To the Committee of the URSC.

Questions for the players, the management, the UAFC, the URSC or other supporters... Someone might answer you!! (and pigs might fly)

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
dead ball
Steward
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: The Pub

To the Committee of the URSC.

Post by dead ball »

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.
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! :roll:
User avatar
pwrmoore
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11885
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:51 am
Location: East Belfast

Post by pwrmoore »

Have you sent this to the committee as a set of formal questions DB. I think you should as this site is not really a formal communication channel for the URSC even though many individual committee members probably read/post here.
Paul.

C'mon Ulsterrrrrrrrr! :red:
User avatar
dead ball
Steward
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: The Pub

Post by dead ball »

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!
The trouble with referees is that they just don't care which side wins - Tom Canterbury.

Ulster proud sponsors of Comical Eddie! :roll:
Cap'n Grumpy
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:

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

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?)
User avatar
dead ball
Steward
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: The Pub

Post by dead ball »

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! :roll:
User avatar
GerryO'
Red Hand Ambassador
Posts: 2280
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:14 am
Location: The Sticks

Post by GerryO' »

Now don't be putting words in each others mouths lads! We don't need another spat. :) :) :)
THE OLDER I GET THE BETTER I WAS
Cap'n Grumpy
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:

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

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
User avatar
dead ball
Steward
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: The Pub

Post by dead ball »

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.
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! :roll:
User avatar
Kerry Fisher
Novice
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:18 pm
Location: Six Mile Water

Post by Kerry Fisher »

Get the wood, rope and the scaffolding as there is another Kangaroo court in session. :cry:
When I feel blue I just start breathing again.
User avatar
colinh
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 5444
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:16 am
Contact:

Post by colinh »

There is a deafening silence. Maybe the question cannot be heard above the noise of the machinations.

Colin :twisted:
Romeo47 Alpha 52
fermain
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 12929
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:09 am
Location: Beer garden

Post by fermain »

just moved it here to the correct forum 8)

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.
:red: :red: :red: :red: :red: :red: :red:
Save lives, become an organ donor!!
aarons
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 5301
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 8:06 pm

Post by aarons »

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.
I'm not passing judgement on the post at all..

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.
Tighthead Prod
Novice
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:31 pm
Contact:

Post by Tighthead Prod »

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 ??!!
fermain
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 12929
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:09 am
Location: Beer garden

Post by fermain »

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.
:red: :red: :red: :red: :red: :red: :red:
Save lives, become an organ donor!!
User avatar
jamesie
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:22 am
Location: Islington London
Contact:

Post by jamesie »

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) :shock:

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 :shock:
Locked