To the Committee of the URSC.
Moderator: Moderators
To the Committee of the URSC.
I would like to ask the URSC Committee something in reference to the incident were an alleged member of their committee in turn made allegations in respects of Mike Reid and the taping of telephone conversations with DCAL.
1) Did you have a representative talk to the Nolan Show?
2) If so did you as a committee agree on this rep's comments?
3) whether you did or not, was UR agreement sought for the interview and statements?
4) Has the person in question been dealt with if the answer to question 2 and 3 is No?
5) lastly where did the information about MR and the taping of phone calls come from ?
If there is no response to this post I will assume 2 things.
1) One of your committee went on the Nolan show without proper authority and has NOT been dealt with.
2) He made libellous claims against Mike Reid which had no foundation what so ever.
I look forward to your response.
1) Did you have a representative talk to the Nolan Show?
2) If so did you as a committee agree on this rep's comments?
3) whether you did or not, was UR agreement sought for the interview and statements?
4) Has the person in question been dealt with if the answer to question 2 and 3 is No?
5) lastly where did the information about MR and the taping of phone calls come from ?
If there is no response to this post I will assume 2 things.
1) One of your committee went on the Nolan show without proper authority and has NOT been dealt with.
2) He made libellous claims against Mike Reid which had no foundation what so ever.
I look forward to your response.
Last edited by dead ball on Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The trouble with referees is that they just don't care which side wins - Tom Canterbury.
Ulster proud sponsors of Comical Eddie!
Ulster proud sponsors of Comical Eddie!
Point taken and I will.
However I think many here and on the darkside who are paid upmembers of the URSC and as such have the right to know what is going on.
I also feel it should be put out in the open and discussed as opposed to being brushed under the carpet.
But if some find this offensive I will consider removing it!
However I think many here and on the darkside who are paid upmembers of the URSC and as such have the right to know what is going on.
I also feel it should be put out in the open and discussed as opposed to being brushed under the carpet.
But if some find this offensive I will consider removing it!
The trouble with referees is that they just don't care which side wins - Tom Canterbury.
Ulster proud sponsors of Comical Eddie!
Ulster proud sponsors of Comical Eddie!
-
- Chancellor to the King
- Posts: 3440
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:28 pm
- Location: At sea on an insignificant blue/green planet orbiting a sun in the western spiral arm of the galaxy
- Contact:
Agree with Paul here, DB.
Also, you claim he made libellous accusations against MR. the person you accuse might consider that remark libellous in itself.
Also, if it is accurate, shouldn't MR himself follow this up. Bringing this further into the public domain may be prejudicial to settling this. (Or are you acting in a legal capacity for MR?)
Also, you claim he made libellous accusations against MR. the person you accuse might consider that remark libellous in itself.
Also, if it is accurate, shouldn't MR himself follow this up. Bringing this further into the public domain may be prejudicial to settling this. (Or are you acting in a legal capacity for MR?)
Cap'n Grumpy wrote:Agree with Paul here, DB. - As I have said I took Pauls advice and have sent the URSC the questions.
Also, you claim he made libellous accusations against MR. the person you accuse might consider that remark libellous in itself. I have not accused anyone,nor have I named anybody, I have asked a question, if there is the usual silence from the URSC in response to those questions then certain inferences may be drawn I simply listed what they may be. That is not libellous. Perhaps Jamsie would care to confirm this?
Also, if it is accurate, shouldn't MR himself follow this up. - Yes
Bringing this further into the public domain may be prejudicial to settling this - I doubt it, it would probably win the respect of most supporters and members.
(Or are you acting in a legal capacity for MR?) If I was I would hardly in turn enter the debate in the fashion I have. But to be clear, no I am not involved in any other way apart from as a member.
The trouble with referees is that they just don't care which side wins - Tom Canterbury.
Ulster proud sponsors of Comical Eddie!
Ulster proud sponsors of Comical Eddie!
-
- Chancellor to the King
- Posts: 3440
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:28 pm
- Location: At sea on an insignificant blue/green planet orbiting a sun in the western spiral arm of the galaxy
- Contact:
DB
I have no argument with you here, but simply stating an opinion that your post could be taken the wrong way (heaven forbid). You will note the following:
I stated the person "might" consider it libellous, not "would".
You didn't name them, but there is possibly enough info in this topic and other related ones to identify them which is the same thing.
You say you will make assumptions on their lack of response, when you don't even know if they have seen your question, and in any case, they are not compelled to reply.
You agree that if there is a problem with this that MR would be better to take up the issue himself, so perhaps we should let him (if there is an issue)
You seem to agree that it is an issue for the URSC membership, so that being the case, perhaps if it needs to be raised it should be through a URSC forum.
My last question was firmly "tongue in cheek" I would not expect you to be working on behalf of MR - and certainly not in such a manner.
I stress I have no axe to grind in this and make no accusations. I simply see no purpose in publicly dragging this out again. If there is a case to answer, I expect URSC committee to deal with it. I don't intend to keep this at the top of the forum indefinitely. If you see it differently that is your prerogative.
Grumps
I have no argument with you here, but simply stating an opinion that your post could be taken the wrong way (heaven forbid). You will note the following:
I stated the person "might" consider it libellous, not "would".
You didn't name them, but there is possibly enough info in this topic and other related ones to identify them which is the same thing.
You say you will make assumptions on their lack of response, when you don't even know if they have seen your question, and in any case, they are not compelled to reply.
You agree that if there is a problem with this that MR would be better to take up the issue himself, so perhaps we should let him (if there is an issue)
You seem to agree that it is an issue for the URSC membership, so that being the case, perhaps if it needs to be raised it should be through a URSC forum.
My last question was firmly "tongue in cheek" I would not expect you to be working on behalf of MR - and certainly not in such a manner.
I stress I have no axe to grind in this and make no accusations. I simply see no purpose in publicly dragging this out again. If there is a case to answer, I expect URSC committee to deal with it. I don't intend to keep this at the top of the forum indefinitely. If you see it differently that is your prerogative.
Grumps
Sorry Grumps if my response came across as accusing you of having an axe to grind. It is not intended it as such. I was just trying to make an accurate response to your question since in the past I have been accused of never answering the question. We more or less agree I think.
On the matter of whether it is libellous or not I can assure you I am happy to stand over what I have written, you of course are entitled to your opinion however. In our legal system there is usually two different views or opinions to a matter, which is why it goes to court in the first place, I don't believe mine is wrong.
I await a response from the Committe who were contacted earlier today.
On the matter of whether it is libellous or not I can assure you I am happy to stand over what I have written, you of course are entitled to your opinion however. In our legal system there is usually two different views or opinions to a matter, which is why it goes to court in the first place, I don't believe mine is wrong.
I await a response from the Committe who were contacted earlier today.
Last edited by dead ball on Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The trouble with referees is that they just don't care which side wins - Tom Canterbury.
Ulster proud sponsors of Comical Eddie!
Ulster proud sponsors of Comical Eddie!
- Kerry Fisher
- Novice
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:18 pm
- Location: Six Mile Water
just moved it here to the correct forum
On the questions, I'm not sure the URSC will answer these here or not. I suppose being an independent forum, we can ask away but nto sure if they wouldn't rather answer on the UR mb.
On the questions, I'm not sure the URSC will answer these here or not. I suppose being an independent forum, we can ask away but nto sure if they wouldn't rather answer on the UR mb.
Last edited by fermain on Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Save lives, become an organ donor!!
I'm not passing judgement on the post at all..dead ball wrote:On the matter of whether it is libellous or not I can assure you I am happy to stand over what I have written, you of course are entitled to your opinion however. In our legal system there is usually two different views or opinions to a matter, which is why it goes to court in the first place, I don't believe mine is wrong.
But bear in mind that if the post is libellous, our fine UAFC host is as responsible for it as the person who made the comments.
-
- Novice
- Posts: 246
- Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:31 pm
- Contact:
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DB - As you allegedly claim to be involved ''in the law'' at some level I'm sure you are aware of the importance of using accurate terminology in any submission or cross examination. Therefore, if you are referring to a person who made ''comments'' on a TV programme, should you not be using the term slander as opposed to libel ? My understanding is that the latter term refers to the written word !!
ps there was another eminent person on the Fatty Nolan Show that night who was involved in the debate about the Maze. Perhaps ''his radar '' picked up these comments as well ??!!
DB - As you allegedly claim to be involved ''in the law'' at some level I'm sure you are aware of the importance of using accurate terminology in any submission or cross examination. Therefore, if you are referring to a person who made ''comments'' on a TV programme, should you not be using the term slander as opposed to libel ? My understanding is that the latter term refers to the written word !!
ps there was another eminent person on the Fatty Nolan Show that night who was involved in the debate about the Maze. Perhaps ''his radar '' picked up these comments as well ??!!
nah aaron, this clause in the registration Ts&Cs absolves us I believe (jamesie or deadball can clarify)
While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
Save lives, become an organ donor!!
- jamesie
- Lord Chancellor
- Posts: 4612
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:22 am
- Location: Islington London
- Contact:
THP... sorry to be a smart-Brennan pr*ck, but simply writing 'without predudice' at the top of a post will not i'm afraid protect your post from disclosure under the civil procedure rules unless its in (part 31)
as a general rule 'without prejduce' privilege will only apply to communications between parties in contemplation of litigation, when attempting to settle disputed matters
i think you should all tread carefully. you're blowing up a bit of a sh*tstorm here
as a general rule 'without prejduce' privilege will only apply to communications between parties in contemplation of litigation, when attempting to settle disputed matters
i think you should all tread carefully. you're blowing up a bit of a sh*tstorm here