Iona vs Panti

Annasopra

Cabaal wrote: »

You've got to be ****ing kidding me!

John Waters’ replacement on the Broadcasting Authority is...

Former Irish Times journalist Séamus Martin,

You know, brother to this guy

From anything I've heard he is the antithesis of Iona and his brother

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't think you are understanding how this work. If the homphobe allegations had any basis in fact they don't need any "funds". They have their day in court and they win and it doesn't cost them anything.

If the allegations are damaging and unfounded they are sued by people who understandably want to clear their name. The guilty party tries to cut a deal whereby they apologise to the innocent and wronged party and cut a deal which involves a pay-off so as to avoid being sued.

This is exactly what has happened here, RTE have absolutely no reason to hand out free cash and make public apologies if they weren't in the wrong.

In court the innocent party doesn't always win and more pertinently, a law isn't always correct. Peregrinus, explained RTE's dilemma really well.

Links234

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Alternatively, maybe the next time either Iona or JW makes unfounded and damaging allegations against homosexuals, a large number of homosexuals should threaten lawsuits against them and whatever medium was broadcasting them.

It would genuinely tempt me to do so

Brown Bomber

Links234 wrote: »

If? IF?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhckuhUxcgA

Yes, "if". I am a firm believer in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". How about you?

Since RTE have swiftly apologised and paid out compensation it stands to reason that they cannot prove anything at all. So I consider Waters et al innocent.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes, "if". I am a firm believer in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". How about you?

Since RTE have swiftly apologised and paid out compensation it stands to reason that they cannot prove anything at all. So I consider Waters et al innocent.

And RTE haven't been found guilty of defamation so they are also innocent. Just because they paid out doesn't mean they couldn't defend the charge if they went to court.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Given RTE's reluctance to even comment on the payments, and the payments being out of the remit of the BAI, might it be better to bring this to the attention of Public Accounts Committee? It's under the PAC's remit to ensure that taxpayers gets their moneys worth from where their taxes go, and as the RTE is a semi-state body funded by the public (soon to be every member of the public, when the broadcast tax comes in), it could be argued that RTE should be obliged to spend it's money (well, our money) in the interest of promoting open debate for all.

Alternatively, maybe the next time either Iona or JW makes unfounded and damaging allegations against homosexuals, a large number of homosexuals should threaten lawsuits against them and whatever medium was broadcasting them.

Could it be argued that RTE should be able to libel at will? Because if they keep throwing out unfounded and damaging allegations it is going to get very expensive for them because the same thing will just keep happening over and over.

Dave!

BB stop being disingenuous—you know full well that it's not quite as straight-forward as that. There may be plenty of reasons why they wouldn't want to go to court:
–Being right isn't always enough—the court may take a different view to RTE's legal team. Why take the risk? Iona may have been happy with a token amount in the settlement.
–Getting dragged into a high profile defamation case may not be the kind of PR that RTE are seeking at the moment. They probably would have been expecting that the quick settlement would end the matter.
–There are suggestions of an improper relationship between RTE and Iona; maybe that was a factor? I'm not suggesting that there is, or that it was, of course.

You can drop the faux-naïf act methinks.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

And RTE haven't been found guilty of defamation so they are also innocent. Just because they paid out doesn't mean they couldn't defend the charge if they went to court.

Could you explain the public apology then?

Turtwig

Bb,

If someone sends in a legal request to boardsie about your post about 'drag queen' it will be deleted. Media sites like boards or even larger ones like RTE generally do not want to contest libel or defamation in court because they're way too costly. Especially if you lose. So, let me ask you this, would you consider yourself guilty simply because boards.ie wouldn't go to court over your comment?

I wouldn't. I'd argue that your post shouldn't have you threatened with legal damages but that's not the way the law is. If someone reports that post. A mod or admin will delete it and a public apology may or may not have to be offered. The cost of losing is far too high.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you explain the public apology then?

didn't want to go to court.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you explain the public apology then?

Defamation would end in the high court. Going on rough recollection, each case would cost roughly €80,000 - that's one sides costs, not awards etc.

Links234

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How about you?

Iona are a deeply homophobic 'institution', whose membership are deeply homophobic people, like homophobe David Quinn, and they are constantly espousing deeply homophobic opinions. You might as well be saying to me that the sky should be innocent of being blue until proven guilty.

Nodin

Links234 wrote: »

Iona are a deeply homophobic 'institution', whose membership are deeply homophobic people, like homophobe David Quinn, and they are constantly espousing deeply homophobic opinions. You might as well be saying to me that the sky should be innocent of being blue until proven guilty.

And certainly waters has two text book remarks in the public arena that clearly fall under the label 'homophobic'.

Links234

Nodin wrote: »

And certainly waters has two text book remarks in the public arena that clearly fall under the label 'homophobic'.

Not to mention misogynistic.

Nodin

Links234 wrote: »

Not to mention misogynistic.

And that, and that.

Amongst other things, the thought of such a loathsome creature receiving payment has prompted me to decide to attend Sundays protest, and thus drag my aging carcass out into daylight.

Links234

Btw: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfPlTWHCUAA9cMI.jpg:large

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

Bb,

If someone sends in a legal request to boardsie about your post about 'drag queen' it will be deleted. Media sites like boards or even larger ones like RTE generally do not want to contest libel or defamation in court because they're way too costly. Especially if you lose. So, let me ask you this, would you consider yourself guilty simply because boards.ie wouldn't go to court over your comment?

I wouldn't. I'd argue that your post shouldn't have you threatened with legal damages but that's not the way the law is. If someone reports that post. A mod or admin will delete it and a public apology may or may not have to be offered. The cost of losing is far too high.

Point taken. Though you are shifting around the burden of proof. I hope the mods will excuse my use of the term "drag queen" momentarily given the context.

It is a demonstrable fact that Rory is a drag queen. The truth is my defense. If I or boards were taken to court for libel then beyond a shadow of a doubt I/we win and the accuser pays the costs. If I was approached in the interim to settle out of court I'd tell the accuser to go **** themselves. I would continue to proudly proclaim this fact without any fear as it's the truth and the system doesn't punish truth tellers but tellers of falsehoods.

Has Rory repeated his homophobic accusations? I doubt it, and if he hasn't then that is extremely telling as to whether Waters and co are homophobic.

He has nothing to fear from speaking the truth. It is apparently not a demonstrable fact that Waters is a homophobe and this is where I apply the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Defamation would end in the high court. Going on rough recollection, each case would cost roughly €80,000 - that's one sides costs, not awards etc.

Here is a similar case. Frankie Boyle sued The Mirror for calling him "racist".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221486/Frankie-Boyle-Comedian-wins-54-000-libel-payout-branded-racist-Daily-Mirror.html

Phill Ewinn

Its unprovable. I doubt I'm gong to get any kind of agreement on this thread. Being opposed to same sex marriage isn't homophobic in itself. Some gay people are also against gay marriage. Guess what? They are not homophbes either.

Brown Bomber

Links234 wrote: »

Iona are a deeply homophobic 'institution', whose membership are deeply homophobic people, like homophobe David Quinn, and they are constantly espousing deeply homophobic opinions. You might as well be saying to me that the sky should be innocent of being blue until proven guilty.

How does that answer my question? I asked you if you value the principle of "innocent until proven guilty.

All you have done is made more accusations.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Point taken. Though you are shifting around the burden of proof. I hope the mods will excuse my use of the term "drag queen" momentarily given the context.

It is a demonstrable fact that Rory is a drag queen. The truth is my defense. If I or boards were taken to court for libel then beyond a shadow of a doubt I/we win and the accuser pays the costs. If I was approached in the interim to settle out of court I'd tell the accuser to go **** themselves. I would continue to proudly proclaim this fact without any fear as it's the truth and the system doesn't punish truth tellers but tellers of falsehoods.

Has Rory repeated his homophobic accusations? I doubt it, and if he hasn't then that is extremely telling as to whether Waters and co are homophobic.

He has nothing to fear from speaking the truth. It is apparently not a demonstrable fact that Waters is a homophobe and this is where I apply the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

Nothing to fear from speaking the truth? Rory received multiple solicitors letters, was censored by the national broadcaster which subsequently apologised and paid off Iona + Waters.

I doubt Rory has the deep pockets needed to go to court to defend the allegations of defaming Waters + Iona.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here is a similar case. Frankie Boyle sued The Mirror for calling him "racist".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221486/Frankie-Boyle-Comedian-wins-54-000-libel-payout-branded-racist-Daily-Mirror.html

...which he clearly wasn't, as he was making a joke that satirised racist attitudes and has a history of such.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its unprovable. I doubt I'm gong to get any kind of agreement on this thread. Being opposed to same sex marriage isn't homophobic in itself. Some gay people are also against gay marriage. Guess what? They are not homophbes either.

Thanks for the vague endlessly repeated generalties phill, the thread is better for your contribution.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

Nothing to fear from speaking the truth? Rory received multiple solicitors letters, was censored by the national broadcaster which subsequently apologised and paid off Iona + Waters.

I doubt Rory has the deep pockets needed to go to court to defend the allegations of defaming Waters + Iona.

Feel like I am banging my head against a wall now.

If Rory is going to make such a nasty accusation on national tv then he has already been exposed to this "proof" . If not, then what was he basing he accusation on?

Why is this "proof" good enough for him to slander people but at the same time sub-standard for a court?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Feel like I am banging my head against a wall now.

I can assure you, you're not the only one.

If Rory is going to make such a nasty accusation on national tv then he has already been exposed to this "proof" . If not, then what was he basing he accusation on?

Yes, he has proof. So what, doesn't mean he can afford multiple defamation court cases in the high court.

Why is this "proof" good enough for him to slander people but at the same time sub-standard for a court?

Never said it was sub-standard for court. Said Rory probably can't afford the cost of taking on the cases.

Delirium

@BB and now that I think of it, we don't know Rory isn't going to court. All we know is what Rte did.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

I can assure you, you're not the only one.

Yes, he has proof. So what, doesn't mean he can afford multiple defamation court cases in the high court.

Never said it was sub-standard for court. Said Rory probably can't afford the cost of taking on the cases.

If he has "proof" then there is no cost. He can represent himself and simply present this smoking gun "evidence". He wins and is vindicated.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If he has "proof" then there is no cost. He can represent himself and simply present this smoking gun "evidence". He wins and is vindicated.

Childish simplistic tosh.

Links234

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How does that answer my question? I asked you if you value the principle of "innocent until proven guilty.

All you have done is made more accusations.

All I have said is that water is wet.

Dave!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If he has "proof" then there is no cost. He can represent himself and simply present this smoking gun "evidence". He wins and is vindicated.

Someone ban this guy please. Clearly trolling now.

Phill Ewinn

Dave! wrote: »

Someone ban this guy please. Clearly trolling now.

How is he trolling? Also you should know better. Theres a "report" button on the left.

Dave!

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

How is he trolling? Also you should know better. Theres a "report" button on the left.

He's trolling because I know he's not dumb enough to be genuine when he makes asinine points like the one I quoted.

Yes I'll report it now...

Brown Bomber

Links234 wrote: »

All I have said is that water is wet.

Right, but what I am trying to establish is if you value the principle of innocent until proven guilty?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

@BB and now that I think of it, we don't know Rory isn't going to court. All we know is what Rte did.

And this "proof" you say that Rory is in possession of, that which makes his accusation truthful, why didn't he share it with RTE's legal department?

5uspect

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its unprovable. I doubt I'm gong to get any kind of agreement on this thread. Being opposed to same sex marriage isn't homophobic in itself. Some gay people are also against gay marriage. Guess what? They are not homophbes either.

Being opposed to equal rights for homosexuals when the arguments used against it are incorrect, or outright lies is indeed homophobic and even bigoted when one simply refuses to change their viewpoint when informed of this.

The Iona 'institute' is guilty of this with their attempt to mislead the Constitutional Convention while John Waters persists in claiming that gay marriage is actually an attempt to destroy society by the gheys.

Now can you provide a reason why two consenting adults who very much love each other cannot enter into a marriage?

david75

As usual, Phil is shooting in the dark and pulling made up facts out of the sky.
You'd be hard pressed to find any gay people against gay marriage. They may not want to get married themselves, but they do want to enjoy full equality and the option to marry.
Which is a totally different thing.

King Mob

I like how BB is now calling for the presumption of innocence in the absence of legal proof when a month ago he was very falsely accusing people here of having a conflict of interest and of faking statistics.

But then Boards isn't a national broadcaster, so I suppose you can claim whatever without proof as along as you're anonymous.

Brown Bomber

david75 wrote: »

As usual, Phil is shooting in the dark and pulling made up facts out of the sky.
You'd be hard pressed to find any gay people against gay marriage. They may not want to get married themselves, but they do want to enjoy full equality and the option to marry.
Which is a totally different thing.

Here is one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTBR1fcnfOw

Phill Ewinn

5uspect wrote: »

Being opposed to equal rights for homosexuals when the arguments used against it are incorrect, or outright lies is indeed homophobic and even bigoted when one simply refuses to change their viewpoint when informed of this.

The Iona 'institute' is guilty of this with their attempt to mislead the Constitutional Convention while John Waters persists in claiming that gay marriage is actually an attempt to destroy society by the gheys.

Now can you provide a reason why two consenting adults who very much love each other cannot enter into a marriage?

I can safely say no one is opposing equal rights. What Iona or Waters believe has nothing to.do with me and I don't need to comment.

What you're doing here is trying to associate opposition to same sex marriage with homophobia. This is highly flawed and you know that. I have pointed this out earlier.

Its not rocket surgery.

Phill Ewinn

david75 wrote: »

As usual, Phil is shooting in the dark and pulling made up facts out of the sky.
You'd be hard pressed to find any gay people against gay marriage. They may not want to get married themselves, but they do want to enjoy full equality and the option to marry.
Which is a totally different thing.

Reported

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here is one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTBR1fcnfOw

Hard pressed does not mean impossible, just statistically rare. Look hard enough and you'll find people who believe the world is flat.

Out of the next hundred gays you meet in random encounters find one who opposes gay marriage. Out of the next 470 find one who opposes

david75

I'd report you but it's to be the guards to be honest.
Incitement to hatred across multiple threads and general homophobia.
You can't get arrested for being thick.
Lucky you!

5uspect

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I can safely say no one is opposing equal rights. What Iona or Waters believe has nothing to.do with me and I don't need to comment.

What you're doing here is trying to associate opposition to same sex marriage with homophobia. This is highly flawed and you know that. I have pointed this out earlier.

Its not rocket surgery.

I've done nothing of the sort. I've simply explained to you why opposition to gay marriage can be considered homophobic when the arguments used are invalid and when this is pointed out to the person opposing gay marriage they continue to hold that untenable position. This exposes their underlying prejudices.

This isn't saying that I disagree with your view, this is simply about factual statements about research and people misrepresenting it or cherry picking results to suit their view point. This is what Iona are clearly guilty of.

Another matter is if you oppose gay marriage and why.

david75

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its unprovable. I doubt I'm gong to get any kind of agreement on this thread. Being opposed to same sex marriage isn't homophobic in itself. Some gay people are also against gay marriage. Guess what? They are not homophbes either.

Reported.

Brown Bomber

david75 wrote: »

Reported.

For what?

david75

Jernal wrote: »

Hard pressed does not mean impossible, just statistically rare. Look hard enough and you'll find people who believe the world is flat.

Out of the next hundred gays you meet in random encounters find one who opposes gay marriage. Out of the next 470 find one who opposes

Find me a similar video, made in Ireland with Irish gay people speaking out and I'll discuss it. This one is irrelevant.

Sarky

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I can safely say no one is opposing equal rights.

You are. You're against gay people having the same right to civil marriage that straight people do. And you've offered absolutely nothing in the way of rational explanations as to why. Any research you quote has been debunked. Any logic you try to use has been show as flawed. All you have is your belief that giving gay people the same right to marry as straight people will somehow destroy society. You never explain HOW it'll destroy society.

You want gay people to be discriminated against, and the only reasons you have to do so are irrational.

david75

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For what?

Homophobia, trolling across multiple threads and general odious behaviour.

Phill Ewinn

5uspect wrote: »

I've done nothing of the sort. I've simply explained to you why opposition to gay marriage can be considered homophobic when the arguments used are invalid and when this is pointed out to the person opposing gay marriage they continue to hold that untenable position. This exposes their underlying prejudices.

This isn't saying that I disagree with your view, this is simply about factual statements about research and people misrepresenting it or cherry picking results to suit their view point. This is what Iona are clearly guilty of.

Another matter is if you oppose gay marriage and why.

Rory could lose the shirt off his back or the roof over his head because of a simple rant. I rant I thought was hilarious. Waters didn't find it funny. The fact that theres people on here provoking him into an unwinable court battle is astounding.
Surely waters could just pick up the phone and have half a dozen gay people appear as witnesses that share his views on marriage? I don't get the fuss. If Rory gets a few gigs out of this thats great. But tgats all I thought he intended it to be. A publicity stunt.

david75

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Rory could lose the shirt off his back or the roof over his head because of a simple rant. I rant I thought was hilarious. Waters didn't find it funny. The fact that theres people on here provoking him into an unwinable court battle is astounding.
Surely waters could just pick up the phone and have half a dozen gay people appear as witnesses that share his views on marriage? I don't get the fuss. If Rory gets a few gigs out of this thats great. But tgats all I thought he intended it to be. A publicity stunt.

Provoking him? Em, as usual you're wrong. He didn't go to his solicitors or want to bring anything to court. Your pals did.
Also he hardly needs publicity and is above stunts to gain them. He's a leader and a brilliant spokesperson for the LGBTQ community in Ireland. Head along to Pride this year and listen to his keynote. An amazing orator and a huge intellect.

Really hope that he's taking part in the debate on RTE this Saturday. He'll make mincemeat of Waters and O Brien.