Libertas a pan European Project : Read OP Intro Carefully - Mod

Anticoalition wrote:

(scene in Court 7 today)

Ganley wanted the magazine pulled, because he said they published false statements. He went to court for that purpose. Then, he ran, in the middle of the hearing. Did he not ask for a right of reply BEFORE going to court? Why did he back down? Obvious he didn't have a leg to stand on.

What is wrong with you? Ganley's legal team agreed with The Village's legal team before it went to court on a statement to be read by The Village and for an interview to be published in the next edition. If Ganley "didn't have a leg to stand on" there would have been no agreement between the two parties. Also, the case isn't closed, it has been adjourned for 2 weeks.

Auditor #9 wrote:

In layman's terms, what are ye talking about? What's BCC?

Ganley was spoken about in less than glowing terms
He protests and gets a court case
The court tells him he can have an interview - right of reply.

Am I following it so far ??

No, it's not about the BCC, it's about an "article" by Kevin Barrington published in the Village Magazine.

Anticoalition wrote:

Can we rename this thread, 'The Abbeyknockmoy Wonder Boy Joins the Village People'?

Eh.. you don't have to kick your opponents shins under the table now eh ?

Stick to the rules as much as we can please and keep it clean - try to imagine that there might be a little 8 year old out there who loves court cases, politics and so on.

Do it for the children...

That Prime Time program was appallingly bad sh1te. The production values were poor ('look out, he's behind you' music substituting for hard facts), the research poorer (innuendo and the old coward's trick of asking a question rather than making a direct allegation), they didn't even get the man's parents' names right, despite them showing hospitality to the producers in their own home. It was a hatchet job, without question. If Ganley does have stuff to answer, Prime Time didn't help in any way.

If Libertas have a problem, it's because they have over-reached with this 'pan-European' approach (as I have been saying for months now), not because of anything to do with this sub-Inspector Clouseau stuff. To claim that today marks the end of Ganley as a political force is to get a tad carried away with oneself, it really doesn't register as a political event.

Auditor #9 wrote:

In layman's terms, what are ye talking about? What's BCC?

Ganley was spoken about in less than glowing terms
He protests and gets a court case
The court tells him he can have an interview - right of reply.

Am I following it so far ??

The Irish Times on Monday:

"THE BROADCASTING Complaints Commission (BCC) has rejected complaints about an RTÉ Prime Time programme on Libertas founder Declan Ganley.The BCC said it found no evidence of editorial bias in the profile of Mr Ganley broadcast on November 27th of last year and presented by reporter Katie Hannon. The complaints, which related to standards of fairness, objectivity and impartiality, did not come from Mr Ganley or Libertas.“Mr Ganley has become a part of the Irish and European political scene and therefore, he can expect his past to be scrutinised and questions to be asked about his support, both financial and personal,” the BCC said."

As for the case summary above, it goes more like:

Ganley was spoken about in less than glowing terms
He protests and gets a court case, asking for the issues to be pulled
Instead of getting a hearing on the merits, he settles before evidence is presented, and agrees to do a free interview for Village

toxic avenger wrote:

That Prime Time program was appallingly bad sh1te. The production values were poor ('look out, he's behind you' music substituting for hard facts), the research poorer (innuendo and the old coward's trick of asking a question rather than making a direct allegation), they didn't even get the man's parents' names right, despite them showing hospitality to the producers in their own home. It was a hatchet job, without question. If Ganley does have stuff to answer, Prime Time didn't help in any way.

If Libertas have a problem, it's because they have over-reached with this 'pan-European' approach (as I have been saying for months now), not because of anything to do with this sub-Inspector Clouseau stuff. To claim that today marks the end of Ganley as a political force is to get a tad carried away with oneself, it really doesn't register as a political event.

You don't seem to grasp the world of these fanatical Ganley bashers, everything and I mean EVERYTHING marks the end of Ganley and the end of Libertas. Any reasonable or logical addition to discussion that isn't out and out Ganley bashing is at best ignored or at worst run though their addled brains and regurgitated, now disfigured and purposely misrepresentated in some wild attempt to make say something that it was never intended to say in order to knock it down on their terms rather than in it's original and intended form.

Anticoalition wrote:

Ganley was spoken about in less than glowing terms
He protests and gets a court case, asking for the issues to be pulled
Instead of getting a hearing on the merits, he settles before evidence is presented, and agrees to do a free interview for Village

Oh good God, really! Are you incapable of posting anything accurate?!

From the Irish Times:

Quote :

However, after talks between the sides, Mr Finlay told Mr Justice John MacMenamin this afternoon the parties had come to a resolution of the differences between them and he was happy for Eoin McCullough SC, for the defendants, to read an agreed statement to the court and for the case to be adjourned for two weeks.

The agreed statement said: “ Village Magazine strongly upholds its right to engage in vigorous investigation and comment on matters of public interest. Mr Ganley not only supports, but advocates this right.

“The Village however acknowledges that, given the opportunity, it would have been preferable to have interviewed Mr Ganley before publishing serious allegations about him. It has now been afforded this opportunity and will in its next edition, record and publish accurately the answers given by Mr Ganley in a wide-ranging interview relating to both the issues giving rise to these proceedings and to other issues of interest to Mr Ganley and to the public.”

The case was then adjourned by the judge for two weeks.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0211/breaking82.html

Anticoalition wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

In layman's terms, what are ye talking about? What's BCC?

Ganley was spoken about in less than glowing terms
He protests and gets a court case
The court tells him he can have an interview - right of reply.

Am I following it so far ??

The Irish Times on Monday:

"THE BROADCASTING Complaints Commission (BCC) has rejected complaints about an RTÉ Prime Time programme on Libertas founder Declan Ganley.The BCC said it found no evidence of editorial bias in the profile of Mr Ganley broadcast on November 27th of last year and presented by reporter Katie Hannon. The complaints, which related to standards of fairness, objectivity and impartiality, did not come from Mr Ganley or Libertas.“Mr Ganley has become a part of the Irish and European political scene and therefore, he can expect his past to be scrutinised and questions to be asked about his support, both financial and personal,” the BCC said."

As for the case summary above, it goes more like:

Ganley was spoken about in less than glowing terms
He protests and gets a court case, asking for the issues to be pulled
Instead of getting a hearing on the merits, he settles before evidence is presented, and agrees to do a free interview for Village

Thanks.

The BCC - if that finds there might be a bias then does it refer everyone to higher court of appeal? Is there a possibility that the BCC could be itself biased - I doubt anything like that ever happens in this country though.

What is the most innocent and charitable reason that Declan Ganley might have for settling can ye tell me?

toxic avenger wrote:

That Prime Time program was appallingly bad sh1te. The production values were poor ('look out, he's behind you' music substituting for hard facts), the research poorer (innuendo and the old coward's trick of asking a question rather than making a direct allegation), they didn't even get the man's parents' names right, despite them showing hospitality to the producers in their own home. It was a hatchet job, without question. If Ganley does have stuff to answer, Prime Time didn't help in any way.

If Libertas have a problem, it's because they have over-reached with this 'pan-European' approach (as I have been saying for months now), not because of anything to do with this sub-Inspector Clouseau stuff. To claim that today marks the end of Ganley as a political force is to get a tad carried away with oneself, it really doesn't register as a political event.

It is the day that he showed his true colours; bright yellow, when his personal integrity was on the line. His credibility is gone. It's all downhill from here.

Not the first Dictator to over-extend himself on the march across Europe, except this time it was the Iraqi heat, rather then the Russian Winter, that brought the big wheels to a halt.

You're right, Herr Toxic. He should have listened to you.

Libertas, Nien Danke!

I think this below might have someway answered my question above ...

cookiemonster wrote:

From the Irish Times:

Quote :

However, after talks between the sides, Mr Finlay told Mr Justice John MacMenamin this afternoon the parties had come to a resolution of the differences between them and he was happy for Eoin McCullough SC, for the defendants, to read an agreed statement to the court and for the case to be adjourned for two weeks.

The agreed statement said: “ Village Magazine strongly upholds its right to engage in vigorous investigation and comment on matters of public interest. Mr Ganley not only supports, but advocates this right.

“The Village however acknowledges that, given the opportunity, it would have been preferable to have interviewed Mr Ganley before publishing serious allegations about him. It has now been afforded this opportunity and will in its next edition, record and publish accurately the answers given by Mr Ganley in a wide-ranging interview relating to both the issues giving rise to these proceedings and to other issues of interest to Mr Ganley and to the public.”

The case was then adjourned by the judge for two weeks.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0211/breaking82.html

Anticoalition wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

That Prime Time program was appallingly bad sh1te. The production values were poor ('look out, he's behind you' music substituting for hard facts), the research poorer (innuendo and the old coward's trick of asking a question rather than making a direct allegation), they didn't even get the man's parents' names right, despite them showing hospitality to the producers in their own home. It was a hatchet job, without question. If Ganley does have stuff to answer, Prime Time didn't help in any way.

If Libertas have a problem, it's because they have over-reached with this 'pan-European' approach (as I have been saying for months now), not because of anything to do with this sub-Inspector Clouseau stuff. To claim that today marks the end of Ganley as a political force is to get a tad carried away with oneself, it really doesn't register as a political event.

It is the day that he showed his true colours; bright yellow, when his personal integrity was on the line. His credibility is gone. It's all downhill from here.

Not the first Dictator to over-extend himself on the march across Europe, except this time it was the Iraqi heat, rather then the Russian Winter, that brought the big wheels to a halt.

You're right, Herr Toxic. He should have listened to you.

His credibility among who? I suspect you mean among people like yourself, to whom he was always a balding Beelzebub. Perhaps he might be afforded the good grace of explaining in his own words why he settled, for which I can think of a dozen good reasons, before we proceed to the gallows...

Iraq has what to do with Libertas taking on more than was sensible in European elections? You're not making sense.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

In layman's terms, what are ye talking about? What's BCC?

Ganley was spoken about in less than glowing terms
He protests and gets a court case
The court tells him he can have an interview - right of reply.

Am I following it so far ??

The Irish Times on Monday:

"THE BROADCASTING Complaints Commission (BCC) has rejected complaints about an RTÉ Prime Time programme on Libertas founder Declan Ganley.The BCC said it found no evidence of editorial bias in the profile of Mr Ganley broadcast on November 27th of last year and presented by reporter Katie Hannon. The complaints, which related to standards of fairness, objectivity and impartiality, did not come from Mr Ganley or Libertas.“Mr Ganley has become a part of the Irish and European political scene and therefore, he can expect his past to be scrutinised and questions to be asked about his support, both financial and personal,” the BCC said."

As for the case summary above, it goes more like:

Ganley was spoken about in less than glowing terms
He protests and gets a court case, asking for the issues to be pulled
Instead of getting a hearing on the merits, he settles before evidence is presented, and agrees to do a free interview for Village

Thanks.

The BCC - if that finds there might be a bias then does it refer everyone to higher court of appeal? Is there a possibility that the BCC could be itself biased - I doubt anything like that ever happens in this country though.

What is the most innocent and charitable reason that Declan Ganley might have for settling can ye tell me?

We all know we live in a cesspool of bias in this country. But not everyone goes to all the trouble to hold himself out as Mr Squeaky Clean, with the degree of holy righteousness as our Mr Ganley.

Mr Ganley will get no charity from me. It is a simple case of him either not being willing or able to prove the Village wrong, or both. Any way you look at it, when push came to shove, he did not even put up a fight to protect his good name. What does that tell you?

Anticoalition wrote:

We all no we live in a cesspool of bias in this country. But not everyone goes to all the trouble to hold himself out as Mr Squeaky Clean, with the degree of holy righteousness as our Mr Ganley.

Mr Ganley will get no charity from me. It is a simple case of him either not being willing or able to prove the Village wrong, or both. Any way you look at it, when push came to shove, he did not even put up a fight to protect his good name. What does that tell you?

He doesn't have to prove Village wrong, the onus is on Village to prove Mr. Kevbar right. They're the libel laws here, like it or not (for the record I'm a 'not').

toxic avenger wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

We all no we live in a cesspool of bias in this country. But not everyone goes to all the trouble to hold himself out as Mr Squeaky Clean, with the degree of holy righteousness as our Mr Ganley.

Mr Ganley will get no charity from me. It is a simple case of him either not being willing or able to prove the Village wrong, or both. Any way you look at it, when push came to shove, he did not even put up a fight to protect his good name. What does that tell you?

He doesn't have to prove Village wrong, the onus is on Village to prove Mr. Kevbar right. They're the libel laws here, like it or not (for the record I'm a 'not').

I've heard it all now. The gleeful lynchmob from p.ie coming over here giving lectures about libel laws. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

Anticoalition wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

In layman's terms, what are ye talking about? What's BCC?

Ganley was spoken about in less than glowing terms
He protests and gets a court case
The court tells him he can have an interview - right of reply.

Am I following it so far ??

The Irish Times on Monday:

"THE BROADCASTING Complaints Commission (BCC) has rejected complaints about an RTÉ Prime Time programme on Libertas founder Declan Ganley.The BCC said it found no evidence of editorial bias in the profile of Mr Ganley broadcast on November 27th of last year and presented by reporter Katie Hannon. The complaints, which related to standards of fairness, objectivity and impartiality, did not come from Mr Ganley or Libertas.“Mr Ganley has become a part of the Irish and European political scene and therefore, he can expect his past to be scrutinised and questions to be asked about his support, both financial and personal,” the BCC said."

As for the case summary above, it goes more like:

Ganley was spoken about in less than glowing terms
He protests and gets a court case, asking for the issues to be pulled
Instead of getting a hearing on the merits, he settles before evidence is presented, and agrees to do a free interview for Village

Thanks.

The BCC - if that finds there might be a bias then does it refer everyone to higher court of appeal? Is there a possibility that the BCC could be itself biased - I doubt anything like that ever happens in this country though.

What is the most innocent and charitable reason that Declan Ganley might have for settling can ye tell me?

We all know we live in a cesspool of bias in this country. But not everyone goes to all the trouble to hold himself out as Mr Squeaky Clean, with the degree of holy righteousness as our Mr Ganley.

Mr Ganley will get no charity from me. It is a simple case of him either not being willing or able to prove the Village wrong, or both. Any way you look at it, when push came to shove, he did not even put up a fight to protect his good name. What does that tell you?

The case isn't closed. It's adjourned for 2 weeks, they have agreed that Ganley should have been interviewed as part of the piece and now he is going to have an interview published in their next edition.

Anticoalition wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

We all no we live in a cesspool of bias in this country. But not everyone goes to all the trouble to hold himself out as Mr Squeaky Clean, with the degree of holy righteousness as our Mr Ganley.

Mr Ganley will get no charity from me. It is a simple case of him either not being willing or able to prove the Village wrong, or both. Any way you look at it, when push came to shove, he did not even put up a fight to protect his good name. What does that tell you?

He doesn't have to prove Village wrong, the onus is on Village to prove Mr. Kevbar right. They're the libel laws here, like it or not (for the record I'm a 'not').

I've heard it all now. The gleeful lynchmob from p.ie coming over here giving lectures about libel laws. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

????? I state the simple and uncontestable fact that the onus is on the defendant in libel cases, then you attack me and tell me to be ashamed of myself? Wtf?

Anticoalition wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

We all no we live in a cesspool of bias in this country. But not everyone goes to all the trouble to hold himself out as Mr Squeaky Clean, with the degree of holy righteousness as our Mr Ganley.

Mr Ganley will get no charity from me. It is a simple case of him either not being willing or able to prove the Village wrong, or both. Any way you look at it, when push came to shove, he did not even put up a fight to protect his good name. What does that tell you?

He doesn't have to prove Village wrong, the onus is on Village to prove Mr. Kevbar right. They're the libel laws here, like it or not (for the record I'm a 'not').

I've heard it all now. The gleeful lynchmob from p.ie coming over here giving lectures about libel laws. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

Is it possible for you to stick to one issue at a time and please, spare us the victim routine. Both Toxic and I have been posting here for longer than you have.
And Toxic is correct, the onus IS on The Village magazine's publishers to prove that Kevin Barrington's wild claims are correct, not the other way around.

Anticoalition wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

That Prime Time program was appallingly bad sh1te. The production values were poor ('look out, he's behind you' music substituting for hard facts), the research poorer (innuendo and the old coward's trick of asking a question rather than making a direct allegation), they didn't even get the man's parents' names right, despite them showing hospitality to the producers in their own home. It was a hatchet job, without question. If Ganley does have stuff to answer, Prime Time didn't help in any way.

If Libertas have a problem, it's because they have over-reached with this 'pan-European' approach (as I have been saying for months now), not because of anything to do with this sub-Inspector Clouseau stuff. To claim that today marks the end of Ganley as a political force is to get a tad carried away with oneself, it really doesn't register as a political event.

It is the day that he showed his true colours; bright yellow, when his personal integrity was on the line. His credibility is gone. It's all downhill from here.

From the Irish Times, statement by Village Magazine agreed with Mr. Ganley: "The agreed statement said: “ Village Magazine strongly upholds its right to engage in vigorous investigation and comment on matters of public interest. Mr Ganley not only supports, but advocates this right"

Yellow? No. Personal intregrity? Yes. Credibility? Yes. The facts speak for themselves, regardless of what way you are desperately trying to spin them.

Quote :

Not the first Dictator to over-extend himself on the march across Europe, except this time it was the Iraqi heat, rather then the Russian Winter, that brought the big wheels to a halt.

Dictator? Come off it! Hyperactive conspiratorial nonsense.
[/quote]

Just on Law in general - we aren't allowed to discuss it once the case is on - is that it?

If it's adjourned what's the story?

Please. Ganley backed down, when push came to shove. In other words, it is OK with him that the magazine stays on the shelves after all.

Another spoof, except this time it is his character, not the character of the Lisbon Treaty or the corrupt EU elites at stake.

And he ran.

Anticoalition wrote:

Please. Ganley backed down, when push came to shove. In other words, it is OK with him that the magazine stays on the shelves after all.

Another spoof, except this time it is his character, not the character of the Lisbon Treaty or the corrupt EU elites at stake.

And he ran.

He came to an agreement with Village and the case was adjourned for 2 weeks. That is the case, that is fact.

This is just another case in a long list in which Mr. Ganley has threatened a court case and didn't deliver one. Where was Christian T. Miller in this I wonder? Were his quoted words not complained about too? He is a gentleman who knows his onions when it comes to Iraq.

Toxic - "Balding Beelzebub" is very funny. The Primetime was indeed embarrassing television: the programme always gives the impression of being made with no time and less money. Monster music and winceworthy graphics are used as fillers and spacers. They would have done well to wait until Libertas had launched itself and do a proper political profile.

Does this whole thing not serve to distract from the far more interesting developments in Libertas's Pan European project?

toxic avenger wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

We all no we live in a cesspool of bias in this country. But not everyone goes to all the trouble to hold himself out as Mr Squeaky Clean, with the degree of holy righteousness as our Mr Ganley.

Mr Ganley will get no charity from me. It is a simple case of him either not being willing or able to prove the Village wrong, or both. Any way you look at it, when push came to shove, he did not even put up a fight to protect his good name. What does that tell you?

He doesn't have to prove Village wrong, the onus is on Village to prove Mr. Kevbar right. They're the libel laws here, like it or not (for the record I'm a 'not').

I've heard it all now. The gleeful lynchmob from p.ie coming over here giving lectures about libel laws. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

????? I state the simple and uncontestable fact that the onus is on the defendant in libel cases, then you attack me and tell me to be ashamed of myself? Wtf?

And I am saying that Ganley prevented the Village from proving that they were right, by dropping the case.

From experience, I think you have a very peculiar view of fairness, bias, and libel, as has been repeatedly shown on p.ie.

But we digress...

Let's get back to our other champion of free speech, Cookie, trying to shut down discussion here on the Dark Side of the Abbeyknockmoy Wonder Boy again, while at the same time heralding Ganely's love for our right to engage in vigorous investigation and comment on matters of public interest

Auditor #9 wrote:

Just on Law in general - we aren't allowed to discuss it once the case is on - is that it?

If it's adjourned what's the story?

We go down the Síbín for a jar until its over?

As the Village has been left on the shelves, I think we would be safe to talk about it if we wanted to?

Anticoalition wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Anticoalition wrote:

We all no we live in a cesspool of bias in this country. But not everyone goes to all the trouble to hold himself out as Mr Squeaky Clean, with the degree of holy righteousness as our Mr Ganley.

Mr Ganley will get no charity from me. It is a simple case of him either not being willing or able to prove the Village wrong, or both. Any way you look at it, when push came to shove, he did not even put up a fight to protect his good name. What does that tell you?

He doesn't have to prove Village wrong, the onus is on Village to prove Mr. Kevbar right. They're the libel laws here, like it or not (for the record I'm a 'not').

I've heard it all now. The gleeful lynchmob from p.ie coming over here giving lectures about libel laws. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

????? I state the simple and uncontestable fact that the onus is on the defendant in libel cases, then you attack me and tell me to be ashamed of myself? Wtf?

And I am saying that Ganley prevented the Village from proving that they were right, by dropping the case.

The case HAS NOT BEEN DROPPED. It has been adjourned.

Quote :

From experience, I think you have a very peculiar view of fairness, bias, and libel, as has been repeatedly shown on p.ie.

No, he is correct in saying that the onus is on the defendent in libel cases in ireland. There is nothing peculiar about this, it is correct.

Quote :

But we digress...

Let's get back to our other champion of free speech, Cookie, trying to shut down discussion here on the Dark Side of the Abbeyknockmoy Wonder Boy again,

That's a load of crap. I'm not trying to shut down anything. Cop yourself on.