In all three major nationals the reportage is very flat and unemotional. A simple narrative of the details of the evidence, presented in a very thorough way. I get the distinct impression the reporters are trying to hang her with her own rope.

The fact that every paper publishes a picture of her, and at the risk of being unkind, she is not exactly model material again suggests to me that the papers are very cleverly letting her hang herself without expressing a single emotion.

Now here's my point is: isn't something which deliberately holds somebody up to hatred, ridicule OR contempt generally held to be defamatory?

I found myself forming feelings of ridicule and contempt for her. Probably stopping a little way short of hatred but two out of three ain't bad. Certainly I thought that it more than possible that she was just a chancer trying to take her employer for a ride.

I am not suggesting for one second that the papers printed a single untruth. But my understanding is that they don't need to for the purposes of defamation. Holding somebody up to any one of the Trinity of hatred, ridicule or contempt is enough.

simu

Sherlock wrote:

Sounds like she had severe psychological problems before the phone call and anything could have set her off.

Agreed. And she needs to lose some weight tbh.

lostexpectation

If a reporter had wrote a shorter report and (surmised as we all have) that she may have had a previous nervous disposition and liable to such an strong reaction would we hold it against the paper as ridicule, probably not I agree with the above.

toffeeman

Snickers Man wrote:

I am not suggesting for one second that the papers printed a single untruth. But my understanding is that they don't need to for the purposes of defamation. Holding somebody up to any one of the Trinity of hatred, ridicule or contempt is enough.

I passed both the Indo and Times stories onto friends and watched them as they read the story. It was funny watching them roll their eyes to heaven and lambast the woman as they read her quotes.

I think both papers (and RTE news) were clever in not editorialising on this and just presenting the facts and letting the reader/viewer come to their own opinions. Basically giving her enough rope...

That's the key here. Defamation can only be brought for an untruth or false statement published which harms the complainant's reputation or standing. Everything in these reports is a factual report of the evidence presented in this case.

So, while the reports may hold the woman up to ridicule in the public's eye, there is no grounds for taking a defamation case.

I also don't see any grounds for saying this was malicious reporting either because it was a straight and contemporaneous report from a legal case and the media have a right and a duty to report on these cases.

How did the tabloids report on this? Did they sensationalise it or veer to branding her in an unsavoury manner?

FlutterinBantam

Hmmm... There are many of these type of cases that NEVER make the papers .

Suing Semi State companies is a going concern...at the end of the day the taxpayer forks out...and a lot more than Ms Lynch got.

The references to her weight were very unkind... maybe she has a problem in that area

Snickers Man

FlutterinBantam wrote:

The references to her weight were very unkind... maybe she has a problem in that area

Any pointed reference to someone's weight is indeed unkind. So why did all three daily broadsheets print photographs of the woman? It's a truism that 'a picture paints a thousand words'. As to what those thousand words were, you can bet the editor was reasoning: 'I know what you're thinking'

luckat

Weird that *Aer Lingus* had to pay, when they hadn't made the call. Now if she'd sued the caller...

Earthhorse

Wow! I never knew we had so many trained psychiatrists posting on boards! And you all knew the woman before the incident in question too! How marvelous!

Perhaps this case is frivolous but speculating about the defendant's state of mind before the incident says more about the speculators than the defendant.

And perhaps if Aer Rianta had done more to show that they had supported Ms. Lynch after the incident (e.g. by providing counseling) they wouldn't be in this position. Bank employees, for instance, are offered counseling after a robbery.

One would imagine something similar would operate in this case.

As for the articles, I don't think they were written with the purpose of ridiculing Ms. Lynch. I think they were written because of the unusual nature of the case and the link, abeit tenuous, to terrorism, which appears to be a journalists' touchstone when writing any piece these days.