Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mary Lou MacDonald suing RTE

Options
1202123252663

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,849 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Most of the stuff about Saville didn't come out until after he was dead. You cannot defame a dead person. So they were able to publish it then. At the time that journalist was talking about, it wasn't public "knowledge". Although didn't your man Louis Theoreax (however it is spelled) do some documentary on him being a weirdo.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    I don't support MLMD. I don't know the details of the case. Have you not understood that much?

    Your logic defies logic.

    The only comparison to the two is my supporting the right of whoever is suing the Saville estate, to sue. Where in this scenario, you'd be attacking the person claiming to be a victim for putting the case forward and you supporting Saville without even knowing the details of the case. You didn't think this through now did you?

    Post edited by Brucie Bonus on


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,807 ✭✭✭buried


    The police knew. The Yorkshire police even brought him into the investigation concerning the Yorkshire Ripper murders when one of the victims was found in a park at the back of one of his flats with two seperate sets of teeth marks on that victims shoulder. It may not have been public knowledge but people did know, same way that Saville probably knew $hit about other members of the 'highest in the land' too.

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭deirdremf


    Irvine Welsh wrote a story about Savile back in the mid-1990s, called Lorraine goes to Livingston. His activities were clearly an open secret.

    There's a couple of short extracts from the story in this link:

    https://dangerousminds.net/comments/irvine_welsh_on_jimmy_savile_was_savile_a_necrophiliac_then_or_what



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,849 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    The police likely know who is dealing drugs in your area. The police knowing something is not legal proof.

    The journalists knew (some of) what Saville had done. That doesn't mean they would have been able to prove that in a court of law.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,807 ✭✭✭buried


    Yeah that's true about my local drug dealers, can the police question them though? Can they ask anybody (including known local drug dealers) to come into make a statement? Because with Sir Jimmy, they weren't even allowed to do that.

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,849 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    You can publish their names on here if you want. Or stick up posters in your local area outing them as drug dealers. You will know they are drug dealers. Your neighbours will know. The guards will know. Lets assume they were never convicted of anything.

    When they take you to Court, they need to just show that you publicly calling them drug dealers lowered them in the eyes of a reasonably member of society. That is defamation. You defence will be the defence of truth. You will need to prove that they are drug dealers in order for them not to win damages from you. You will likely lose.


    Have you never noticed how journalists sometimes refer to gangsters only by a nickname? Why do you think that is?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,807 ✭✭✭buried


    You are the one bringing up and talking about local drug dealers and british tabloid gutter rag nicknamed gangsters up on here Donald, not f**king me.

    Bring up Sir Jimmy again, I'll talk some more about that if you want, other 'Sir's' to go with him too.

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,031 ✭✭✭trashcan


    Why on earth would the taxpayer be footing the bill ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    Lots of confusion and blind hate around these parts.

    The public don't have a right to know. If the case proceeds, we will get details at some point. If she loses, she's lumbered with the bill. If she wins, RTE will have cost us money, again, due to shoddy journalism.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,031 ✭✭✭trashcan


    Yep, this exactly. No question of the taxpayer footing the bill, unless RTE lose, or decide they don’t want to take their chances at hearing, in which case they will probably have to offer her a financial settlement.



  • Registered Users Posts: 69,156 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Imagine someone taking anything The Sun would print at face value or the British establishment for that. Eek!



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,724 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    As a publicly funded body, any payout would be taxpayer funded or result in loss of service to the taxpayer on RTE to cover the cost. This shouldn't be a reason not to sue if the case was genuine.

    However, this case isn't genuine, it's a pattern being followed to limit debate around certain politicians that will likely continue with other cases. This.is now plain to see for everyone (even those wiggling about trying to justify it).

    It will be a low cash settlement or a loss for MLMD, at this stage, she will push for the former to keep up appearances, will be interesting if RTE play ball and risk future journalistic freedom.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    The claim was we have a right to the claim details, because we are paying for it. We don't and will only be paying if she wins

    However, this case isn't genuine, it's a pattern being followed to limit debate

    This is bullshit. Its your opinion being put on a claim you only might know a little about.

    If she wins it shows RTE need to improve their journalism, once again.



  • Registered Users Posts: 69,156 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Indeed, it's a 'pattern' here that if it's a shinner, they're wrong.

    If this was a malicious defamation I think MLMD is right to challenge it...anybody would be.

    It's a tired old trick now to use a conflict/war, long over, to deflect from current events and government failures. No surprise either that there are a few here merrily jumping on the 'exploit a victim' if it hurts the shinners bandwagon.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,724 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Of course it's my opinion, that's what discussion forums are, but it's very clear what is happening here.

    The tax payer will lose out in all cases, that is factual, if RTE win, there will still be costs to pay that won't be covered. When this is revealed to be a SLAPPS, there won't be any hiding from that (though I do sense an attempt to redefine what "paying for it" means when all is revealed).



  • Registered Users Posts: 69,156 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    As pointed out already, this is just a cynical attempt to have it both ways if RTE lose.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,971 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The claim is that Mary-Lou is not revealing the details because it has all the appearance of a SLAPPs case designed to stop RTE investigating something to do with Sinn Fein.

    Yourself and Francie have been pretending that the claim is something else in a disingenuous attempt to defend Mary-Lou.

    Nobody denies her right to take a claim, nobody denies her right to a fair name, nobody claims we have a right to the claim details because we are paying for it.

    At the end of the day, Mary-Lou will cost the State money for a case that appears to be designed to censor free speech and damage democracy. Nobody is able to dispute that claim, because to do so, they would have to reveal the reasons for the defamation action. At the very least, you and Francie will have to concede that it is a valid and reasonable claim based on the known facts.



  • Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭starkid


    yet SF use that conflict, celebrate that struggle at every turn. make up your mind.

    theres no trick, many just despise the hypocritical actions of SF.

    the pattern is sinister enough, that the NUJ has come out to criticise it. its quite obvious that the end goal is to silence what you consider the trick particularly in any coming election. the gall of people to question rape, murder, killing of women and children. shame on those people who can´t let such trivial stuff lie. while SF talk about that stuff all the time, and also then will be quick to jump on any bandwagon going particulalry if it involves deaths and mispending etc etc. all the while associating with lads who robbed banks and killed gardai. the reason people like myself despise people like you and SF is clear. i hate hypocrites, liars and people who exploit politics for their own gain. again if SF had said we will hold a truth and reconciliation process, we will stop commemorating our dead, we will apologise and give details of all crimes in exchange for true peace, and moving on, then maybe i´d have less to despise.

    Of course Francie ¨never a shinner¨ Brady finds issue with the normal processes.

    exploit a vicitm? a victim of rape ...so what you don´t believe her? and you have no issue with what the IRA and the members of SF did in this instance? thats the crux of the matter being that it was the Womens council.

    all the facts are here - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/sinn-f%C3%A9in-leader-wishes-to-amplify-apology-to-m%C3%A1ir%C3%ADa-cahill-1.4783836

    exploiting a victim...will you gtfo of that you utter joker. you said the same about Quinn and McConville and others. its quite funny. you clearly have something against victims. in fact this whole process of cases kind of shows SF have the same attitude. again if they had properly addressed it all, dropped the flag waving and the pagentry then it would be fair. whats good for the goose and all that. which is it? are Sf the victim now? thats whats basically happening, and they can **** off if thats the game they want to play.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Correct me,if im wrong,but SF havnt brought a case here



    Why would sf stop commerating there dead?,the state has even come around to holding commerations for 1916 by now?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭deirdremf


    Who pays for RTE?

    You and me and the rest of the public.

    So yes, if MLMD wins, we pay, via the tax we pay to keep RTE going.

    Now if D4bes was the one being brought to court the situation might be different. But she isn't, RTE is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭starkid


    yeah ok the party interests are totally misaligned from whats going on here. suuuuure. again its in the article linked here a few pages back, one member was told not to for reasons outlined.

    but thats what i´m talking about, if they can commerorate their dead why would people stop criticising them for their armed wing planting bombs in pub, killing women and children and gardai etc. you can´t have it both ways. and thats my point if you truly want to move on you drop all that, have a proper SA style truth and reconciliation process and everybody moves on. if then FG mention the ¨war¨, people could roundly criticise them. just like i admit its hypocritical of FF/FG to say unionists should work with SF but then turn around and lambas them for the very same things the Unionists fear. YEt SF do not help their cause, at all. and what does 1916 and the state have to do with it? SF don´t own the nationalist identity.

    and thats the first point. it may be individuals and not the party but its clear whats happening. in any coming election RTE won´t bother pointing out about SF´s past because well they might get sued by one of the members, who by virtue of being born post conflict has no direct links. all the while the party has ex members and is a large way still influenced by it. but sure...why should SF give up talking about the past etc. but anybody else who dares mention it...



  • Registered Users Posts: 69,156 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    How haven't they 'addressed' it?

    You guys expect people to fall on their swords if you make an allegation....that is not going to happen.

    Look at the case, SF presented evidence that the woman was helped by other members.

    The fact is she requested the RA to get involved as well.

    What hasn't been established is what it all has to do with people who were not involved.

    It's time to put up or shut up in other words.

    The alleged perp is walking around, go after him?

    The world and it's mammy is sick listening to people using this stuff as a handy crutch to deflect and insinuate and knows it has feck all to do with victim concern.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,971 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    So you don't believe the woman. Understand your position clearly.

    She went to Sinn Fein, they failed her, they have never addressed that or admitted to the failings, and their "supporters" still castigate the woman on social media.



  • Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭starkid


    what does it have to do with people that were not involved? how very Orwellian of you. you could get a job in the ministry of truth, Winston Brady.

    you know full well what it has to do with SF. again if you can commemorate garda killers, and people who planted bombs in pubs targeting civilians, and people who killed women in the dead of night, if you can have them in your party then you know full well what it is all about.

    its actually pointless debating you in this. its basically a form of gaslighting by yourself and other supporters.

    its quite easy to see what peoples issue here is.

    The IRA was the armed wing of SF. they killed civilians, women, men and children. gardai, robbed banks. some of their members are involved in SF. SF apologised for this conflict however still commemorate and triumphalise this conflict. Meanwhile they´ve modernised a bit, but obviously still have a huge connection and link to this armed past through people like Ellis and others. the leader of said party has no links directly to this past. however i mean it doesn´t take a genius to see the issue here. she´s the leader of said party...

    not to invoke Godwins law or compare anyone in Ireland to such terror...but people like Speers etc said the same thing. it had nothing to do with me.

    The IRA engineered decades of death, and SF was part of that. if we get to a place where its members can sue for talking about that, we are in a dark place. particulaly as i said SF and their supporters themselves can´t move on.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So to comclude,despite your best efforts to conflate,SF havnt brought this case....facts,and logic will always trip yous up


    Noone is stopping yous mentioning the troubles,history will show truth about it ,but it is quite poor political practice,to cry crocidle tears about the troubles every 5 years and merly use it as an election excuse to paper over the failings of our political class.....i firmly believe the minister of justice and garda commissioner should resign for failure to progress the paul quinn inquiry,it was good enough to be a election issue,its reasonable to demand politcal consequence for failures around it too.



    Noone is stopping anyone mentioning past.......iirc pascal donohue had a meltdown and demanded (and got) an apology on national tv,for someone asking about raising vat rates on children shoes......wasnt this during same week where mcdonald was asked about an ira attack that occured when she was 11??



  • Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭starkid


    ah ok sure Mary Lou has nothing to do with said party and there is no connection even though a party member on record ahs stated he was told to drop one case due to the party direction. which i will admit is actually about how they couldn´t win a case where IRA link was implied. it was in last Sunday Times. however its clearly a Slaap strategy with lesser stuff. as obvious as a Russian false flag playbook. so much so, that the NUJ has come out and spoke against it.

    how can one debate with such a ludicrous position. its actually insidious really. crocodile tears? sorry but feck off. real people were killed and unfortunately for you real people still remember and place the victims above narcissitic, romantic republicanism. luckily for SF many young social democrats are now leaning into SF. ergo lets try to keep RTE´s nose clean. all it will take now is a court. how dare you link me with the war...i was 3 years old. SF has moved on..

    basically if you can´t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. SF´s IRA connections will always catch up with them. they just have to hope less people care about it like some of us on this thread do.

    did Pascal sue anybody? so whos conflating now...and again MAry Lou is the leader of SF. if she doesn´t like their past or is uncomfortable about it she shouldn´t be leader.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So once again,despite repeated requests,you have failed to acknowledge,this case is taken by a private person,and not a party.....your entire position is built upon the premise of a political party doing x,yand z,with best of respect,this patently isnt what is happening


    How is it insidious,do you not feel its v.unbecoming the way,the family of paul quinn was shunted off the stage,before the election even happened?


    Tbf the war is over with near on 30 years,it deos seem bit silly to be linking anyone below a certain age to it,and amounts to emotionally placed dogma which deosnt stand upto scrutiny of facts and logic imo


    He didnt sue ,but if i was to conflate it,it would be saying she should get an apology on national tv for everytime ira campaign mentioned,as surely right being right the media should treat each side equally??



  • Registered Users Posts: 69,156 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    It's plain you don't get it.

    Talk about it in the proper forum, using it to insinuate and deflect is not an option anymore.

    Far as I can see, SF addressed these issues, they didn't handle them well like many other institutions and arms of the state didn't handle them well, from the church to the Dept of Health, from the Scouts to Swim Ireland.

    If MLMD or any member of SF committed a criminal act in relation to this the law is available to make them pay. Insinuating that they have a case to answer constantly in political stunts and playacting is not acceptable anymore to the Shinners clearly.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 69,156 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    It doesn’t matter whether you or I believe her. The facts are the alleged was willing to excercise his ‘right’ to defend himself.

    Far as I know MLMD addressed the issues, not to the satisfaction of those who dictatorially insist on only the answer they decree is the right one.

    So if the case is about what you claim this is their chance to put up or shut up, is it not?



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement