It is a comment made generally cactus flower, not merely aimed at you.

In regard to Seathrún's comment above - we have no power over what the Gardaí want to say. If you feel you have had your legal rights infringed by them you have personal recourse through the courts which you are welcome to enforce.

However, we must not leave ourselves, here, open to any recourse from any third party on the basis of comments made here. This is not a game of tit-for-tat between Machine Nation and the Gardaí.

johnfás wrote:

It is a comment made generally cactus flower, not merely aimed at you.

In regard to Seathrún's comment above - we have no power over what the Gardaí want to say. If you feel you have had your legal rights infringed by them you have personal recourse through the courts which you are welcome to enforce.

However, we must not leave ourselves, here, open to any recourse from any third party on the basis of comments made here. This is not a game of tit-for-tat between Machine Nation and the Gardaí.

And invite the same Gardaí attention that those who oppose Shell are receiving.

Do you believe we're not entitled to hold the Gardaí up to scrutiny? Nobody has made any remarks as far as I can see which would be actionable

johnfás wrote:

It is a comment made generally cactus flower, not merely aimed at you.

In regard to Seathrún's comment above - we have no power over what the Gardaí want to say. If you feel you have had your legal rights infringed by them you have personal recourse through the courts which you are welcome to enforce.

However, we must not leave ourselves, here, open to any recourse from any third party on the basis of comments made here. This is not a game of tit-for-tat between Machine Nation and the Gardaí.

Indeed - so quickly have we forgotten the very origins of Machine Nation!

ibis wrote:

johnfás wrote:

It is a comment made generally cactus flower, not merely aimed at you.

In regard to Seathrún's comment above - we have no power over what the Gardaí want to say. If you feel you have had your legal rights infringed by them you have personal recourse through the courts which you are welcome to enforce.

However, we must not leave ourselves, here, open to any recourse from any third party on the basis of comments made here. This is not a game of tit-for-tat between Machine Nation and the Gardaí.

Indeed - so quickly have we forgotten the very origins of Machine Nation!

???? An outage of P.ie ???

If anyone wants to point to a specific statement which they believe improper or actionable, please would they pm me with details.

How actionable is it to speculate without explicitly naming anyone?

Might I just remind people that an aspect of defamation law is that of the innuendo. Innuendo is comment which is not prima facie defamatory but when combined with other facts is readily actionable in defamation law.

Provided any person is readily identifiable it is actionable. You do not have to name any person. The same goes for an organisation. There is an Irish case where a statement merely refers to "A factory in the south east". In this case a particular factory in Waterford successfully sued in defamation.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

johnfás wrote:

It is a comment made generally cactus flower, not merely aimed at you.

In regard to Seathrún's comment above - we have no power over what the Gardaí want to say. If you feel you have had your legal rights infringed by them you have personal recourse through the courts which you are welcome to enforce.

However, we must not leave ourselves, here, open to any recourse from any third party on the basis of comments made here. This is not a game of tit-for-tat between Machine Nation and the Gardaí.

Indeed - so quickly have we forgotten the very origins of Machine Nation!

???? An outage of P.ie ???

Which turned out to be because of p.ie's move to the US on threats of a libel action...

Quote :

Might I just remind people that an aspect of defamation law is that of the innuendo. Innuendo is comment which is not prima facie defamatory but when combined with other facts is readily actionable in defamation law.

Provided any person is readily identifiable it is actionable. You do not have to name any person. The same goes for an organisation. There is an Irish case where a statement merely refers to "A factory in the south east". In this case a particular factory in Waterford successfully sued in defamation.

And public organisations are the same are they? I thought some of these groups were 'fair game' ?

johnfás wrote:

I haven't a notion who did it - I would presume somebody or some group that does not like Shell.

I'm looking through the thread, and this is the first direct reference I've found to who might have planted the device.

Indeed, politics.ie was shut down periodically following a threat of legal action by a firm of Dublin solicitors who were, at that time, and quite possibly could still be, acting on behalf of Bertie Ahern at the Mahon Tribunal.

The threat was on foot of a series of potentially libellous remarks made by posters on the website.

johnfás wrote:

Indeed, politics.ie was shut down periodically following a threat of legal action by a firm of Dublin solicitors who were, at that time, and quite possibly could still be, acting on behalf of Bertie Ahern at the Mahon Tribunal.

The threat was on foot of a series of potentially libellous remarks made by posters on the website.

johnfas, if you want to point to any statements, about which you have real concern, please would you pm me with details. I take it that you are happy with your own expressed views about "who dun it".

Auditor #9 wrote:

And public organisations are the same are they? I thought some of these groups were 'fair game' ?

The law is developing in that direction in England. It is not entirely clear what the opinion of the courts here is currently. This is owing to the fact that there is not the same degree of cases flowing through the courts.

However, there is such a thing as a corporate plaintiff in the case of companies. Furthermore, whilst it is also likely that the Gardaí is far too wide a class to mount a successful case, issues surrounding sub bodies such as the Garda press office certainly would not be too wide a class.

I still don't see where anybody has said anything actionable? You can pm me if you don't want to spell it out.

cactus flower wrote:

johnfas, if you want to point to any statements, about which you have real concern, please would you pm me with details. I take it that you are happy with your own expressed views about "who dun it".

I haven't complained of any particular post. I made my comments because I believe several posts have been tinkering very close to the edge and the situation needs to be kept in line in order that they do not. Any posts that I have a problem with from a legal angle will be speedily dealt with as they were several pages previous.

In regard to my own comments, yes I am entirely satisfied with them. I made a robust comment on them on a previous page.

johnfás wrote:

I think that stating a bomb placed on the doorstep of
a corporation was probably placed there by either somebody or some
group which did not like that corporation is a reasonable statement and
thus should stand.

First, it is a fair comment that such an
activity against a corporation would be carried out by somebody or some
group with an agenda, or at least a grievance, against that corporation.

Secondly,
my statement regarding somebody or some group is a sufficiently broad
and vague class of person or grouping that it is beyond the law of
defamation in any case. In order for it to potentially fall within
defamation it must either be a readily identifiable person or body or a
sufficiently small class of person so as the members of the body to be
readily identifiable and associated to the defamatory statement. In
this case I did not in fact state that it was an anti shell group,
which in itself would also be too broad in regard to defamation. I in
fact said it was presumably somebody or some group that did not like
Shell.

Are you pleading technical virginity here johnfas? I think you've made your views on who was involved in this perfectly clear. Please allow others to express their opinions without filibuster.

I placed a "I would guess" somewhere in a post and the Guards have went back to the barracks. Their brief beat a hasty retreat too. No trip to the Goldmines so.

"Nothing to see earn here"

cactus flower wrote:

Are you pleading technical virginity here johnfas? I think you've made your views on who was involved in this perfectly clear. Please allow others to express their opinions without filibuster.

My views are that I do not know who did it. I defend my comments that it was presumably someone or some group which did not like Shell as fair comment, that it is. I haven't a notion whether it was related to any campaign in Co Mayo nor would I suggest that I did. My initial and subsequent statements on the matter are incredibly clear on that.

I don't follow the Shell to Sea campaign. I think that the manner in which our natural resources were sold off was a disgrace so in that sense I notionally support the ideas associated with their campaign.

https://machinenation.forumakers.com/world-politics-and-events-f27/what-s-up-in-canada-security-and-prosperity-partnership-of-north-america-t1295.htm#37786

I'm just posting a link here to a film of provocateurs in action on a picket line in Canada. I'm not drawing any direct link with anything that has happened in Ireland: the video is posted for educational purposes only.