Close Menu
    Regno Unito

    L’ex leader della Sinn Féin Gerry Adams ha assegnato € 100.000 in caso di diffamazione contro la BBC

    Share.
    View 19 Comments

    19 commenti

    1. cosmic_monsters_inc on

      So everyone knows he did all the stuff. He is the baddie and he gets paid out for it? What the actual fuck.

    2. Craft_on_draft on

      He may have done so, but, without proof or correct framing, it is libellous.

    3. Frequent_Turnover_74 on

      Lol. The current state of journalism is to blame, too much normalisation of printing absolute pish and getting away with it.

    4. Gemini_2261 on

      For context, Jennifer O’Leary is a career anti-Republican/pro-Unionist shill and dissembler (one of many such pseudo-journalists grifting a living out of rehashing the Troubles). She and her producers should have been held personally liable for damages.

    5. Bob_Leves on

      Because of course you get to be the senior political representative of, at that time, the biggest gang of hard men in the UK by being kind to puppies and painting watercolours…
      (Edit on his official job title)

    6. kbm79 on

      In an act of petty revenge, all BBC news reports will have Adams’s voice spoken by an actor, sucking on helium, like its 1989.

    8. Basic-Negotiation-16 on

      Quelle surprise. The south armagh provisionals were long suspected of killing donaldson. This narrative that adams was a godfather type figure at the head of a table with all the provisionals waiting on the next sanctioned operation is so silly.

    9. reginalduk on

      Conspiracy theory – Adams is a high level informant and this is how they are going to pay him. Everyone’s a winner.

    10. Ibadan_legend on

      “Gerry Adams has always denied being a member of the IRA or participating in any IRA-related violence.”

    11. Pabus_Alt on

      >It is also fair to speculate, Adams calculated he had a better chance of winning with an Irish jury with little or no memory of The Troubles.

      The BBC, reporting on themselves being sued for libel, invites more libel accusations.

    13. limaconnect77 on

      Adams was on that Rest Is Politics thing and said something along the lines of Rory being fair game if he’d been targeted (did a brief military stint in 1991).

      Not exactly something a straight-up activist/politician would say.

      For what it’s worth, the security services probably know for a fact if Gerry Adams was part of the IRA leadership in the 70s/80s but served no real purpose to reveal it – suited everyone well that there was a fairly reasonable, respected and intelligent fella to work with on de-escalating things and starting the peace process.

    14. Move-Primary on

      Adams was almost certainly a high ranking IRA member, almost certainly sanctioned some horrible crimes in his day, but almost certainly was NOT involved in the Donaldson killing in any way. He was killed at a time when the peace process was on a knife edge and it was looking like the whole thing was about to come crashing down. Say what you want about Adams, but he’s a shrewd politician who wasn’t about to piss it all away for some petty revenge on a spent security asset who was disgraced and living in hiding. As usual the most likely outcome is probably the true one. Some dickhead journalist from the Sunday World exposed where Donaldson was hiding, then shortly after the Real IRA killed him and later claimed responsibility. The BBC made real rookie mistakes with this case 

    15. BeeEconomy3827 on

      Having made a ridiculous ‘trust me bro’ defence (they produced multiple witnesses but never produced a witness that could support the allegations), the BBC were trounced in court.

      Now BBC News is awash with mealy mouthed whinging about ‘hindering freedom of expression’ and ‘it would have been different in a UK court’.

      Journalists really do believe that they’re a protected class, above any repercussions.

    17. BissoumaTequila on

      Hang on this happened in 2016?! Isn’t the statute of limitation a year?

    18. DandyLionsInSiberia on

      Anecdotally speaking, it does seem to be a generally accepted view (across all communities within NI and perhaps the Republic of Ireland) the individual in question served as (an alleged ) high ranking member of that organisation (for a time during the height of the troubles at least).. and by virtue of the aforementioned view – likely played a key role in a few fairly chilling events..

      It is speculated that they calculated they had a better chance of winning with an Irish jury that might have less direct, or a different, memory and perspective of the Troubles compared to a jury in Northern Ireland or Great Britain. His lawyers’ video presentation to the jury focused on his role as a peacemaker from the 1990s onwards rather than the darker and less savory and murky speculations surrounding the period prior to that time.

      Add to that, During the libel trial, a journalist for the BBC stated that it was “likely” a source who made allegations against the above individual would be killed if their identity was revealed.

      The BBC also claimed that the central anonymous source, known as “Martin,” was corroborated by five other sources, including two from the republican community and three related to security services. However, these corroborating sources also remained anonymous, further highlighting the perceived danger associated with speaking publicly on such a sensitive and high-stakes matter in Northern Irish politics.

      It seems more like they played the odds and secured a favorable verdict based upon that – conversely not necessarily a “vindication” in the eyes of a notable number.

      Interesting anyway. From a tactical and legal standpoint for observers interested in such things.

    Leave A Reply