McDermott is to sue Twitter.

I would imagine EMD will bump into someone some night in ireland who isn't pleased with his behaviour and could end up in trouble, wasn't he attacked in Dublin previously ? On twitter, has anyone ever sued Twitter and won ? I don't recall any cases off hand

He was attacked from behind by some guy after he left a pub in Clondalkin. Think it was back in 2016.

I think he will take a case and he and his legal team probably feels Twitter will settle out of court. Irish defamation/libel laws are some of the toughest in the world.

Whether Twitter settle out of court, or not, is an entirely different matter.

Apologies, but the plaintiff hasn't proved that he was defamed

I never said he did. I said.

It's up to the plaintiff to provide proof he was defamed. Which he has.

It would be bizarre in the extreme if the legal strategy was to prove that the plaintiff was not defamed. Especially when they are not obliged to and especially given they have the person who made the claims state through their solicitor they lied.

They would have to disprove that "confession" and then prove all the original allegations were true.

Off topic but the thread on it was locked. What's going on with yer one Blathnaids personal injury case against RTE?

I'm going to leave it after this because we are going around in circles.

McDermott has provided no proof whatsoever that he was defamed. He has alleged that he was defamed and has provided evidence that he was defamed which may or may not stand up in court. Evidence does not equal proof until it's ruled upon in court. As of now, it's an allegation that he was defamed, similar to EB's allegation that she was sexually assaulted (some aspects of which she has withdrawn).

I've lots of experience in legal strategy, albeit with personal injury claims and not defamation. That said, the process in court is pretty much the same. Establish if any harm occurred, and then make an appropriate award for the level of harm caused. McDermott has to prove he was defamed, just as much as an injured person making a claim for damages has to prove their injuries.

On your point that the client lied, that hasn't been established. It certainly looks like she lied, but they might claim that they were mistaken. Big difference. They could blame the fact that they made the allegations some 10 years after the incident occurred. They may allege they were traumatised and therefore misremembered certain details etc. I'm not standing up for EBingley here, nor am I saying I believe a single word that she has said, I'm just trying to portray what may be claimed in court. And that solicitor's letter could also be lies or contain more inaccuracies. Or EBingley could have been forced to write it under duress etc. You can be sure that aspects of the letter and allegations against McDermott will be questioned.

Another tactic might be to try get McDermott on the stand and embarrass him. Many people here are assuming that he was with EBingley when she was 17 and still in school. This may or may not be true. If this is the case and he was with the girl when she was 17 and he was 27, while legal, this might not portray him in a good light. Many people have very negative views of ex-teachers dating schoolgirls 10 years their junior. He might not be comfortable pouring over those details in a public forum. And if Twitter can portray him in a negative light, it might have the effect of reducing the damages (if any). I'm certainly not saying any of this is true because I don't know the details. But you can be sure that Twitter will at least examine this option and won't totally rule it out if it goes to court.

And all of the above might be moot if Twitter are successful with the Innocent Publication defence as that's probably what they'd lead with.

And that solicitor's letter could also be lies or contain more inaccuracies. Or EBingley could have been forced to write it under duress etc. 

If Twitters defence team go into open court and claim her legal team coerced her into providing a false "confession", then they will be up next serving high court papers.

If you want to leave it there we will, the imaginary boundaries of how this case my play out are just becoming rather irrational to put it mildly.

The reality is Twitter will not touch the substance of the claims, primarily because they don't have to IMHO.

Just to clear, why would Twitter want to question him about his private life relating to a person above the age of consent? Surely that would be counter productive as it would confirm the falsity of the allegation.

So people who hate cancel culture are revelling in a gross example of it.

I'll update that to Hysterical Karen's and the dangerously stupid so.

😕

Must be getting old, had to google him as well.

amazing that you might have to lie about who you are and what you believe to get on in an organisation where the truth matters. The more w go with the woke agenda the more it looks like the straightjacket state we had up to the 1980's