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

gandalf

jman0 wrote:

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.

Ah but its not just tabloid media that have asserted this, public figures like the current Minister for Justice has also asserted this.

One would expect Sinn Fein to defend its name using the instruments available to it via Irish law. As they do not seem to be willing to do this then we will have to assume that there is some fact to these stories.

Also in answer to the other posts by axer that the story cannot be retracted that may be true but if they did win damages and eventhou the SW may not carry a major story, you would be damn sure that the Irish Times, the Examiner and others would be only too happy to publicise that the indo group trades in tainted information.

The choice is quite clear for SF, grow a pair or stop whinging.

A Dub in Glasgo

gandalf wrote:

As they do not seem to be willing to do this then we will have to assume that there is some fact to these stories.

The story was only published yesterday and as far as I can tell the original poster/any moderator has not contacted SF to see if they are willing to challenge this in the courts therefore we cannot assume anything....... yet. We are not even sure if the current laws apply in this case.

The choice is quite clear for SF, grow a pair or stop whinging.

I did not know SF were whinging here

axer

oscarBravo wrote:

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?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA40Y1961S17.html

axer

Earthman wrote:

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

Ok - a retraction is not guarenteed by law so is out of the question so lets move on from that please.

Earthman wrote:

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.

I believe if sinn fein were to sue on this article it would show that sinn fein recognise this paper as something that people take seriously. I do not believe people take this paper seriously.

Earthman wrote:

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.

Wouldnt an ideal world be beautiful.

Earthman wrote:

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.

Maybe true. I believe it is not worth the hassle. I believe that the only people that will believe it are the people that are anti-sinn fein anyways.

Earthman wrote:

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

Ok.

Earthman wrote:

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

Ok - if you gaurentee it.

axer

gandalf wrote:

Also in answer to the other posts by axer that the story cannot be retracted that may be true but if they did win damages and eventhou the SW may not carry a major story, you would be damn sure that the Irish Times, the Examiner and others would be only too happy to publicise that the indo group trades in tainted information.

They could win upto 500 pounds and/or get the perpetrator imprisoned upto 2 years. I believe that it would be more productive to just ignore it because I do not believe it is damaging at all really, but then again I am not a member of sinn fein and I do not have anything to do with their choices.

gandalf wrote:

The choice is quite clear for SF, grow a pair or stop whinging.

Ok - I have not heard anyone from SF whinging so I would like you to clarify who you are directing this at. Please also bear in mind that it was someone pretty much agreeing to the article that started this thread.

gandalf

axer wrote:

They could win upto 500 pounds and/or get the perpetrator imprisoned upto 2 years. I believe that it would be more productive to just ignore it because I do not believe it is damaging at all really, but then again I am not a member of sinn fein and I do not have anything to do with their choices.

Well they could also go a long way to clear their name and allow a majority of people in the Republic to consider them as a real alternative for their vote which clearly they are not with accusations of criminal activity hanging over them. That I am sure you would agree is worth far more than the monetary value that you seem hung up on.

In itself it isn't damaging because a large number of people believe Sinn Fein benefit from the activity of the mafioso IRA anyway. It could be of benefit if won because it would mean they would have to reconsider this position.

Ok - I have not heard anyone from SF whinging so I would like you to clarify who you are directing this at. Please also bear in mind that it was someone pretty much agreeing to the article that started this thread.

LOL its not aimed at anyone here. It was a general statement aimed at the person (and his cohorts) quoted in this article. Call it a parting shot if thats the correct term to use on this occasion.

axer

axer wrote:

Ok - a retraction is not guarenteed by law so is out of the question so lets move on from that please.

No we can't really move on from that but we can agree to disagree

I believe if sinn fein were to sue on this article it would show that sinn fein recognise this paper as something that people take seriously. I do not believe people take this paper seriously.

It's your perogative to have that view,there are millions of people in the land all with varying views on everything.It's great to discuss them though.

Wouldnt an ideal world be beautiful.

t'would.

I believe that the only people that will believe it are the people that are anti-sinn fein anyways.

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but it's healthy to discuss things with people who disagree with you from time to time, rather than swim in a sea with all the same fish all the time.
I think its safe to say the fish in this board have sometimes extremely varying and questioning minds and that sir is good in my view.

axer

gandalf wrote:

Well they could also go a long way to clear their name and allow a majority of people in the Republic to consider them as a real alternative for their vote which clearly they are not with accusations of criminal activity hanging over them. That I am sure you would agree is worth far more than the monetary value that you seem hung up on.

In itself it isn't damaging because a large number of people believe Sinn Fein benefit from the activity of the mafioso IRA anyway. It could be of benefit if won because it would mean they would have to reconsider this position.

Im not hung up on any monetary value. "allow a majority of people in the Republic to consider them as a real alternative for their vote" - Is that not happening already without the need to sue sensationalist newspapers about sensationalist articles?
"It could be of benefit"

gandalf wrote:

LOL its not aimed at anyone here. It was a general statement aimed at the person (and his cohorts) quoted in this article. Call it a parting shot if thats the correct term to use on this occasion.

So what yo meant to say was "The choice is quite clear for Gerry Adams and his party members to either grow a pair or stop whinging." Ok but I havent heard them whinging about the article. If thats a parting shot, I think you may have fired a blank.

axer

Earthman wrote:

No we can't really move on from that but we can agree to disagree

But if it is not guarenteed to actual happen should sinn fein sue then why dwell?

Earthman wrote:

It's your perogative to have that view,there are millions of people in the land all with varying views on everything.It's great to discuss them though.

Ok

Earthman wrote:

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but it's healthy to discuss things with people who disagree with you from time to time, rather than swim in a sea with all the same fish all the time.
I think its safe to say the fish in this board have sometimes extremely varying and questioning minds and that sir is good in my view.

I would agree with you there - healthy argument is good.

gandalf

axer wrote:

Im not hung up on any monetary value. "allow a majority of people in the Republic to consider them as a real alternative for their vote" - Is that not happening already without the need to sue sensationalist newspapers about sensationalist articles?

In your dream world I am sure it is.

"It could be of benefit"

Well I know if I said that you got most of your income by criminal means, published it in a newspaper you would want to clear your name or are you the good samaritan type.

So what yo meant to say was "The choice is quite clear for Gerry Adams and his party members to either grow a pair or stop whinging." Ok but I havent heard them whinging about the article. If thats a parting shot, I think you may have fired a blank.

Well if you need it spelt out in that manner, but I did credit you and others with enough intelligence to work that out for yourselves.

oscarBravo

axer wrote:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA40Y1961S17.html

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see anything there that would prevent a court from ordering a retraction.

axer

gandalf wrote:

In your dream world I am sure it is.

? what you mean that sinn fein hasnt gained alot of ground in the last elections both north and south?

gandalf wrote:

Well I know if I said that you got most of your income by criminal means, published it in a newspaper you would want to clear your name or are you the good samaritan type.

Different situation. That would be of a personal nature and I would sue and use the money to go on holidays!

gandalf wrote:

Well if you need it spelt out for you in that manner, but I did credit you and others with enough intelligence to work that out for yourself.

But you still have not pointed out its relevance - where have sinn fein been whinging about this article?

axer

oscarBravo wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see anything there that would prevent a court from ordering a retraction.

common law would prevent a court forcing a newspaper to retract. The link was to show that the statuate law says that it can however be used to mitigate damages.

gandalf

axer wrote:

? what you mean that sinn fein hasnt gained alot of ground in the last elections both north and south?

Ah a seat here and a seat there.

If they cleared the masses conscience that a vote for them would not be a vote for a pack of Al Capones then they would clean up because the opposition at the moment is a joke and FF are ripe for a kicking.

Action like this could be such a conscience enema that opens the floodgates.

Different situation. That would be of a personal nature and I would sue and use the money to go on holidays!

Ah but in my opinion the principle is the same. I wouldn't book too far you might get enough cash from me for weekend in Bundoran in the middle of winter

But you still have not pointed out its relevance - where have sinn fein been whinging about this article?

General comment that they complain but don't take action not related to this incident directly, yet

axer

axer wrote:

common law would prevent a court forcing a newspaper to retract. The link was to show that the statuate law says that it can however be used to mitigate damages.

Don't you mean could?

axer

gandalf wrote:

Ah a seat here and a seat there.

If they cleared the masses conscience that a vote for them would not be a vote for a pack of Al Capones then they would clean up because the opposition at the moment is a joke and FF are ripe for a kicking.

So you are unhappy that they are not making up enough ground for you?

gandalf wrote:

Action like this could be such a conscience enema that opens the floodgates.

Ya think Minister McDoogle would suddenly have a moment of clarity decide to not try at nearly every opportunity demonise sinn fein. But this is all off topic.

gandalf wrote:

Ah but in my opinion the principle is the same. I wouldn't book too far you might get enough cash from me for weekend in Bundoran in the middle of winter

The principle is not entirely the same. You are compaing a private individual to a political party.

gandalf wrote:

General comment that they complain but don't take action not related to this incident directly, yet

Ok, but am....err...they haven't complained about the article to the best of my knowledge.

Féck it this thread has ran its course

My bedtime mental image of some of the contributers is below

axer

Earthman wrote:

Don't you mean could?

where?

gandalf

Jaysus Earthman I should ban you for that assault on my eyes !!!

axer

axer wrote:

where?

Could instead of would,given that would is absolute and obviously your statement couldnt be absolute as people have got retractions and apoligies meaning that the law does not rule them out.
That was implicit in the post I made as it was related very obviously to the would in the statement I quoted from you.

Thread well and truly closed

gandalf

gandalf wrote:

Jaysus Earthman I should ban you for that assault on my eyes !!!

Lol Gandalf