LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSurely they won't be able to bury a story like this, a minister commiting perjury in the high court, !
Surely they won't be able to bury a story like this, a minister commiting perjury in the high court, !
No wonder Limerick is a kip, if he`s the poll topper.Originally Posted by b.a. baracus
Anyone else get the feeling that the reason this might not be the political scandal it deserves is that the other party in the case is a Shinner? Can people see Lab/FG in full mode outrage if they even suspect one vote might accrue to the Cllr Maurice Quinlivan.
After all I would imagine that most Lab/FG TDs and staff would rather have a FF TD in Limerick than a SF one.
Last edited by Kf; 1st November 2009 at 09:29 PM.
Spot on, but what if maurice goes to the gardai and makes a formal complaint ?
I wouldn't have thought he could make a complaint at the moment, the case is still ongoing(so I'd imagine) Although, I would have thought this is quite an open and shut case, Willie O' Dea has now admitted making the statements. What defence could Willie make? He has either defamed Quinlivan or he hasn't defamed him! If Willie has defamed him, he will have to pay considerable damages towards Quinlivan. I don't think he could survive in Cabinet after that.
Bit unfair on Limerick. Waterford, Mayo, Tipperary North, Tipperary South, Kerry South etc etc. Quality of TD does not indicate kipness.
In exile until
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
reinstated and apology forthcoming.
Before people get carried away, here is what the Judge states he says. There does not appear to be as broad as the Mail has stated.
Quinlavan -v- O'Dea
8. In a replying affidavit the defendant candidly admits that he did indeed say to the journalist the quoted words “I suppose I am going a bit too far when I say this but I’d like to ask Mr. Quinlivan is the brothel still closed?”, but he denies “most categorically and emphatically” that he said to Mr. Dwane that the plaintiff was the co-owner of the apartment in question. The defendant also accepts that, contrary to a mistaken impression that may have been given in his solicitor’s letter of 27th March, 2009, that the quoted statement was volunteered by him spontaneously and was not made in reply to any question by the journalist.
9. The defendant for his part takes issue with remarks attributed to the plaintiff in the report to the effect that Mr. O’Dea in common with “dissident republicans” was spreading the story that he owned the property and that he, Mr. O’Dea, was going around town slandering the plaintiff and was “up to every kind of dirty trick”. The defendant claims that these allegations by the plaintiff are wholly unfounded, unsupported by any evidence and are made in an attempt to provide an appearance of support for the present application. Finally, the defendant maintains that he proposes to defend the present action vigorously. In submissions on his behalf, counsel stated that it was not intended to plead justification as such but, in so far as the claim is based on an alleged slander to the effect that the plaintiff was co-owner or part owner of the apartment, it is denied that any such statement was ever made by the defendant. In so far as it is based upon the quoted question as to the brothel being still closed, it would be denied that the words are defamatory and the question will be claimed to be one which the defendant was entitled to raise as a public representative for the area in question.
25. The defendant admits, however, that he did say to Mr. Dwane that he would like to ask the plaintiff whether the brothel was still closed. As a question to be posed to a candidate in a rival political party it is clearly open to the interpretation that some connection is intended to be made between that candidate and the operation of a brothel. It might not, perhaps, be defamatory at all if the candidate or addressee of the proposed question was someone with responsibility for policing such matters.
The defendant has emphatically denied that he ever made the substantive statement as to the plaintiff’s co-ownership of the apartment and the true position as to that ownership and the absence of any involvement on the part of the plaintiff has already been made clear in the article of 10th March, 2009
Read my blog:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I said read it.
It is fair to say that Maurice Quinlivan would have cause to have this matter referred back to the courts. As it stands he has everything to gain and nothing to lose. I think it is a no-brainer that he will go all out on this one.
This is all very well.
But forgive me if I am wrong, but surely the matter has moved on quite a bit since then.
In my opinion Minister O'Dea now admits that the evidence that he gave in his "categoric" denial that your referenced is incorrect. Is this not so?
But to the nub of the matter....has not Minister O'Dea now conceded that the facts of the case as outlined by Mr Quinlivan were correct, thereby making the argument presented by the Minister's barrister redundant?
Opinions anybody?
Any other Newspaper pick up on this story?
Reply With Quote