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

Villain

lomb wrote:

of course he would lie, membership is ILLEGAL. and as such he could be locked up for 5 years. thats why bertie although he knows he is on the council (which he obviously is imho) he cant say because adams should be locked up.

He can't/won't it say because he doesn't have the evidence to back it up.

Stabshauptmann

Meh wrote:

What political gain would he make from saying he didn't sue because of he didn't lose the respect of his peer group, rather than because of qualified privilege?

I think Adams wants people to think he is on the army council, I think SF benifits in elections from the blurry line between it and the IRA. I think that that is part of the reason why he choose to attend a meeting in Armagh with lads in military uniform marching in the background.
I think most people dont want to see a return to violence and believe that if Adams wants peace, and he is in a position of influence, then maybe they should vote for him.

Secondly by saying his peers dont see anything wrong with being on the army council he is implying that there isnt. SF has a policy of decriminilizing and legitimizing the appearence of the IRA.

To say it was qualified privilage well, mightened wash. You for example needed a lot of convincing to believe that qualified privilage existed, most people think that the only defence against defamation is justification.

And I've shown that those differences don't apply, if you don't want to address these arguments then that's up to you.And you're accusing me of going round in circles? We have been through this before:

only accurate and neutral restatements of an absolutely privileged statement are themselves entitled to qualified (not absolute) privilege.

No, you are very much confused and I suspect its genuine so I will explain it again.
Qualified privilage is not a repition of absolute privilage, one is not dependant on the other.

Certain situations of absolute privilege are specified in the Constitution
the President has absolute privilege in relation to the exercise of any official functions or powers.
Members of the Oireachtas have absolute privilege in respect of what they say in the Oireachtas.
No action for defamation in respect of reports of anything said in the Oireachtas - this includes unofficial reports.
At common law judges, lawyers, parties and witnesses have absolute privilege in respect of what is said in court. If judge is acting without reasonable grounds for believing he has jurisdiction may be liable.

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.”

*

So how come qualified privilege can protect McDowell when he says bad stuff about Adams, but not when he says bad stuff about Daily Ireland?

The defences for defamation are thus:

Justification - This would be hard IMO for McDowell to prove and is quite a dangerous form of defence

Fair Comment - IMO opinion it was a fair comment. To raise this defence you must show that the statement made was a fair statement of opinion on a matter of public interest. I think it meets that criteria.

Absolute Privilege - One of my origional points though Earthman tells me
thats not the case, Im waiting on a source but I suspect hes right.

Qualified Privilege - Defenitly and air tight defence re: Adams. 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.”

Consent - well, that doesnt appear to be the case.

Now in the case of Daily Ireland
Im not sure it was a fair comment, I dont think it was a matter of public interest for a start and thats where malice comes in. I also said that how equivical a statement is is important, thats what I was telling you to go back and reread. Was it McDowells OPINION or did he REPRESENT IT AS FACT.

And for Qualified Privilage
I dont think it falls under the remit of the Minister of Juctice and I dont think he has a personal interest in the paper.

It appears that McDowell does not have qualified privilege when it comes to the Daily Ireland remarks (if he did, they wouldn't be able to sue him),

Which Ive been saying

so your statements about when qualified privilege applies are wrong. Q.E.D.

Ive said A=0 and B=1
You are now saying that since I said A=1 B cannot equall 1. You are misrepresenting what Ive been saying.


Ive been argueing that Daily Ireland HAS a good chance if they sue but I guess we will just have to wait and see.
You were saying if Daily Ireland can sue so can Adams, if you look above Ive outlined the differences as I see them between the two statements.

So youve proved nothing other than your habit of lying.

So what does your textbook say about Adams v. McDowell and how it compares to Daily Ireland v. McDowell?

Answered earlier in this post.

You know the thread at the top that says "Rules"? Read it please (specifically the part about accusations of trolling).

Ah so you've no problem with the lying allegations.

lomb

of course irish1 u and me dont know what is in berties head or what he knows

but just think about it for a minute. lets say bertie had proof adams was a member of the ira, and not only a member but on the council. what could he do. on one hand he could have him arrested and tried and convicted/locked up-in this case the ira could very well go back 'to armed struggle' and people will die and their will be gross instability/economic upheavel in the north. no sane person wants this. this is a peaceful country and no one wants a renegade army of psycopaths fighing for a lost cause

or on the other hand he could pressure adams by saying we really know u are on the council but 'we dont know' and carry on and hope/ pray the ira disarms and decriminalises. I think if u read between the lines this is whats going on. any logical person can see that. i believe the justice minister and bertie know what they are doing and have said it in a veiled way.

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

He can't/won't it say because he doesn't have the evidence to back it up.

What do you think about the three reasons Ive given in my previos post, Id value your opinion

Villain

Necromancer wrote:

What do you think about the three reasons Ive given in my previos post, Id value your opinion

Can you quote the reasons, I'm pretty busy at the moment.

Cheers

Stabshauptmann

Sorry, in relation to political gain that Adams might reap:

I think Adams wants people to think he is on the army council, I think SF benifits in elections from the blurry line between it and the IRA. I think that that is part of the reason why he choose to attend a meeting in Armagh with lads in military uniform marching in the background.
I think most people dont want to see a return to violence and believe that if Adams wants peace, and he is in a position of influence, then maybe they should vote for him.

Secondly by saying his peers dont see anything wrong with being on the army council he is implying that there isnt. SF has a policy of decriminilizing and legitimizing the appearence of the IRA.

billy the squid

Yep bombs were placed under cars, yep civilians died, so what exactly? Bombs and civilian casualties are a part of every war, you say its not very open because ppl dont see the face of their killer. In modern wars they rarely do

civilians died because the IRA used "civilian vehicles" to hide their bombs. if they are going to use a tool of war then it should not be disguised as a civilian vehicle, to do so is not very open.

and it doesnt change the fact that they ran away after they planted their bombs, how brave and noble of them.

The British have really done that in NI! On the other hand, are you now going to say that the IRA's action justifies the actions of the British?

The actions of the brittish army does not justify what the IRA have become in recent years, with their criminal activity, sure back in the 70 s maybe they had a cause, but that seems to have been superceded nowadays for the percuit of ilgotten gains.

Villain

Necromancer wrote:

Sorry, in relation to political gain that Adams might reap:

I think Adams wants people to think he is on the army council, I think SF benifits in elections from the blurry line between it and the IRA. I think that that is part of the reason why he choose to attend a meeting in Armagh with lads in military uniform marching in the background.
I think most people dont want to see a return to violence and believe that if Adams wants peace, and he is in a position of influence, then maybe they should vote for him.

Secondly by saying his peers dont see anything wrong with being on the army council he is implying that there isnt. SF has a policy of decriminilizing and legitimizing the appearence of the IRA.

You certianly could be right, I mean I'm sure some hardline republicans would like to think Adams is on the IRA army council and an MP. But I think a lot of nationalists would not be pleased if they thought Adams was on the Army Council.

By him saying he's not and McDowell saying he is, he's probably not going to lose votes to either the rational nationlist or Hardline republican.

I think myself however that Adams has been distancing himself from the IRA since the peace process broke down.

The problem here is we don't know.

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

civilians died because the IRA used "civilian vehicles" to hide their bombs. if they are going to use a tool of war then it should not be disguised as a civilian vehicle, to do so is not very open.

and it doesnt change the fact that they ran away after they planted their bombs, how brave and noble of them.
.

ok so they should have bought tanks and put the bombs in them and maybe painted BOMB in big writing all over the sides of the tank just so as there would be no confusion

and then after the bomb had exploded they should have come back to the scene and stood there to show how brave and unafraid they were maybe with signs that said we did it or perhaps just IRA

billy the squid

cdebru wrote:

ok so they should have bought tanks and put the bombs in them and maybe painted BOMB in big writing all over the sides of the tank just so as there would be no confusion

your being silly now, i think you know what I mean

but in case you don't then I will explain to you. Why should they plant bombs at all, if they want to call themselves an army why don't they stand and fight the birttish army like the great and glorious heroes they claim to be.

putting a bomb in the middle of a civilian area attatched to a civilian vehicle can only end in one thing, the death of civilians.

and then after the bomb had exploded they should have come back to the scene and stood there to show how brave and unafraid they were maybe with signs that said we did it or perhaps just IRA

if a military unit are going to start a conflageration, they should have the balls to meet the response, they should be willing to give to take the risk of losing their lives in battle rather than scuttling down some laneway like a deseased rat.

Stabshauptmann

billy the squid wrote:

your being silly now, i think you know what I mean

but in case you don't then I will explain to you. Why should they plant bombs at all, if they want to call themselves an army why don't they stand and fight the birttish army like the great and glorious heroes they claim to be.

putting a bomb in the middle of a civilian area attatched to a civilian vehicle can only end in one thing, the death of civilians.

The flaw in this arguement has already been pointed out, bombs surprise ppl when they are dropped from military planes. People dont have time to get to safety, civilians die.
The IRA has killed a smaller proportion of civilians than nearly all other armies in the 20th century. I know that two wrongs dont make a right but you are complaining about the conduct of their war, their way of fighting war kills less civilians. That IMO is a good thing, not ideal, ideal would be nobody dies, then nobody innocent dies then the fewer the better.

Counting the number of IRA bombs that went off without warning is a very quick process because there are so few, dont just dismiss that; it makes a big difference in the death toll: just look at the middle east.

if a military unit are going to start a conflageration, they should have the balls to meet the response, they should be willing to give to take the risk of losing their lives in battle rather than scuttling down some laneway like a deseased rat.

There was a lot of risk in fighting during the troubles, a lot more than an American soldier faces in Iraq, just putting things in perspective. The British often used plain clothes as well so that point doesnt hold much weight.

I know "They did it too" isnt a great arguement but when you wont call a spade a spade because of the colour of it, it is important to point out that it is the same colour as every other spade in the garden.
You could list a few war crimes that the IRA commited and Ill agre with you and agree that ppl should be brought to juctice - but Ill also point out that rarely anyone comes out of war with clean hands. All the major armies have commited war crimes: France, Germany, Britian, USSR/Russian Federation, America, China, Japan (wont even get statred on africa)...

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

your being silly now, i think you know what I mean

but in case you don't then I will explain to you. Why should they plant bombs at all, if they want to call themselves an army why don't they stand and fight the birttish army like the great and glorious heroes they claim to be.

putting a bomb in the middle of a civilian area attatched to a civilian vehicle can only end in one thing, the death of civilians.



if a military unit are going to start a conflageration, they should have the balls to meet the response, they should be willing to give to take the risk of losing their lives in battle rather than scuttling down some laneway like a deseased rat.

no it is the logical conclusion of what you are saying

why dont they stand and fight now who is being silly
that was tried in 1916 and it doesn't work the british army is one of the biggest best armed best trained best financed armies in the world

putting the bombs in places were the IRA placed them was not to inflict civilian casualties if it had been then an awful lot more people would have died they were aimed at commercial targets part of a strategy of inflicting as much financial damage as possible on the british exchequer


they are following in the very sucessfull tradition of micheal collins and the black and tan war and other guerilla wars such as the french resistance
the yugoslav partisans there is absolutely nothing wrong with enbaging in guerilla tactics when you are outnumbered and outgunned infact it is the only sensible choice

billy the squid

why dont they stand and fight now who is being silly

how is it a silly question? if they are going to start trouble then they should be prepared to finnish it instead of running away.

that was tried in 1916 and it doesn't work the british army is one of the biggest best armed best trained best financed armies in the world

a better idea would be to dispand and give up the criminality and go the democratic route.

putting the bombs in places were the IRA placed them was not to inflict civilian casualties if it had been then an awful lot more people would have died they were aimed at commercial targets part of a strategy of inflicting as much financial damage as possible on the british exchequer

still civilian targets though, civilians work there, civilians do business there. the fact that the US army dropped bombs from the air hitting civilian targets makes my question more important. The US bombers cannot actually see their targets, where as the IRA actually drive right up to their targets. which should iliminate the margin of error.

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

how is it a silly question? if they are going to start trouble then they should be prepared to finnish it instead of running away. .

ok yeah the IRA should have gone into a field and waited for the british army to show up at the opposite end of the field and then they should have charged at each other and they should have used swords and bow and arrows

billy the squid wrote:

a better idea would be to dispand and give up the criminality and go the democratic route..

I want the IRA to disband the sooner the better

billy the squid wrote:

still civilian targets though, civilians work there, civilians do business there. the fact that the US army dropped bombs from the air hitting civilian targets makes my question more important. The US bombers cannot actually see their targets, where as the IRA actually drive right up to their targets. which should iliminate the margin of error.

so if you drop a massive bomb on a house or residential area but you are on a ship in the persian gulf thats ok because you cant see the house from the persian gulf
the end of the day people are still dead wether the bomb came out of a plane was a missile fired from a ship hundreds of miles away
the IRA nearly always tried to reduce the risk of innocent civilian deaths

billy the squid

ok yeah the IRA should have gone into a field and waited for the british army to show up at the opposite end of the field and then they should have charged at each other and they should have used swords and bow and arrows

worked for robert the bruce

seriously though if they wanted to attack brittish rule then why did they blow up shops and pubs like they did in enniskillen and Birmingham, where civilians were the only victims.

cdebru

billy the squid wrote:

worked for robert the bruce

seriously though if they wanted to attack brittish rule then why did they blow up shops and pubs like they did in enniskillen and Birmingham, where civilians were the only victims.

i could not possibly even try to defend the birmingham pub bombing or the enniskillen bombing and many others beside
in my opinion both were crimes and i dont go along with the whole the IRA cant commit a crime bull****
anyone and any group is capable of committing crimes and the IRA have committed quite a few

however I don't believe that in general the IRA deliberately tried to kill civilians i have no doubt they could have and that they had people that would have if they had been allowed
the IRA tried to thread the line between giving enough warning to remove civilians but not enough to enable disarming the device sometimes they got it wrong sometimes they did not even try

true

cdebru wrote:

however I don't believe that in general the IRA deliberately tried to kill civilians i have no doubt they could have and that they had people that would have if they had been allowed

i have no doubt they did. ( kill civilians ). I have no doubt 3000 people would be alive today if it were not for the provos. Besides, people are people : if you shot a retired part-time policeman on his farm in the back and run away, or put a bomb under his car, what does / did this achieve? To his family, he was still a husband , father, uncle or whatever.

[ Daithí ]

Three thousand people? So you're saying that the Provos are responsible for almost every single death during the Troubles? That's a ridiculous claim.

BBC.co.uk wrote:

The Troubles refers to the period of violent conflict in Northern Ireland beginning with the Civil Rights marches in the late 1960s to the political resolution enshrined in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. During that time more than 3,000 people were killed, most of them civilians.

true

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

Three thousand people? So you're saying that the Provos are responsible for almost every single death during the Troubles? That's a ridiculous claim.

It was not just in N. Ireland that people were killed. Look at the many IRA bombings / murders in England, not to mention the loyalist bombings in the Republic ( the Dublin and Monaghan bombings wrere retaliation for previous republican bombings ) and the IRA attacks on the continent.

If it was not for the provo / INLA campaign then there would be three thousand people alive,yes, or at least would not have been killed. The loyalists would not have retaliated to the same scale as they did. Some of the 3000 may have died of natural or other circumstances in the intervening years. There was the odd IRA murder / attack in the decades before the '69 troubles, the same as there was the odd loyalist attack. If the provos went the route of Ghandi, it would have saved countless people and property, lives and prosperity.