Irish Language Act in the North: Have Sinn Fein scored a major own goal?

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

That is true. But your previous point is also true....
Therefore there must be a significant number of DUP voters who opposed Brexit, despite the DUP party line. And there is probably another batch of them who only voted for Brexit simply because they always vote according to the party line.

As it turned out, taking that pro-Brexit line was a gamble that paid off, because it put the DUP in a strong bargaining position at Westminster. But supposing it had suited them politically to be anti-Brexit? They could have taken that stance, and still been the same DUP.

But they didn't have to do that, because the SF abstentionism policy made it possible for the DUP to choose either pro or anti, and the best rewards for the party would come from being pro, if pro won. Bad for the people, but good for the party.

In much the same way, Cameron called the Brexit referendum in the first place knowing it would be bad for Britain, but very good for his party before the GE to promise the referendum. So he also put the party before the people. He calculated correctly that by promising the referendum he could take UKIP votes in the GE, and then when he held the referendum afterwards it would finish off the UKIP threat once and for all. But he gambled incorrectly that the people would overwhelmingly vote Remain.

Now obviously in NI there is not going to be much crossover between the hard core supporters of DUP and SF. But a lot of people who vote for these parties are not hard core supporters, they are more moderate, but vote one way or the other for "strategic voting" reasons. These are the votes that "might" have strategically swayed towards SF if people believed they would actually try to use that mandate in Westminster to thwart Brexit.

The DUP did not take any gamble on Brexit.
They did what unionist parties do.
They take whatever position the Tory party takes.

There were numerous other parties standing in the Westminster election that were in favour of staying in the EU.
Those "moderate DUP" voters, (if such voters exist), did not vote for them, so it is fanciful to even imagine they would consider voting for SF even had SF said they would bring their own seats to Westminster and not only swear allegiance, but crawl on their bellies to kiss the Queens two feet while doing so.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

Okay. Well, we all have our problems.

What?

charlie14

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

An admission perhaps ?

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

The DUP did not take any gamble on Brexit.
They did what unionist parties do.
They take whatever position the Tory party takes.

What position was that? Both Cameron and May were Remainers.

Very often politicians will lead their nation down the wrong road because there are small political victories to be won along the way, and political points to be scored, for themselves or their own party.
Tories, DUP and SF have all been guilty of this. They all allowed Brexit to happen.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

What position was that? Both Cameron and May were Remainers.

Very often politicians will lead their nation down the wrong road because there are small political victories to be won along the way, and political points to be scored, for themselves or their own party.
Tories, DUP and SF have all been guilty of this. They all allowed Brexit to happen.

Sinn Féin campaigned against Brexit before the referendum.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

I'm saying somebody else's problem might be that they have compartmentalised their own mind, such that they now believe SF/IRA are, and always were, completely separate and independent of each other.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sinn F campaigned against Brexit before the referendum.

Of course they did in NI, but never at Parliament.
Mind you, there was that one time they went over to "sign up for office space, register for staff allowances and expenses - despite their century-long policy of abstention in the UK Parliament."

recedite

One peculiar thing that emerged after the Brexit referendum was that over in Britain they seemed to be mostly unaware that it would create a problem at the Irish border. Like it was some kind of surprise to them.
Hardly surprising to us though, considering the Irish perspective was being delivered in London by the DUP, unopposed by any alternative speeches.

A far cry from the days of the Blackbird of Avondale, whose tactics were the exact opposite to SF. He'd have drilled his viewpoint into their brains and newspapers with long and boring speeches, so that they could not ignore it.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

What position was that? Both Cameron and May were Remainers.

Very often politicians will lead their nation down the wrong road because there are small political victories to be won along the way, and political points to be scored, for themselves or their own party.
Tories, DUP and SF have all been guilty of this. They all allowed Brexit to happen.

I did not say the DUP take whatever position a Tory individual takes.
I said the DUP takes whatever position the Tory Party takes.

With Cameron being leader of the Tories who do you think forced him to have the referendum other than his own party who were the main drivers for a go vote in that referendum ?

AS to your Tories, DUP and SF allowing Brexit to happen.
Of those three parties do you actually not know that SF were the only party that campaigned for a remain vote in that referendum

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

One peculiar thing that emerged after the Brexit referendum was that over in Britain they seemed to be mostly unaware that it would create a problem at the Irish border. Like it was some kind of surprise to them.
Hardly surprising to us though, considering the Irish perspective was being delivered in London by the DUP, unopposed by any alternative speeches.

A far cry from the days of the Blackbird of Avondale, whose tactics were the exact opposite to SF. He'd have drilled his viewpoint into their brains and newspapers with long and boring speeches, so that they could not ignore it.

If you actually believe that the Irish border issue would have mattered one iota to Brits in favour of leaving the EU when their own economic suicide didn`t, then you are greatly mistaken imho

Charles Stewart Parnell "the Blackbird of Avondale" held the balance of power in Westminster after the 1885 election that left a hung parliament.
How did that work out for him and his Irish Parliamentary Party ?

jm08

recedite wrote: »

Now obviously in NI there is not going to be much crossover between the hard core supporters of DUP and SF. But a lot of people who vote for these parties are not hard core supporters, they are more moderate, but vote one way or the other for "strategic voting" reasons. These are the votes that "might" have strategically swayed towards SF if people believed they would actually try to use that mandate in Westminster to thwart Brexit.

So why didn't they vote for the SDLP or UUP?

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

So why didn't they vote for the SDLP or UUP?

Unfortunately, the message that you need our extremists in power to keep their extremists quiet seems to have hit home in both sides of the divide.

We won't sell out to the DUP/SF (delete as appropriate) while SDLP/UUP (delete as appropriate) will.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Unfortunately, the message that you need our extremists in power to keep their extremists quiet seems to have hit home in both sides of the divide.

We won't sell out to the DUP/SF (delete as appropriate) while SDLP/UUP (delete as appropriate) will.

From the Brexit and the subsequent Westminster GE 2017 votes if there is one section of the Northern Ireland community where that is most obviously prevalent it is unionism.

The DUP campaigned for a leave vote in the Brexit referendum, whereas all nationalist parties and the UUP campaigned to remain.

Northern Ireland voted 56% remain as opposed to 44% voting leave.
In the subsequent Westminster election the DUP recieved 55.6% of the vote.

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

I said the DUP takes whatever position the Tory Party takes.

With Cameron being leader of the Tories who do you think forced him to have the referendum other than his own party who were the main drivers for a go vote in that referendum ?

The party itself did not have a unified position. As I mentioned earlier, Cameron himself wanted the referendum in order to kill off the ongoing UKIP threat to Tory votes, but he miscalculated the outcome of that referendum.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

The party itself did not have a unified position. As I mentioned earlier, Cameron himself wanted the referendum in order to kill off the ongoing UKIP threat to Tory votes, but he miscalculated the outcome of that referendum.

Cameron did not give a commitment to UKIP that he would hold a referendum on the EU.
He gave it to his own Tory party whose members were the main drivers behind the Leave campaign.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

I'm saying somebody else's problem might be that they have compartmentalised their own mind, such that they now believe SF/IRA are, and always were, completely separate and independent of each other.

It's the juvenile way people insinuate stuff about what SF might do and then post stuff the IRA did in a conflict war.

Similar to somebody insinuating that the Tory's might bomb Berlin during Brexit and posting stories from WW2 to prove their case.

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

Charles Stewart Parnell "the Blackbird of Avondale" held the balance of power in Westminster after the 1885 election that left a hung parliament.
How did that work out for him and his Irish Parliamentary Party ?

Parnell came close enough to achieving Home Rule, but in the end he was destroyed politically by an unholy alliance of Unionists, Conservatives and the RC hierarchy.
If he had succeeded we might now be living in a prosperous 32 county unified country having vague historical links to Britain, not unlike Canada or Australia.
The whole history of the "troubles" might have have been avoided.

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nicky-kehoe-facing-hefty-legal-bill-despite-defamation-case-win-36647724.html


Another own goal by Sinn Fein.

They have been trying to stop the media by launching defamation actions and serial complaints to the Press Ombudsman with Gerry Adams being particularly adept at the latter.

While they can claim a partial victory on this one, winning one count out of five, how will poor Nicky be able to pay his and RTE's costs out of his average industrial wage?

This will embolden the media in dealing with Sinn Fein.

FrancieBrady

RTE and one of it's guests get pinged for fairly scurrilous defamanation and it's a SF own goal.
Brill

Red_Wake

Could any legal bod explain to me why Eoin O'Broin wasn't in some way held liable, seeing as he identified Mr Kehoe?

Costello made the allegation that an IRA army council member, but as it was O'Broin that actually identified this person as Mr Kehoe, surely he should be on the hook as much as Mr Costello?

Seems a bit bizarre to me.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

RTE and one of it's guests get pinged for fairly scurrilous defamanation and it's a SF own goal.
Brill

Did you even read about the case?

Five questions asked, only one answered in favour of Kehoe.

Lowest ever award for defamation i.e. jury found he was barely defamed. A very mild defamation rather than the fairly scurrilous you paint it as.

Most of the blame for Costello rather than RTE, and it appears Kehoe forgot to sue Costello.

Kehoe left with a huge legal bill, both his costs and probably RTE's as well to pay out of the average industrial wage.

Media now will be less afraid to name SF members (if any) involved in illegal activity.

Where the real own goal is that the apparent SF tactic of launching defamation actions and complaints to the Press Ombudsman has backfired for once on them and left one of their members with a hefty bill.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Did you even read about the case?

Five questions asked, only one answered in favour of Kehoe.

Lowest ever award for defamation i.e. jury found he was barely defamed. A very mild defamation rather than the fairly scurrilous you paint it as.

Most of the blame for Costello rather than RTE, and it appears Kehoe forgot to sue Costello.

Kehoe left with a huge legal bill, both his costs and probably RTE's as well to pay out of the average industrial wage.

Media now will be less afraid to name SF members (if any) involved in illegal activity.

Where the real own goal is that the apparent SF tactic of launching defamation actions and complaints to the Press Ombudsman has backfired for once on them and left one of their members with a hefty bill.

Did RTE get pinged for defaming him...Yes.

RTE will now have to guard taxpayer money by NOT defaming people.

Costs have not been awarded yet afaik.

And I will pass on the indo view on this, ta.

recedite

Red_Wake wrote: »

Costello made the allegation that an IRA army council member, but as it was O'Broin that actually identified this person as Mr Kehoe, surely he should be on the hook as much as Mr Costello?

The allegation was that "a member of the IRA army council was directing Sinn F representatives on Dublin City Council". The contentious part is not that this person was "directing Sinn F representatives on Dublin City Council". That part would not be considered a secret and could maybe help identify the man without causing any problem for O'Broin in naming him.
The part referring to him as "a member of the IRA army council" is the part being denied by Kehoe, which O'Broin also denied.

Costello seems to have got off scot free, despite being the one making the allegation, because he wasn't named in the defamation action. I doubt this was because they "forgot". More likely its because SF calculated that it would not play well with their core voters in the area for a SF guy to be suing a Labour guy. Whereas SF suing RTE is "sticking it to the man". That tactic seems to have backfired on them though, because most of the blame fell on the guy they didn't sue.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

The allegation was that "a member of the IRA army council was directing Sinn F representatives on Dublin City Council". The contentious part is not that this person was "directing Sinn F representatives on Dublin City Council". That part would not be considered a secret and could maybe help identify the man without causing any problem for O'Broin in naming him.
The part referring to him as "a member of the IRA army council" is the part being denied by Kehoe, which O'Broin also denied.

Costello seems to have got off scot free, despite being the one making the allegation, because he wasn't named in the defamation action. I doubt this was because they "forgot". More likely its because SF calculated that it would not play well with their core voters in the area for a SF guy to be suing a Labour guy. Whereas SF suing RTE is "sticking it to the man". That tactic seems to have backfired on them though, because most of the blame fell on the guy they didn't sue.

Costello was also found to be a defamer. He didn't get off scot anything.

Kehoe had said it wasn't about money.

RTE now liable for what is said on it's shows, so a big slap on the wrist/restrainer for it.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Did you even read about the case?

Five questions asked, only one answered in favour of Kehoe.

Lowest ever award for defamation i.e. jury found he was barely defamed. A very mild defamation rather than the fairly scurrilous you paint it as.

Most of the blame for Costello rather than RTE, and it appears Kehoe forgot to sue Costello.

Kehoe left with a huge legal bill, both his costs and probably RTE's as well to pay out of the average industrial wage.

Media now will be less afraid to name SF members (if any) involved in illegal activity.

Where the real own goal is that the apparent SF tactic of launching defamation actions and complaints to the Press Ombudsman has backfired for once on them and left one of their members with a hefty bill.

Amusing. A clear case of defamation.
Now it's about the amount of the award and a nod to other claims? It was or was not, it was. It's not about costs or who makes the most out of it.
The media will be less afraid? Gymnastics to make it a SF own goal. Trying a little too hard to turn that frown upside down methinks.

FrancieBrady

Yet more grist to the 'DUP have scored a massive own goal' story.

http://eamonnmallie.com/2018/02/foster-forced-fold-dealin-table-eamonn-mallie/

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

Parnell came close enough to achieving Home Rule, but in the end he was destroyed politically by an unholy alliance of Unionists, Conservatives and the RC hierarchy.
If he had succeeded we might now be living in a prosperous 32 county unified country having vague historical links to Britain, not unlike Canada or Australia.
The whole history of the "troubles" might have have been avoided.

Parnell came no closer to achieving Home Rule in the 19th century due to a hung parliament in Westminster, than his successor Redmond in the 20th century.
In 1911 again only due to there being another hung parliament Asquith introduced a Home Rule act which was dead in the water a year before it was drafted due to Craig and Carson forming the Ulster Unionist Party the previous year, 1910.
September 1911 Carson addressed 50,000 Ulster unionists stating " We must be prepared the morning Home Rule passes, ourselves to become responsible for the government of the Protestant province of Ulster"

The Ulster Unionist Party subsequently formed an armed militia The Ulster Volunteer Force.
When British army officers based in the Curragh on March 20th 1914 mutinied declaring they would resign if ordered to Ulster to suppress this armed force, and the British government capitulated, Home Rule was dead in the water.

Parnell`s Home Rule efforts came to nothing. Redmond`s efforts even less, with thousands upon thousands of Irish men marching off to be maimed and slaughtered in the 1914 -1918 war in the belief that by fighting for Britain, Home Rule would be granted.

We all know what subsequently occurred as regards Northern Ireland.
A divided island with the establishment of (with the exception of 3 counties) "the government for a Protestant province of Ulster"

A sectarian, oppressive, gerrymandering government that the DUP are the product off, and who by their recent utterances and actions, have shown that mindset is still their core belief

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Costello was also found to be a defamer. He didn't get off scot anything.

Kehoe had said it wasn't about money.

RTE now liable for what is said on it's shows, so a big slap on the wrist/restrainer for it.

RTE were always liable for what is said on its shows!!!!!

This is one of the first times the contributer was found to be mostly at fault and the media organisation only 35%.

https://www.lawyer.ie/defamation/

Kehoe had said it wasn't about money, and that just agrees with me. It was about Sinn Fein nobbling the media and stopping them from pointing out facts about the past activities of their representatives. It backfired with a big bill.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

RTE were always liable for what is said on its shows!!!!!

This is one of the first times the contributer was found to be mostly at fault and the media organisation only 35%.

https://www.lawyer.ie/defamation/

Kehoe had said it wasn't about money, and that just agrees with me. It was about Sinn Fein nobbling the media and stopping them from pointing out facts about the past activities of their representatives. It backfired with a big bill.

Unless the Indo is now the court of the land...there is NO bill yet. That still has to be heard.

35% is enough to stop RTE from allowing people to slur the character of others.
Kehoe never denied what his past was. It was about what Costello said was happening in the present.

Read the case, not the Indo spin.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Kehoe never denied what his past was.

Yes, that is true, and fair play to him for being honest about it, unlike many others who have followed the well trodden path from IRA gunman to SF politician.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unless the Indo is now the court of the land...there is NO bill yet. That still has to be heard.

35% is enough to stop RTE from allowing people to slur the character of others.
Kehoe never denied what his past was. It was about what Costello said was happening in the present.

Read the case, not the Indo spin.

35% is an awful lot less than the 100% it used to be. A pyrrhic victory for SF.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

35% is an awful lot less than the 100% it used to be. A pyrrhic victory for SF.

They defamed him.

They will be reluctant to do it again as defamation is a shameful act on any broadcasters CV.

Red_Wake

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

35% is an awful lot less than the 100% it used to be. A pyrrhic victory for SF.

They defamed him.

They will be reluctant to do it again as defamation is a shameful act on any broadcasters CV.

You're behaving as if this is the first time RTE have defamed someone.

FrancieBrady

Red_Wake wrote: »

You're behaving as if this is the first time RTE have defamed someone.

No it isn't. But like death by a thousand cuts they will modify behaviour when it comes to subjects like this.
Claire will do what Claire should have done that day, shut the contributor up.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

Yes, that is true, and fair play to him for being honest about it, unlike many others who have followed the well trodden path from IRA gunman to SF politician.

In this country that is hardly unique.

The two largest parties in the country FG and FF come from the exact same background.
FG even having a bit of fascism thrown into the mix along the way thus the term blueshirts often applied to them.

In fact political parties with a violent background is hardly unique worlwide.
Very much a recurring theme in the history of the British Empire.

charlie14

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No it isn't. But like death by a thousand cuts they will modify behaviour when it comes to subjects like this.
Claire will do what Claire should have done that day, shut the contributor up.

Personally I believed from the outset that was the purpose of the exercise and nothing to do with financial compensation.

For me it`s a judgement that should be welcomed in this area regardless of who is involved.
There is more than enough of that behaviour being allowed to run wild on social media without a national broadcaster getting in on the act.

FrancieBrady

charlie14 wrote: »

Personally I believed from the outset that was the purpose of the exercise and nothing to do with financial compensation.

For me it`s a judgement that should be welcomed in this area regardless of who is involved.
There is more than enough of that behaviour being allowed to run wild on social media without a national broadcaster getting in on the act.

Same on boards.ie, if they are SF, you can say/insinuate/allege what you like.

This was just RTE allowing the same thing to happen. A miffed councillor with a grudge decides he can get away with it and is aided and abetted by the presenter.
That was the court finding and justified in my opinion.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That was the court finding and justified in my opinion.

You'll also notice from the court finding that they thought it wasn't a serious enough matter for the high court, and should have been heard in the district court.
Basically what they are saying there is that political figures should have thicker skins than ordinary members of the public. If you don't want your name bandied about like a football, don't get involved in politics.

By the end of the program the allegation had been retracted, and that should have been the end of it IMO.That's what robust debate is all about.

The practical effect of the court saying it wasn't important enough for the high court will be felt when the costs are decided. It will probably mean this case costs SF more than they made out of it from their compo award, and they may even have to pay some of the RTE costs (whatever is over and above what RTE would have spent in the district court).
And that is also as it should be.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

You'll also notice from the court finding that they thought it wasn't a serious enough matter for the high court, and should have been heard in the district court.
Basically what they are saying there is that political figures should have thicker skins than ordinary members of the public. If you don't want your name bandied about like a football, don't get involved in politics.

By the end of the program the allegation had been retracted, and that should have been the end of it IMO.That's what robust debate is all about.

The practical effect of the court saying it wasn't important enough for the high court will be felt when the costs are decided. It will probably mean this case costs SF more than they made out of it from their compo award, and they may even have to pay some of the RTE costs (whatever is over and above what RTE would have spent in the district court).
And that is also as it should be.

Sometimes it is worth paying to set a precedent. Why would people who think it is ok and fair game to do something like this think it was anything other than frivolous, that is just their own protection mechanism's kicking in.

You can be guaranteed that RTE will learn a lesson from being found guilty of defamation and will be less likely to risk it again.

recedite

They will both learn a lesson. There's two lessons here.
1. Facilitating defamation can cost you money.
2. Being a cry baby can cost you money when you insist on taking people to court over trivial matters.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

They will both learn a lesson. There's two lessons here.
1. Facilitating defamation can cost you money.
2. Being a cry baby can cost you money when you insist on taking people to court over trivial matters.

There has been no finding on costs btw.

Well done to you and blanch on trying to extract something from a pitiful outcome for a national broadcaster.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

You'll also notice from the court finding that they thought it wasn't a serious enough matter for the high court, and should have been heard in the district court.
Basically what they are saying there is that political figures should have thicker skins than ordinary members of the public. If you don't want your name bandied about like a football, don't get involved in politics.

By the end of the program the allegation had been retracted, and that should have been the end of it IMO.That's what robust debate is all about.

The practical effect of the court saying it wasn't important enough for the high court will be felt when the costs are decided. It will probably mean this case costs SF more than they made out of it from their compo award, and they may even have to pay some of the RTE costs (whatever is over and above what RTE would have spent in the district court).
And that is also as it should be.

I feel like another poster on here your posts when it comes to a certain political party are transparently reminiscent of that of some soccer supporters where Manchester United are concerned.
ABU.

recedite

charlie14 wrote: »

your posts when it comes to a certain political party are transparently reminiscent of that of some soccer supporters where Manchester United are concerned.
ABU.

Do mean football?

Ah no, I don't mind saying Pearse Doherty is the Carlsberg of Irish politicians.. probably the best one in the country.

charlie14

recedite wrote: »

Do mean football?

Ah no, I don't mind saying Pearse Doherty is the Carlsberg of Irish politicians.. probably the best one in the country.

Naw.

Football is played under the rules of Cumann Lúthcleas Gael.
Soccer is a snooze fest.

I have seen many posters on Boards.ie having a go at SF on the basis of fiscal policy.
To me Doherty in the last GE election campaign was the sharpest of the lot in that regard.
At least he knew what the fiscal space was which was more than could be said for the Minister for Finance.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Same on boards.ie, if they are SF, you can say/insinuate/allege what you like.

This was just RTE allowing the same thing to happen. A miffed councillor with a grudge decides he can get away with it and is aided and abetted by the presenter.
That was the court finding and justified in my opinion.

No it wasn't the court finding. A very funny interpretation though.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sometimes it is worth paying to set a precedent. Why would people who think it is ok and fair game to do something like this think it was anything other than frivolous, that is just their own protection mechanism's kicking in.

You can be guaranteed that RTE will learn a lesson from being found guilty of defamation and will be less likely to risk it again.

It will be the opposite. RTE will learn that they aren't fully liable when a guest says something while in the past they were. That will allow them to let a guest say something but shut them down quicker.

The media will be delighted with this result. The extra publicity for RTE was well worth the small sum.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

I feel like another poster on here your posts when it comes to a certain political party are transparently reminiscent of that of some soccer supporters where Manchester United are concerned.
ABU.

And there is nothing wrong with ABU.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No it wasn't the court finding. A very funny interpretation though.

The court held that the broadcaster was partially responsible for what the guest said and for not stopping it.

Here is an assessment of the case and what it now means for broadcasters. Again, the 'own goal' is RTE's.

One way of interpreting the outcome is that just because someone was an IRA gunman in the past, it doesn’t mean it’s open season forever in terms of attacking their character. Journalists and media organisations take note.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/defamation-judgment-may-be-bad-news-for-talk-show-guests-1.3406640

boards.ie might also be well advised to note the above when somebody insinuates and alleges stuff here without back up or proof. And act in the way they would if it was a member of FG or FF.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

It will be the opposite. RTE will learn that they aren't fully liable when a guest says something while in the past they were. That will allow them to let a guest say something but shut them down quicker.

The media will be delighted with this result. The extra publicity for RTE was well worth the small sum.

If you believe that then you must believe it`s possible to be partially pregnant.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

And there is nothing wrong with ABU.

That you have that subjective point of view does not surprise me tbh.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The court held that the broadcaster was partially responsible for what the guest said and for not stopping it.

Here is an assessment of the case and what it now means for broadcasters. Again, the 'own goal' is RTE's.



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/defamation-judgment-may-be-bad-news-for-talk-show-guests-1.3406640

boards.ie might also be well advised to note the above when somebody insinuates and alleges stuff here without back up or proof. And act in the way they would if it was a member of FG or FF.

You are really funny now. The finding was that the broadcast found he wasn't suitable for politics because he was accused of organising the TDs!!!!

charlie14 wrote: »

If you believe that then you must believe it`s possible to be partially pregnant.

Not a comparison at all. Apportioning a part of the blame for defamation to the guest speaker is a new development, everything else about the case was par for the course.