Seems to have been merely a metaphorical game of chess, which the Iona Institute won, for a change.
what!? I missed that. That is fucking sick.
85k is the supposed figure, with Waters getting 40k and Iona the rest.
Some chick from Iona wouldnât say whether that was true but that it wasnât far off.
How could you lose a lawsuit calling that crowd homophobic? They vehemently oppose same sex marriage. Itâs an open goal
[quote=âJulio Geordio, post: 897585, member: 332â]
How could you lose a lawsuit calling that crowd homophobic? They vehemently oppose same sex marriage. Itâs an open goal[/quote]
Letâs see how Rocko gets on 
[quote=âJulio Geordio, post: 897585, member: 332â]85k is the supposed figure, with Waters getting 40k and Iona the rest.
Some chick from Iona wouldnât say whether that was true but that it wasnât far off.
How could you lose a lawsuit calling that crowd homophobic? They vehemently oppose same sex marriage. Itâs an open goal[/quote]
Fucking pathetic from RTE. Hey Iona institute, youâre a bunch of homophobic pricks.
Did you know they have lost 20% of their membership to frenzied, chess-related stabbings in the last month alone?
[quote=âJulio Geordio, post: 897585, member: 332â]85k is the supposed figure, with Waters getting 40k and Iona the rest.
Some chick from Iona wouldnât say whether that was true but that it wasnât far off.
How could you lose a lawsuit calling that crowd homophobic? They vehemently oppose same sex marriage. Itâs an open goal[/quote]
75k was what i heard
Jw 30k, bob 30k and iona itself 15k
[quote=âJulio Geordio, post: 897585, member: 332â]85k is the supposed figure, with Waters getting 40k and Iona the rest.
Some chick from Iona wouldnât say whether that was true but that it wasnât far off.
How could you lose a lawsuit calling that crowd homophobic? They vehemently oppose same sex marriage. Itâs an open goal[/quote]
I suppose the key point would be whether opposing same sex marriage automatically renders you homophobic.
Would the obligation be on you to prove they were or them to prove they werenât?
I think the obligation would have been on RTE to prove the allegation.
How could they say RTE is homophobic? The lead role in their highest rated show is a transvestite.
Huh?
The burden of proof is on whoever brings the suit
[quote=âartfoley, post: 897635, member: 179â]Huh?
The burden of proof is on whoever brings the suit[/quote]
Youâre the expert, but would it not pan out that JW and Co would assert that a defamatory statement had been made about them and pretty much the only defence available to RTE would be that the statement was true, ie that they were homophobes and thus having to prove that they are homophobes.
As I always suspected. Yeâre all a pack of steamers. I never read a thread with such concern over homophobia in my life.
Its not so much concern about homophobia, more a concern about the souls of those who are eternally damned.
Yes it would pan out that way in practise but they still have to prove the defamation i.e where when and how in their civil bill or plenary summons
Implying people with a homosexual lifestyle are eternally damned is beyond homophobic. At least Iâm kind to gay people. Iâm polite to you arenât I? Stop being so homophobic on here and just get on with your lives.
Who implied homosexual people are damned? Thats a disgusting attitude to have and one that will most likely result in an infraction for you Iâm sorry to say.
Wasnât me but I agree with you on the course of action. When did you first realise that you were gay mbb? Did it take long for you to come out and was that a difficult step for you? How did you cope with it then? How did your family deal with it? Finally how are you coping today?
i know absoultely nothing about the law so I am an even playing field with fooley when it comes to knowledge on this topic. However I would have a lot more common sense than fooley. The reason RTE entered this cadit quaestio and paid out is that they felt paying out a small amount now was better than going to court when it wasnt a slam dunk & potentially losing a lot more
Iona must have felt that had functus officio
The dramatis personae may not have felt that fiat justitia ruat caelum in this situation & just wanted to pay up