Sunday world alledges Sinn Féin benefit from racketeering-Are they going to sue ?

You would probably be thinking of the news of the world,sunday times or one of those?

The SW is owned by the Indo group,its head offices used be in terrenure iirc but now they are here

A nice fish for SF to sue.

jman0

Those tabloids are rubbish. They are just printed to wind people up with a view toward selling more papers.
Why give them the satisfaction (not to mention free advertising by taking them to court)
If SF does it, i'd argue that it's a waste of time and resources.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

They will not sue because it is not possible for an irish republican organisation to get "justice" from HMG's system.

Justice as opposed to "justice" eh? I'm curious as to the emphasis on the word justice there. What kind of justice would you be perhaps implying? Knee-cappings? Beatings? Disappearances? :rolleyes:

You also might want to look up an atlas. Ireland, the republic of is not under the jursdiction of the United Kingdom. Just thought I'd let you know in case you hadn't been paying attention in geography class.

1000 lines "Geography is not boring".

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

Those tabloids are rubbish.

As opposed to the tendency by SF/IRA supporters on these boards to make direct references to, and insist upon the integrity of, "provo rags"?

Why give them the satisfaction (not to mention free advertising by taking them to court)
If SF does it, i'd argue that it's a waste of time and resources.

Why give them the satisfaction? Ummm .... because they've a large readers base and well ... readers = voters, not to put too fine a point on it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Another day dawns and we are no further forward to actually reading the whole article.....

gandalf

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Another day dawns and we are no further forward to actually reading the whole article.....

Yep anyone got a scan of this literary masterpiece. There is no way I wanted to be seen buying the Slumday World.

(I suppose it is a change from their normal pieces on Vice Rings thou!)

Dub,if my head didnt hurt today I'd transcribe it for you.
Suffice it to say it goes along the lines of sources,sources sources.

The crucial part to my eyes is what it states as fact.In my view it would be imperative to rebutt that statement in court, by asking for the evidence or a retraction, the costs of course going to the winner.

Villain

Lemming wrote:

As opposed to the tendency by SF/IRA supporters on these boards to make direct references to, and insist upon the integrity of, "provo rags"?

Does that sweeping remark include all SF supporters on Boards?

BTW Earthman did you get in contact with Sinn Fein to get an answer to your questions??

axer

Earthman wrote:

Hang on a second-lets have a look at what you just said too.
A million plus readers would be a quarter of the country-what percentage of the U.S would read the national inquirer.It's a valid point to make that an accusation is being made in a paper with one of the biggest readerships in the land.

Well - it is a fair amount of readership at 852,000 which does amount to 21% of total population - thats true. Of that 852,000 readers, skilled working class (described as skilled manual workers) and working class (described as semi and unskilled manual workers) account for 539,000 (over half) of those readers. But it is a valid point a it does have alot of readership.

Earthman wrote:

Paul williams wrote the article, are you not concerned that the countries foremost and respected crime writer would write such stuff unchallenged?

what do you mean - unchallenged? By who? You do realise that the two biggest selling sunday newspapers and the biggest (by nearly double of its nearest competitor) selling daily newspaper are all owned by the same person.

Earthman wrote:

With respect the statements made that SF offices and campaigns are funded by Dublin port racketeering are either true or false-theres no inbetween.They should be sueing for damages based on the falseness of the statement and at the very least a retraction on page one.It should be fairly simple for to ask the Sunday world in court to present evidence or withdraw the accusation as unfounded. That might be mentioned in court, but it has nothing to do with asking for evidence regarding party funding or asking for a retraction in court if its not presented.

Yes sinn fein could sue the Sunday World but on what grounds? Libel? As I have already said they would not succeed in this for reasons aforementioned in my last post. What other grounds can they sue on? Also it is not cheap to sue the sunday world.

Earthman wrote:

The only counter as I see it that SF have against this besides going to court about it, would be to have a full independent inquiry into the source of their funding as they *may* want to make the case that they unwittingly got funds from a questionable source.

Why would they do this if they believe that the claims are unfounded? Who would pay for such an inquiry?

Earthman wrote:

Regardless of whatever else, they should at a minimum be seen to be establishing beyond doubt the truth of the matter ie whether what was in the SW was a lie or not and if it was they should sue.

How could they go about this? tell me

Earthman wrote:

Otherwise it leaves the door wide open to the accusation that they know theres something to the accusation.

Do you believe everything that is written in Newspapers?

axer

Lemming wrote:

Justice as opposed to "justice" eh? I'm curious as to the emphasis on the word justice there. What kind of justice would you be perhaps implying? Knee-cappings? Beatings? Disappearances? :rolleyes:

As earthman would say - thats off topic - you are more than welcome to start a new topic about this.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

BTW Earthman did you get in contact with Sinn Fein to get an answer to your questions??

This is a discussion board where we are discussing the topic.
I hope you arent suggesting that I need to contact SF directly to get an answer to a question I posed about your post.

Mighty_Mouse

Yawn! Does it not strike anyone here as a little desperate to have to resort to tabloid accusations to link SF to criminal assets.

Surely the Gardai could make a few arrests? I mean if Paul Williams knows shouldnt the gardai?

ps
did he do his usual trick of a page of black faces to lend weight to his argument. "Black face 1 is a leading IRA man who deals heroin to 6 year olds and sick babies.Undisclosable sources stated that he was Gerry Adams gay lover for 15 years before turning to drugs after scorned love!!"

"Black face 2 is ....................."

etc

axer

axer wrote:

As earthman would say - thats off topic - you are more than welcome to start a new topic about this.

Correct, but report the post please, my head hurts today so I cant promise you the usual diligence unless you do that.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

This is a discussion board where we are discussing the topic.
I hope you arent suggesting that I need to contact SF directly to get an answer to a question I posed about your post.

You asked:

SF dont want to rebutt what they clearly think are lies in papers? why?

and

It does more it says SF is funded by Dublin port racketeering. Why leave that unchallenged, if its such rubbish? why let such a golden opportunity go?

How can anyone here answer those questions??. If you really want those questions answered I suggest you contact Sinn Fein.

BTW you keep saying sue, on what gorunds though what type of lawsuit can they take??

Rock Climber

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Yawn! Does it not strike anyone here as a little desperate to have to resort to tabloid accusations to link SF to criminal assets.

And the reason they wont sue on a dead cert like this is....

Surely the Gardai could make a few arrests? I mean if Paul Williams knows shouldnt the gardai?

sources would have to come out in the law suit, otherwise the allegations wouldnt stand-so why not sue.

ps
did he do his usual trick of a page of black faces to lend weight to his argument. "Black face 1 is a leading IRA man who deals heroin to 6 year olds and sick babies.Undisclosable sources stated that he was Gerry Adams gay lover for 15 years before turning to drugs after scorned love!!"

"Black face 2 is ....................."

etc

Dissing Paul Williams, yeah thats a creditable approach to take,next thing I'll hear here is he's biased :rolleyes:

gandalf

The main question I would have is this, if Sinn Fein want to make the breakthrough into mainstream politics then they will have to meet allegations like this* head on and challange them in a court of law and prove that they are rubbish. Until they do this then the mud will stick whether they are true or not.

* Obviously I have to read the offending article.

gandalf

irish1 wrote:

How can anyone here answer those questions??. If you really want those questions answered I suggest you contact Sinn Fein.

As a self professed Sinn Fein supporter I am sure you are more than capable of enlightening people with your opinion. I think that is what people are looking for here. Although a statement from Gerry and the boys would be most welcome.

Villain

gandalf wrote:

As a self professed Sinn Fein supporter I am sure you are more than capable of enlightening people with your opinion. I think that is what people are looking for here. Although a statement from Gerry and the boys would be most welcome.

Yes but he didn't ask for my opinion, he asked direct questions that nobody here can answer and if he really wanted to know the answers he should contact the party.

axer

axer wrote:

what do you mean - unchallenged? By who?

SF for the lie they are going to say was printed.

You do realise that the two biggest selling sunday newspapers and the biggest (by nearly double of its nearest competitor) selling daily newspaper are all owned by the same person.

yes

Yes sinn fein could sue the Sunday World but on what grounds?

As I said a retraction-It's not that difficult actually,I was involved in getting one done recently.

Also it is not cheap to sue the sunday world.

It's black and white axer,the costs would have to be paid by the SW as they are the ones that would have to retract the lie.

Why would they do this if they believe that the claims are unfounded? Who would pay for such an inquiry?

They should establish this beyond doubt and sue the SW for all reasonable costs when they get their retraction

How could they go about this? tell me

It would be imperative in my view to be seen to have a standard whereby an accusation like this was put to bed.It should be simple enough to clear up if SF knows where its party donations have originated.
As I said earlier, they could donate to charity any amount if they turn some up that has unwittingly came from a dodgy source.
In that case they would also want to make sure that there were mechanisms in place to make sure theres no recurrance.

Do you believe everything that is written in Newspapers?

NO
But thats not the point here, the point is,that a statement has been published that SF camaigns and offices have been funded by racketeering which if untrue is as clear a case as any for going to law to get a retraction printed.

gandalf

irish1 wrote:

Yes but he didn't ask for my opinion, he asked direct questions that nobody here can answer and if he really wanted to know the answers he should contact the party.

Well the comments you quoted looked like someone trying to get a discussion started rather than directly aimed at Sinn Fein offices themselves. What format of wording should we use in future to engage in a discussion, maybe earthman should put a disclaimer in his replies so you realise that he is looking for other members of boards input rather than a source outside boards :rolleyes:

Villain

gandalf wrote:

Well the comments you quoted looked like someone trying to get a discussion started rather than directly aimed at Sinn Fein offices themselves. What format of wording should we use in future to engage in a discussion, maybe earthman should put a disclaimer in his replies so you realise that he is looking for other members of boards input rather than a source outside boards :rolleyes:

The discussion was well started by the time he asked those questions :rolleyes: oh and another for good luck :rolleyes:

axer

gandalf wrote:

The main question I would have is this, if Sinn Fein want to make the breakthrough into mainstream politics then they will have to meet allegations like this* head on and challange them in a court of law and prove that they are rubbish. Until they do this then the mud will stick whether they are true or not.

* Obviously I have to read the offending article.

I disagree. They are still making major advances in all-ireland politics without getting involved needing to challenge tabloids.

gandalf

irish1 wrote:

The discussion was well started by the time he asked those questions :rolleyes: oh and another for good luck :rolleyes:

So you are saying because the discussion had started he was not entitled to comment as he did on it.

gandalf

axer wrote:

I disagree. They are still making major advances in all-ireland politics without getting involved needing to challenge tabloids.

Ah but if they want to be seen as a proper democratic party they need to remove this stigma whether deserved or not of Sinn Fein having direct links with criminals. Until they do this they will only pick up support from the fringes here in the republic.

axer

Earthman wrote:

SF for the lie they are going to say was printed.yes

Why bother? I dont believe it effects them. The biggest group of peole that do not vote in elections are those in "skilled manual workers" and "semi and unskilled manual workers" classes. Considering that they make up over 63% of the sunday worlds readership - why bother? Not only that but I believe that the majority of people that read tabloids are aware that these papers are sensationalist in nature and do not take them as fact.

Earthman wrote:

As I said a retraction-It's not that difficult actually,I was involved in getting one done recently. It's black and white axer,the costs would have to be paid by the SW as they are the ones that would have to retract the lie.

It may have been simple for you but this is a much bigger case. Besides why bother? to satisfy you?

Earthman wrote:

They should establish this beyond doubt and sue the SW for all reasonable costs when they get their retraction
It would be imperative in my view to be seen to have a standard whereby an accusation like this was put to bed.It should be simple enough to clear up if SF knows where its party donations have originated.

How?

Earthman wrote:

NO
But thats not the point here, the point is,that a statement has been published that SF camaigns and offices have been funded by racketeering which if untrue is as clear a case as any for going to law to get a retraction printed.

Yes but this statement was made by a sensationalist newspaper. To sue would be to give them credibility as a newspaper.

axer

gandalf wrote:

Ah but if they want to be seen as a proper democratic party they need to remove this stigma whether deserved or not of Sinn Fein having direct links with criminals. Until they do this they will only pick up support from the fringes here in the republic.

You mean to be seen as a proper democratic party by you but I do not share your view of this.

Villain

gandalf wrote:

So you are saying because the discussion had started he was not entitled to comment as he did on it.

Nope not saying that all, just saying if he wants those questions answered he needs to ask the party, pretty straight forward imo.

gandalf wrote:

Ah but if they want to be seen as a proper democratic party they need to remove this stigma whether deserved or not of Sinn Fein having direct links with criminals. Until they do this they will only pick up support from the fringes here in the republic.

Proper democratic party??? what do you mean, they have more support than the PD's are they not a proper democratic party??

axer

axer wrote:

Why bother? I dont believe it effects them.

With respect thats a cop out comment rather than an addressing of the question.

The biggest group of peole that do not vote in elections are those in "skilled manual workers" and "semi and unskilled manual workers" classes. Considering that they make up over 63% of the sunday worlds readership - why bother?

Have you access to who reads the SW now?

Not only that both I believe that the majority of people that read tabloids are aware that these papers are sensationalist in nature and do not take them as fact.

So anything goes as far as you are concerned in these papers now? With respect thats another cop out of the discussion comment.

It may have been simple for you but this is a much bigger case.

Whats big about a case asking for a retraction when the paper cannot prove what it said?

Besides why bother?

well the straight foward answer to that is, if SF don't challenge things like this it seriously dilutes their bona fidé's when commenting on anything dodgy in relation to their opponent politicians.Quite apart from the fact that it will always be thrown back at them as to why they let the accusation go.

Yes but this statement was made by a sensationalist newspaper. To sue would be to give them credibility as a newspaper.

Explain to me how a newspaper gains credibility when SF gets them to retract a lie?

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Nope not saying that all, just saying if he wants those questions answered he needs to ask the party, pretty straight forward imo.

irish1,could you quit the nonsense and debate the subject like everyone else please, if you want to debate the subject.

Proper democratic party??? what do you mean, they have more support than the PD's are they not a proper democratic party??

I think what Gandalf's getting at is, that they should establish that the SW accusation is a lie.
You've already agreed that SF should be seen to be inquiring into this at the very least here
The best way to get the rest of what you ask for in that post is to nail the lie by getting the courts to order a retraction of what it does accuse SF of directly ie that its offices and campaigns are funded from racketeering.

gandalf

irish1 wrote:

Nope not saying that all, just saying if he wants those questions answered he needs to ask the party, pretty straight forward imo.

They were part of the discussion on this board between members of this board. If you do not want to engage with him or anyone else on the points say so, don't hide behind a statement like "ask the party".

Proper democratic party??? what do you mean, they have more support than the PD's are they not a proper democratic party??

There are questions about their links to criminal organisations and how they fund their organisation. Thats exactly what I mean.