McDowell names Adams and McGuinness as members of IRA Army Council.

Stabshauptmann

gandalf wrote:

Actually I would view the currency found in the country club, which is one for PSNI or retired PSNI/RUC officers as a threat [,rather] than someone trying to say they pilfered the loot from the Northern Bank.

A good point I was going to make myself which I havent yet seen raised in the mass media.

While I am no lover of Herr Flick or many of his policies he has now put it up the Grizzly and Martin, either put up or shut up or sue or don't and if you don't we all know what that means. Wink Wink knudge knudge say no more

None of that makes any sense.
Using derrogitive nicknames and insults doesnt strenghten your position it weakens it by revealing a personal bias.
Put up or shut up? I call "x" a wanker. He must either accept that he is a wanker or stop complaining about being labeled a wanker??? Thats the most rediculous statement Ive ever heard!
THEY CANT SUE. THERE IS NO TORT. IVE EXPLAINED THIS BEFORE.


The following things must be shown for an action in defamation to be supported;
a statement was made about you expressly or by implication in such a way as to be understood by others as referring to you.
it was published to a third party
the statement must be likely to lower you in the eyes of right thinking persons

Ok so what McDowell said on the surface looks like a tort but...

Defences offered for defamation:
Justification
Absolute Privilege
Fair Comment
Qualified Privilege
Consent

Fustification is the one everyone thinks of but is totally irrelevant to this case.

Absolute Privilage is how the first allegation that adams and co were on army council was made, by Paisley of all people. In McDowells interview he cited the house of commons as his source. This is how the papers broke the news a long time ago and why they can continue to do so.

Qualified privilage:
When a statement is “fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty whether legal or moral or in the conduct of his own affairs, in matters where his interest is concerned.”

McDowell has an air tight defence. The allegation that Adams is on the army council, true or false, has been in the public domain for years and as Minister for Juctice he should make his opinion known.

The IRA's time has passed

For over 200 years violent republicans have existed in the background in Ireland, why would they disappear now?

Republicanism seems to go in cycles, Public unrest---> Political means --> Oppression --> Violence ---> Compromise ---> Violent elements go undergroud ---> Public unrest.
The IRA is going away naturally and so long as governments act in a fair and equitable manner and there are no pograms or attacks against the nationalist communities the IRA or other manifestations of violent republicanism will stay underground well away from the public conscious.

the time has come for them to allow Sinn Fein become a legitimate political party by disbanding and decommissioning all weapons.

The time has come for SF to become a legitimate party by severing its links with the IRA in much the same way as FF left behind the IRA. There is no onus on the IRA to do anything BUT SF's power comes from its links to the IRA and they may not be in any hurry to abandon their cosy relationship.

The 6 largest political parties in Ireland have had strong links to militancy and/or criminality.
FF, FG, DUP, UUP, Labour, SF. Whats new?

At this stage they will have to have an Ant & Dec Live TV Decommissioning Special to appease Big Ian and the boys :rolleyes:

"What do we want?
-Decommisioning
When do we want it?
-Never!"

Stabshauptmann

Meh wrote:

He never used those exact words. Bertie is a slippery customer and you need to listen to what he actually says, not what he wants you to think he's said. In any case, by his own admission, he hasn't asked the Gardai for their "professional assessment", so how would he know?Would you mind explaining how Adams is unable to sue for being called an IRA member, yet "Slab" Murphy is able to sue for the exact same thing?

Slab sued a newspaper not a government minister, the newspaper used the defence of quoting a member of parliment

Stabshauptmann

And it wasnt for being an IRA member it was for being accused of being a member of the army council.

ishmael whale

Necromancer wrote:

Slab sued a newspaper not a government minister, the newspaper used the defence of quoting a minister

It might be interesting just to recall some of the details of that case, lest the impression be created that all that happened was the newspaper said they were quoting a Minister.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=613415&issue_id=6146

“IRA libel case lost -bill for £1m costs
THE LIBEL action by Co. Louth farmer Thomas ``Slab'' Murphy against the Sunday Times over an article published 15 years ago was dismissed by the High Court yesterday. He was ordered to pay costs estimated at more than £1 million. The article, on June 30, 1985, described Mr Murphy as the IRA's ``Officer Commanding for the whole of Northern Ireland''.

The jury of eight women and three men found the article meant that Mr Murphy was a prominent member of the IRA, that he planned murder and the bombing of property and that those words were true ``in substance or in fact''…..

During the hearing, a number of gardai gave evidence that Mr Murphy had been arrested several times up to 1989 but had not been arrested since then. On one occasion he was arrested in a car stopped near Monaghan town and in that car were two other men, one of whom was Mr Michael McKevitt and the second Mr Martin from Crossmaglen

……. Superintendent Michael Staunton told the court that it was his belief Mr Murphy was a senior member of the IRA and said that was Mr Murphy's reputation among gardai in the Dundalk area and further afield. He agreed Mr Murphy was never charged or convicted of IRA membership but said there were difficulties in securing a conviction solely on the basis of the belief of a Garda Chief Superintendent…..

The court was told a false passport in the name of Jim Faughey was found in Mr Murphy's home on June 27, 1989, during a garda search. Counsel for the Sunday Times, Mr Kevin Feeney SC, said the passport bore the photograph of Mr Murphy and stated an identical height and eye colour to Mr Murphy's. It also showed the holder had made brief trips to Greece. The newspaper contended the passport was one of a batch stolen from the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1984 and some of those stolen passports were subsequently found on people who were convicted of IRA-related offences.

Mr Murphy denied that he had used that passport for visits to Greece and denied those visits were on IRA business or to buy arms for the IRA. He also denied visiting Yugoslavia for IRA purposes. Asked if he supported the IRA, he said: ``Not really.''

Convicted IRA murderer turned informer Sean O'Callaghan told the hearing he saw Mr Murphy at three IRA gatherings.

Former IRA man Eamon Collins said Mr Murphy was the most senior IRA man he ever met, and said Mr Murphy had told him (mr Collins) that he (Mr Murphy) was representing the IRA Army Council at an IRA inquiry into a botched IRA shooting in Newry in October 1983.

Earlier, closing the case for Mr Murphy, Mr Leahy said the Sunday Times had put up ``a cowardly cocktail of defences''.”

Meh

Necromancer wrote:

Slab sued a newspaper not a government minister, the newspaper used the defence of quoting a minister

Um no, the article in question doesn't appear to have quoted any government minister on the allegations it made.

Absolute Privilage is how the first allegation that adams and co were on army council was made, by Paisley of all people. In McDowells interview he cited the house of commons as his source. This is how the papers broke the news a long time ago and why they can continue to do so.

Only "accurate and neutral" reporting of parliamentary comments (i.e. "Mr Paisley said Adams was on the IRA Army Council") is privileged. Certainly this articledoesn't come under this.

Qualified privilage:
When a statement is “fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty whether legal or moral or in the conduct of his own affairs, in matters where his interest is concerned.”

Qualified privilege does not apply to newspaper reporting on matters of fact (as opposed to opinion). (See Reynolds v. Times Newspapers. The Sunday Times lost because they presented Albert Reynolds' alleged dishonesty as a fact, not an opinion.) The question of whether or not Gerry Adams is a member of the IRA Army Council is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact one way or the other. Either he is or he isn't.

And it wasnt for being an IRA member it was for being accused of being a member of the army council.

Hairsplitting.

mike65

Marian Finucane programme held a text vote this morning

Question - Was Michael McDowell right to name Adams, McGuines and Ferris as members of the IRA Army Council?

Result - Yes 67% No 33%.

That result suprised me, I was expecting it to be defeated. The fact it was'nt tells me the Shinners have more to worry about than they let on.

Mike.

monument

AmenToThat wrote:

Apparrently there were no burnt banknotes.
BTW the only ones found with the currency so far are a Cork businessman with no connection to SF a dissadent Republican (Real IRA) and a sum of money found on a premises frequented by the PSNI/RUC officers.

...

dieselfreak wrote:

:mad:
For Fu*k sake do you honestly believe this shi*e. The IRA robbed the damn bank. The SF heads new about it.

Did he say anything about who robbed the bank or who knew about it?

No? Did he not just point out that the only money found so far was given to the police by a Cork businessman, found at a house of a a dissadent republican, and at a country club used by PSNI/RUC officers?

Sleepy wrote:

Personally I'd love to see it done and the Army let show the RA what a real war looks like but I know I'm very much in the majority of favouring a short brutal war over the procrastination and petty name calling of northern politics.

:rolleyes: FFS.

“majority of favouring a short brutal war”

Could you explain what majority is in favor of a “short brutal war”? And where are the Irish army going to fight the "RA"? Just in the south or in the north as well?

Keano_sli

It never ceases to amaze me the number of IRA/Sinn fein apologists you find on Irish message boards. Definatly seems to be a higher proportion that in society in general.
I wonder are people mezmerized by Romantic Republicans notions and being able to voice their support for this from the relative anonimity of a board is less shamefull.
I know a lot of younger people are blinded by Sinn fein propoganda and like to be in the "rest of the world is against us" mentality. These yonger people will not recall some of the IRA atrocities from the 70's and 80's so here is a useful link to inform. It removed the Rose-tinted glasses and reveals just what the Sinn fein/IRA project actually means to many people. It may help them understand why we do not trust Sinn fein or the IRA and why Unionists would like to see the guns being decommisioned.
I'm not preaching to anyone, but if you can support people who do this to other human beings then that is between you and your concience.
But stop coming on to message boards and telling us what great guys they are and how they are trust worthy and hard done by the evil Governments and that its all about party politics.
I particularly draw your attention to the Dissapeared section. Sinn Fein are always calling for inquiries in the interests of human rights and justice well you don't hear them talk much about the rights of the dissappeared do you.

I'm afraid this has turned into a bit of a Rant for this I apogise, maybe I should have stared a new thread, but it is relevant on any thread about Sinn Fein/IRA
http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/

shltter

while adams mcguinness and ferris might not be able to sue

the other allegation that Mcdowell made against the newapaper Daily Ireland is most likely to end up in court
he alleged that it was a provo front he has also made statements that it would be a fascist paper

monument

http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/ ...

That website seams to claim that the Provos ("IRA/SF") planted the Omagh Bomb.

Is that right?

A Dub in Glasgo

Keano_sli wrote:

---SNIPPED all the irrelevant bits---

I'm afraid this has turned into a bit of a Rant for this I apogise

Yep, that was a rant

shltter

Keano_sli wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me the number of IRA/Sinn fein apologists you find on Irish message boards. Definatly seems to be a higher proportion that in society in general.
I wonder are people mezmerized by Romantic Republicans notions and being able to voice their support for this from the relative anonimity of a board is less shamefull.
I know a lot of younger people are blinded by Sinn fein propoganda and like to be in the "rest of the world is against us" mentality. These yonger people will not recall some of the IRA atrocities from the 70's and 80's so here is a useful link to inform. It removed the Rose-tinted glasses and reveals just what the Sinn fein/IRA project actually means to many people. It may help them understand why we do not trust Sinn fein or the IRA and why Unionists would like to see the guns being decommisioned.
I'm not preaching to anyone, but if you can support people who do this to other human beings then that is between you and your concience.
But stop coming on to message boards and telling us what great guys they are and how they are trust worthy and hard done by the evil Governments and that its all about party politics.
I particularly draw your attention to the Dissapeared section. Sinn Fein are always calling for inquiries in the interests of human rights and justice well you don't hear them talk much about the rights of the dissappeared do you.

I'm afraid this has turned into a bit of a Rant for this I apogise, maybe I should have stared a new thread, but it is relevant on any thread about Sinn Fein/IRA
http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/

Could you find a more biased site or did you look really hard and this is the best you could find


this is the group behind this very one sided view of the conflict in this country

http://www.upmj.co.uk/links.php4


you can have a look at the links to other great sites like the DUP site and loyal orange lodge or one of my favourites the UDR.co.uk


Don't post this crap up and pretend its an a definitve look at the troubles or the IRA

shltter

monument wrote:

http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/ ...

That website seams to claim that the Provos ("IRA/SF") planted the Omagh Bomb.

Is that right?

no it is not right neither did they kill the people in darkley it is a loyalist website

monument

I actualy know that it's not right, the question was aimed at the poster.

billy the squid

And it wasnt for being an IRA member it was for being accused of being a member of the army council.

are you saying that the IRA's army council are not in the IRA, could they be a part of another organisation, or independent of the IRA

Stabshauptmann

Meh wrote:

Um no, the article in question doesn't appear to have quoted any government minister on the allegations it made.Only "accurate and neutral" reporting of parliamentary comments (i.e. "Mr Paisley said Adams was on the IRA Army Council") is privileged. Certainly this articledoesn't come under this.Qualified privilege does not apply to newspaper reporting on matters of fact (as opposed to opinion). (See Reynolds v. Times Newspapers. The Sunday Times lost because they presented Albert Reynolds' alleged dishonesty as a fact, not an opinion.) The question of whether or not Gerry Adams is a member of the IRA Army Council is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact one way or the other. Either he is or he isn't.Hairsplitting.

The first article drew on a lot of sources, including politicians. Certainly there was sucurity briefings to these politicians.

The second article was the one I was thinking of, being the recent one. Read the article you quote before quoting it!

"This accusation is not new. It has been made often, for many years in the first two cases, with increasing frequency in the third. But it gained fresh force yesterday."


Its not that a news paper has absolute or qualified privilage its that it quoted someone who had.
Membership of an illegal organisation and directing terrorism are two VERY different criminal offences. Hardly hair splitting

Stabshauptmann

billy the squid wrote:

are you saying that the IRA's army council are not in the IRA, could they be a part of another organisation, or independent of the IRA

Im saying in a criminal court the evidence needed to secure a conviction for directing terrorism, and the sentence it carries are different to those of membership of an illegal organisation.
Ive said before that Adams and McGuinness could probably be convicted in the morning of the latter offence but directing terrorism (being on the Army Council) is harder to prove

Stabshauptmann

Keano_sli wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me the number of IRA/Sinn fein apologists you find on Irish message boards. Definatly seems to be a higher proportion that in society in general.
I wonder are people mezmerized by Romantic Republicans notions and being able to voice their support for this from the relative anonimity of a board is less shamefull.
I know a lot of younger people are blinded by Sinn fein propoganda and like to be in the "rest of the world is against us" mentality. These yonger people will not recall some of the IRA atrocities from the 70's and 80's so here is a useful link to inform. It removed the Rose-tinted glasses and reveals just what the Sinn fein/IRA project actually means to many people. It may help them understand why we do not trust Sinn fein or the IRA and why Unionists would like to see the guns being decommisioned.
I'm not preaching to anyone, but if you can support people who do this to other human beings then that is between you and your concience.
But stop coming on to message boards and telling us what great guys they are and how they are trust worthy and hard done by the evil Governments and that its all about party politics.
I particularly draw your attention to the Dissapeared section. Sinn Fein are always calling for inquiries in the interests of human rights and justice well you don't hear them talk much about the rights of the dissappeared do you.

I'm afraid this has turned into a bit of a Rant for this I apogise, maybe I should have stared a new thread, but it is relevant on any thread about Sinn Fein/IRA
http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/

I read the website, got some interesting points out of it: especially that bit about the new pistols that came in december. I also never saw that photo of the LVF decomissioning.
BUT....
its incredibly sectarian:

"When will the Protestant people received justice in the courts of Northern Ireland?"
"Protestants are being denied their human rights" when Orange order parades are stoped.
"Sinn Fein IRA CRIMINALS have killed more roman cathlics than any other group"
"who rule their ghetto areas by the threat of the gun and hurly sticks "

Also some of the logic astounds me,
"The IRA are 'Criminals' and as 'criminals' are subject to and by all accepted definitions of war crimes,"
" The Official IRA + The Provisional IRA + The Real IRA = The IRA
There is no difference the revolving shop sign changes to suit the present political climate and once all the juice is squeezed out on the political front the IRA go back to what they do best"

SF IRA is the title, so it is quite clear it is the PIRA in question so why is the omagh bomb and other non PIRA operations in the website.

Where is the context?
There is a heading for collusion but nothing about the RUC, SAS, MI5, MI6, Special Branch, B specials ......

Apparently "innocent Protestants" were the target of Frizzell's fish shop!

Its got some facts but it wont win ppl over because it is so hate filled and arrogant.
Im not a christian so you'll excuse me if I get this slightly wrong
"how can you point out the splinter in your neighbours eye if you cant see the [timber] in your own"

Im not sure how you can complain about SF proparganda when you offer this site as a source

Sleepy

monument wrote:

“majority of favouring a short brutal war”

Could you explain what majority is in favor of a “short brutal war”? And where are the Irish army going to fight the "RA"? Just in the south or in the north as well?

Apologies, that was a typo, I meant minority. Personally I believe a two pronged approach between the Irish and British armies that could cleanse this island of the RA (and the unionist head the balls) would be a great thing. I realise, however, that this will never happen as most of the right-thinking people of this country don't have the stomach to stoop to the IRA's level.

billy the squid wrote:

are you saying that the IRA's army council are not in the IRA, could they be a part of another organisation, or independent of the IRA

Why didn't we realise it before!? Obviously the army council is controlled by the Illuminati and the rest of the organisation wouldn't harm a fly normally but they're scared of the big bad wolves! :rolleyes:

Stabshauptmann

Sleepy wrote:

Apologies, that was a typo, I meant minority. Personally I believe a two pronged approach between the Irish and British armies that could cleanse this island of the RA (and the unionist head the balls) would be a great thing. I realise, however, that this will never happen as most of the right-thinking people of this country don't have the stomach to stoop to the IRA's level.

Why didn't we realise it before!? Obviously the army council is controlled by the Illuminati and the rest of the organisation wouldn't harm a fly normally but they're scared of the big bad wolves! :rolleyes:

Yes becuse stringent oppression of the IRA would destroy its support base, thats the way its always worked in the past...

The IRA is going away because the two governemnts are dealing with the problems and justifications for its existance. Once that step is complete it can target the remnants as criminals. So long as they stay clear of the special criminal court and not mention PIRA, just stick to their criminal indescretions, there wont be any public opposition.

Why didn't we realise it before!? Obviously the army council is controlled by the Illuminati and the rest of the organisation wouldn't harm a fly normally but they're scared of the big bad wolves!

Stop acting the twat I explained what I meant even though it was clear.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sleepy wrote:

Why didn't we realise it before!? Obviously the army council is controlled by the Illuminati and the rest of the organisation wouldn't harm a fly normally but they're scared of the big bad wolves! :rolleyes:

Try reading the rest of the thread before pressing submit

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2407696&postcount=48

Meh

Necromancer wrote:

The first article drew on a lot of sources, including politicians. Certainly there was sucurity briefings to these politicians.

What's your point? Since the article was more than just an "accurate and neutral" reporting of parliamentary or court proceedings, it wasn't privileged.

The second article was the one I was thinking of, being the recent one. Read the article you quote before quoting it!

"This accusation is not new. It has been made often, for many years in the first two cases, with increasing frequency in the third. But it gained fresh force yesterday."


Its not that a news paper has absolute or qualified privilage its that it quoted someone who had.

I think it's you who needs to read the entire article. The Independent asserts the accusations as fact, it doesn't simply report McDowell's accusations.

Why are the three men always listened to, constantly photographed, attended by retinues, regarded in certain quarters with respect bordering on awe, in others with fear? Not because Mr Adams is president of a political party and Mr McGuinness its "chief negotiator". Still less because Mr Ferris represents Kerry North in the Dail.

They are powerful because they lead a terrorist organisation which claims to exist in pursuance of a political aim, uniting Ireland, but which in recent days has been exposed as being in reality what was long suspected, a criminal conspiracy.

In any case, McDowell's original comments weren't privileged, because he wasn't addressing the Dáil. And furthermore, Adams and McGuinness themselves seem to disagree with you -- they haven't used the "privilege" excuse for not suing.

Edit -- I see Daily Ireland are suing McDowell for saying they were "backed by the IRA". Care to explain how they can sue but Gerry can't? Shouldn't your concept of "qualified privilege" apply to this statement as well?

sliabh

Meh wrote:

I see Daily Ireland are suing McDowell for saying they were "backed by the IRA". Care to explain how they can sue but Gerry can't?

I heard Gerry talking about this one on the TV. His soliciters told him he can't sue. For it to be libel your reputation must have suffered amongst your peers. But to Gerry's peers in the "Republican" movement being declared a leader of the IRA is actually a compliment. So there is no libel.

Villain

Meh wrote:

What's your point? Since the article was more than just an "accurate and neutral" reporting of parliamentary or court proceedings, it wasn't privileged.I think it's you who needs to read the entire article. The Independent asserts the accusations as fact, it doesn't simply report McDowell's accusations.In any case, McDowell's original comments weren't privileged, because he wasn't addressing the Dáil. And furthermore, Adams and McGuinness themselves seem to disagree with you -- they haven't used the "privilege" excuse for not suing.

Edit -- I see Daily Ireland are suing McDowell for saying they were "backed by the IRA". Care to explain how they can sue but Gerry can't? Shouldn't your concept of "qualified privilege" apply to this statement as well?

Read the description of the Libel laws Meh and you will understand.

Meh

sliabh wrote:

I heard Gerry talking about this one on the TV. His soliciters told him he can't sue. For it to be libel your reputation must have suffered amongst your peers. But to Gerry's peers in the "Republican" movement being declared a leader of the IRA is actually a compliment. So there is no libel.

But I saw Martin McGuinness on TV yesterday calling the allegations a "smear" and saying they were an attempt to "criminalize" Sinn Féin. So obviously he thinks the allegations are damaging to Sinn Féin's reputation. Can you explain this contradiction?

irish1 wrote:

Read the description of the Libel laws Meh and you will understand.

Care to expand on this?

Villain

Meh wrote:

But I saw Martin McGuinness on TV yesterday calling the allegations a "smear" and saying they were an attempt to "criminalize" Sinn Féin. So obviously he thinks the allegations are damaging to Sinn Féin's reputation. Can you explain this contradiction?Care to expand on this?

Yep if you sue someone for libel you have to prove that your character has been damaged, Adams character is damaged everyday by the media so it would be hard to prove in a court of law that his character had been damaged.

However Daily Ireland is a new paper, so I believe that they could prove their character has suffered because of his remarks, I'm no lawyer but thats how I see it.

Sand

Care to expand on this?

Irish1s latest exscuse for Adams and Co not suing people who claim theyre leaders of a terrorist organisation is that this claim does not demean Adams and Co in the eyes of their peers - which is the important qualification. Before it can be libel your peers have to think less of you because of it.

And I agree, it doesnt, if you assume their peers are their buddies on the Army Council and in the IRA which doesnt exactly disprove the claim theyre on the Army Council. But if Adams and co are political leaders then their peers include Blair, Clinton, Ahern, Dail Party Leaders, the Northern Party Leaders and European politicians. In the eyes of these peers who could definitly argue his standing as a democratic politician has been affected by these terrible lies. Afterall, if he is denounced as a terrorist, then many politicians might refuse to negotiate with him. As such it is in his interests to sue McDowell for these terrible lies.

Only thing is he wont, because like Slab Murphy he'll lose. So instead he tries to ignore them, because he knows SF voters dont care that he is a member of the Army Council, so long as he isnt stupid enough to contest the charge.

Villain

Sand wrote:

Irish1s latest exscuse for Adams and Co not suing people who claim theyre leaders of a terrorist organisation is that this claim does not demean Adams and Co in the eyes of their peers - which is the important qualification. Before it can be libel your peers have to think less of you because of it.

And I agree, it doesnt, if you assume their peers are their buddies on the Army Council and in the IRA which doesnt exactly disprove the claim theyre on the Army Council. But if Adams and co are political leaders then their peers include Blair, Clinton, Ahern, Dail Party Leaders, the Northern Party Leaders and European politicians. In the eyes of these peers who could definitly argue his standing as a democratic politician has been affected by these terrible lies. Afterall, if he is denounced as a terrorist, then many politicians might refuse to negotiate with him. As such it is in his interests to sue McDowell for these terrible lies.

Only thing is he wont, because like Slab Murphy he'll lose. So instead he tries to ignore them, because he knows SF voters dont care that he is a member of the Army Council, so long as he isnt stupid enough to contest the charge.

Yea sand thats right you know what every SF voter cares about!!!.

Get real.

Meh

irish1 wrote:

Yep if you sue someone for libel you have to prove that your character has been damaged, Adams character is damaged everyday by the media so it would be hard to prove in a court of law that his character had been damaged.

OK, so what you're saying is that Adams is such a reprehensible scumbag that he has no good name left to be damaged. So he can't sue for libel for the same reason that the Yorkshire Ripper or Fred West couldn't sue for libel -- there is nothing which could be said about him that could lower his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.

I've never said this to anyone before, but I think you're being a bit hard on poor old Gerry there...

Villain

Meh wrote:

OK, so what you're saying is that Adams is such a reprehensible scumbag that he has no good name left to be damaged. So he can't sue for libel for the same reason that the Yorkshire Ripper or Fred West couldn't sue for libel -- there is nothing which could be said about him that could lower his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.

I've never said this to anyone before, but I think you're being a bit hard on poor old Gerry there...

As they say if thats the law, the laws an ass.

It's about proof and due process, you see if the Gardai had the balls to arrest adams and co and bring them to court then we would be able to say for sure, but at the moment we just have McDowell shouting his mouth, and a Taoiseach who doesn't know!