1. The court has found Monica Leech was not libelled by an Evening Herald article which said she travelled to New York with a ministerial delegation and did not attend the UN. So, what was she doing there and how much did it cost the taxpayer?
2. You get a quarter of a million for a lost limb from the personal injuries board. What lunatics rate a married woman's virtue as worth nearly ten lost limbs?
3. Monica Leech was hired in a process found to be flawed and wrong in which no one else was allowed to apply for the position, was paid well in excess of going rates, and has not been replaced in her role since departing her job with the minister. Since then, she has worked on the Higher Education Authority - a ministerial appointment - despite having little knowledge of that sector. Given that the articles did not make any reference to any affair, how is it possible for a victim of an alleged libel to completely make up such an allegation and attribute its meaning to a series of articles that clearly and overtly describe cronyism?
4. Monica Leech said during the trial that the articles 'only got her name right' and afterwards that the Evening Herald 'made up a story'. Since the court has found that their article was true, what story does Monica Leech believe they made up?
5. When are Ireland's creaking libel laws going to be overhauled, and when are caps going to be put on libel damages?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Leech comes to public attention because of a) her unusual surname (although quite appropriate for her chosen profession) and b) her employer, probably the most incompetent man in Ireland. But there must be dozens more of these parasites around getting paid wedges of taxpayers cash for doing f* all.
"Since the court has found that their article was true . . ."
Come again?
She only won half her case, Jeffrey. She lost the other half, not that you'd know that from either her court steps speech or the media reporting of the case.
She took a case that a series of Herald articles had implied she had an affair with the minister. The jury found this to be the case.
The other, less-reported half of her case revolved around a single article which said she had travelled to NYC as part of a ministerial delegation, yet appeared to do no official work while there.
It was found to be true and not libellous, and Ms Leech lost that part of her case.
As far as I've been able to determine, you're wrong on most of those counts, JC. And I happen to know her son very well - his life has been seriously affected, and still is being affected. I've seen him being accosted by total strangers in Waterford and threatened with physical violence. Her family was devastated, end of story. I saw it myself, and being a yank, I had no idea why it was happening until I finally asked him why so many people seemed to bother him. As far as only winning half her case, I'd say the half that involves the 1.87 million euros is the half that hurts the defense the most.
I certainly would condemn that sort of guttersnipe behaviour.
The correct response would surely have been to contact the Gardai?
I don't recall any such case being investigated though.
Perhaps you'd care to identify a single thing I wrote you believe is wrong?
Post a Comment