Mary Lou MacDonald suing RTE

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119065739#Comment_119065739

Now now now Francie. You can't be flip-flopping to make up the rules to suit yourself. We are talking about your assertion that the press cannot publish "unproven allegations".

You have been adamant that the press cannot publish unproven allegations. You words. RTE collected allegations in relation to Ms. Carey but I am not aware of any of them having been made proven yet. Have they? Has she been found guilty of anything? Those allegations are, as yet, unproven.

Mother and baby homes. All that stuff. Babies in a septic tank. Plenty of allegations but most will never be proven. Obviously those should be swept under the carpet too under the Francie principles.

Ya never know, perhaps it will come out yet that Ms. Carey was a paid up member of her local SF branch, or even joined the college society while drunk as a student in freshers week, and you'll need to double down on your condemnation of RTE publishing those unproven allegations.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119062442#Comment_119062442

Are you talking about yourself and MLMD?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119065758#Comment_119065758

The press can do as they please Donald, and have done.

The point you are now willfully missing is that contingent to that freedom is the right to redress for anyone who feels the press has wronged them.

Was that priest wrong to seek redress? Was he engaging in a SLAPPS or was he merely excercising his right?

If there was a chance in hell you'd answer that honestly we'd get to the heart of the matter here - the fact that you want selective rights.

I think that is adequately evidenced now.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119065758#Comment_119065758

Once again you are contradicting yourself with the laboured gymnastics. You are attacking MLMD, the alledged victim, for bringing a case.

Mother and baby homes. All that stuff. Babies in a septic tank. Plenty of allegations but most will never be proven. Obviously those should be swept under the carpet too under the Francie principles.

In your latest analogy, you would be the one trying to silence the people who fought long and hard against the state to be heard. Were the alledged victims and their relatives trying to silence the politicians or religious orders? You are caught up in your own codology once again.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119065876#Comment_119065876

Hi Brucie, I'm not against anyone's right to bring a case. I'm against people bringing spurious cases and throwing considerable legal weight around in order to silence the press.

Again, defamation is that which lowers a person in the eyes of reasonable society. Albert Reynolds was called a "gombeen man". Whether you think that was defamatory or not, you could at least identify it.

What we have here is a claim, that something in an interview, which is public knowledge and publicly available, has been claimed to lower someone's standing in the eyes of reasonable society. Yet nobody can identify from that interview, anything that could be even tentatively alleged to have lowered the person's reputation.

I'll invite you to give me a list of anything from that interview which you think could have lowered MLMD's reputation? If someone claimed she had shot JR and JFK then you could name that for example.*

All we can guess is that until that case hits the steps of the High Court, there will be no more publication of any claims related to the substantive matter which was in that interview.

As I am sure you will be able to figure out if you try, the example of mother and baby homes etc was merely to point out the fallacy of Francie's assertion. They are not my views - they are the application, and resulting consequence, of his stated rules about not being allowed to published unproven allegations. I do not agree with his opinion.

*For the record, in case anyone in SF tries to sue me, MLMD did not shoot either JR or JFK. I used them as mere hypothetical examples.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119065838#Comment_119065838

Hi Francie.

Number 1: The priest is not a politician getting paid from the public purse and should not expect to be subject to the same public scrutiny as a politician. You may be in favour of making politicians immune to public scrutiny (or at least politicians of a certain badge) but I am not.

Number 2: Let us assume that there were no other questions related to this priest that he wanted to shut down. I have never heard of him before, and have no indication that there are any other public interest topics that he might be called upon to answer. Whereas a politician, similar to a dodgy businessman who is being questioned over allegations or bribery for example, might have things they do not want to come to light. We know that a person is alleging that she was abused by members of a certain organisation. Those could be potentially awkward questions that are nonetheless in the public interest but might show that organisation in a bad light.

Number 3. In the case of the priest, there was an identifiable defamtory statement. The statement that he, as a priest, had fathered a child with a teenage girl was one that would lower him in the eyes of reasonable society. In this case, you cannot identify a possible statment that lowers MLMDs in the eyes of reasonable society. You have been asked many times.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119065984#Comment_119065984

So we can deduce from that that you are being selective - apparently in Donald's world a politician is not entitled to the right of redress.

Let's dig a bit deeper into this selectivity - when Paudie Coffey sued a newspaper did you post about it, or warn breathlessly about it being a SLAPPS case?

Have you ever posted about TD's from any other party attempting to shut down the press via an actual case or the threat of a case?

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119057491#Comment_119057491

If as you say MLMD has the right to bring a case against RTE, then why did you post day and night in the Maria Bailey thread deriding and mocking her right to seek damages, as is anyone right if they choose?

Seathrun66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119065690#Comment_119065690

Brilliant. You’re doubling down on your application on criminal law tenets to a civil law case. Keep going cowboy, you’ll overturn the legal system overnight.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066074#Comment_119066074

Nobody blocked her case mark...she fell in 2016 and the details didn't come out until it went to court. It was the 'detail' that led to the uproar and forced her to drop the case.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066079#Comment_119066079

Good man. When you are making stuff up you are losing.

Burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they were defamed. Defendant is under obligation to do anything. You repeating your fallacy does nothing to change that.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066053#Comment_119066053

Again, trying to deflect and make things up.

Francie, a politician has to be subject to public scrutiny and has to expect to be so. Just because you don't like it when your "team" might be asked an awkward question, is irrelevant.

C'mon Francie. The elephant in the room is that you still haven't identified what the defamation even might be.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066175#Comment_119066175

Absolutely, never contested that fact. The Press have nothing to fear if they tell the truth and have the back up for their claims.

And YES I have identified what might be defamation on Astro's supposition as to what the case is about. Read the thread.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066111#Comment_119066111

Except it didn't go to Court Francie. It was withdrawn.

There were investigations about it internally within FG. And LV was subject to many questions about it. Perhaps FG should have tried the SF tactic of "Oh no, one of us is being caught out for doing something wrong. Right - nobody admit to it. Swear black is white and that it is a conspiracy to get us." The problem with other parties though is that many of their voters have minds of their own and have some scruples.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066182#Comment_119066182

Again Francie, you stated that the press should not be allowed to publish "unproven allegations". You have refused to admit that you are wrong even when it was clearly pointed out to you that it would eliminate any investigative journalism.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119065914#Comment_119065914

You are attacking the alledged victim because you believe she is trying to silence the media. Thats cool. Comparing her case to the mother and baby homes is off the charts. Just pointing that out.

MLMD is the alledged victim in the case. You just don't like her.

Brucie Bonus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066074#Comment_119066074

Confused repeatedly. I've never posted anything regarding her right to sue.

We've covered this three time now.

If you know the details of the MLMD case and have an issue, have at it and cut the woeful attempts at a 'gotcha'.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066189#Comment_119066189

No it doesn't mark.

Investigative journalism does not make claims without back-up. The clue is in 'investigate'

How many examples do you want?

If Astro is right about this case, it revolves around a claim made for which there has never been back-up or proof.

You are upset because somebody you don't like is contesting the claim - a classic of selective democracy. Own it.

And I take it, you have never aired these fears about any other politician, so there is evidence of your selectivity again.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066233#Comment_119066233

Francie Francie Francie. You said "unproven allegations". I gave you the example of Ms. Carey. Have any allegations against her been "proven" even now? They certainly weren't at the time of the episode about her.

Feel free to state on here any of these allegations against her that have been proven to be true.

You have made it clear that you want to suppress the rights of the press to investigate and collect evidence and publish anything based on that evidence unless it has been proven.

How about when someone is charged with a crime? Would ya like them to be prohibited from saying that "X is alleged to have murdered Y", "X has been charged with Z" etc? Ya know, when it hasn't been proven yet?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119065732#Comment_119065732

Who suggested Mary-Lou and SF would get a public backlash over this?

Some have said that if the case goes to court, SF would be in trouble. It hasn't and it won't because the aim of this case - so far successful - is to stop the media talking about the abuse of Mairia Cahill.

malk518

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066189#Comment_119066189

It's no unproven if they have their sources and evidence. Then if a case is taken they can reveal this in court as will happen here. It's only controversial those that are against SF and ML. Didn't hear any of those screeching in here when Leo the Leak was threatening legal action.

Seathrun66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066164#Comment_119066164

Presumption of innocence a criminal law term. It's a cornerstone of the legal system dating back to the sixth century. I know you want it to apply to the civil system but you simply cannot dear boy, you simply cannot.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119065739#Comment_119065739

How come the testimony from those affected by Miss Carey is perfectly acceptable in your eyes, but the testimony from Mairia Cahill is not?

Your double standards have never been more exposed.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066282#Comment_119066282

Back-up blanch.

Watch the investigation into Carey, plenty of it.

And I fully support Miss Carey if she wishes to seek redress.

Do you? Yes or no?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119063566#Comment_119063566

This post is a really good example of why these threads descend into a bog.

The big picture is simple. Mairia Cahill was raped as a child. She was put before a SF/IRA kangaroo court to confront her accuser. MLMD called MC a liar. MLMD had to apologise for calling MC a liar. Someone on RTE referred to this in a radio programme. MLMD is suing RTE. It is not known why because MLMD is staying quiet and has forced RTE to be quiet. Some speculate that it is related to this. SF apologists claim to be completely ignorant of any defamation yet say MLMD is right to sue (quite a weird position to hold). The rest of us think this is a SLAPPs case.

Most people are trying to parse out the details in the above, but you are spending a long time getting pedantic over whether a poster that said "MLMD directed vitriol at MC" is technically correct, depending on how you define vitriol, which is exceedingly tiresome, meaningless and just a way of deflecting from MLMD.

You also seem to claim that MLMD has resigned from the Dail. The Oireachtas makes law.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066324#Comment_119066324

Oh Francie, that doesn't stack up. Plenty of people have investigated the Mairia Cahill case, you are the only person who doesn't believe her. The case against her abuser collapsed on a technicality, leaving you to judge them as innocent people. Says it all really.

Oh, and there was a Spotlight programme too.

You certainly choose your victims, some of them not worthy of your support because their claim is against SF. Absolutely disgusting.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066247#Comment_119066247

You are pivoting again Donald.

If a programme makes an allegation they HAVE to be able to back it up. They did in Carey's case through financial records of transactions. The money handed over is all there in black and white.

They made no allegations that she was a criminal, they merely laid out the evidence for all to see. Miss Carey is not, so far contesting the claims about what she did.

With Fr Reynolds they didn't have the back up and paid the price.

Both had the right to seek redress. As MLMD has.

It is now for a court to decide.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066349#Comment_119066349

What evidence did they turn up blanch in relation to the supposed nature of this claim?

The fact is there is more hard evidence that SF tried to help her (in written form) than there is that they didn't. She asked for the IRA to be involved and she would not go to the police by her own admission because at the time she did not, like most nationalists/republicans, trust them. (As it turns out, she was right not to trust them, but that is another story)

FrancieBrady

The spurious unbacked up claims again to support yourself.

How do you know MLMD has forced RTE to be silent?

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066279#Comment_119066279

Lol again.

Just accept that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove defamation.

Basic 101 lad. Am laughing me hole off at ya here.

Imagine I file a case against you for defaming me last week. You appear to think the burden of proof is on you to prove you didn't defame me. That I'd literally have to just rock up and say "Seathrun66 defamed me last week" and nothing more. You would have to prove the negative - which is impossible to do - for one thing due to the vagueness