cookiemonster wrote:

riadach wrote:

Could it be pauriceenjack?

Both lay claims to vast fortunes.:-)

Well he's not Kim Chi. He'd have been out of his mind what with all the work he's done in Easten Europe.

That name shall not be mentioned here. This is a sanctuary.

riadach wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

riadach wrote:

Could it be pauriceenjack?

Both lay claims to vast fortunes.:-)

Well he's not Kim Chi. He'd have been out of his mind what with all the work he's done in Easten Europe.

That name shall not be mentioned here. This is a sanctuary.

*plays soothing music*

He's dead now, died soon after I outed him as a r***t.  

riadach wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Cheers, Edo. I'd love to be a little more active both here and over there on the who issue. Previously I've been very much so but employment obligations (They actually make me work, can you believe it!) leave me with little time and enegry and often interest to do anything of the sort.

But speaking of the other side, what in the name of zombie jesus happened there today? SOOO many hidden quotes!

Simply enough, mcguirkj, who admits to being John McGuirk, communications officer of Libertas, outed two members of politics.ie (notably compound fracture, and the collective), and accused compound fracture of libelling him by calling him a liar. However, his knowledge of their identities may mean politics.ie is in breach of data protection acts.

I see. Is it possible that he knew their identities by other means? And is it verboten to talk about this here?

cookiemonster wrote:

riadach wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

riadach wrote:

Could it be pauriceenjack?

Both lay claims to vast fortunes.:-)

Well he's not Kim Chi. He'd have been out of his mind what with all the work he's done in Easten Europe.

That name shall not be mentioned here. This is a sanctuary.

*plays soothing music*

He's dead now, died soon after I outed him as a r***t.

You have seen twtone haven't you? He is risen. The racist is dead, long live the racist.

cookiemonster wrote:

riadach wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Cheers, Edo. I'd love to be a little more active both here and over there on the who issue. Previously I've been very much so but employment obligations (They actually make me work, can you believe it!) leave me with little time and enegry and often interest to do anything of the sort.

But speaking of the other side, what in the name of zombie jesus happened there today? SOOO many hidden quotes!

Simply enough, mcguirkj, who admits to being John McGuirk, communications officer of Libertas, outed two members of politics.ie (notably compound fracture, and the collective), and accused compound fracture of libelling him by calling him a liar. However, his knowledge of their identities may mean politics.ie is in breach of data protection acts.

I see. Is it possible that he knew their identities by other means? And is it verboten to talk about this here?

I'm worried that it might be too, but I'm not outing anyone or committing libel. We might get dave into trouble, but meh lol.

I don't think it is. Compound fracture says there is no way he would know who he is. Likewise with The Collective (let's face it the collective doesn't even know who he is half the time). He got the first name wrong, except for the initial, yet got the surname correct, which may indicate it could be email based.

Either way, the communications officer of libertas did not come off well. Why is libertas employing children anyway?

How does the law operate if everyone continues to qualify everything with "I think", "maybe", "perhaps" etc.? Can expressing your opinion be libellous, slanderous, defamatory?

Maybe I should ask a good solicitor (like droghedasouth)...

Auditor #9 wrote:

How does the law operate if everyone continues to qualify everything with "I think", "maybe", "perhaps" etc.?

Maybe I should ask a good solicitor (like droghedasouth)...

Or Johnfás?

cookiemonster wrote:

Cheers, Edo. I'd love to be a little more active both here and over there on the who issue. Previously I've been very much so but employment obligations (They actually make me work, can you believe it!) leave me with little time and enegry and often interest to do anything of the sort.

But speaking of the other side, what in the name of zombie jesus happened there today? SOOO many hidden quotes!

I think its called the John McGuirk Experience !!! - Hurricane John blew in today and left a trail of destruction in his wake -

Auditor #9 wrote:

How does the law operate if everyone continues to qualify everything with "I think", "maybe", "perhaps" etc.? Can expressing your opinion be libellous, slanderous, defamatory?

Maybe I should ask a good solicitor (like droghedasouth)...

Hmm. If this forum is private, and restricted only to members, then any accusation of libel would have to prove damage to reputation specifically amongst the members of this forum.

Simply phrasing something as an opinion doesn't necessarily make it not libellous, though, if it's still an allegation of fact. If you said "in my opinion, X took £5,000 in bribe money to allow Y to build a hotel in Z", then the "in my opinion" bit is effectively irrelevant.

If on the other hand, you say "in my opinion X is a liar", then you are genuinely offering an opinion, without any allegation of fact. To describe someone as a "known liar" is, I think, an allegation of fact.

Auditor #9 wrote:

How does the law operate if everyone continues to qualify everything with "I think", "maybe", "perhaps" etc.? Can expressing your opinion be libellous, slanderous, defamatory?

Maybe I should ask a good solicitor (like droghedasouth)...

The definition of defamation is a statement which would adversely effect the reputation of a person in the eyes of a reasonable third party. 

Now apply that to the following statement if said by me about Riadach.

Riadach perverted weirdo who sexually molests stray cats and steals from charities.

And then, using the same criteria, evaluate this statement:

I think Riadach dirty perverted weirdo who secually molests stray cats and steals from charities.

Was the outcome of your consideration of the later statement any different to that of the first? 

Now you could claim Fair comment, but in order to do that you would have to prove that you honestly believed that Riadach got his jollies from bothering moggies. It would also have to be a statement of some use to somebody, warning a cat owners club 
from organising a meeting near his house, rather than said to or about him with the sole intent of causing
him or his reputation harm.  

So that would make Riadach a kittyfiddler?

Edo wrote:

I think its called the John McGuirk Experience !!! - Hurricane John blew in today and left a trail of destruction in his wake -

I've met John a few times and he came across as a sound bloke.

So it's not possible to speculate in public - anywhere - if there's a chance that that speculation will damage the reputation of the person under discussion? (assuming it's unfounded)

That's why we use nicknames. Ganley + caution so.

cookiemonster wrote:

Edo wrote:

I think its called the John McGuirk Experience !!! - Hurricane John blew in today and left a trail of destruction in his wake -

I've met John a few times and he came across as a sound bloke.

Yeah I know - I like him -we worked on Lucindas campaign together and meet up every now and again in the same circles - but he has a particular talent for winding up Yoof politicos something fierce

Auditor #9 wrote:

So it's not possible to speculate in public - anywhere - if there's a chance that that speculation will damage the reputation of the person under discussion? (assuming it's unfounded)

That's why we use nicknames. Ganley + caution so.

No - it's not possible to make allegations of fact. You're entitled to air your opinion that (for example) Riadach is a kittyfiddler - but if you allege that you saw him doing it, or that he regularly brings stray cats home for that reason, then you're making a factual allegation, and can be sued.

The statement "Ganley is a CIA shill" would be such an allegation. The statement "Ganley would be ideally placed to be a CIA shill" would not.

From Digital Rights Ireland:

Defamation occurs where a false statement is published about a
person which tends to lower that person in the eyes of right-thinking
members of society. Defamation is a generic term – slander is
defamation in a transient form, while libel is defamation in written or
permanent (or equivalent) form.
• Defamatory statements include accusations of professional
incompetence, or of unethical, illegal or immoral behaviour. Some
examples from the Irish Courts include:
- Imputations of sexual impropriety (Sinclair v. Gogarty)
- Wrongly accuse a person of being a sympathiser with terrorism (McDonagh v. Newsgroup)
- Wrongly accuse someone of cheating in a horse race (Green v. Blake)
- Suggest a person tolerated serious crime (DeRossa v. Independent Newspapers)
- Suggest a nightclub proprietor tolerated the sale of drugs on his premises and was a “gay bachelor” (Reynolds v. Malocco)
• It is not necessary for a plaintiff to show that he was in fact
lowered in the eyes of others and suffered loss as a result, only that
the statement was of a type which tended to do so. This is not a
comprehensive list of all possible defamatory statements, but gives a
flavour of the range of the defamation definition.

A full read is worthwhile.

riadach wrote:

I'm worried that it might be too, but I'm not outing anyone or committing libel. We might get dave into trouble, but meh lol.

I don't think it is. Compound fracture says there is no way he would know who he is. Likewise with The Collective (let's face it the collective doesn't even know who he is half the time). He got the first name wrong, except for the initial, yet got the surname correct, which may indicate it could be email based.

Either way, the communications officer of libertas did not come off well. Why is libertas employing children anyway?

I wonder. I mean it wouldn't seem likely to me that Dave or Andrew (is he still around?) would give out that sort of information easily, given the comprehensive lengths he pursued to protect the information on p.ie when it appeared it was/had been hacked.

But it's probably best not to speculate.

On the other issue, no, it doesn't seem that he did. But then again if some posters were making liabelous or just childish stupid comments about him he does have (in my view at least) the right to reply and defend.
I don't think it's a Libertas issue as much as it was a personal one. Perhaps even a political one, as Mr McGuirk isn't on YFG's love wall.
As for children, I don't think that's true. Dave is young as is John (I assume they're around the same age) but sure Declan and Naoise are auld lads. There was, I'm sure, a trade off of using young fiery types like Dave and John and established industry auld lads in terms of experience but which may have been made up in ability is other areas. 

ibis wrote:

From Digital Rights Ireland:

Defamation occurs where a false statement is published about a
person which tends to lower that person in the eyes of right-thinking
members of society. Defamation is a generic term – slander is
defamation in a transient form, while libel is defamation in written or
permanent (or equivalent) form.

A full read is worthwhile.

Thanks for that ibis - worth posting in any Charter anywhere.

Yes - very useful.

ibis wrote:

So that would make Riadach a kittyfiddler?

I just saw this!  

Poor Riadach. At least we avoided any regrettable "pussy" references

ibis wrote:

So that would make Riadach a kittyfiddler?

Was it LBJ? that said about a political opponent "Why not ask him has he had intimate relations with farmyard animals?"

The advisor said "We don't have evidence of that"

"yeah but it'll be fun watchin him deny it" (Correct as appropriate)

I'm appauled. shocked and appauled.

Those kittens were fully aware of what they were getting involved in. I only bought them scratch posts to help in their learning processes. I bought them kitty bicycles to help them get around. I only brought them to my room to help in their feline studies. This is prejudice against my gay lifestyle, i helped both tom cats and other cats. I did not restrict my activity to one feline group. I'm greatly aggrieved and disappointed that the director, mr shnookums, should deal with me in such a way.

riadach wrote:

I'm appauled. shocked and appauled.

Relax, man. Don't have a cow.

ibis wrote:

riadach wrote:

I'm appauled. shocked and appauled.

Relax, man. Don't have a cow.

That's it, tá mé ag tógáil an maroc orm féin.

riadach wrote:

I'm appauled. shocked and appauled.

Those kittens were fully aware of what they were getting involved in. I only bought them scratch posts to help in their learning processes. I bought them kitty bicycles to help them get around. I only brought them to my room to help in their feline studies. This is prejudice against my gay lifestyle, i helped both tom cats and other cats. I did not restrict my activity to one feline group. I'm greatly aggrieved and disappointed that the director, mr shnookums, should deal with me in such a way.

The Kittyfiddler of Kathmandu comes clean

riadach wrote:

ibis wrote:

riadach wrote:

I'm appauled. shocked and appauled.

Relax, man. Don't have a cow.

That's it, tá mé ag tógáil an maroc orm féin.

Well, that was completely wasted on me. I've been quite accurately described as having a "couple of feck-all", on account of going to school in London.