Mary Lou MacDonald suing RTE

Evidence of both were provided.

Or do I need to post the dictionary definition again?

Was there defamation?

And how was she defamed?

Choose your words, I said that she directed vitriol at her in the past and posted video of that happening (the presenter goes as far to say she was demonising Mairia Cahill which I would class as worse than vitiriol and calls her a liar), so it has happened (you can swap vitriol for criticism if you wish as per the dictionary definition).

Mairia Cahill questioned people sharing a stage with MLMD for her past actions against Mairia Cahill and you are saying that's defamation.

How is it defamation?

And just for evidence in printed form, MLMD quoted:

None of the Sinn Fein members would cooperate with the police, that is factual, that is covering up abuse, that is calling Mairia Cahill a liar.

There are also recordings of the internal procedures that they refused to cooperate with the police over.

That vitriol was directed at Mairia Cahill is proven.

You can argue the degree, but it happened.

MLMD quoted again:

Apart from Gerry Adams brother.

Apart from cooperating with what happened to Mairia Cahill.

MLMD quoted later apologising for this behaviour:

What sort of sh*tty person stands over this?

So finally you admit that MLMD did not apologise for 'what she did.

Strenuous denial of an allegation is not vitriol Astro...how many times?

MC herself wouldn't go to the police.

Now I am not getting drawn into discussing MC's case but suffice to say it is a case of claim and counter claim with very little proven.

As I said I am not getting drawn into her case. It is immaterial what I believe or you for that matter. This case concerns the aftermath.

You said from the that 'MLMD directed vitriol at MC' and that MLMD apologised for 'what she did'.

MLMD was not responsible for having the proper proceedures in place, so 'she' did nothing wrong. Not having proceedures in place affected almost every org on the island.

You STILL have not shown any 'vitriol directed at MC by MLMD'. Criticism and responding to allegations is not vitriol. MC was, like yourself, making allegations without the slightest backup...which is why it is a case of unproven claim and counter claim.

...

Perhaps the abusive suppression of the press is helping. It stops them asking the uncomfortable questions!

Doesn’t entertain or believe victim because it paints SF in a bad light. If this was any other party, well.

Bingo. This is 100% the plan.

You're back to the Jimmy Savile defence there Francie. It was not proven that Jimmy was a serial abuser. So it could not be published and you support that.

And you are also against the publication of any investigative journalism full stop. Allegations are only proven in court.

As I gave you reference above, in the Leech case, the judge in the High Court hearing did say that the public interest was an important factor in general (albeit not strongly relevant in that case).

And to highlight once again, you have a problem with an RTE program, the recording of which is still available, and you cannot identify the defamation in it. Yet you still have a problem with it.

If I claimed that the previous poster to quote me - banquo - had defamed me in his post, would you agree with me? I mean you can see the post for yourself? Would you blindly back me up for being defamed? Would you support me taking an action against boards.ie to try to have the site shut down on the back of the defamation in that post? Perhaps I have something else about to be exposed that I know will be discussed on here and I want it shut down before then. And me having the resources to throw a few million at it being a billionaire ex president and all.

Now now Francie. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth at once. You claim to support investigative journalism, but you are against reporting unproven allegations.

Let's think of the most recent high profile Prime Time Investigates where they made allegations against Catriona Carey. Obviously Ms. Carey had not been convicted of anything. Therefore you obviously disagree with them publishing those unproven allegations. Perhaps Ms. Carey should have built up more of a history of filing defamation claims and prevented the program being aired (which alerted a lot of people who were dealing of her yet unaware of the allegations).

Well at least you would have been able to understand that one. Baby steps, but progress nonetheless.

How are you getting on with the concept that if someone accuses you of defamation, they actually have to prove it rather than the burden being on the other party to disprove a negative? Maybe give it a bit of time.

Stop it Francie. Be consistent. Nothing was proven against Ms. Carey. They were all - in your words - "unproven allegations". RTE talked to people who claimed that they were scammed. In another case, RTE talked to someone who claimed she was raped by members of an organisation and later taken to a kangaroo trial in a basement and had to give evidence in front of her attacker.

You are either against the press being able to publish unproven allegations or you aren't. As I am sure are aware, many allegation can never be proven. So lets sweep 'em all under the carpet - right?

Donald, they produced the evidence for the allegations being made, didn't you see the paperwork, the testimony from those affected?

And AGAIN, I fully support Miss Carey if she has evidence to counter the claims and wants resdress.

If RTE get it wrong then the 'wronged' has a right to redress, such as in this case:

I support the right to redress, whomsoever it might be and that should never be taken as support for the person. That is a different thing.