Mary Lou MacDonald suing RTE

Hold on Francie, it is only yourself that is pivoting so quick that I think you are getting dizzy.

Have the allegations against Ms Carey been proven? Would you like to state on here that they have been proven? You are free to do so although the mods will likely have to delete it.

If the allegations have not been proven, then they are "unproven allegations" (your term) which means you think RTE should have been prevented from publishing them.

Am merely showing you the absurdity of your argument.

So once there are sources, then it is proven? Could you confirm then whether the allegations by MC against SF have been proven? I didn't think it had.

Can RTE report same (they have some sources - MC being one)

You seem to have missed the import of the Fr Reynolds case. Do research on it and it's implications, if you haven't come across it while gathering your legal expertise (a fanciful thought tbh, there are pages and pages available on google about it)

In the Carey programme they were extremely careful to dot every i and cross every t on what they were claiming. Nothing was alleged without back up. The transactions, the secret recordings, the bogus solicitor...etc etc etc all backed up and evidentially sound investigation. They alleged she had previous convictions and backed that up too.

😁😁

You must be dizzy there Francie from all this pivoting. Like the Tasmanian devil at this stage. I was responding to a poster who outlined that their idea of "proof" was to have testimony from a witness. I merely pointed out to them that in the MC case, there is testimony (from here) and I wanted to know if said poster considered that allegation as proven as a result?

Ya know, consistency like?

And you a have shown by your dubious ignorance of the Fr Reynolds case and the Carey one that you don't understand the nature of good and bad investigatory reporting. In the Carey programme 'sources' made claims and then they backed those claims up with documentary evidence of the transactions and secret filming But in the Reynolds case they made a statement and DIDN'T have anything to back it up.

A world of difference there.

Donald, no more of your rubbish.

In the Carey programme they proved what they alleged - hence they were not taken to court.

In the Reynolds programme they didn't prove what they alleged and got sued.

I know now why you have amnesia about the Reynolds case, it is laughably transparent why. Not a leg to stand on Donald.

Again, I'll invite you to state whether allegations against Ms Carey have been proven as fact. And sure, while you are at it, please tell us which ones? Thanks

Either do that or stop waffling on dancing on the head of a pin

Already answered.

Astro, you didn't provide evidence of anything. I looked back at the case there and MLMD didn't use the word 'liar'.

You are having to exaggerate, not a good look.

If that is what you call 'vitriol' all I can say to you again, is the best of luck with that.

How was it not a falsehood, the RUC/PSNI were found to have sat on information and arrests for 10 years.

Again, the definition of a 'cover-up' may need some review.

Indeed Bruce. The selectivity is a thing to behold.

You have turned yourself into a parody account now. That clearly accuses Mairia Cahill of lying, of being a liar.

However, that quote is very very interesting. If you want to analyse the syntax as carefully as you do, when Mary-Lou refers to "categorically, that is untrue, that is a falsehood", given the grammatical context, she is only referring to the allegation of refusing to co-operate with the police and garda and PSNI. Because the accusation of SF covering up abuse is in the previous sentence, if you take a purely grammatical approach, you have to conclude that Mary-Lou isn't actually stating that is a falsehood.

Now, that is as technically correct as you stating that Mary-Lou didn't use the word lie or liar, but if you want to get to that detail of analysis, you therefore have to concede that Mary-Lou didn't challenge the statement that SF covered up abuse. Now, I believe Mary-Lou intended to challenge both sentences when she accused Mairia of lying, but then I am looking at the broad strokes, not taking the pedantic grammatical approach that you are doing.

We have a new standard here, if a TV programme is not taken to court, they have proven what they alleged.

Does that apply to the PIRA killing Paul Quinn? Does that mean that Gerry Adams committed perjury in your eyes in the Liam Adams case, as the story he told to Spotlight, and didn't sue for, is different? Does it mean that everything else in that Spotlight programme is true, including that Liam Adams was part of Sinn Fein for a very long time after his brother knew he was a pedo? Does it mean that the allegations about Morris are also true? Here is an article from the Broken Elbow, is this all true because nobody has sued?

The webs you weave lead you into nonsense territory again.