Is this letter not libellous?

[pintsofguinness]

Main Street - If Gerry Adams is responsible for all that is suggested, then he is responsible for some serious atrocities.

Lynchboy - the people who bombed omagh are being protected by the IRA. Thats IRA involvement and is neither honourable nor respectable.

There's really no talking to someone who comes out with a statement like that.  That's actually funny.  I suppose your source is the Sunday World?


What I don't understand is that some of you boys would criticise and condem the IRA but you think Connolly, Pearce, Brugha, Collins, Tom Breen, Mandela and his crew etc etc were great men that never killed or targeted civilians, never killed informers or shot unarmed men in front of their family. 

Some of you need to come down out of the ivory towers and have a think, maybe cut out the hateful Irish trait of self loathing and yous might see what hypocrites you are.

Thats downright laughable in itself. Good man pints.

You think the head boys who were in the IRA dont know who bombed omagh?

Anyone who knows anything about who planted that bomb should have reported it. All the name calling and insulting from you wont change my opinion on that.

No self loathing here, just a loathing for violence and all who supported it. How does that make me a hypocrite? Never much raised the issue of any of those men you mentioned being great men either - so understand that before you go throwing labels around.

I've no idea if they know who bombed omagh but if they told the police what would that do? That's not evidence that could be used.

Btw, you're a  pacifist?

[dillinger]

- omagh was not the IRA
[/quote]

Omagh was the ira, whatever letters they put in front of it, still ira.Former provo members, their gear.

[pintsofguinness]

- omagh was not the IRA

Omagh was the ira, whatever letters they put in front of it, still ira.Former provo members, their gear.
[/quote]
Maybe you need it spelt out but when people say it wasnt the IRA they mean the provisionals. Considering you recognise that it was "former provo members" who done the bombing you'll accept it wasn't the provos.

[Puckoon]

So they wouldnt tell the police just because they arent sure the information would be of any use to the police?

Laughable.


I try to think like a pacifist - with exceptions that you are already aware of - otherwise you wouldnt be setting up whatever point you are about to make.

[pintsofguinness]

So they wouldnt tell the police just because they arent sure the information would be of any use to the police?

Laughable.


I try to think like a pacifist - with exceptions that you are already aware of - otherwise you wouldnt be setting up whatever point you are about to make.

what are you on about? you or me might as well go to the police and give names. Names bases on suspicions mean nothing.  You're not making any sense. 
Haven't their own snitches given them the names of the bombers?

Being a pacifist or trying to think like one just means you are happy for others to inflict violence in whatever form while you criticise and condemn but still enjoy the freedoms achieved. (general point)
I'll not bother going down the road of pointing out the irony of thinking like a pacifist but supporting the killing of the most venerable in society, the unborn, sick and the old.

[Niall Quinn]

Is this not a good example of the Irish practice of needlessly inserting a negative into questions?

[MW]

Originating an unfounded allegation as fact, in a public medium is libellous, not drawing attention to this in another public medium.

Also alleging someone to have orchestrated a campaign of murder surely places the burden of proof on the originator, should the person who was  the subject of the allegation decide to sue for libel.

Total balls.

A (written) comment is only libellous when a Court of Law deems it to be so i.e. the burden of proof for libel is on the plaintiff, not the defendant.

Therefore, you may make any comment you like, assuming you can find a publication to print it.

Of course, should a publication consider a comment is possibly/likely going to attract a successful libel action by the subject, then it (publication) will decline to print it.

Imo it is highly significant that the Belfast Telegraph was evidently happy to take the risk in this case i.e. they must be extremely confident that they could defend any lawsuit brought by Adams.

And speaking of defences, there is a well-known legal maxim that "Fair comment is not actionable" i.e. if you can prove what you have said to be true.

In a case such as this, the easiest way of doing so would be to produce credible evidence or witnesses to back up the assertion.

For evidence, I suggest the BT might rely on such as the following:


And for witnesses, they might eg refer to the Daily Telegraph, which on 16 March 2001 carried a report, based on an article in the Irish Echo, about a statement by Dolours Price.  She was at a republican ceremony in Ballina, County Mayo, in February 2001, to mark the 25th anniversary of the death of IRA hunger striker Frank Stagg. 
The Irish Echo said, 'Price had asked to speak because, she siad, like Stagg, both she and her sister had endured a hunger strike in 1973 and 1974.  Witnesses say she discarded her script and said she would 'speak from the heart'.
She then attacked high-ranking members of Sinn Fein who now dissociate themselves from the IRA. According to Ruairi O Bradaigh, the president of Republican Sinn Fein, who attended the event, she said that it was 'too much' to listen to people now saying they weren't in the IRA. Ms Price said: 'Gerry Adams was my commanding officer.'

I thaink GA has a strong case here and I would love to see him pursue it

I, too, would love to see Adams bring such a case, but for rather different reasons from yours...

P.S. I shall return to the other Adams thread when I get time (and hopefully at an earlier hour)

great - loads of words and even pictures to 'prove' what you say MUST be true !!
however - as per usual, loads of content, no actual points or proper truth in your rantings.
if Adams was to take them to court, it would be up to the paper to prove they were correct and not libelling him.
even if adams was OC of the IRA (which I firmly believe he never was and would still highly doubt he was ever a member on active service as lets face it - he doesnt have the balls for that kind of thing) then it still does not prove he was 'responsible for peoples deaths' as per newspaper comment.

all your little pics and comments from people still cannot prove that...

try to have a rational think about it - one person responsible for so many deaths - thats ludicrious - even by your standards !

As divorced from reality as ever, eh lynchbhoy...

Time to brush up on libel law, old son.

[MW]

The Sundy World gets hammered for lbel every month. I think Gerry should chance his arm (pardon the pun) here and take a case.

I, too, would be very happy to see Gerry Adams attempt to demonstrate (and prove on the balance of probability) that he did not organise murder.

The reason he won't go to court is because he would end up as Slab Murphy did when he sued the Sunday Times.

It isn't libel if it's true...

[pintsofguinness]

I know in English libel cases it's up to the person who made the statement to prove that it's true, is it different in the six counties MW? (it also seems to be that way in the 26 counties).

Not in other countries though, how would anyone prove something said against them wasn't true?

[MW]

I know in English libel cases it's up to the person who made the statement to prove that it's true, is it different in the six counties MW? (it also seems to be that way in the 26 counties).

Not in other countries though, how would anyone prove something said against them wasn't true?

Northern Ireland civil law is normally pretty similar to English civil law, and in both it's the plaintiff (i.e. Adams in this hypothetical case) who has to prove his case - i.e. that he has been defamed. Of course the defendant has to provide a defence in relation to defamation, and truth of the statement is a key factor (the burden of which rests on the defendant). But the burden of proof as I understand it for the lawsuit as a whole is on the plaintiff.

It's only fair that someone bringing a lawsuit has the burden of proof on them (as well as helping to ensure freedom of speech isn't massively stifled). In this case, Adams would have to demonstrate on the balance of probability that he wasn't involved in organising murder, for example by arguing the case that he was never in the PIRA or that he was in the PIRA but he never had any role in organising any killings (I don't think he would have any luck with either argument). The defendant could I would say produce a pretty hefty amout of evidence to the contrary (and could argue the "fair comment" defence as well as truth).

Incidentally, English libel law has been cited a lot recently as being among the most draconian in the Western world (by newspapers, admittedly) - "libel tourism" seems to be a growing phenomenon (foreigners choosing England & Wales to pursue their lawsuits against publications that have a small circulation there), and it's been cited by the press as inhibiting freedom of speech to some extent. From what I know of American libel law, for example, the plantiff has to prove that the defendant knew that an allegation wasn't true, not just that the allegation wasn't true.

[pintsofguinness]

The only thing Adams would have to prove or show is that the statement caused damage to his character. Which really wouldn't be a problem for him in this instance.
It's then up to the writer to prove that the statement he made was true (or claim one of the defences) so by my understanding  lynchboy was correct, maybe you're the one needs to "brush up on libel law". 

[longrunsthefox]

I have good time for Adams on most things but can't understand why he denies he was in the IRA. Like Martin McGuinness, Gerry Kelly and others admitted they were. Is he ashamed of it or what? and is an insult to people's intelligance.

[pintsofguinness]

I have good time for Adams on most things but can't understand why he denies he was in the IRA. Like Martin McGuinness, Gerry Kelly and others admitted they were. Is he ashamed of it or what? and is an insult to people's intelligance.

because he would have been convicted of it, mcguinness and kelly had already served time for IRA activities, Adams has never. 
The man is not going to admit to being a member of an illegal organisation ffs. 

[longrunsthefox]

I have good time for Adams on most things but can't understand why he denies he was in the IRA. Like Martin McGuinness, Gerry Kelly and others admitted they were. Is he ashamed of it or what? and is an insult to people's intelligance.

because he would have been convicted of it, mcguinness and kelly had already served time for IRA activities, Adams has never. 
The man is not going to admit to being a member of an illegal organisation ffs.

Now you're trying to insult our intelligance. 

[Evil Genius]

The only thing Adams would have to prove or show is that the statement caused damage to his character. Which really wouldn't be a problem for him in this instance.
It's then up to the writer to prove that the statement he made was true (or claim one of the defences) so by my understanding  lynchboy was correct, maybe you're the one needs to "brush up on libel law".

I repeat what I stated at the outset: a statement is not/cannot be "libellous" until a Court of Law determines it is. And under the general principle of fee speech, the BT is entitled to print whatever it likes.

The onus is now on Adams to prove libel i.e. that he has been illegally defamed.

Frankly, I cannot understand why he hasn't brought a case, since such an accusation is most serious, he would be entitled to enormous damages, and the BT's owner is undoubtedly good for the money.

Perhaps Adams is too busy preparing his case against Ed Moloney/Penguin Books, Peter Taylor/Bloomsbury Publishing, Richard English/Pan Books or Mark Urban/Faber & Faber, all of whom previously have stated in print that Gerry Adams was in the IRA - and a leading member at that, even when the IRA were organising a concerted campaign of murder throught Northern Ireland and beyond...