Mary Harney alcoholic allegations

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

peasant

DeVore wrote: »

Christ if saying you like a glass of wine makes you an alco.... I regularly try to fill my body to the brim with the stuff!

DeV.

Boards.ie director in alcoholism shocker

read it here first

nuac

Some of these posts are sailing close to the wind defamation wise.

If I were a moderator or owner of the board I would close down this thread.

It is a fallacy that it is OK to repeat an allegation made elsewhere, quoting the source. You can be held liable for publishing the defamatory words.

DeVore

I dont think anyone here is suggesting that those allegations are true. I do agree that we shouldnt repeat them (for reasons of *fairness*).

I think we have gone off topic a lot though and I'm not sure I want to return to the OP topic either so perhaps letting this thread go and starting another on the state of Irish Healthcare (something of considerable interest to me) is the best route?

DeV.

DeVore

Rosita wrote: »

The burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused - just as well really or you'd have every crackpot going around making all sorts of allegations which probably could never be disproved.

And in cases of defamation nearly anyone connected with the publication/broadcast/distribution is potentially liable. This is one of the great bugbears of those in the media with defamation laws.

Its should be an issue for every single adult in the country. Its a deliberate method of control on criticism of politicians and in the past, priests etc.

In China whistleblowers get shot.

In Ireland whistleblowers not only get shot but the people who give them a platform get shot too.

Pretty soon, the platform owners are too scared to allow anything.

DeV.

Sparks

Funny really. I wouldn't have thought that calling someone a recovering alcoholic would have been derogatory, anymore than saying someone was recovering from pancreatic cancer was derogatory. They're both classed as diseases by just about every reputable medical group out there, they both are diseases that we have either no cure at all for, or no effectual cure for (which, for the cynical, is why I chose pancreatic cancer - we have effectual cures for many other kinds of cancer), and both diseases carry the risk of relapse.

If anything, I'd rather we had a minister for health who needed the healthcare system to work. Same way I'd want the minister for transport to take the bus to work in the morning.

Pot Noodle =

I was at a Luncheon with her as guest speaker and she was xxxxx it down and making jokes about her weight

Pot Noodle =

I was at a Luncheon with her as guest speaker and she was xxxxx it down and making jokes about her weight

Essexboy

Pot wrote:

I was at a Luncheon with her as guest speaker and she was xxxxx it down and making jokes about her weight

Was she drinking beer - what the Scots call "Heavy"?

It wasn't me!

Possibly more for the legal discussion forum, but is there not a caveat within the law which not only places the burden of proof on the person making the allegation, but forces them to defend their having said it even if it is true? That is that even if the allegation is true, to have made it with the demonstrable intent of lowering the person concerned in the eyes of the public is still to be guilty of libel, with the implied defence being that the allegation was in the public's best interest?

RATM

What way does the whole defamation thing work in the UK- is it the broadcaster who is liable or the person who uttered the defamation in the first place?

Devore is very correct though- by making the broadcaster liable for comments, even during a robust and heated debate scenario, means that broadcasters have to thread very carefully on who they have on radio/TV and how likely they might be to open a can of worms about someone else in political circles.

But sometimes these allegations are in the public interest. For instance ATM I know through a contact of a senior government official who is considered by the civil servants working for him to have "hit the bottle in a big way since the start of the financial crisis". The guy is in a very senior position at a time when the country is in the can, he's hit the drink big time but it can't be reported in the media for fear of defamation proceedings. But it is still in the public interest to know that this is going on especially at a time when the economy is on tender hooks.

It wasn't me!

RATM wrote: »

What way does the whole defamation thing work in the UK- is it the broadcaster who is liable or the person who uttered the defamation in the first place?

Devore is very correct though- by making the broadcaster liable for comments, even during a robust and heated debate scenario, means that broadcasters have to thread very carefully on who they have on radio/TV and how likely they might be to open a can of worms about someone else in political circles.

But sometimes these allegations are in the public interest. For instance ATM I know through a contact of a senior government official who is considered by the civil servants working for him to have "hit the bottle in a big way since the start of the financial crisis". The guy is in a very senior position at a time when the country is in the can, he's hit the drink big time but it can't be reported in the media for fear of defamation proceedings. But it is still in the public interest to know that this is going on especially at a time when the economy is on tender hooks.

Why is that so important to the public's interest that it would justify libel and so act as a defence?

DeVore

What about Haughey, it was an open secret what he was up to with his mistress and the brown paper envelopes etc.... but no one could report anything, even if they had proof, because the newspapers couldnt afford the court case costs.

DeV.

ballsymchugh

DeVore wrote: »

What about Haughey, it was an open secret what he was up to with his mistress and the brown paper envelopes etc.... but no one could report anything, even if they had proof, because the newspapers couldnt afford the court case costs.

DeV.

dermot morgan got away with it all in the name of satire on scrap saturday!!
that's how i found out about it anyway, when i was a young fella!!

Guy:Incognito

DeVore wrote: »

I would give up my position in Boards to take on the Healthcare system. I genuinely mean that. I'd do it for minimum pay too but only on the condition that I could re-engineer it as I saw fit and unions be damned..

It's quite easy to say that though when your not in a position to have to deal with them.

The poxy unions have the country by the balls.

hinault

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It was a superb performance by M Harney.
I said it at the time.
She spoke without notes, she quoted statistics, she had the facts to hand and was able to put her case across in simple, clear and concise way.
It was a very very impressive performance and I agree it was the best performance I have seen from any govt minister in a very long time.

For the record, I am neither a FF and/or PD member.

Sparks

Stekelly wrote: »

The poxy unions have the country by the balls.

Gosh, unions who put their own members' interests above other peoples?
What's next, companies who only pay dividends to their shareholders?


(And the unions might have the balls, but it doesn't matter because the balls have all been sold to pay for Anglo...)

sceptre

Mod note: discussion of the influence or lack of same by the unions in the Irish economy is not on-topic. Nor is whether or not they have the country "by the balls".

On-topic is requested and expected. Discussion of Harney's management of the HSE management is OK as it's relevant to the effectiveness of the minister. Please keep in mind though that this is as far as the tangent is allowed to go in this thread - going off on one about the unions etc is not relevant and not on-topic so a little more movement back to the point, please.

/mod

expectationlost

mrboswell wrote: »

He interviews and it was his producers job to kill the live feed once she started spouting. She should have been prep'd by the producer beforehand and obviously wasn't.

givem his name i'll blame him to

caseyann

If the allegations are founded and true and proven.She should be sacked and other members of the Fianna fail etc... who knew of said alleged alcoholic dependency during her time as minister and kept it hidden,should also be sacked and fined.An alcoholic is not emotionally or mentally capable to make correct stable decisions.
She is always missing.

Bob Z

Sparks wrote: »

Funny really. I wouldn't have thought that calling someone a recovering alcoholic would have been derogatory, anymore than saying someone was recovering from pancreatic cancer was derogatory. They're both classed as diseases by just about every reputable medical group out there, they both are diseases that we have either no cure at all for, or no effectual cure for (which, for the cynical, is why I chose pancreatic cancer - we have effectual cures for many other kinds of cancer), and both diseases carry the risk of relapse.

If anything, I'd rather we had a minister for health who needed the healthcare system to work. Same way I'd want the minister for transport to take the bus to work in the morning.

It is derogatory it means the person might relapse or might not be cabable

ballsymchugh

Sparks wrote: »

Funny really. I wouldn't have thought that calling someone a recovering alcoholic would have been derogatory, anymore than saying someone was recovering from pancreatic cancer was derogatory. They're both classed as diseases by just about every reputable medical group out there, they both are diseases that we have either no cure at all for, or no effectual cure for (which, for the cynical, is why I chose pancreatic cancer - we have effectual cures for many other kinds of cancer), and both diseases carry the risk of relapse.

If anything, I'd rather we had a minister for health who needed the healthcare system to work. Same way I'd want the minister for transport to take the bus to work in the morning.

actually, it was only classified as a disease by insurance companies in the US. some doctors wanted them to pay out for the treatment but they would only pay out for treatment of diseases, so the doctors reclassified the condition. you're right though, there is no definitive treatment for it.

as for pancreatic cancer, if it could be caught sooner then i'm sure it could be treated effectively. it's just that at the stage it presents, it's usually too late with an outlook of only a few months.