I think she looks like one of the Podge and Rodge puppets.
An odius simpleton who groomed Pee Flynn.
This bitch is a prime example of why career women shouldnât exist. Back to the kitchens with the lot of them.
[quote=âtherock67â]Yeah I wasnât a big fan of Leech but you have to accept that:
a_ some of that was a direct result of lies printed about her and
b_ itâs good to see people taking on the likes of Independent Newspapers and winning.
Fair fucks to her.
Art, the awards in other completely unrelated cases shouldnât have any impact on the awards for defamation. I think Leech had a fair argument that her professional reputation was destroyed by articles printed about her, nevermind the impact on her personally - hence the large award. The merits of other cases shouldnât detract from the rights of Leech.[/QUOTE]
rocko,
her âprofessional reputationâ was established through breathtaking cronyism, unfair selections rules and outright breaches of the tendering rules and standards in public office.
I must say that the defence for INM made a bags of this by not creating the element of doubt by bringing the juryâs attention as to how she got contract after contract after contract above the going rate, without being properly tendered or being an incorporated company or having much experience except being a supporter of martin cullens
the cases I listed are not wholly unrelated as cases in defamation and in personal injury are torts and was serving to illustrate that someone who walks out of court with their health and was defamed gets infinitely mpre than someone whose life and health is destroyed
leech put herself in a position where a reasonable man would have queries about how she got these contracts and the assumption the herald came is definitely one that people could come to, having said that, the herald went too far and should righty pay her damages, but not in the amount awarded and I would expect them to be reduced to about 800k on appeal
let me ask you a question, which is more âjusticeâ, monica leech getting 1.9m for getting defamed or a lad who got beaten and raped for his childhood years in a residential institution getting 100k?
[quote=âartfoleyâ]rocko,
her âprofessional reputationâ was established through breathtaking cronyism, unfair selections rules and outright breaches of the tendering rules and standards in public office.
I must say that the defence for INM made a bags of this by not creating the element of doubt by bringing the juryâs attention as to how she got contract after contract after contract above the going rate, without being properly tendered or being an incorporated company or having much experience except being a supporter of martin cullens
the cases I listed are not wholly unrelated as cases in defamation and in personal injury are torts and was serving to illustrate that someone who walks out of court with their health and was defamed gets infinitely mpre than someone whose life and health is destroyed
leech put herself in a position where a reasonable man would have queries about how she got these contracts and the assumption the herald came is definitely one that people could come to, having said that, the herald went too far and should righty pay her damages, but not in the amount awarded and I would expect them to be reduced to about 800k on appeal
let me ask you a question, which is more âjusticeâ, monica leech getting 1.9m for getting defamed or a lad who got beaten and raped for his childhood years in a residential institution getting 100k?[/QUOTE]
no need to bring the gga into this:rolleyes:
[quote=âartfoleyâ]rocko,
her âprofessional reputationâ was established through breathtaking cronyism, unfair selections rules and outright breaches of the tendering rules and standards in public office.
I must say that the defence for INM made a bags of this by not creating the element of doubt by bringing the juryâs attention as to how she got contract after contract after contract above the going rate, without being properly tendered or being an incorporated company or having much experience except being a supporter of martin cullens
the cases I listed are not wholly unrelated as cases in defamation and in personal injury are torts and was serving to illustrate that someone who walks out of court with their health and was defamed gets infinitely mpre than someone whose life and health is destroyed
leech put herself in a position where a reasonable man would have queries about how she got these contracts and the assumption the herald came is definitely one that people could come to, having said that, the herald went too far and should righty pay her damages, but not in the amount awarded and I would expect them to be reduced to about 800k on appeal
let me ask you a question, which is more âjusticeâ, monica leech getting 1.9m for getting defamed or a lad who got beaten and raped for his childhood years in a residential institution getting 100k?[/QUOTE]
I donât know enough about Leech to judge what her professional reputation was before or after these comments but I think itâs fair to say that her credibility was damaged.
And you go on to prove that very point by repeating the same shite thatâs just been proven false in court - apparently oblivious to the fact that itâs just been proven to be false.
The notion that âa reasonable man would have queries about how she got these contracts and the assumption the herald came is definitely one that people could come toâ is absurd. The Herald published gross lies to blacken her name, theyâve been proven to be lies, they have been proven to be without foundation and you come out with a crazy statement like that.
The post youâve just written is likely the exact same thing youâd have written on the matter a couple of years ago. Youâre clearly failing to pay attention to the facts of the case which have proven your âreasonableâ theories to be pure nonsense.
The other stuff about the damages comparison is just pointless. I couldnât give a shit that theyâre both tort - thatâs completely irrelevant and to be honest you could have tried to show your âlegal expertiseâ with something a touch more sophisticated. There is zero comparison between the cases youâve highlighted and thereâs nothing to be gained by comparing them.
They were saying the wireless this evening that the jury in a case like this are given absolutely no guideance by the judge as to what figure they should award. He cannot influence the amount of damages in anyway. Seems a bit mad.
The fact the figure is so high means that Independent Newspapers will definitely appeal the decision which I think means an entire new courtcase again, with witnesses, cross examination etc. A judge just canât come along and reduce the settlement, they will have to go through the entire process again.
[quote=âtherock67â]I donât know enough about Leech to judge what her professional reputation was before or after these comments but I think itâs fair to say that her credibility was damaged.
And you go on to prove that very point by repeating the same shite thatâs just been proven false in court - apparently oblivious to the fact that itâs just been proven to be false.
The notion that âa reasonable man would have queries about how she got these contracts and the assumption the herald came is definitely one that people could come toâ is absurd. The Herald published gross lies to blacken her name, theyâve been proven to be lies, they have been proven to be without foundation and you come out with a crazy statement like that.
The post youâve just written is likely the exact same thing youâd have written on the matter a couple of years ago. Youâre clearly failing to pay attention to the facts of the case which have proven your âreasonableâ theories to be pure nonsense.
The other stuff about the damages comparison is just pointless. I couldnât give a shit that theyâre both tort - thatâs completely irrelevant and to be honest you could have tried to show your âlegal expertiseâ with something a touch more sophisticated. There is zero comparison between the cases youâve highlighted and thereâs nothing to be gained by comparing them.[/QUOTE]
fine, revel in your ignorance
[quote=âThe Runtâ]They were saying the wireless this evening that the jury in a case like this are given absolutely no guideance by the judge as to what figure they should award. He cannot influence the amount of damages in anyway. Seems a bit mad.
The fact the figure is so high means that Independent Newspapers will definitely appeal the decision which I think means an entire new courtcase again, with witnesses, cross examination etc. A judge just canât come along and reduce the settlement, they will have to go through the entire process again.[/QUOTE]
the supreme court canât lower the damages, they can send it back to the high court who will hear it from the start, where there is a possibility that the award may be increased
The man on the radio said it was a ridiculously high settlement (although he was from a newspaper). He said that for an accident victim to get that level of damages they would have to be in an almost vegative state with no control over their bodily functions.
they are totally incomparable runt:rolleyes:
the award to leech was double that of the previous record for a traveller who was defamed by the sunday world by calling him a drug king even though he made a payment to CAB for profits of drugs and dole fraud
if you want to see the ridiculousness of this award look at the book of quantum on PIAB.ie
[quote=âartfoleyâ]they are totally incomparable runt:rolleyes:
the award to leech was double that of the previous record for a traveller who was defamed by the sunday world by calling him a drug king even though he made a payment to CAB for profits of drugs and dole fraud
if you want to see the ridiculousness of this award look at the book of quantum on PIAB.ie[/QUOTE]
Do you not think itâs crazy that the jury can be given no guidance as to the scale of damages they should award?
of course it is
a judge gives a jury directions in any indictable offence about the meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt, what they are to consider and what, if anything, they are to disregard
so to let a jury head off and pick a figure out of clean air is nuts, could you imagine if a jury was given sentencing powers (even though I might like the sentences!!) but had no guidance ?
I havenât read this thread but I always find it funny that when thereâs a thread thats even within a 500m radius of a legal issue or the courts that foley jumps in and has to point out to everyone why theyâre wrong. Every time, without fail.
mac, youâre wrong, every time, without fail:guns:
would this sort of behaviour explain also your number of posts onthreads about cunts 
You think the mean cunt would be spending his time trying to make a few more bob so he can by his life-partner a better engagement ring rather than waffling on about this shiteâŚ
Great to see rocko putting him in his place
[quote=âThe Pukeâ]You think the mean cunt would be spending his time trying to make a few more bob so he can by his life-partner a better engagement ring rather than waffling on about this shiteâŚ
Great to see rocko putting him in his place[/QUOTE]
not biting !
huh?
take it to PMs:D
Heard that on The Last Word this evening and was about to post it.
Crazy money but good to see those cunts from the Herald get their commupence.