Mary Lou MacDonald suing RTE

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003452#Comment_119003452

Why the inconsistency then Brucie?

Anyone who tried to say that it appears that MLMD has no legitimate case to answer (given what is reported) is drowned out with "but she has the right to do it. Why are you trying to deny her legal right to seek redress..." ... a bit of consistency goes a long way.

Playing your own game, you cannot prove what MB was going to claim under. There was no court case and no court report of what was alleged or the court findings. Does that mean we cannot criticise her now?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003486#Comment_119003486

And nobody had issue with her moving the case in 2015. When the details came out the case fell apart and SHE dropped it voluntarily…nobody else did that.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003542#Comment_119003542

So we are back to what I said. Francie supports MB and her case and is against those that bullied or pressured her into withdrawing it. That's fine Francie. You can support her if you want to. I think she was wrong to do it (even though she was entitled to do it). You think she was right to do it. We can agree to disagree

FrancieBrady

Now you are having to lie. Sad but not surprising.

I support her right to take a case Donald and yours and Leo and MLMD.

Once again…do you?

mikethecop

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003441#Comment_119003441

and if a politician lies ..... ?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003615#Comment_119003615

Sadly they do, all the time.

We seem to be at the stage where the question is,are you right to do it,just because you can

I may stand corrected but no politician wrongly accused of breaking pandemic laws in clifden have taken a case

Theres no doubt in my mind that their reputations were damaged

So they've taken the higher moral ground

macvin

Ms. McDonald and other sinn fein TDs seem to like using dail privilege to make defamatory and false statements on a regular basis.

They avoid repeating these statements outside the protection of the dail.

One rule for them etc etc

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003583#Comment_119003583

See Francie, I'm not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or whether you are just continually trying to create a crude and unsophisticated strawman. So you've flipped back to being inconsistent and hypocritical depending on the persons badge/jersey? I thought we were making progress there for a while.

I have many posts where I said that MLMD is entitled to sue. The exact same as MB was entitled to sue. There is no benefit to you continually throwing that up as a strawman as everyone can see it is purely a sad attempt at deflection and distraction.

Going next to whether they were right to sue, I do not think either was right to do it. Both come across as opportunistic based on what we know. In MBs case, there was a definite cause of action. In MLMD case, nobody has been able to identify even a possible cause of action. I think it was you that first called MBs case a "bogus case". It wasn't a bogus case at all. A bogus case is where there was no incident. There was definitely an accepted incident for MBs case. In contrast, there hasn't been anything identified that people could reasonably guess that might be actionable.

So can we agree on two things? :

1) That we don't know the exact details of what MLMD has claimed. We don't know what the incident was or when.

2) That there is nothing which is defamatory in the interview which has been reported (but not confirmed) as being the one that caused the issue. (She may of course be filing on a completely different issue)

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003673#Comment_119003673

And I was at pains to say I had no comment to make as we don’t know Donald.

You lied to say I ‘supported’ MBs case’ I never said that of course

I said I support her right to take a case. A distinction I’m surprised some who says they understand the law, missed spectacularly.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003486#Comment_119003486

You don't know what 'inconsistency' means I think. This is the third time you've compared apples to oranges in an attempt at claiming witnessing 'inconsistencies'.

I've only commented on the loolahs comparing her to Putin or her silencing free speech, for her suing RTE.

Nobody worth taking seriously has claimed she has no legitimate case as nobody knows the details. I've no idea what her case is about and have not once commented on it other than to say she has a right to sue and certainly a right to sue without politically motivated hypocritical fantasists comparing her to Putin for doing so.

We know all the details about MB, she was a boozed up chancer likely advised by Josepha or someone else there at the time, to put in a compo claim, at a time when FG, their party, were blaming frivolous claims on rising insurance rates.

Both MLMD and Harris and Varadkar and MB and whomever else have the right to sue if they so wish.

Again, if we learn the details we can draw conclusions, that still doesn't mean they didn't /don't have the right. You really should be grasping the difference at this stage Donald.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003583#Comment_119003583

It's really bizarre stuff. Trying to link MLMD to a chancer like MB to discredit MLMD when we don't even know the details and even if MLMD loses, I'd imagine it's not as ridiculous as MB's boozy fall.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003717#Comment_119003717

Again Francie, look up the definition of "Strawman". Nobody has said that any individual should be denied access to the courts. I can probably quote back a dozen of my own posts stating that everyone is entitled to access the courts (I even noted the only exception which would be on foot at an Isaac Wunder order)

A strawman is when you try to change the topic to a different one which nobody is talking about, in order to try to deflect from the topic at hand.

Again you were flip flopping on MB. What was mentioned was her taking the case and whether she was right to do it (not whether she had the right to do it). You appeared to disparage her for taking the case (I agree on that) but then you changed so that you fully supported her taking the case and appear to only speak negatively about her withdrawing the case (implying that she should have continued)

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003744#Comment_119003744

Plenty have accused her of silencing free speech and censoring the media because she is suing. And plenty, including yourself, have compared her suing to Putin and MB, before we even know the actual details. Isn't that attacking the woman because she's suing? You can claim to believe everyone has the right, but it's plain MLMD is being attacked for exercising that right.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003744#Comment_119003744

Jesus, getting ridiculous now.

I support her right to take a case Donald.

I didn’t flip or flop from that for a second.

You flipped that to lie and say I supported her case.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003808#Comment_119003808

Why the hypocrisy then Francie?

What are the facts of this case which make it legitimate versus the facts of MB case? For both cases, we can only go on what was reported in the media. One report said that the MB fell off a swing and injured herself. That she fell off a swing was never challenged. For the other case, the only thing in the press is a radio clip where nobody can find defamation. Based on what we know, MB had an actionable case. There is zero evidence that MLMD has one.

How can you justify supporting someone for whom you have zero evidence/reason over someone where you had some evidence/reason?

And again, lest you get confused, I do not think MB should have taken her case and I think it was right that she suffered consequences for doing so.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003794#Comment_119003794

Putin?

Am happy for you to give me the link where I compared anyone on this thread to Putin.

Ha Long Bay

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003441#Comment_119003441

Such a bizarre reply to a simple question.

Ill try once more:

"Fast forward to 2025 and MLMD has become Taoiseach would you not find it bizarre that the Taoiseach of the country is trying to sue the national broadcaster?"

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003845#Comment_119003845

Only read as far as…what are the facts…there are none Donald. We don’t know what she is claiming or what she wants.

You are clutching now…stop digging.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003866#Comment_119003866

Hi Francie, in both case we only know what was reported in the media. We have no way of knowing how accurate any and all of it is.

In the same way that MLMD might have some secret bullet-proof proof of defamation, MB might have had a bullet-proof proof of negligence on behalf of the hotel. I think that in either case it is extremely unlikely. But all I ask from you is consistency. So if you are willing to give the benefit to MLMD given you haven't read the court findings of her submission, you have to do the same to MB given you haven't read her court filings.

But based on what is reported in the media, MB had an actionable case (which I don't think she'd have won). MLMD doesn't. There may be more but we don't know. So it is a simple question which you have repeatedly avoided up to now, based on what we know - does MLMD have a strong case? Is it stronger than MBs case? I think MBs case was stronger, although I'd have hoped she would not have won.

FrancieBrady

Again only read the first few lines. What in MB’s reaction to what came out convinced you there was an alternative reality?

* grabs popcorn

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003847#Comment_119003847

Plenty like yourself.

That's the only comment you have? Seems like a point scoring exercise.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003908#Comment_119003908

I don't recall people, with no verified facts, calling MB all sorts for putting the claim in.

As the MB details were released they were commented on.

MLMD has been under attack from day one. If she were a FG'er we'd have claims of hate and mysogny ffs.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003999#Comment_119003999

‘She’s trying to stop chat shows’ was one of the claims.

If ‘Michael D was a shinner he’d be trying to stop comedians’ was another.

No self awareness of the absurdity of the scaremongering is the real issue here.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119004017#Comment_119004017

Well if they keep it up instead of tackling social issues like housing and health, Taoiseach MLMD might actually happen.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003991#Comment_119003991

Ah now, when you make what should be an easily verifiable accusation a couple of times, don't be surprised if you're called out on it. We're not all purveyors of the Kool-aid here where the master tells us black is white and we all lap it up and repeat verbatim

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119003908#Comment_119003908

Don't worry Francie. Have been trying to keep my posts short and small words just for you.

Now you are getting the idea. Some progress. I reckon it'll just go flip-flop like the last time. We'll be able to explain to you the concept that it is unlikely, given what was reported, that MB had anything else up her sleeve. Then we'll try to get you to apply it to MLMD. Your brain won't be able to handle that.

So we'll switch back to MB again. This time you will flip-flop to saying that MB would have had more secret actionable causes. Then when we point out that you are now agreeing with MB again, you'll accuse us of lying and then go on about some fundamental right that nobody is talking about.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119004037#Comment_119004037

So what exactly is your issue Donald. If I might be so bold you seem all over the shop

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119004054#Comment_119004054

Please answer the question asked: what convinced you that there was an alternative reality than what came out about MB?

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119004070#Comment_119004070

Hi Francie. Again you are imagining things. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of your logic. Perhaps you could try to use that imagination to imagine for a minute that MLMD has gone back to her spiritual roots in FF and see what you think of her actions then.

Lets try an alternative one last time

1) What MB filed was reported in the media. It was never published.

2) What MLMD filed was reported in the media. It was never published.

Keeping up so far?

Now

3) Based on what was published, MB appeared to have an actionable case. There may have been more claims which were not published in the media

4) Based on what was published, MLMD does not appear to have an actionable case. There may have been more claims which were not published in the media

Are you still with me? Now:

5) Let's propose that MB did indeed have additional claims which were not published but which would have strengthened her case more.

6) Let's propose that MLMD does indeed have additional claims which were not published but which would strengthen her case more

You appear to accept that 5 is extremely unlikely, yet you will blindly believe, with zero justification, that 6 is true. 🤣

I don't believe either has/had anything else than what has been reported. I merely take your private-schooled-MLMD-fanboy logic and transfer it to MB to see your reaction.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119004140#Comment_119004140

My answer is as simple as it was 40 posts ago…. Both have a right to proceed.

Do you understand that principle Donald.

If not, tell me where your difficulty is?