Far too soon to say..
UTV records some of the events of the first 100 days of the “indigenous” deal.. and the First Minister, the DUP’s Ian Paisley, has taken the opportunity to talk to his flock.. Meanwhile the BBC’s Martina Purdy notes that, in preparation for some later reports, she has already interviewed Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams “who sounded more negative than positive at first”.. ANYhoo… always willing to help, I can point out again that the quoted “someone” was, in fact, Zhou Enlai. Adds One of those later reports I mentioned..
I didn’t know Michelle Gildernew was a provo. I really must keep up to speed.
Yep CTN
meanwhile the RUC is where? The home guard? How about the Drumcree? what about the IRA openly marching down the centre of Belfast?
Maybe paisley will be the grand marshall of the gay parade next year, I mean he’s already funding it? or perhaps the 11+ will be re-instated! Not!!!! How about relying on the republic for the new roads you desperately need ?
lol youre going down a blind alley CTN one side has no advantage over the other
Thats an umbrella slang term for SF & PIRA Dawk- I’m sure everyone knows she isn’t a military provo- especially if she’s constantly parroting the term “Northern Ireland” like something from the Spion Kop in Windsor park…
1 RUC- rearmed and renamed PSNI- 70% of recruits who left before passing out were catholics claiming same bigoted force.
2 Their former photographer forced out and awarded damages because he married a catholic and was branded a traitor and his wife called a “whore”.
3. PSNI Recently claimed they will not co-operate in Shoot to kill investigations.
4. MI5 headquarters moved to Co. Down, MI5 will be accountable to no-one.
5. IRA disbanded and disarmed, if they ever march during the timeframe of this status quo it will only be as a toothless bunch of marchers who’s leadership administer british rule.
6. Drumcree victory due to nationalist residents of Garvaghy road not the provisional movement.
7. British military cut backs have seen dozens of regiments disbanded throughout the UK including the Black Watch in Scotland- the RIR home battalions are still intact and the Infantry have created an new Irish brigade based in the north.
As unionists enjoy british rule in Stormont, british police and military on the streets and republicans are reduced to administering british rule with an disarmed and disbanded army, unionism has a clear advantage.
Sorry to hurt you with the facts Sean but under the bungling McGuinness/Adams autocracy your dreams are as good as its ever gonna get….
The next thing the provies will be claiming to have converted Paisley to homosexuality.
Big deal the south paid for a couple of cross border roads- this kinda thing happens all over the world between neighbouring states.
Still no executive power in the north/south council and the provies under the butchers apron like a bunch of puppets.
Hib,
“The next thing the provies will be claiming to have converted Paisley to homosexuality.”
So who sez he isn’t already homosexual?
“Still no executive power in the north/south council…”
At the moment I’m more concerned about the non-scrapping of automatic 50% remission, even for paedophiles and other dangerous criminals.
I seem to recall a certain David Hanson promising to sign this into law during his gig. Has anyone ever reminded him of this? And wtf is it taking so long now? What has priority, an Irish Language Act? Jeeze.
Sean/Hib/CTN
I think perhaps the point is that both unionists and nationalists are happy with the present situation. If it changes so that one side starts bossing the other about then you might have a case, but if the best you can do is rant on at exact percentages of catholics in the PSNI and the low profile of the British/IRA armies then I think you need a new cause. What about the one of developing a peaceful and prosperous Northern Ireland. You can call it the bastradised 6 counties if you like, but lets make it a nice place to live in as a priority, then worry about the increasingly irrelevant border.
Yeah DK and it’ll be a wee bit nicer of we lay of the swear words and ranting accusations.
I would have thought a lack of respect for people with alternative viewpoints didn’t help things either….
Dawkins- We’re all concerned about crims and pervs but this thread pertains to the legislation around the ILA and its likelyhood of implementation- provie exaggerations/delusions re north/south executive power call into play their overall analytical flaws and how that effects the status of this embryonic ILA and its potential implementation or non-implementation.
Watch it with the potentially defamatory remarks re Paisley by the by- mine are clearly entirely sarcastic, humorous, ironic and hypothetical- yours however are on dangerous ground.
““You can understand perfectly, if you give your mind to it”.
Lord Kelvin
Hib,
Silly me, I thought this thread pertained to the first 100 days of the assembly. I refer you to these lines from the linked UTV page:
See what I mean? If 50% remission was discussed, UTV doesn’t mention it, the abovementioned crucial issues apparently taking precedence.
My remark re Paisley wasn’t defamatory, it being a question. BTW one doesn’t defame a peep by identifying him as homosexual. There’s also the scientifically proven fact that every one of us is homosexual to a greater or lesser extent.
Without being pedantic the ILA debate is a key issue within the 100 day context and the one to which sean, CTN and I were referring, not the linked utv site- which you admit yourself does not contain your referred discussion.
It certainly is defamatory to label someone a homosexual and a reasonable person would not consider it fair to single out one person for libel in this regard
Using a “scientific” theory to dilute your view- that everyone else is a just a little similar to the victim of your remark as a comparator is a most unsafe defence and could be argued to be oxymoronic.
Your remark contained just a little too much innuendo to be considered fair comment IMHO…
Sorry, Hib, but I must disagree on both counts. Homosexual is no longer illegal in the UK — it’s certainly to our shame that it ever was. So to brand someone homosexual is not libel.
Re the ILA as being the sole topic of this thread, if you look at the first page it seems the 100 days were the topic, with one poster even drawing up an order of merit of MLAs.
Also Comrade Stalin offered this on 15 August:
To which I say, hear hear.
And you may wish to do a little research before you post something like this:
Apologies for the double quote, and “homosexual” in line one should read “homosexuality”. It’s a busy day for me :0)
Your problem is I am responding from Dublin were the offended party can bring an action.
Your on the Internet Dawk- not the Belfast High Street- you can be sued by a victim in the relevant jurisdiction it need not be UK.
Also your misquote re the “sole topic of the thread”- I stated it was a “key issue within the 100 day context”.
You now stand corrected on both counts.
Hib,
Er, not exactly. Although it may seem like only yesterday to some, it’s actually all of 14 years since homosexual activity ceased to be illegal in the Republic.
Zounds! So Paisley’s taken up residence down south now has he? The crafty old
buggergentleman. Next you know he’ll be taking his seat in the Seanad.Or do you mean something else entirely?
But to clarify all this slander and libel stuff. A homosexual is not a criminal therefore to dub someone gay is not a libellous offence. One can as well call someone “a clown” for example.
Paisley infamously called one of the popes the Antichrist. That’s OK too. To be the Antichrist is not to be a criminal, so no slander took place. Apart from that, because the Antichrist is a mythical being, it would be just as actionable to call Paisley an abominable snowman.
Yikes! That’s three serious errors in my one post. I really must be working too hard. Will you ever forgive me for typing “sole” instead of “key”?
I do hope that’s not a heinous crime in the Republic, is it? :0)
Dawk- in the republic it is a civil offence to maliciously claim someone is a homosexual although the act of homosexuality is no longer a criminal offence
This is the jurisdiction were I have and Doctor Paisley could witness the publication of the potentially defamatory innuendo and as such this is the jurisdiction were any alleged tortfuser could be sued like in David Trimble’s case re “The Committee” were he successfully actioned retailers outside the UK.
I don’t wish to overstate this issue and am not trying to be a smart alec for kicks but it is good to know were the lines are even if you are not acting maliciously…
In Scots and English law of delict it is no longer defamatory to allege that someone is homosexual in itself. There was a civil case involving the alleged homosexuality of Robbie Williams that he won. His team took the line that the newspaper was calling him a liar and thus he was selling himself as a fraud to his mostly female fans. There was a famous case where Liber Archie won a civil case alleging that he was a homosexual, as it was a criminal offence in those days.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4502834.stm
I’d reckon Irish law would find Scots/English law persausive in these matters.
Well spotted Prince- however here in the 26 it is still a civil offence of “strict liability” (re Rylands and Fletcher) to even mistakenly publish a wrongful insinuation that someone is a homosexual.
Doctor Paisley would suffer serious consequences if after years of denouncing homosexual conduct to the Free Presbyterian flock his character was allegedly harmed through a wreckless innuendo of such a nature.
The Robbie Williams case could be persuasive in this regard but our friend Liber Archie’s I fear would be too wide.
I have no problem with people of a homosexual nature and have already stated I do not wish to overstate this issue as it is not the subject of the thread.
However is is good to exercise a degree of caution when speculating on the possible sexual behavior of politicians and clergy when on the internet…
Much food for thought here. Maybe someone can initiate a thread to discuss possible libellous remarks on Slugger? It seems a little unfair to hijack this one.
Hib,
I’ll take your word for it. Nonetheless an amusing thought occurs to me. It’s unlikely but possible that the judge or magistrate is gay. And what if there’s a jury with Senator David Norris as chairman, with several other gay men as jurors. What do you think the outcome would be?
Re Trimble’s suit, he was being associated with murderers, not really in the same league as your “Doctor” Paisley. In fact Ian might be on shaky ground as a plaintiff with dodgy credentials. Just a thought.
Prince Eoghan,
Your comparison with Robbie Williams is interesting too. I guess it was easy for him to show that his livelihood was threatened, although for the life of me I can’t imagine how a chap can prove he isn’t gay.
As you point out, Liver Ache was fingered for what was then an illegal act, much like poor Oscar Wilde.
Dawk- I will not get into purile speculation that judges or jurys in libel cases could be dominated by a sexuality which is circa 10% of the population.
In Trimble’s case the comparator here is a tortfeasor’s vulnerability to an action outside UK jurisdiction whence making transnational or international publications and not the case’s subject matter…
Didn’t Jason Donovan successfully sue The Face magazine for alleging he was gay?
Hib,
Not speculation at all but a hypothetical situation. What if the judge is gay? Do you know the sexuality of every Irish judge? And you’ve no basis whatsoever in asserting that gays represent 10% of the population. Never heard of closeted gays? There may be many, many more than you or I think.
I’m afraid I didn’t understand your second paragraph. A translation would be appreciated.
Hib
Have they ever decided legally where such a trial would take place?
Regardless where it was viewed by said paisley(puts a whole new meaning to that last name) the publishing jurisdiction would surely be the what ever jurisdiction the poster was in when he published the potentially defamatory remarks
Due to the international aspect of the internet it would incomprehensible that it was the jurisdiction of what ever country you were in when you read such remarks. What would stop some one from going to what ever country had the best laws and then becoming offended in a friendlier jurisdiction
The only other possible option would be the jurisdiction of whatever country the blog server exists in. This is why I believe most blog servers are located in the US withy its more liberal freedom of speach statutes and its tougher slander and libel laws
Dawk- the sexuality of any given judge should not effect his or her sense of jurisprudence e.g. if a gay porn star is rumored to be straight it would have similar financial repercussions ie Robbie Williams except in reverse- your slur on the gay community’s ability to separate their sense of justice from their sexuality in a case like this is partisan and outrageous.
The gay community are clearly a very small sexual minority internationally and the active gay community smaller again, the same scientific theorists that you have quoted put it at circa 10%.
The second paragraph is easily discernible.
Sean- Of course the offended party can take their action in the most plaintiff user friendly jurisdiction the alleged defamation is published.
I agree the US is the safest place to make a potentially defamatory publication, with its right to public knowledge culture- however if the publication is made in another jurisdiction the alleged offended party could take an action from there.
In relation to your question have they ever decided where the location of an international defamation case should be settled- the answer is simple- the jurisdictions were the tortfeasors were found liable- don’t believe me check google.
Sean- what do you mean “said paisley(puts a whole new meaning to that last name)”
Dunno bout you blogaddicts, but I’m headin out for the night satisfied my critics have been well advised in regard to their liability re this thread, which for the life of me I will never re-visit again.
I don’t think I’ve ever been as bored since my student days…..
What a shame now that Hib won’t be visiting here again. I’ll miss him.
I can well understand his boredom. I mean to say, the author of the following deathless, pithy, sub-Hemingway prose can only be used to the literary fast lane:
Eat your heart out, Ali Smith.
Hib
I disagree libel and slander are non transfearable and re only applicable in the jurisdictiom of the Publisher ie ME
If any one wants to sue me for libel or slander it is incumbent on them to attend my jurisdiction and attempt their best. but as paisley lacks any reputation in Canada he would be hard pressed to sue me for any amount. But as like a challenge and am more than used to being sued tell him I said ” I think he doth protest too much”
Perhaps you are correct and paisle can sue as per his location but let him try, I await the results
PS paisley = homosexual designer pattern
Sean I doubt Paisley would take you or that comment seriously.
However he does have a reputation in Canada – you might want to turn out to protest at the annual 12th March in Toronto- I believe it is quite large…
Dawk- looks like hib has you caught on a point of tort law no matter how verbose- ball and not man an all that….
CTN
As I have stated before Toronto is neither the Centre of Canada nor the centre of the Universe despite their claims to both titles
And yes I seem to remember he does have a reputation in Canada But isn’t it for blocking the investigation of paedofiles in his church in Canada? I seem to recall there was a bit of a kerfufle about that!
And as I am nonreligious and Toronto is a thousand miles away(literally not metaphorically) I think I will pass on the opportunity to watch a bunch of fat blokes with boler hats taking a walk
Sean,
Hib’s gone. He can’t hear you now … possibly.
That’s very interesting about paisley the pattern. Didn’t know that. It opens up all sorts of possibilities to style journos, doesn’t it?
Oddly enough, though, when I googled “paisley pattern” it turned up this article from Time magazine dated 29 July 1966. I found it fascinating reading. It’s pre-Troubles and features Paisley as an emerging politician. Some even believed he’d run for Parliament — gosh. There were even shouts of “Paisley for Prime Minister.”
How prescient it all was! With Mick’s indulgence for the use of his bandwidth I’ll share it here.
CTN,
I freely admit my ignorance of law, no sweat. However I do hope your “ball not man” charge isn’t aimed at me. I seem to recall that it was Hib who made the personal attacks. Take another look at the thread.
Sean- I for one never claimed Toronto was the center of anywhere but I’m glad we both agree Paisley has a rep in Canada.
Have you heard anymore about this supposed “informer” the DUP are going to allegedly “expose”?
Dawk- Read hib’s blogs- a bit narky alright, but I think you crossed the line a little.
CTN,
Explain please.
And while you’re about it perhaps you can explain his statement I quoted above. Makes little sense to me even when I translate it into English. I think it’s the “whence” that throws me.
You got personal re his style of writing after he left.
I am not here to clarify other people’s blogs- it made sense to me- so go figure it out yourself….
Excellent Paisley article – thanks Dawkins.
Pre troubles eh ?
“Northern Ireland has been rocked by stabbings, shootings, bombings and riots that have left scores injured and three dead”
And are the demographics right ? 1,250,000 Protestnts ?
CTN,
With respect, there’s your difficulty. I “attacked” Hib’s style of writing not Hib himself, therefore it wasn’t ad hominem, or man not ball.
Example, I’m very fond of Roddy Doyle but I think his writing sucks.
Dewi,
I wondered too about the demographics.
Dawk you got personal in an non-fond manner after he left- IMHO
I too am bored with this thread which and am about to tuck into a nice Sunday roast chicken- toodle pip!
CT,
Again, I dealt with Hib’s prose not with Hib.
Enjoy your lunch. Appen I’m having roast chicken too :0)