Joe Brolly

Started by randomtask, July 31, 2011, 05:28:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

BennyCake

Makes sense. And if that's the case with media, then Brolly would be in trouble every week in his columns.

Going on about I was talking to this Mayo/Dublin/Tyrone player, and he said X, Y and Z, when it's clearly obvious he didn't meet said player nor did they say XY or Z. He said similar in the Claire Byrne interview. Gaslighting as it's best.  He's an absolute bullshitter.

smelmoth

Quote from: RedHand88 on June 05, 2021, 05:05:00 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 05, 2021, 04:47:51 PM
What is the basis of the case?

Brolly has gone down in the estimation of one poster for taking a case based upon the Claire Byrne show debacle. But that poster doesn't even know if the case is about the Claire Byrne show.

He behaving like a jilted lover according to another poster. Does that poster know the basis of the case?

Another poster hopes he gets scorched. Do they know what the case is about?

For the record I don't know what the case is about and therefore have no view on its merits.

My own view of the Claire Byrne show is that it was handled badly by the presenter. Everything he said was true. Everything he said should have been allowable. It is plain incorrect for Redhand88 to claim that you cannot make critical comment of someone who isn't there to defend themselves. Watch any political debate and if you think that a politician can only be criticised if they are there to defend themselves then you are delusional. The fundamental rule that RedHand88 refers to does not exist.

If you criticise someone based upon evidence that is not in the public domain or if you imply a motive to a public action the presenter will normally say afterward that there is nobody here to give a counter view.

That isn't what happened here.

Slander laws prevent stuff like this. Of course you can't do it. See the recent Dr Christian Jessen case. This is why BBC/RTE shut down this sort of stuff all the time in debates ("I'm obliged to say if X was here he/she would categorically deny that"). Its a legal case waiting to happen. It doesn't matter if you believe it to be true, can it be categorically proven in a court of law that the DUP as an organisation are homophobic because of the actions of some of its members?

Delusional. Plain delusional.

Firstly you simply cannot stand over the claim that political programme will only permit critical comment of a politician if they are on hand to defend themselves. That simply isn't the case. Your argument is false.

Secondly Dr Jensen is about a false allegation.

Thirdly RTE/BBC do not not shut the debate down before it happens. They are allow you to express a view and if crosses the lines I pointed out previously then they add the line I pointed out previously. Byrne departed from standard practice.

Your legal case example is made up nonsense. Did Brolly say that the DUP as an organisation was homophobic?

tyrone08

Quote from: RedHand88 on June 05, 2021, 05:05:00 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 05, 2021, 04:47:51 PM
What is the basis of the case?

Brolly has gone down in the estimation of one poster for taking a case based upon the Claire Byrne show debacle. But that poster doesn't even know if the case is about the Claire Byrne show.

He behaving like a jilted lover according to another poster. Does that poster know the basis of the case?

Another poster hopes he gets scorched. Do they know what the case is about?

For the record I don't know what the case is about and therefore have no view on its merits.

My own view of the Claire Byrne show is that it was handled badly by the presenter. Everything he said was true. Everything he said should have been allowable. It is plain incorrect for Redhand88 to claim that you cannot make critical comment of someone who isn't there to defend themselves. Watch any political debate and if you think that a politician can only be criticised if they are there to defend themselves then you are delusional. The fundamental rule that RedHand88 refers to does not exist.

If you criticise someone based upon evidence that is not in the public domain or if you imply a motive to a public action the presenter will normally say afterward that there is nobody here to give a counter view.

That isn't what happened here.

Slander laws prevent stuff like this. Of course you can't do it. See the recent Dr Christian Jessen case. This is why BBC/RTE shut down this sort of stuff all the time in debates ("I'm obliged to say if X was here he/she would categorically deny that"). Its a legal case waiting to happen. It doesn't matter if you believe it to be true, can it be categorically proven in a court of law that the DUP as an organisation are homophobic because of the actions of some of its members?

It's not slander if it's true. Joe proved it was true by posting numerous headlines and quotes from papers which were said by the DUP.

Sean should have took Joe to court and got a nice lump sum like arlene did

smelmoth

Quote from: tyrone08 on June 05, 2021, 06:46:53 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 05, 2021, 05:05:00 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 05, 2021, 04:47:51 PM
What is the basis of the case?

Brolly has gone down in the estimation of one poster for taking a case based upon the Claire Byrne show debacle. But that poster doesn't even know if the case is about the Claire Byrne show.

He behaving like a jilted lover according to another poster. Does that poster know the basis of the case?

Another poster hopes he gets scorched. Do they know what the case is about?

For the record I don't know what the case is about and therefore have no view on its merits.

My own view of the Claire Byrne show is that it was handled badly by the presenter. Everything he said was true. Everything he said should have been allowable. It is plain incorrect for Redhand88 to claim that you cannot make critical comment of someone who isn't there to defend themselves. Watch any political debate and if you think that a politician can only be criticised if they are there to defend themselves then you are delusional. The fundamental rule that RedHand88 refers to does not exist.

If you criticise someone based upon evidence that is not in the public domain or if you imply a motive to a public action the presenter will normally say afterward that there is nobody here to give a counter view.

That isn't what happened here.

Slander laws prevent stuff like this. Of course you can't do it. See the recent Dr Christian Jessen case. This is why BBC/RTE shut down this sort of stuff all the time in debates ("I'm obliged to say if X was here he/she would categorically deny that"). Its a legal case waiting to happen. It doesn't matter if you believe it to be true, can it be categorically proven in a court of law that the DUP as an organisation are homophobic because of the actions of some of its members?

It's not slander if it's true. Joe proved it was true by posting numerous headlines and quotes from papers which were said by the DUP.

Sean should have took Joe to court and got a nice lump sum like arlene did

What case should Sean have taken against Brolly? What was the potential payout that Sean forwent?

smelmoth

Quote from: BennyCake on June 05, 2021, 05:13:20 PM
Makes sense. And if that's the case with media, then Brolly would be in trouble every week in his columns.

Going on about I was talking to this Mayo/Dublin/Tyrone player, and he said X, Y and Z, when it's clearly obvious he didn't meet said player nor did they say XY or Z. He said similar in the Claire Byrne interview. Gaslighting as it's best.  He's an absolute bullshitter.

That is a crazy post.

Your point is that Brolly's contribution to the Byrne show was similar to his claimed (real or imagined) with Mayo footballers. In what way was it similar?

You say it was gaslighting at its best. So who was he attempting to gaslight? How was he doing it? And what position where they being gaslit into adopting?

RedHand88

#5915
Quote from: smelmoth on June 05, 2021, 05:37:50 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 05, 2021, 05:05:00 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 05, 2021, 04:47:51 PM
What is the basis of the case?

Brolly has gone down in the estimation of one poster for taking a case based upon the Claire Byrne show debacle. But that poster doesn't even know if the case is about the Claire Byrne show.

He behaving like a jilted lover according to another poster. Does that poster know the basis of the case?

Another poster hopes he gets scorched. Do they know what the case is about?

For the record I don't know what the case is about and therefore have no view on its merits.

My own view of the Claire Byrne show is that it was handled badly by the presenter. Everything he said was true. Everything he said should have been allowable. It is plain incorrect for Redhand88 to claim that you cannot make critical comment of someone who isn't there to defend themselves. Watch any political debate and if you think that a politician can only be criticised if they are there to defend themselves then you are delusional. The fundamental rule that RedHand88 refers to does not exist.

If you criticise someone based upon evidence that is not in the public domain or if you imply a motive to a public action the presenter will normally say afterward that there is nobody here to give a counter view.

That isn't what happened here.

Slander laws prevent stuff like this. Of course you can't do it. See the recent Dr Christian Jessen case. This is why BBC/RTE shut down this sort of stuff all the time in debates ("I'm obliged to say if X was here he/she would categorically deny that"). Its a legal case waiting to happen. It doesn't matter if you believe it to be true, can it be categorically proven in a court of law that the DUP as an organisation are homophobic because of the actions of some of its members?

Delusional. Plain delusional.

Firstly you simply cannot stand over the claim that political programme will only permit critical comment of a politician if they are on hand to defend themselves. That simply isn't the case. Your argument is false.

Secondly Dr Jensen is about a false allegation.

Thirdly RTE/BBC do not not shut the debate down before it happens. They are allow you to express a view and if crosses the lines I pointed out previously then they add the line I pointed out previously. Byrne departed from standard practice.

Your legal case example is made up nonsense. Did Brolly say that the DUP as an organisation was homophobic?


If you listen to any debate show on BBC or RTE, comments like this about guests not in attendance do not stand. They really don't. Nolan recently shut down someone who came out with the SFIRA stuff by saying they are a legitimate political party with a mandate, and that if they were present they would vehemently deny those allegations.

Joe was asked to cease and get back to the topic at hand, he refused and was cut off after.

After listening back to it there, he said "the homophobia, the racism, all those things" in relation to either Gregory Campbell or the DUP itself. Could be read either way.

Are we even sure the case relates relates the Claire Byrne show?

Is smelmoth Joe??  ;D

tyrone08

Quote from: smelmoth on June 05, 2021, 07:50:24 PM
Quote from: tyrone08 on June 05, 2021, 06:46:53 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 05, 2021, 05:05:00 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 05, 2021, 04:47:51 PM
What is the basis of the case?

Brolly has gone down in the estimation of one poster for taking a case based upon the Claire Byrne show debacle. But that poster doesn't even know if the case is about the Claire Byrne show.

He behaving like a jilted lover according to another poster. Does that poster know the basis of the case?

Another poster hopes he gets scorched. Do they know what the case is about?

For the record I don't know what the case is about and therefore have no view on its merits.

My own view of the Claire Byrne show is that it was handled badly by the presenter. Everything he said was true. Everything he said should have been allowable. It is plain incorrect for Redhand88 to claim that you cannot make critical comment of someone who isn't there to defend themselves. Watch any political debate and if you think that a politician can only be criticised if they are there to defend themselves then you are delusional. The fundamental rule that RedHand88 refers to does not exist.

If you criticise someone based upon evidence that is not in the public domain or if you imply a motive to a public action the presenter will normally say afterward that there is nobody here to give a counter view.

That isn't what happened here.

Slander laws prevent stuff like this. Of course you can't do it. See the recent Dr Christian Jessen case. This is why BBC/RTE shut down this sort of stuff all the time in debates ("I'm obliged to say if X was here he/she would categorically deny that"). Its a legal case waiting to happen. It doesn't matter if you believe it to be true, can it be categorically proven in a court of law that the DUP as an organisation are homophobic because of the actions of some of its members?

It's not slander if it's true. Joe proved it was true by posting numerous headlines and quotes from papers which were said by the DUP.

Sean should have took Joe to court and got a nice lump sum like arlene did

What case should Sean have taken against Brolly? What was the potential payout that Sean forwent?

Sean didnt take a case. I was saying that how brolly attacked Seans character as a person he could have taken a case against brolly if brolly is taking a case against rte for cutting him off

BennyCake

Quote from: smelmoth on June 05, 2021, 08:00:04 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 05, 2021, 05:13:20 PM
Makes sense. And if that's the case with media, then Brolly would be in trouble every week in his columns.

Going on about I was talking to this Mayo/Dublin/Tyrone player, and he said X, Y and Z, when it's clearly obvious he didn't meet said player nor did they say XY or Z. He said similar in the Claire Byrne interview. Gaslighting as it's best.  He's an absolute bullshitter.

That is a crazy post.

Your point is that Brolly's contribution to the Byrne show was similar to his claimed (real or imagined) with Mayo footballers. In what way was it similar?

You say it was gaslighting at its best. So who was he attempting to gaslight? How was he doing it? And what position where they being gaslit into adopting?

He said on CB he knows some Tory politicians that loathes Ulster Protestants. Which Tories? How many did you ask? Did he get the opinion of every tory politician? Do they hate every single Ulster Protestant? He continually does this sort of thing to reinforce his argument. So basically, this is not my opinion, it's the truth of many others as well (which I've made up), but gives more credence to what I'm saying.

He continually did this sort of thing on TSG and in his columns.

I could make up anything about say, supporters of a certain county. It could be a county I don't like anyway, and say something along the lines of .. ah sure they're all a bunch of b******s. And every time I go somewhere in Ireland, for work, travel, sport, etc..... anyone I've spoke to has also said, oh aye those f*****s! All a bunch of b*******s! ... so there you have it. Those county's supporters are clearly a bunch of b*******s, everyone thinks so.

smelmoth

Quote from: RedHand88 on June 05, 2021, 08:39:42 PM
If you listen to any debate show on BBC or RTE, comments like this about guests not in attendance do not stand. They really don't.

So if Micheal Martin doesn't appear on any Rte debate before the next election then that guarantees he cannot be criticised in debate prior to the next election. Utter bollocks. I guess you know that.

Quote from: RedHand88 on June 05, 2021, 08:39:42 PM
Nolan recently shut down someone who came out with the SFIRA stuff
Brollyesque. Where is the evidence

Quote from: RedHand88 on June 05, 2021, 08:39:42 PM
by saying they are a legitimate political party with a mandate, and that if they were present they would vehemently deny those allegations.
Fair play to Nolan. Why did Byrne not do the same?


Quote from: RedHand88 on June 05, 2021, 08:39:42 PM
Joe was asked to cease and get back to the topic at hand, he refused and was cut off after.
Are you suggesting that Brolly refused to debate? Refused to debate the topic? Or refused to debate the evidence? Was he not trying to sift the old evidence when the plug was pulled?

Quote from: RedHand88 on June 05, 2021, 08:39:42 PM
After listening back to it there, he said "the homophobia, the racism, all those things" in relation to either Gregory Campbell or the DUP itself. Could be read either way.

Christ with a case as strong as that Brolly is in trouble

Quote from: RedHand88 on June 05, 2021, 08:39:42 PM
Are we even sure the case relates relates the Claire Byrne show?

No. But a few posters have signed up for jury service all the same

Quote from: RedHand88 on June 05, 2021, 08:39:42 PM
Is smelmoth Joe??  ;D

Lock up your daughters. And livestock🙀

smelmoth

Quote from: tyrone08 on June 05, 2021, 08:47:22 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 05, 2021, 07:50:24 PM
Quote from: tyrone08 on June 05, 2021, 06:46:53 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 05, 2021, 05:05:00 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 05, 2021, 04:47:51 PM
What is the basis of the case?

Brolly has gone down in the estimation of one poster for taking a case based upon the Claire Byrne show debacle. But that poster doesn't even know if the case is about the Claire Byrne show.

He behaving like a jilted lover according to another poster. Does that poster know the basis of the case?

Another poster hopes he gets scorched. Do they know what the case is about?

For the record I don't know what the case is about and therefore have no view on its merits.

My own view of the Claire Byrne show is that it was handled badly by the presenter. Everything he said was true. Everything he said should have been allowable. It is plain incorrect for Redhand88 to claim that you cannot make critical comment of someone who isn't there to defend themselves. Watch any political debate and if you think that a politician can only be criticised if they are there to defend themselves then you are delusional. The fundamental rule that RedHand88 refers to does not exist.

If you criticise someone based upon evidence that is not in the public domain or if you imply a motive to a public action the presenter will normally say afterward that there is nobody here to give a counter view.

That isn't what happened here.

Slander laws prevent stuff like this. Of course you can't do it. See the recent Dr Christian Jessen case. This is why BBC/RTE shut down this sort of stuff all the time in debates ("I'm obliged to say if X was here he/she would categorically deny that"). Its a legal case waiting to happen. It doesn't matter if you believe it to be true, can it be categorically proven in a court of law that the DUP as an organisation are homophobic because of the actions of some of its members?

It's not slander if it's true. Joe proved it was true by posting numerous headlines and quotes from papers which were said by the DUP.

Sean should have took Joe to court and got a nice lump sum like arlene did

What case should Sean have taken against Brolly? What was the potential payout that Sean forwent?

Sean didnt take a case. I was saying that how brolly attacked Seans character as a person he could have taken a case against brolly if brolly is taking a case against rte for cutting him off

I am asking what case could he have taken? And what would the potential payout have been on said case?

smelmoth

Quote from: BennyCake on June 05, 2021, 09:24:55 PMl
He said on CB he knows some Tory politicians that loathes Ulster Protestants. Which Tories? How many did you ask? Did he get the opinion of every tory politician? Do they hate every single Ulster Protestant?
And which of those questions did Byrne ask?
Prime opportunity to expose Brolly. What did the journalist do?

Wildweasel74

There videos about with plenty of remarks made by Campbell, trying to proof Brolly statement true is not that hard.

Never beat the deeler

The article linked a couple of pages back doesn't give any details about what kind of "legal action" is being taken by JB against RTE.

How does it work - would this be publicly available knowledge once the case is submitted? Is there a record somewhere as to whether Joe is suing for some sort of damages, loss of earnings, defamation, etc etc?
Hasta la victoria siempre

tbrick18

Quote from: BennyCake on June 05, 2021, 09:24:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 05, 2021, 08:00:04 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 05, 2021, 05:13:20 PM
Makes sense. And if that's the case with media, then Brolly would be in trouble every week in his columns.

Going on about I was talking to this Mayo/Dublin/Tyrone player, and he said X, Y and Z, when it's clearly obvious he didn't meet said player nor did they say XY or Z. He said similar in the Claire Byrne interview. Gaslighting as it's best.  He's an absolute bullshitter.

That is a crazy post.

Your point is that Brolly's contribution to the Byrne show was similar to his claimed (real or imagined) with Mayo footballers. In what way was it similar?

You say it was gaslighting at its best. So who was he attempting to gaslight? How was he doing it? And what position where they being gaslit into adopting?

He said on CB he knows some Tory politicians that loathes Ulster Protestants. Which Tories? How many did you ask? Did he get the opinion of every tory politician? Do they hate every single Ulster Protestant? He continually does this sort of thing to reinforce his argument. So basically, this is not my opinion, it's the truth of many others as well (which I've made up), but gives more credence to what I'm saying.

He continually did this sort of thing on TSG and in his columns.

I could make up anything about say, supporters of a certain county. It could be a county I don't like anyway, and say something along the lines of .. ah sure they're all a bunch of b******s. And every time I go somewhere in Ireland, for work, travel, sport, etc..... anyone I've spoke to has also said, oh aye those f*****s! All a bunch of b*******s! ... so there you have it. Those county's supporters are clearly a bunch of b*******s, everyone thinks so.

You could use that argument for any political commentator who ever refers to "sources" within political parties when stating a point.
Brolly saying that someone in what ever camp said something to him is as legitimate as Laura Keunssberg saying senior sources in the Tory part told her something. It's common practice and if every analyst or reporter did name their sources those same sources would soon dry up.

In so far as the Claire Byrne show, it seemed like Brolly was trying to set context to the comments Campbell had made earlier for those in ROI not already aware of the ilk of the man or the party he represents. CB didn't set that context and wouldn't allow Brolly to either which could mean the the viewers were left thinking the GC view of the situation in NI as being the common view, which obviously isn't the case. You could argue that CB/RTE had an agenda to portray a certain view with no balance.
What ever people think of Brolly, I don't believe anything he was saying on that topic was factually incorrect and there's plenty of evidence in the media to support that.

Would CB cut off a commentator who was raising comments about SF if there was no SF representative on the panel? I'm not sure she would, but who knows.

Tubberman

Quote from: tbrick18 on June 07, 2021, 10:06:30 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 05, 2021, 09:24:55 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 05, 2021, 08:00:04 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 05, 2021, 05:13:20 PM
Makes sense. And if that's the case with media, then Brolly would be in trouble every week in his columns.

Going on about I was talking to this Mayo/Dublin/Tyrone player, and he said X, Y and Z, when it's clearly obvious he didn't meet said player nor did they say XY or Z. He said similar in the Claire Byrne interview. Gaslighting as it's best.  He's an absolute bullshitter.

That is a crazy post.

Your point is that Brolly's contribution to the Byrne show was similar to his claimed (real or imagined) with Mayo footballers. In what way was it similar?

You say it was gaslighting at its best. So who was he attempting to gaslight? How was he doing it? And what position where they being gaslit into adopting?

He said on CB he knows some Tory politicians that loathes Ulster Protestants. Which Tories? How many did you ask? Did he get the opinion of every tory politician? Do they hate every single Ulster Protestant? He continually does this sort of thing to reinforce his argument. So basically, this is not my opinion, it's the truth of many others as well (which I've made up), but gives more credence to what I'm saying.

He continually did this sort of thing on TSG and in his columns.

I could make up anything about say, supporters of a certain county. It could be a county I don't like anyway, and say something along the lines of .. ah sure they're all a bunch of b******s. And every time I go somewhere in Ireland, for work, travel, sport, etc..... anyone I've spoke to has also said, oh aye those f*****s! All a bunch of b*******s! ... so there you have it. Those county's supporters are clearly a bunch of b*******s, everyone thinks so.

You could use that argument for any political commentator who ever refers to "sources" within political parties when stating a point.
Brolly saying that someone in what ever camp said something to him is as legitimate as Laura Keunssberg saying senior sources in the Tory part told her something. It's common practice and if every analyst or reporter did name their sources those same sources would soon dry up.

In so far as the Claire Byrne show, it seemed like Brolly was trying to set context to the comments Campbell had made earlier for those in ROI not already aware of the ilk of the man or the party he represents. CB didn't set that context and wouldn't allow Brolly to either which could mean the the viewers were left thinking the GC view of the situation in NI as being the common view, which obviously isn't the case. You could argue that CB/RTE had an agenda to portray a certain view with no balance.
What ever people think of Brolly, I don't believe anything he was saying on that topic was factually incorrect and there's plenty of evidence in the media to support that.

Would CB cut off a commentator who was raising comments about SF if there was no SF representative on the panel? I'm not sure she would, but who knows.

Whatever about whether Claire Byrne was right or wrong to cut him off (I was delighted personally!), I don't see what the legal claim could be, if the case relates to that incident at all.
"Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall."