Roi,
Roi.
I am presuming your tongue is firmly in your cheek. For this is the official position:This "ROI" nonsense annoys me intensely. It's bad enough that a foreign broadcaster is allowed to perpetrate this on-going insult against a sovereign, independent, democratic state, by deliberately mis-naming it in its broadcasts and publications, but when we do it to ourselves it needs to be challenged as it shows what little national pride we have.
Sources that dare not speak their name said:The official name of the country is "Ireland" — in Irish, "Éire."
However, "Republic of Ireland" is a description, not the official name. It is often used to distinguish the sovereign nation from Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom.
This distinction was formalized in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which declared that Ireland "may be described as the Republic of Ireland" — but it did not change the official name from "Ireland."
A good question:But why did the BBC even answer the charge in Dublin. Could they not have ignored it and say come and take the case in Belfast where we are based?
Sources that can't be revealed said:The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) responded to a defamation claim by Gerry Adams in Dublin despite having no formal legal presence in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) due to a combination of legal, strategic, and jurisdictional factors. Here's a breakdown of the reasoning:
1. Jurisdiction Over Cross-Border Publications
Even though the BBC is a UK-based entity, its broadcasts and online content are accessible in the Republic of Ireland. Under Irish defamation law, this means that if allegedly defamatory material is published or accessed in Ireland, Irish courts can claim jurisdiction.
- For example, online articles or news reports published by the BBC and accessible in Ireland could be considered as published within Ireland.
- If a person alleges that their reputation has been harmed within Ireland due to such publications, they can sue in Irish courts.
2. Legal Strategy to Avoid Default Judgment
If the BBC had not responded to the lawsuit in Dublin, the court could have issued a default judgment against them. This would mean the BBC automatically loses the case, potentially resulting in damages, injunctions, and legal costs.
By responding, the BBC:
- Protects its ability to contest the claim on its merits.
- Maintains the option to challenge jurisdiction, if desired.
- Can negotiate a settlement or defend the case in a controlled legal process.
3. International Comity and Media Law Practice
Major international media organizations, like the BBC, often engage with foreign legal systems when sued abroad to maintain their global credibility and to ensure they are not seen as avoiding responsibility.
- Ignoring a lawsuit in a country where your content is widely consumed could damage reputation and public trust.
- It could also have consequences for future cross-border media work or collaborations.
4. Precedent and Practical Considerations
This isn’t the first time a media outlet has faced legal action in a jurisdiction where it lacks formal presence. In such cases, practical exposure (e.g., viewership or readership) often creates enough of a connection for legal action to proceed.
Summary
The BBC responded to Gerry Adams' defamation claim in Dublin because:
If you’re looking for the exact legal filings or court responses, I can look up recent developments or judgments using live web tools.
- Irish courts had jurisdiction due to the content being accessible in Ireland.
- Failing to respond could result in a default judgment.
- Engaging legally protects the BBC’s rights and reputation.
- It’s a standard practice in international media law to contest such claims where audiences exist.
Jeeze, @JoeRoberts I didn't realise you were the actual BBC or is that the royal "we" you are using?take the case in Belfast where we are based?
Strange that your first thought was they could have ignored it. If the program was made in good faith why would they seek to ignore the case?But why did the BBC even answer the charge in Dublin. Could they not have ignored it and say "come and take the case in Belfast where we are based"?
That's my question. It would be granted to Gerry. But how can it be enforced ..If the did not show up/Ignored the Court what do you think the outcome would be,
I have no view as to whether they should pay. My only thoughts are that they were foolish to have ever engaged with a very expensive jury case in the Dublin courts that was always likely to go against them. If they ignored it, then the case may have been brought in NI which they may have had a cheaper and better result.Seeing the did turn up, forgetting about the 100.000 for a moment, seeing the lost the Court case if cost are awarded against them do you think the should pay cost,
Same here. The Republic of Ireland is the name of a football team. The name of this country is Ireland.This "ROI" nonsense annoys me intensely
We all know this.The name of this country is Ireland.
Good, then that's what we should all say.We all know this.
Yes it would. We'd all know that it was referring to this country.If you replace Roi with Ireland in the 1st post it would make no sense.
The free State ceased to exist in December 1937 when Ireland became a country rather than a dominion of the British Empire.Could always change to The Free State if that works better for you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?