Again, (again, again) it begins... (SU Elections)

osd

My other half is doing a publishing course this year and she was showing me all the schoolboy errors that both papers where making. I honestly think that the quality of the two papers will never be superbly high given that it really requires a specific skill set that you can only get from a properly taught course.

In the last Record the front cover mentions a 'fiery council'. Who said it was fiery? Where's the quote? Where's the actual mention that it was even debated?

Also go and count the number of opinion pages that both papers print. One copy of the Record had 7 pages of just opinion pieces. Where's the news???

My final gripe is Radical Mike. The edition published at the end of last term was a disgrace. The story was about Mike meeting an "Absolute Nutter" in a wheelchair on the DART also referred to as the 'mentalist' and all the other passengers running away from her. I was reliably informed afterwards that this was satire. Satire my ass, the next edition was unapologetically aimed at anyone who had an issue with the prior article and then the latest edition's letters page kept plugging away at being offensive. Where is the positive disability related pieces to counter the 'satire'? Where is the piece I suggested that the Record cover about the week long lift outage in the Arts block and its effect on students with physical disabilities?

xeduCat

You are making broad assumptions about libel law that are not necessarily defensible. There is no cast-iron principle that printing that something wrong has been alleged or discussed will automatically lead a jury to find that all the elements of libel law have been satisfied, or a jury to uphold such a jury finding. If there is one, please bring it to our attention.

Indeed, there are many cases in relation to printing an allegation; of course, there is a major difference between a) a statement that claims that X has happened, and b) a statement that claims that X is being discussed or alleged. Furthermore, any claim of defamation through innuendo is strongly related to the facts so unless you're a Supreme Court judge, I'd urge a little caution in saying things like "If the Record was sued, it would lose". If things were that clear, then there would be no work for lawyers. As it stands, in the real world, unless someone is prepared to bring and win a claim, one must presume that a particular publication is not libellous.

In addition, no principle of libel law known to me or to any of the text books can "close down" a publication. Any legal action would be against the company (the SU) and the "closing down" would be a result of bankruptcy - which is a lot of what ifs (what if the article was libellous and what if someone sued and what if they won and what if they got lots of damages and what if this took all the SU's money and what if the SU then ceased operations and then there would be no Record). There is absolutely no situation where losing a libel case means that the Record shuts down, and to suggest otherwise is a misunderstanding of how the law (let alone the SU operates). In the very unlikely event that the Union lost a libel case in respect of something written in the Record (it has never even had one), the court could not order the newspaper to shut down.

Yes, it is important to be aware of the law but not to be terrified by it. If someone has a belief that a particular statement is so libellous as to give them the guarantee of victory that you suggest (but every single lawyer in the country would disagree with you on, there being no such thing as a sure case!), then perhaps it is puzzling that no such proceedings have been brought against the Union. Libel law in Ireland is pro-plaintiff, for sure, but this fact doesn't mean that it is fair to make allegations of libel as if they had been proven in a court.

PHB

As it stands, in the real world, unless someone is prepared to bring and win a claim, one must presume that a particular publication is not libellous.

That's idiotic. Something doesn't have to be pursued for it to be libellous. That's like saying something isn't murder because it's not pursued in court, it's still murder, it's still against the law, it's just not brought to court.

Any legal action would be'against the company (the SU) and the "closing down" would be a result of bankruptcy -

Yep, that's what I was saying.

There is a strong case history in relation to mismanagment of funds. Furthermore, 'it has been alledged that it happened' when compared to 'it happened', while there is some legal difference, it doesn't stop it being libellous. Otherwise every newspaper would just say, 'it has been alledged' in front of any controversial article.

You're right, I was making iron-clad statements. Obviously nothing is certain in law. However, it is quite probable that they would lose.

xeduCat

That's idiotic. Something doesn't have to be pursued for it to be libellous. That's like saying something isn't murder because it's not pursued in court, it's still murder, it's still against the law, it's just not brought to court.

Murder and libel are legal terms. They may be misused by lots of sloppy journalists (and message board commentators) but that doesn't make it right. And I'm not getting at you, I'm just trying (in vain!) to uphold the integrity of the much-maligned legal process. I believe it's unfair to claim (as assertion of fact, rather than speculation) that libel (a legal term) has happened unless it has been proven in a court of law (a legal process). There are far too many people who are terrified of libel lawsuits, and the so-called 'chilling effect' (where free speech is restricted due to fears of legal action) is a major issue in student journalism. Let all the people claiming libel left right and centre bring their lawsuits, or else leave well enough alone. "Libel" has no non-legal meaning so if people are prepared to use it, they must substantiate the claim in a proper way.

Anyway, now that I've bitched enough about why no-one loves the law, I'll leave it at that.

PHB

Anyway, now that I've bitched enough about why no-one loves the law, I'll leave it at that.

No fair enough, obviously nobody has been convicted, but you would accept its equally problematic to say, 'that might be libellous'.

There are far too many people who are terrified of libel lawsuits, and the so-called 'chilling effect' (where free speech is restricted due to fears of legal action) is a major issue in student journalism.

Yes, but the chilling effect also has positives, i.e. it should stop people printing lies about people.

Time Magazine

PHB wrote:

Yes, but the chilling effect also has positives, i.e. it should stop people printing lies about people.

I don't think you understand the chilling effect. The threat of libel should stop people printing lies about people. The chilling effects stops people saying things which should be said for fear of libel, such as things that are most certainly true but may be not be most certainly proven in a courtroom.

osd

...back to normal service now...

Anyone got comments about the Presidential Debate?

shay_562

In addition, no principle of libel law known to me or to any of the text books can "close down" a publication. Any legal action would be against the company (the SU) and the "closing down" would be a result of bankruptcy - which is a lot of what ifs (what if the article was libellous and what if someone sued and what if they won and what if they got lots of damages and what if this took all the SU's money and what if the SU then ceased operations and then there would be no Record).

What kind of say/control do College have in the Record, if any? Because if they were partially liable and had to help cover the costs, they could shut down the Record in the same way that they stopped Piranha from printing further copies last year, couldn't they?

If someone has a belief that a particular statement is so libellous as to give them the guarantee of victory that you suggest (but every single lawyer in the country would disagree with you on, there being no such thing as a sure case!), then perhaps it is puzzling that no such proceedings have been brought against the Union. Libel law in Ireland is pro-plaintiff, for sure, but this fact doesn't mean that it is fair to make allegations of libel as if they had been proven in a court.

The financial costs of bringing a libel case against the Record would be potentially ruinous for any student society because of the uncertainties of the legal system that you've outlined - societies operate on a tight, fixed budget and can't afford major losses on unplanned expenditure. I genuinely don't know why the Hist didn't pursue legal action, but I'd guess that played a large (or possibly even a deciding) role in the matter, and for most societies it would be even worse. This is part of the power that college papers hold, along with being the only outlet for information within the college, and it's upon them to use that power properly. Claire, the Agent or anyone else may not be strictly committing "libel" when they spread allegations and half-truths against people who literally can't afford the risk of defending themselves in public, but that doesn't make the quality of their journalism any higher or the fact that they're lying any less severe from a moral point of view.

Captain Planet

Just to bring it back to the elections issue. Went to the Phil Presidential debate there, have to say Dave Lorigan is a mad yoke, was hanging around in the Phil room with his penis out-weird.

Byrne definitely impressed the most, he actually does know his stuff. John Tracey said some dodgy things about former Presidents, just seemed a bit nasty really. Know whose got number 1 now, might give the penis dude no. 2!

xeduCat

shay_562 wrote:

What kind of say/control do College have in the Record, if any? Because if they were partially liable and had to help cover the costs, they could shut down the Record in the same way that they stopped Piranha from printing further copies last year, couldn't they?

In a way, yes. College stopped distribution but it had nothing to do with libel, for a start. Secondly, there was no concrete legal obligation on TCD to stop the terrible deeds of Piranha from circulating - it was self-preservation against possible problems (political or legal, never quite clear what). Thirdly, even if there was an issue of libel/taste/decency/hatred whatever, a distro-ban would (in virtually all cases) apply to a single issue rather than to the publication as a concept/institution. Even when someone runs off to the High Court to get an injunction to stop a publication coming out (which even the Irish courts are reluctant to give, it being a hallmark of fascist governments and all that), this would rarely go beyond the single issue or article in question.

As for College liability, there's no definitive answer, as Trinity (like most major bodies) likes to deal with any possibile liability issues (on libel, on personal injury, or whatever) through insurance/settlements and so on. The College could say "hey, you fools cost us money so we are banning you" but that would be separate to any court action - it would be a reprisal and an internal decision rather than a necessary consequence to legal fusses. Of course, College doesn't need a legal issue to do something like that, they could just do it out of spite anyway and they'd probably get reasonably far before everything explodes and we start chaining ourselves to the Provost.

So in short, yes to the proposition that "Trinity can shut down a publication" (through distro-bans, withdrawal of funding, harassing the editors through various means, etc) but this is an internal question, independent of legal, political or other troubles. If a publication ended up on the wrong end of a lawsuit, often an injunction would be sought (or indeed a settlement might include a withdrawal of remaining copies), but this would impact on the offending issue rather than the title as a whole.

xeduCat

OK no more legal discussion; if there are any other questions on general principles of libel law and press freedom and so on let's take them to a new thread.

Duffman

OT..

I was at the debate earlier. Nothing terribly exciting although it wasn't bad for a SU politics event I suppose. Both candidates were decent but I would have to hand it to Byrne on balance. He really came across as actually knowing what he was talking about.

The attack on John Mannion was totally out of order though, I mean really, where did that come from? Dishing out random personal abuse really reflected badly on Treacy and was fairly unattractive tbh.

osd

xeduCat wrote:

OK no more legal discussion; if there are any other questions on general principles of libel law and press freedom and so on let's take them to a new thread.

HEY!!! That's censorship! :P

but back to the topic at hand...

John Tracey said some dodgy things about former Presidents, just seemed a bit nasty really.

Bit surprised about Tracey, I hope he didn't insult El Presidente Francis!

The attack on John Mannion was totally out of order though, I mean really, where did that come from? Dishing out random personal abuse really reflected badly on Treacy and was fairly unattractive tbh.

Regardless of who he trashed rightly or wrongly personal attacks are just plain rude! The guy has been in most execs this year so he should know his stuff.

Did anyone ask a disability related question? I couldn't make it this evening but had asked a couple of people to ask on my behalf if they had a chance.

Crash

Right folks, just to remind yee.

VOTING STARTED TONIGHT.

CONTINUES WEDNESDAY 10AM TIL 8PM (I think?)

FOLLOWED BY THURSDAY 10AM TIL 4PM

ALSO VOTING IN D'OLIER ST. ON WEDNESDAY FOR NURSING 10.30am TIL 2.30PM

GET OUT AND GODDAMN VOTE!!


oh, and while you're there, if you can vote Neil for education, that'd be great.

shay_562

Or, alternatively, you could always ROCK the vote (since we're allowing shameless shills on behalf of the candidates now). But yeah, more turnout = A Good Thing. The number of people I've talked to in the past few days who have said they won't bother as it doesn't really affect them is mind-boggling. And boo-urns - I'm still utterly undecided on one of the positions, so I'm holding off on voting for now. I'll sleep on it and vote tomorrow afternoon.

Opted to go home for food and rest rather than watch more Presidential stuff - what exactly did Tracey say? I'm actually not all that opposed to personal attacks if they're justified, but from the sounds of things these ones definitely weren't...

Jager Man

shay_562 wrote:

what exactly did Tracey say? I'm actually not all that opposed to personal attacks if they're justified, but from the sounds of things these ones definitely weren't...

Tracey said,( in here about terms) ‘just look what happens when people who have no experience of the union are elected, and no I’m not talking about David Quinn, I’m talking about John Mannion. He knew nothing about the union and threw it into massive financial difficulty.’

That’s the gist. It was miss-informed, Tracey should know right well that the Union had been doing terribly financially for years not just because of Mannion. It was well pointed out, by Byrne, that Mannion actually was the person who signed in the reforms at the end of the year to turn around the Union. Examples are the buttery being closed, the redundancies etc.

Tracey from that statement seemed to imply that people who 'are not involved in the union, should not get involved in the union'. If I have ever heard such a load of ****e!

Second point on slander. It is against the rules basically to slander, as was the case with Naesa being fined 20 euro for taking about opposing candidates in the election, in a bad light. People and candidates should be allowed to criticise candidates who are running for an elected position, it should be something, which they expect when elected. But anything that relates to slander, something which has no direct correlation between their policy brings the Union and student politics into disrepute. ‘Shay’ the student union is not the hist where people are destroyed for stances they take, Tim Smith at the last council personally attacked people, this is not beneficially. Debate is, attack is not.
.

osd

Jager Man wrote:

Tracey should know right well that the Union had been doing terribly financially for years not just because of Mannion.

If someone is to be blamed for the union financial downturn it was Will Priestly as he was given the option of selling off DUST. At the time he believed things would turn around for the company but it didn't and drained the Union bone dry. He is only guilty through hindsight and his decision in reality was understandable at the time although others including myself wanted rid of it. The other MAJOR cause for financial problems in the Union was the Coke ban. Whether the ban itself is good or not is not of concern to me but I absolutely promise you that the downturn in the shops sales were directly related to the ban. Just examine the sales figures from the day the ban took hold.

Tracey from that statement seemed to imply that people who 'are not involved in the union, should not get involved in the union'. If I have ever heard such a load of ****e!

The only position that really requires SU related experience is the education officer. A vague knowledge of the system is not good enough. Being part of it and having experienced at least a year in Council and on a committee or two is essential in my humble opinion. Feel free to disagree with me but the most effective Education Officers of the last nine years have been the two most experienced prior to running!
As for the other positions having fresh faces in the sabbatical team shakes up any cliquey exec and is usually a positive thing.

europerson

I wasn't selected by Rob Kearns to ask John Tracey a question, and I was waving both hands in the air at one stage. I wanted to ask about what Arenea Limited is.

I was talking to John about that yesterday, he mentioned how it was a company involved in the sale (perhaps production too? Can't remember.) of model cars. I think he said it was trading under a different name.

shay_562

‘Shay’ the student union is not the hist where people are destroyed for stances they take, Tim Smith at the last council personally attacked people, this is not beneficially. Debate is, attack is not.

So people in the SU aren't attacked for the stances they take? Isn't the what having policies and having hustings is all about? I'm not saying the floor should be open to any kind of personal abuse, but equally, I don't get why people are so actively against saying anything negative about any of the other candidates or the incumbent in terms of policy or track record. I also don't really know how the Hist or Tim Smyth come into it...

xebec

shay_562 wrote:

I don't get why people are so actively against saying anything negative about any of the other candidates or the incumbent in terms of policy or track record.

I don't think the major issue is when negative things are said about policy or track record of an opponent, it really starts to grate when someone starts spouting negative comments which have nothing to do with her opponent's policies or track record as appears to have happened in this case.

Personally I don't really like any form of negative campaigning, someone looking to get elected should see enough in their own policies to be proud of and to promote them rather than attacking their opponent.

Stargal

Did Úna really go topless at the slave auction?! That girl is feisty!

Crash

Nah, it was Jessica Campbell who made the crowds night

So, anyone wish to call it yet?

xebec

There may be an important EC ruling to come yet...

Talk of possible disqualification.

osd

xebec wrote:

There may be an important EC ruling to come yet...

Talk of possible disqualification.

Might be to do with the text message I only just noticed about Go Vote for **** ******.
I hate SPAM txts!

PHB

I think it's more to do with the fact that somebody put up Andy Byrne manifesto's in the toilets, and selotaped them to the wall. Really quite pathetic really, if anybody honastly believes that Andrew Byrne would do it they really are quite deluded, which is exactly what the EC are going to say.

Awayindahils

I love getting to watch elections, they're such blood sport. And I'm actually going out tonight, yay! I have declined to count though as it would not be good for my stress levels. If interesting things are to happen, what time should I be there for?

Stargal

Myth wrote:

So, anyone wish to call it yet?

Pres: Andy Byrne
Dep: Claire Tighe
Education: Neil McGough
Welfare: Úna Faulkner
Ents: Barry Keane

But that's just based on their manifestos, so could be completely wrong

Awayindahils

Awayindahils wrote:

I love getting to watch elections, they're such blood sport. And I'm actually going out tonight, yay! I have declined to count though as it would not be good for my stress levels. If interesting things are to happen, what time should I be there for?

We're sorting from 7, so should be working on the first count from 8 or so. I assume it'll go: the Referenda, then Education, Dep Pres, then President, then Welfare and then Ents.

My prediction of how the races will unfold:

President: Andy Byrne to get it comfortably, with David Lorrigan to get around 400 votes.
Dep Pres: Neasa McGarrigle taking it by around 250 votes.
Education: Neil to take it by a ginger beard whisker.
Welfare: Ray, again by a whisker. Jessica Campbell to get around 400 votes, due to her being a fox.
Ents: I'm going to say Barry Keane, but Ents is one I'm always wrong in.

Irish Flag Referendum: Will pass, but only by 65% or so. A majority, but not overwhelmingly so.
Coke Referendum: No will win (i.e. Coke will remain out of SU shops).

Turnout? I'm guessing as close to 3,000 as you can get.