Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

the culture of deference

Sarky wrote: »

Probably worried about David Quinn suing like he did with that student newspaper. It doesn't matter if it's a quote, he's a thin-skinned fellow and even if he doesn't have a case, I imagine it's not worth the trouble of getting harassed by his lawyer(s).

Nothing stopping you from mocking him on Twitter. >_>

Yeah but he can only sue the original publication, he cannot sue someone for quoting it. I am not on twitter.

Beruthiel

Sarky wrote: »

Nothing stopping you from mocking him on Twitter. >_>

I just spent a couple of minutes reading his twitter a/c.
The man is way to frustrating to follow.
They haven't invented the 'knife you can stab people in the eye through the internet with' yet.
Until they do, I must protect my blood pressure.

Sarky

He's worth following, if only for the joy of reading replies to his insane bullsh*t. They're often beautifully witty.

Beruthiel

Fine.
I'll give him a week.
But, my blood pressure is on your head young man.

Sarky

That's what the wine is for though, right? Are you going to get angry at me for making you drink wine?

Galvasean

It'd be interesting to get a breakdown of how many of his followers on Twitter break down into the following categories:
- those who generally want to hear what he has to say and generally agree with him
- those who generally want to hear what he has to say and generally disagree with him
- media outlets looking for quotes
- fer the lulz

Bannasidhe

Galvasean wrote: »

It'd be interesting to get a breakdown of how many of his followers on Twitter break down into the following categories:
- those who generally want to hear what he has to say and generally agree with him
- those who generally want to hear what he has to say and generally disagree with him
- media outlets looking for quotes
- fer the lulz

Could we add a 'those who don't for the blood pressure'?

Corkfeen

I read his twitter but would never actually follow that.... I just feel that it'd ruin my street cred etc.... Plus the blood pressure of course.

Morag

Their last set of public accounts http://changefundraising.blogspot.ie/2013/05/iona-institutes-accounts-2011.html

Galvasean

Corkfeen wrote: »

I read his twitter but would never actually follow that.... I just feel that it'd ruin my street cred etc.... Plus the blood pressure of course.

The fake account is much better (although sometimes it's easy to get them mixed up).

the culture of deference

Beruthiel wrote: »

They haven't invented the 'knife you can stab people in the eye through the internet with' yet.
Until they do, I must protect my blood pressure.

Until they invent that you could just go down the jay and silent bob route

Galvasean wrote: »

It'd be interesting to get a breakdown of how many of his followers on Twitter break down into the following categories:
- those who generally want to hear what he has to say and generally agree with him

We should start investigating who these people are and what influence they have on our society. As I have said here before, if you believe and agree with him then you are not fit to be in any position of authority.

Here are some of them

David quinn

Professor Patricia Casey: Patricia Casey is a senior consultant psychiatrist at the Mater Hospital in Dublin, as well as a lecturer at University College, Dublin.
Breda O'Brien: Breda O'Brien is a teacher and a columnist with The Irish Times. She is best known for her commentary on religious and social affairs.
Dr James Sheehan: James Sheehan is founder of the Blackrock, Galway Clinics and Hermitage Clinics, private medical facilities which operate according to a Catholic ethos.
Vincent Twomey: Fr Twomey is a member of the Divine Word Missionaries. He was professor of moral theology at St Patrick's College, Maynooth, until 2006. He is one of Ireland's foremost experts in Catholic moral theology.

Other Members:

Pat Kenny. Mr Kenny is a lecturer in marketing.
Sean Ascough is a self-employed Chartered Mechanical and Electrical Engineer and has almost twenty years experience of youth evangelisation and other religious initiatives.[/B]
Tom Ascough is a consultant engineer who has 15 years experience in youth evangelisation programmes.
Maeve Kelleher is married with six children. She is a stay-at-home mother.
Dr John Murray is a lecturer at Mater Dei Institute.
Dr Brendan Purcell is a former lecturer in philosophy at UCD and is a priest of the Dublin diocese.
John Reid is Managing Partner of law firm, O'Rourke Reid.

And for a laugh


A growing body of scientific research highlights numerous benefits of religious practice. In 2009, ]the Iona Institute launched a paper by well-known psychiatrist Professor Patricia Casey called ‘The Psycho-Social Benefits of Religious Practice’.

The paper examines the various scientific studies done in this area and these show that religious practice is associated, on average, with:

- Lower levels of depression
- Lower levels of marital breakdown
- Lower levels of alcohol and drug abuse
- Lower levels of pregnancy among teenagers
- Faster recovery from bereavement
- Faster recovery from illness
- Longer life expectancy, etc.


That's kinda convenient isn't it

Hotblack Desiato

Morag wrote: »

Their last set of public accounts http://changefundraising.blogspot.ie/2013/05/iona-institutes-accounts-2011.html

Principal Activity

The principal activity of the company is the promotion and advancement of religion and the education of the public with regard to marriage.

They have the cheek to call their ridiculous homophobic bigoted propaganda education ?

robindch

the culture of deference wrote: »

A growing body of scientific research highlights numerous benefits of religious practice. In 2009, ]the Iona Institute launched a paper by well-known psychiatrist Professor Patricia Casey called ‘The Psycho-Social Benefits of Religious Practice’. The paper examines the various scientific studies done in this area and these show that religious practice is associated, on average, with:

Ms Casey's paper showed all of these fine benefits by forgetting to mention the greater number of scientific papers which showed exactly the opposite.

mambo

the culture of deference wrote: »

Maeve Kelleher is married with six children. She is a stay-at-home mother.

Meave Kelleher is being very modest. She is also director of 13 companies (including Iona Institute / Lolek Ltd) and a retired director of 14 more.
https://www.duedil.com/director/700208479/maeve-kelleher

Hippo

the culture of deference wrote: »

Yeah but he can only sue the original publication, he cannot sue someone for quoting it. I am not on twitter.

That's not quite true, you would have to be able to show you quoted it 'innocently'.

Galvasean

"Poisonous cabbage for all!!

the culture of deference

Galvasean wrote: »

"Poisonous cabbage for all!!

David quinn poisonous country Bi

Bobby42

Was listening to Nova earlier when it cut to the news headlines, and what was the lead story?

Breda O' Briens opinion!

"Fine Gael promised not to legislate for the X case before the election, save the babies, rabble rabble rabble..."

I thought their unending media attention was limited to Pat Kenny, prime time. But now its headline news. Fair enough it was about the vigil for hypocrisy, but still!

Galvasean

"Fine Gael promised not to legislate for the X case before the election,"

They actually didn't. One of the many 'pro-life' myths floating around.

Doctor Strange

Galvasean wrote: »

They actually didn't. One of the many 'pro-life' myths floating around.

Tell a lie enough etc.

edanto

Did anyone ever find out where the Iona Institute gets their funding from?

The accounts are curious - one employee in 2010, none in 2011, but still the same salary spend of 70k. I wonder how they spent 70k on salaries with no employees?

Hotblack Desiato

edanto wrote: »

Did anyone ever find out where the Iona Institute gets their funding from?

RTE :rolleyes:

dinneenp

Sorry if it's been posted already - why did they threaten to sue RTE when the comment came from a guest on the show and not the presenter?

Turtwig

dinneenp wrote: »

Sorry if it's been posted already - why did they threaten to sue RTE when the comment came from a guest on the show and not the presenter?

.

Peregrinus wrote: »

RTE broadcast the allegations to millions. To be liable in defamation you don't have to originate a defamatory comment; just to publish it. Nearly all factual claims which newspapers, broadcasters, etc publish is material that they have not originated, but they are still liable for publishing those allegations, if they are defamatory.

dinneenp

Jernal wrote: »

.

But if it's a live show so they can't control what is said. Whereas a newspaper can.....

Mark Hamill

dinneenp wrote: »

But if it's a live show so they can't control what is said. Whereas a newspaper can.....

The law may not recognise the difference though. I wonder if RTE had a disclaimer at the start of these kind of shows stating that the views expressed by guests are the guests views alone, would that protect them from defamation claims?


Also, going by what Peregrinus said, does it mean that if someone puts something defaming online, could the web host be sued for defamation?

lynski

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The law may not recognise the difference though. I wonder if RTE had a disclaimer at the start of these kind of shows stating that the views expressed by guests are the guests views alone, would that protect them from defamation claims?


Also, going by what Peregrinus said, does it mean that if someone puts something defaming online, could the web host be sued for defamation?

Yes in short. However, and i did not see the show, my understanding is that he said it was his opinion and he qualified it by explaining the context, rte should not have paid those homophobes*


*my definition of homophobe is one who seeks to deny to homosexual people that which is allowed to heterosexual people. The commonly understood meaning if the word. And thus is my opinion only not that of boards or anyone affiliated with boards or anyone who reads this post aloud or silently.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The law may not recognise the difference though. I wonder if RTE had a disclaimer at the start of these kind of shows stating that the views expressed by guests are the guests views alone, would that protect them from defamation claims?

No. The point about defamation is to compensate the person defamed for the damage to their reputation. Their damage to their reputation is magnified hugely by having a defamatory statement served up to millions. It's the broadcaster that does that. Whether they intended to damage the person's reputation is largely beside the point; the damage is just as real whether it's intended or not.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Also, going by what Peregrinus said, does it mean that if someone puts something defaming online, could the web host be sued for defamation?

Yes.

But.

There is a defence of "innocent dissemination", available to someone who has published a defamatory statement but who can say (a) I didn't know that what I was publishing contained a defamatory statement, and (b) I couldn't, by exercising reasonable care, have known about it.

Libraries, for instance, are not expected to read every book in stock before putting it on the shelves, so if they issue a book containg a defamatory statement to a reader that's "publication" as far as the law of defamation goes, but the defence of innnocent dissemination will normally be available. But if the book is notoriously defamatory, or if they have already had complaints about its defamatory nature but left it on the shelves, then they can't rely on the defence.

So if ISPs, etc, remove or block material once people object to it, they're generally in the clear.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is a defence of "innocent dissemination", available to someone who has published a defamatory statement but who can say (a) I didn't know that what I was publishing contained a defamatory statement, and (b) I couldn't, by exercising reasonable care, have known about it.

Would a live TV show not be able to claim this defence? Say, for instance, that RTE is showing a rugby match live and someone in the crowd holds up a sign saying "Such and such person is a Homophobe!". Could that person sue RTE for that, or could RTE say that they had no reasonable way of stopping such a thing on a live show and all they can do is make sure to remove it from any recordings?

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Would a live TV show not be able to claim this defence? Say, for instance, that RTE is showing a rugby match live and someone in the crowd holds up a sign saying "Such and such person is a Homophobe!". Could that person sue RTE for that, or could RTE say that they had no reasonable way of stopping such a thing on a live show and all they can do is make sure to remove it from any recordings?

In the example you give, the broadcaster would probably be fine,

But the facts in Pantigate are not quite like this. When the show's host, an RTE employee, says "you're not calling John Waters a homophobe, are you?", and RTE broadcasts the response to that question, "innocent dissemination" is unlikely to stand up. RTE could with reasonably care have avoided broadcasting the defamatory response (let's assume that it was defamatory) by simply not asking that question.

A live broadcast is one thing; a live broadcast of an event that you have organised and are running and are supposed to be in contol of is not quite the same.