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

jman0

Maybe newspapers making frivolous accusations at republicans actually benefit republicans. Sort of reverse psychology, after all when you look at the track record of the last few years there's been tons of bad press directed at SF yet every election they gain votes.

Villain

gandalf wrote:

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

So that means their not a proper democratic party

Villain

Earthman wrote:

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

Quit the nonsense?? I'm not the one asking questions while knowing no-one here can give answers.

jman0

I mean people are presuming that these wild accusations actually hurt SF, but where is the proof?
They are still a legal political party.
They gain more votes every election.

Why do posters think these allegations hurt SF?
Prove that it does.

Rock Climber

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

I agree the support they got in the Kildare by-election will proabably rise by a multiple of thousands at the next general election when they decide, that its worth running a candidate there .

Same old same old here by the way.

May I be the first to say,if the cap fits why sue to not wear it

Villain

Rock Climber wrote:

I agree the support they got in the Kildare by-election will proabably rise by a multiple of thousands at the next general election when they decide, that its worth running a candidate there .

Same old same old here by the way.

May I be the first to say,if the cap fits why sue to not wear it

Sinn Fein didn't run for election in Kildare so what?? FF don't run up north but claim to be a republican party!!!

axer

Earthman wrote:

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

No its not. The question is why do sinn fein not sue the SW. I believe it does not affect them so they do not need to sue the SW.

Earthman wrote:

Have you access to who reads the SW now?

http://www.nni.ie/readfigs5.htm and http://www.medialive.ie/Banners/Sunday_World/sunworldmag.html

Earthman wrote:

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

Yep - pretty much anything goes with these papers. Not a cop out. Its an opinion of the quality of the paper.

Earthman wrote:

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

Its time and effort on the part of sinn fein that could be spent elsewhere - why waste it.

Earthman wrote:

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.

Challenge the SW? Wow that really seems a worthwhile thing to bring in votes....or maybe not. Its kinda like internment in the north.

Earthman wrote:

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

It means they pay some heed to sensationalist newspapers.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Quit the nonsense?? I'm not the one asking questions while knowing no-one here can give answers.

If you don't know what nonsense I'm talking about,I'll spell it out for you more clearly.
I asked you a question about your statement.
What that is meant to encourage you to do is discuss rather than fob off the question as it was directed at you, who(and I may be mistaken in this belief apparently or possibly) as a SF supporter on this board were discussing the subject untill a question came up about the party that you support that apparently you did not want to address.

Now if you don't want to address pertinent points in a discussion, then thats your perogative but please don't be attempting to lay your decision to take that approach at my hands.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

If you don't know what nonsense I'm talking about,I'll spell it out for you more clearly.
I asked you a question about your statement.
What that is meant to encourage you to do is discuss rather than fob off the question as it was directed at you, who(and I may be mistaken in this belief apparently or possibly) as a SF supporter on this board were discussing the subject untill a question came up about the party that you support that apparently you did not want to address.

Now if you don't want to address pertinent points in a discussion, then thats your perogative but please don't be attempting to lay your decision to take that approach at my hands.

I answered the questions I could, how do you expect me to know the answers to

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

or

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?

axer

axer wrote:

No its not. The question is why do sinn fein not sue the SW. I believe it does not affect them so they do not need to sue the SW.

you believe that a party would have the moral authority to speak on crime if they dont refute an accusation that they are run on the proceeds of crime? Thats what you are effectively saying, and to be honest I can't believe I'm reading it.

http://www.nni.ie/readfigs5.htm and http://www.medialive.ie/Banners/Sunday_World/sunworldmag.html

Those links don't establish what you claim about the SW readership or who goes to the polls or how they form their opinions.

Yep - pretty much anything goes with these papers. Not a cop out. Its an opinion of the quality of the paper.

I probably even share your opinion, but it has nothing to do with the point regarding the lack of a rebuttall. But I take it you are saying this type of thing doesnt matter to SF, which I find extraordinary.Incidently afair the allegations about Lowry,Haughey etc etc all mostly got their first airing in independent newspapers.

Its time and effort on the part of sinn fein that could be spent elsewhere - why waste it.
Challenge the SW? Wow that really seems a worthwhile thing to bring in votes....or maybe not. Its kinda like internment in the north.

jaysus, talk about setting new standards ,its not a satisfactory explanation for avoiding a retraction demand, its actually more akin to a we're alright jack, say what you want we're not going to investigate anything or show that we are clean because well we don't have to,time is better spent elsewhere.
If thats your way of looking at it , dont be surprised if it comes back to bite you when talking about alledged corruption elsewhere.
The same would apply to SF if they take that view too.

irish1 wrote:

I answered the questions I could, how do you expect me to know the answers to

In fairness at least axer made an effort,he hasnt avoided anything,he has discussed all this with me and others.

gandalf

irish1 wrote:

So that means their not a proper democratic party

Oh course it does, if they cannot go about their business without resorting to funding by breaking the laws of the state they claim to serve they cannot really be called democratic now can they !!!

What this article does is cast doubt that they are a legitimate political party and more a front for a mafioso type entity. If I were a Sinn Fein member or supporter I for one would like my party to defend itself using the Courts of the country against this slur. Thats of course if I was sure they didn't have anything to answer for.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

In fairness at least axer made an effort,he hasnt avoided anything,he has discussed all this with me and others.

Axer didn't answer those questions at all actually, he just gave his opinion same as me. My point is if you really wanted to know the answers you would ask Sinn fein.

BTW the way you said SF should sue previously now you say ask for a retraction, is there any grounds on which they could sue? i.e. under what law?

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Axer didn't answer those questions at all actually, he just gave his opinion same as me. My point is if you really wanted to know the answers you would ask Sinn fein.

axer made an effort and offered an opinion which you didn't earlier.Instead you went on with the nonsense that I was asking a question to which you didnt know the answer ,when in actual fact I was promoting a discussion of views by wanting to know yours.
It is is nice that you are now rejoining the discussion and I take your point that you made earlier that SF should at the very least be seen to look into this.

BTW the way you said SF should sue previously now you say ask for a retraction, is there any grounds on which they could sue? i.e. under what law?

I think you misunderstand what sue-ing means-it means going to court for to get something and in this case it would be sue-ing for a retraction, if the initial threat of proceedings and swap of solicitors letters didn't provide it.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

I think you misunderstand what sue-ing means-it means going to court for to get something and in this case it would be sue-ing for a retraction, if the initial threat of proceedings and swap of solicitors letters didn't provide it.

I didn't realise you could just go to court and sue for a reatraction. So you would seek a court order forcing the Sunday World to retract their accusation??

jman0

gandalf wrote:

Oh course it does, if they cannot go about their business without resorting to funding by breaking the laws of the state they claim to serve they cannot really be called democratic now can they !!!

Of course they can gandalf, it is not a tabloid which will determine the legitimacy of a political party, rather the electorate does, and neverminding them; the justice system of the jurisdiction that party operates in.

axer

Earthman wrote:

you believe that a party would have the moral authority to speak on crime if they dont refute an accusation that they are run on the proceeds of crime? Thats what you are effectively saying, and to be honest I can't believe I'm reading it.

Again I say - look at where the accusation is coming from - A sensationalist newspaper.

Earthman wrote:

Those links don't establish what you claim about the SW readership or who goes to the polls or how they form their opinions.

They do show the breakdown of who reads the SW.

Earthman wrote:

I probably even share your opinion, but it has nothing to do with the point regarding the lack of a rebuttall. But I take it you are saying this type of thing doesnt matter to SF, which I find extraordinary.Incidently afair the allegations about Lowry,Haughey etc etc all mostly got their first airing in independent newspapers.

Why make a rebuttall to a sensationalist paper, it only helps the newspaper.

Earthman wrote:

jaysus, talk about setting new standards ,its not a satisfactory explanation for avoiding a retraction demand, its actually more akin to a we're alright jack, say what you want we're not going to investigate anything or show that we are clean because well we don't have to,time is better spent elsewhere.

Whats wrong with that. Why would you investigate something that you do not believe there is a problem with.

Earthman wrote:

If thats your way of looking at it , dont be surprised if it comes back to bite you when talking about alledged corruption elsewhere.
The same would apply to SF if they take that view too.

Because I dont believe a sensationalist tabloid newspaper?

Earthman wrote:

In fairness at least axer made an effort,he hasnt avoided anything,he has discussed all this with me and others.

In fairness to irish1 - nobody can answer this question except for the sinn fein leadership. While I have offered my opinion I cannot prove it without reasonable doubt which means that this argument could continue forever unless sinn fein do sue the paper. Its the same argument on the same topic from a different angle. The fact that it is mainly the same members that are asking the questions of why not sue as every other question against sinn fein (and vice versa) goes to show those members will probably be always against sinn fein anyways - no matter what points are brought up. Then a new thread will start attacking sinn fein from another angle just when this one gets to about 4 pages long. I havent been looking at this forum for long but since I have this is all I have seen.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I didn't realise you could just go to court and sue for a reatraction. So you would seek a court order forcing the Sunday World to retract their accusation??

Historically there have been many retractions in papers where they issue an apology for saying something wrong.
Even RTÉ have had them afaik

Theres a good read here about it.

It's quite long and informative so I wont Quote it here,anyone that wants to read it, can click on the link.

jman0

axer wrote:

In fairness to irish1 - nobody can answer this question except for the sinn fein leadership. While I have offered my opinion I cannot prove it without reasonable doubt which means that this argument could continue forever unless sinn fein do sue the paper. Its the same argument on the same topic from a different angle. The fact that it is mainly the same members that are asking the questions of why not sue as every other question against sinn fein (and vice versa) goes to show those members will probably be always against sinn fein anyways - no matter what points are brought up. Then a new thread will start attacking sinn fein from another angle just when this one gets to about 4 pages long. I havent been looking at this forum for long but since I have this is all I have seen.

I'd say you're dead-on there.
The SF Basher Brigade seems a very litigeous bunch.
I think the effect of what they're saying is that if SF don't sue then it must mean the accusations are true. Which is obviously naive.
I believe this a relatively new political phenomenom in the history of the FS; kicked off upon the much publicised Albert Reynolds suing the english Times.
Maybe the SF Basher Bridage believe a precedent has been set and all other politicians/parties must follow. However they ignore the real waste of court time it is. But nevermind that, what they don't understand or appreciate is the history of such anti-SF slaunderings republicans have been exposed.
Not only did SF endure 25 years of Section 31 (which certain politicians wanted to extend to the print media) but all during the troubles Republicans have been barraged by black propaganda and media prejudice. Republicans have grown a thick skin over the years. I hope the leaders of SF don't waste our time with such trivial matters as what so-and-so from the Sunday World said. God knows that could open a pandora's box of court cases.

A Dub in Glasgo

axer wrote:

In fairness to irish1 - nobody can answer this question except for the sinn fein leadership. While I have offered my opinion I cannot prove it without reasonable doubt which means that this argument could continue forever unless sinn fein do sue the paper. Its the same argument on the same topic from a different angle. The fact that it is mainly the same members that are asking the questions of why not sue as every other question against sinn fein (and vice versa) goes to show those members will probably be always against sinn fein anyways - no matter what points are brought up. Then a new thread will start attacking sinn fein from another angle just when this one gets to about 4 pages long. I havent been looking at this forum for long but since I have this is all I have seen.

Exactly, which is why I asked this in post 3 to the thread starter. 4 pages of speculation and I have not even got the benefit (?) of reading the article in question. I would have bought the SW yesterday based on the strong representations of some forum members but thankfully, the SW is not available in Glasgow therefore I am relying on the good work of others.

axer

axer wrote:

Again I say - look at where the accusation is coming from - A sensationalist newspaper.

And written by the foremost crime journalist in the country.

They do show the breakdown of who reads the SW.

The break down wouldn't be enough to make the statement though that 63% of its readers are in the category you are putting them in as the catogories used in the link are broadly defined.

Why make a rebuttall to a sensationalist paper, it only helps the newspaper.

Again I must ask how printing a retraction helps a newspaper?

Whats wrong with that. Why would you investigate something that you do not believe there is a problem with.

Therein lies the problem(if you pardon the pun ) standards and being seen to be thorough with them.

Because I dont believe a sensationalist tabloid newspaper?

well we know you dont believe them, thats not the issue here, the fact is the accusation has been leveled in print and should be dealt with,not left to fester.
Otherwise, you would have the other parties legitamately dismissing any protests about it being a lie.

In fairness to irish1 - nobody can answer this question except for the sinn fein leadership. While I have offered my opinion I cannot prove it without reasonable doubt which means that this argument could continue forever unless sinn fein do sue the paper. Its the same argument on the same topic from a different angle.

Thats the problem if they dont deal with the issue.

The fact that it is mainly the same members that are asking the questions of why not sue as every other question against sinn fein (and vice versa) goes to show those members will probably be always against sinn fein anyways - no matter what points are brought up.

I'm not sure thats the case.Can you categorically state that posters here who criticise SF dont also criticise FF or FG for corruption when it arises? Or for hypocrisy? Take the recent long thread on McDaid for example or on any of the politicians involved in the tribunals from time to time.

Then a new thread will start attacking sinn fein from another angle just when this one gets to about 4 pages long. I havent been looking at this forum for long but since I have this is all I have seen.

In fairness,of the 20 topics on the front page here 17 of them are not about SF.

axer

Earthman wrote:

Historically there have been many retractions in papers where they issue an apology for saying something wrong.
Even RTÉ have had them afaik

Theres a good read here about it.

It's quite long and informative so I wont Quote it here,anyone that wants to read it, can click on the link.

I have to say that what you just posted just shows that a person cannot sue for a retraction but for damages. The apology/retraction can sometimes reduce the amount of damages that are awarded, but their is no obligation to print an apology or retraction. The only two outcomes of suing would be damages or an injunction. The injunction could only be used to stop the paper printing the article before it was printed, it could not force them to print a retraction.

axer

Earthman wrote:

And written by the foremost crime journalist in the country.

If he wants to be taken seriously then why doesnt he work for a non-sensationalist newspaper?

Earthman wrote:

The break down wouldn't be enough to make the statement though that 63% of its readers are in the category you are putting them in as the catogories used in the link are broadly defined.

C2DE 534,000 Adults

Earthman wrote:

Again I must ask how printing a retraction helps a newspaper?

It would show that sinn fein care what sensationalist newspapers think. Plus they cannot even force a retraction anyways. And I'm sure they would do a big report about losing their case if sinn fein brought them to court and won.

Earthman wrote:

well we know you dont believe them, thats not the issue here, the fact is the accusation has been leveled in print and should be dealt with,not left to fester.

No they don't. They will have a new sensational report next sunday.

Earthman wrote:

Otherwise, you would have the other parties legitamately dismissing any protests about it being a lie.

I doubt sinn fein will make a hullabulloo about this to other parties. I'd be surprised if it even came up in the dail.

Earthman wrote:

Thats the problem if they dont deal with the issue.I'm not sure thats the case.Can you categorically state that posters here who criticise SF dont also criticise FF or FG for corruption when it arises? Or for hypocrisy? Take the recent long thread on McDaid for example or on any of the politicians involved in the tribunals from time to time.

No, But i didnt say they just criticised sinn fein. I just said that it is mainly the same members everytime criticising sinn fein - Same thing just different angle in each thread.

Earthman wrote:

In fairness,of the 20 topics on the front page here 17 of them are not about SF.

Great! I never said there were more.

axer

axer wrote:

I have to say that what you just posted just shows that a person cannot sue for a retraction but for damages.

That article doesnt say that specefically,its an overview.
Obviously a defamed person or organisation can sue ie petition a court for a retraction of the untrue comment.
Damages should be a given if they get the retraction.

The apology/retraction can sometimes reduce the amount of damages that are awarded, but their is no obligation to print an apology or retraction. The only two outcomes of suing would be damages or an injunction.

A retraction/apology can be got even outside on the steps of the court.

axer

Earthman wrote:

That article doesnt say that specefically,its an overview.
Obviously a defamed person or organisation can sue ie petition a court for a retraction of the untrue comment.
Damages should be a given if they get the retraction.

Publication of a full apology may be pleaded to limit a jury's award of damages. Unfortunately, an apology may also be seen as an admission of liability, which means that the publisher cannot subsequently plead justification or fair comment.

I have checked other places also.

Earthman wrote:

A retraction/apology can be got even outside on the steps of the court.

It may well be given, but the law cannot force it - its just PR and an attempt to lessen the amount of damages. Also I forgot to mention she is the Tánaiste, i dont think they want to wage war on her.

axer

axer wrote:

If he wants to be taken seriously then why doesnt he work for a non-sensationalist newspaper?

he is taken seriously and has sold a few best sellers on crime in Ireland.

C2DE 534,000 Adults

That is 3 different categories of individual with no information on whether they vote or not.

It would show that sinn fein care what sensationalist newspapers think.

not likely when they are getting a retraction for an obviously untrue statement

Plus they cannot even force a retraction anyways.

Yes they can,Mary got an apology.

And I'm sure they would do a big report about losing their case if sinn fein brought them to court and won.

I don't know what they'd do but a SF win which is certain as the allegation is false(I assume it is anyway if they bring it to court) ergo the papers reputation is damaged not enhanced.

I doubt sinn fein will make a hullabulloo about this to other parties. I'd be surprised if it even came up in the dail.

Stuff like this has came up in the Dáil many times including claim and counter claim

No, But i didnt say they just criticised sinn fein. I just said that it is mainly the same members everytime criticising sinn fein - Same thing just different angle in each thread.

There should be no problem then as they go after the other parties aswell.

I have checked other places aswell.

And have you found anywhere that says, someone wont be sucessfull in a suit against a lie?

It may well be given, but the law cannot force it - its just PR and an attempt to lessen the amount of damages.

Harney gave her damages to charity and got her apology from none other than the indo group.It's not about the damages,its about establishing the lie and removing it.

axer

Earthman wrote:

he is taken seriously and has sold a few best sellers on crime in Ireland.

Good for him, still begs the question what is he doing with a sensationalist newspaper.

Earthman wrote:

not likely when they are getting a retraction for an obviously untrue statement

your missing my point.

Earthman wrote:

Yes they can,Mary got an apology.

No they can't - that was PR and you must remember she is the Tánaiste

Earthman wrote:

I don't know what they'd do but a SF win which is certain as the allegation is false(I assume it is anyway if they bring it to court) ergo the papers reputation is damaged not enhanced.

That does not mean that they had to give an apology by law. People pay more attention to the attack not the apology after - that is because the attack is a big article whereas the apology is a small little article or just a statement that they may not even publish.

Earthman wrote:

Stuff like this has came up in the Dáil many times including claim and counter claim

Great but i'm talking about these sensational newspaper articles - I dont think they would be mentioned in the dail.

Earthman wrote:

There should be no problem then as they go after the other parties aswell.

I'm just saying its always the same members after sinn fein - different thread same argument.

Earthman wrote:

And have you found anywhere that says, someone wont be sucessfull in a suit against a lie?

It still does not force them to make a retraction - which is all sinn fein would want I presume.

Earthman wrote:

Harney gave her damages to charity and got her apology from none other than the indo group.It's not about the damages,its about establishing the lie and removing it.

Fair play to her. Its all about the damages in the eyes of the law. In an ideal world it would be "about establishing the lie and removing it".

oscarBravo

axer wrote:

Good for him, still begs the question what is he doing with a sensationalist newspaper.

Although a widely-acclaimed crime journalist, he's never struck me as a particularly good writer (in terms of grammar, syntax and so on). That would be less of a handicap when writing for a paper like the SW than (say) the Irish Times.

The point stands: he's a respected journalist and author. Regardless of the medium, his writing carries a certain level of credibility. You may choose not to believe this story (or at least claim not to believe it), but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

That's the point of this thread. There is a large body of people who will read or hear about this story, and at least strongly entertain the possibility that it's true. If Sinn Féin sue and win, it gives them some hope of being regarded as a mainstream democratic party. If they ignore the story in the hope that it goes away, many people will consider Williams to have been vindicated.

No they can't ... That does not mean that they had to give an apology by law.

You've stated repeatedly and emphatically that the courts can't order a newspaper to retract a story. What's your basis for that assertion? I can't imagine what would prevent a court from so doing.

axer

oscarBravo wrote:

Although a widely-acclaimed crime journalist, he's never struck me as a particularly good writer (in terms of grammar, syntax and so on). That would be less of a handicap when writing for a paper like the SW than (say) the Irish Times.

The point stands: he's a respected journalist and author. Regardless of the medium, his writing carries a certain level of credibility. You may choose not to believe this story (or at least claim not to believe it), but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

That's the point of this thread. There is a large body of people who will read or hear about this story, and at least strongly entertain the possibility that it's true. If Sinn Féin sue and win, it gives them some hope of being regarded as a mainstream democratic party. If they ignore the story in the hope that it goes away, many people will consider Williams to have been vindicated. You've stated repeatedly and emphatically that the courts can't order a newspaper to retract a story. What's your basis for that assertion? I can't imagine what would prevent a court from so doing.

Simple - The law

oscarBravo

axer wrote:

Simple - The law

Thanks, but I'd already read my post. Can you point me to the specific Act or legal opinion that prevents a court from ordering the retraction of a story?

axer

axer wrote:

Good for him, still begs the question what is he doing with a sensationalist newspaper.

Doesnt change his status or credibility to be honest,a retraction would though.

your missing my point.

We seem to be at crossed points somewhere as I asked you to explain to me how a newspaper gains credibility when it has to apologise for a lie.

No they can't - that was PR and you must remember she is the Tánaiste
That does not mean that they had to give an apology by law.

If a judge and or jury determines the simple fact that a lie has been printed,there should be no problem unless a lie cannot be established because theres some truth in what was printed. I don't see any ambiguity in the statement that SF offices and campaigns are funded by racketeering monies.They either are or they aren't.

People pay more attention to the attack not the apology after - that is because the attack is a big article whereas the apology is a small little article or just a statement that they may not even publish.

I'd imagine the law suit would make the headlines as would the outcome.Nightly news I'd say.To be frank, to suggest it wouldnt is fancifull.

I'm just saying its always the same members after sinn fein - different thread same argument.

But they go after all stories of corruption connected with all parties.

It still does not force them to make a retraction - which is all sinn fein would want I presume.

It's what they would get,like Harney got it if it is false.

Fair play to her. Its all about the damages in the eyes of the law. In an ideal world it would be "about establishing the lie and removing it".

She wouldnt be the first to have done that and its rather ironic that it was the indo that she was sue-ing.