Showing posts with label Irish News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Irish News. Show all posts
Writing in the Irish News Patrick Murphy cautions southern voters to exercide caution when looking North at Stomont in case they catch something.

Dear People of the 26 Counties,

You may wonder why Sinn Féin feels aggrieved at not being in government in Dublin, even though 75 per cent of the electorate did not vote for them. Up here, we are used to that sort of thing.

In the last assembly election, 76 per cent did not vote for SF, but they have a legal right to jointly lead Stormont's mandatory coalition. That's because SF (and Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil) oppose voluntary coalition in Belfast, while advocating it in Dublin.

Like yours, our government is controlled by two economically conservative parties (although one becomes left wing across the border) which have an appalling record in housing, health, education and welfare. Like your big two, they represent opposing sides in a civil war and they want to keep power for themselves (sound familiar?) C

One third of SF MLAs are unelected and Stormont has no opposition. So we marvel at SF's rallies for democracy.

Continue Reading @ The Irish News.

Dear Southern Voters, Be Wary Of The Stormont Disease

This article is in response to an article by Irish News Editor Noel Doran that featured on Letters Blogatory.

It was pleasing, if hardly intellectually stimulating, to find Noel Doran at last do something other than use the threat of legal coercion to silence voices he takes umbrage at. However, it has hardly gone unnoticed that he concluded his piece with a call for a robust piece of writing to be suppressed. I will not wait to the end of this current piece to tell him that is not going to happen. The article by Paul Campbell stays in place, and if wasting time suits him, Noel Doran can have a censor lawyer use up a paper mill churning out threatening letters by the tonne.

The Goose, the Gander, and the Irish News: Response to Noel Doran

Today The Pensive Quill carries correspondence between NUJ Member-for-life Ed Moloney and Irish News Editor Noel Doran that previously featured on The Broken Elbow.
Scroll down for updated (October 3) correspondence

Noel Doran Declines Right To Reply In Allison Morris Scandal
Ed Moloney

September 30, 2013

Noel Doran Declines Right To Reply In Allison Morris Scandal - with updated correspondence

Irish News NUJ Chapel Rule 24 Complaint against Belfast & District branch member Anthony McIntyre on behalf of Allison Morris 

The Irish News NUJ Chapel have followed up their complaint on behalf of Allison Morris with more details.

Their enlarged complaint is carried here as it was submitted to the Belfast and District Branch on Thursday, 26 September, 2013, in its entirety.








The Irish News NUJ Chapel here sets out its Rule 24 complaint against Belfast & District branch member Anthony McIntyre.


Rule 24
Discipline, reads as follows:

(a) If after due inquiry, in accordance with the procedures and time constraints laid down in Appendix C, the NEC is of the opinion that a member has been guilty of conduct which is detrimental to the interests of the union or of the profession of journalism, or is in breach of the union’s code of conduct or membership responsibilities…

The chapel believes that Anthony McIntyre is in breach of the NUJ Rule Book, specifically Membership Responsibilities, (b) (i) under which members are expected “to treat other members of the union and union staff, with consideration and respect and not to take action which threaten their livelihood or working conditions”.

We also contend that he has been and continues to be `guilty of conduct which is detrimental to the interests of the union or of the profession of journalism…’.

Mr McIntyre has not made any attempt to substantiate his claims, either by contact with Ms Morris, the news desk, or the editor of The Irish News.

He has urged others to disseminate his false claims. Indeed his articles have been posted on extreme loyalist websites and social media with links to the UVF, including the PUP website, Ulster News, `Loyalist Banter’ Facebook, and `Loyalist Peaceful Protest Updater’ Facebook.

The article published by him on the Pensive Quill which appeared under the by-line of Paul Campbell implicitly linked Ms Morris with dissident republicans.

Working as a security correspondent in Northern Ireland where rival sectarian groups are still very much in existence, this clearly puts her safety and that of her family in danger from loyalist.

Mr McIntyre has been wilfully dismissive about the genuine threats to her life which she has received and have been documented and verified by the PSNI. He made no attempt to establish the veracity of his claims before publishing allegations that they did not exist.

In addition, he has continuously attacked Ms Morris’s character and her professional reputation.

This member has stepped up his campaign from publishing an article about Ms Morris to writing a series of vitriolic pieces about her.

The Irish News Chapel contends that in terms of ‘consideration and respect’, he has shown none of those qualities towards fellow member and working journalist Ms Morris.

Further, by instigating a climate of criticism of her professionalism and working practices through his libellous claims, this member has threatened her livelihood and working conditions.

Like all journalists she relies on her reputation and it is one which she has scrupulously protected during her working life. As you will see from the nature and wording used in Mr McIntyre’s posts, the member’s clear aim is to render her unemployable.

In addition, the scurrilous claims about her working practices open her up to the very real fear of death threats which have already forced her to take time off work - adversely affecting her career and potentially the ability to provide for her family.

We include a number of examples of the defamatory and/or abusive comments which Mr McIntyre has written or published about Ms Morris.

·        From `What Price Justice’ (sic), August 4:

“While she, like many others, will find it difficult to believe what flows from her pen, I will hardly complain to the Ethics Council about it or lift the phone to a libel lawyer in a bid to silence her. I will, however, write what I like and call things as I see them.

“Or does she just lie to everyone, whenever and wherever it suits her at any given moment?”

“Can anyone believe anything Allison Morris writes anymore?”

Mr McIntyre is accusing Ms Morris of repeatedly peddling falsehoods - comments seriously damaging to a journalist’s reputation and hence her livelihood.

It is also detrimental to the profession of journalism to starkly state `I will, however, write what I like and call things as I see them.’

No call or other contact was ever made to Ms Morris to check the veracity of any articles before publication. The chapel contend that this shows that the member clearly has no interest in whether what he writes is fair or accurate – the cornerstone of good journalistic practice promoted by the NUJ.

In fact it is clear that he wilfully ignores the basics of journalism such as checking facts and abiding by libel laws.

The abusive and libellous remarks about Ms Morris’s working practices continue in a series of articles.


·       From `The Weird World of an Irish News Journalist’ [by `Paul Campbell’], August 7

Our contention is that `Paul Campbell’ is merely a pseudonym for Mr McIntyre himself, a practice which he explicitly condemned in his previous publication `The Blanket’.

One of those named in the article has confirmed to two separate people within the Irish News that he only spoke to Mr McIntyre about this matter and has never heard of `Paul Campbell’.

We can supply witness statements confirming the conversations if the union wishes.

We believe that this practice of publishing this malicious article under a false name is in itself both contrary to members responsibilities – all our working chapel members must stand squarely behind what we publish under our by-lines, ensuring we are held to the basic standards of fairness and accuracy.
This practice is clearly detrimental to the interests of the union and the profession of journalism.

However, the content itself, which Mr McIntyre has again published, is damaging and defamatory.

“Irish News journalist Allison Morris is some chancer. While having a brass neck is no bad thing for a journalist, Allison’s professional practices would make even the most unscrupulous tabloid hack blush.

“The Irish News’ journalist hardly covered herself in glory when she interviewed Dolours Price at a time when Price was undergoing psychiatric care at a Dublin hospital. Allison refused the family’s request to end the interview because of Dolours’ medical condition.

“The family then spoke to Irish News management. When the newspaper reached an agreement with them   –  understandably excercising caution in how it treated the story and only printing parts of it  –  Allison took the tapes/story to her friend and former Andersonstown News colleague, Ciaran Barnes of the Sunday Life, who published an unrestrained account.

“As both a journalist and a human being, this was hardly an example of ethical behaviour. Allison’s actions ended up setting in motion the whole Boston College saga which has seriously damaged source protection and oral history.

“But the Irish News journalist learned no lesson from it all and has continued in her own inimitable bulldozing style.

“After her journalistic practices previously drew criticism on The Pensive Quill, Allison went to the NUJ with a seemingly wholly made up claim that the criticism had placed her life in danger from dissident republicans.

“She produced no proof of this whatsoever. Indeed, the claim was so baseless that it was laughable. While Allison was claiming grave threats to her life, anyone taking an even cursory glance at the Irish News could see she was in no danger.

“She was interviewing both grassroots and senior dissident republicans and she was on the ground covering dissident republican riots and protests. No-one was refusing to talk to her, let alone threatening her life. Allison’s actions led the NUJ to initially suspend Anthony McIntyre.”

We contend its entire content and tone fails to treat Ms Morris with consideration and respect and clearly threatens her livelihood and working conditions.


Ms Morris did receive verbal abuse and threats from republicans while out covering stories.

She has also lost contacts as a consequence of his false claims – people were refusing to talk to her, contrary to his speculative claim - which obviously has an impact on her livelihood.

The allegations about her interview with republican icon Dolours Price can only be designed to drive a wedge between Ms Morris and her republican contacts.

Mr McIntyre at no stage contacted Ms Morris or the Irish News to establish the facts of the matter.

These are that Dolours Price contacted the Irish News newsdesk to request an interview with the paper, which the newsdesk sent Ms Morris, as the main security reporter, to carry out.

We can supply witness statements to verify this.

Neither Ms Morris not the Irish News has ever received a complaint from the late Dolours Price or her family about the article, nor was any claim submitted to the Press Complaints Commission.

Ms Price subsequently participated in interviews with other outlets about this subject, which we contend illustrates her willingness to talk about the matter. Mr McIntyre has not singled out journalists from CBS, The Sunday Telegraph, or The Daily Mail for such scurrilous allegations.

However, he repeatedly displays a lack of consideration and respect towards Ms Morris and threatens her livelihood and working conditions by trying to damage her reputation.

Mr McIntyre is famous as an opponent of the Good Friday Agreement and as such his blog is read by dissident republicans, among others.

He is also well aware that loyalists both read and contribute to his blog and has links with a loyalist blog as detailed above.

We wish to point out that Ms Morris did not claim that her life had been under threat from dissident republicans. She has made it known – and has been verified by police and accepted by the NUJ - that she had been under death threat from loyalists.

This was not a “baseless” or a “wholly made up claim”. The Irish News Chapel, which has supported her during this difficult time, do not find the threat to the life of one of our colleagues “laughable”.

We contend that as a former republican prisoner and opponent of the Good Friday Agreement, Mr McIntyre is also well aware that publishing an article which described Ms Morris as `The PSNI’s favourite journalist’ put her life in danger from paramilitary elements, both loyalist and republican.

It is injurious to her safety and reputation as a reporter on security stories in northern Ireland to imply that she will betray sources to the police especially when such sources may have well-documented violent tendencies.

·       From `I have a right to be angry’, August 9 (written by Mr McIntyre’s wife and published by him with a standfirst we can only conclude was written by the Pensive Quill’s editor, the member himself):

Carrie Twomey explains how it is for a mother of two young children to bear the brunt of what she regards as a malicious agenda designed to mask unethical journalistic practice.

“I am angry as fuck that the subpoenas are a direct result of the pathetic and petty ambitions of Allison Morris who thought she could compete with the likes of journalist Ed Moloney and attempted to scoop what she thought was a story of his by giving her interview tapes to Ciaran Barnes and setting the whole Boston College nightmare in motion.”

A selection of choice phrases from this piece, which display absolutely no `consideration and respect’ to Ms Morris, include:

THAT COMPLETE WANKER ALLISON MORRIS

the bullshit of Allison Morris

Allison Morris's bullshit

“I am angry that the incompetent idiots at the bastion of journalistic wankerdom - the Ethics Council of the NUJ - hadn't a brain cell to rub against anything to spark the sense to toss her harassing complaint at the start.”

We contend that the NUJ membership responsibilities preclude publishing material describing any one, never mind another member, in such terms.

We wish to stress at this stage that Ms Morris has never engaged with the member or his wife, but has continued to do her job in a professional manner and conduct herself as befits an NUJ member.

The chapel complaint relates to Ms Morris alone, she cannot bear responsibility for the conduct of others and does not because she does not act as a publisher in any way.

Further, it is clearly `detrimental to the interests of the union’ for Mr McIntyre to describe the Ethics Council of the NUJ in such terms.

The tirade continued from Carrie Twomey:

“I am angry that in the middle of the fight of our lives, a landmark fight for source protection, confidentiality and free speech, this ... woman... who boasts about what a great example of journalistic integrity she is, launched a complaint to discredit Anthony, and to add to the stress we're under in order to break him.”


The chapel supports Ms Morris as our member is merely trying to protect herself from continued libels and abuse and preserve her reputation.

She is not and has not been following `a malicious agenda’ or engaging in `unethical journalistic practice’. These are baseless accusations and it should again be noted that neither Ms Morris nor the chapel has written anything about Mr McIntyre or Carrie Twomey to prompt such personal abuse.

To make such claims about a journalist is clearly intended to do damage to her reputation and threaten her livelihood and working conditions by making people reluctant to talk to her or threaten violence towards her.

The abuse published by Mr McIntyre continues:

the malicious, lying viper she is

I am DONE with sucking it up. FUCK HER and the horse she rode in on!

Again, there is clearly no consideration and respect in publishing such remarks about another member.

The vitriol increased from Mr McIntyre and Carrie Twomey days later:

From `Are you being gagged?’, August 12:

“Today while in a second hand bookshop I was contacted by a solicitor in Belfast to inform me that Morris was looking my home address. Unlike Morris, he has an ethics based approach to his profession and just does not hand clients’ addresses out willy nilly to any chancer that comes along seeking them.”

The chapel contends that the line about `an ethics based approach’ is another blatant attack on Ms Morris’s integrity, as is calling her a `chancer’.

“Whichever threatening letter arrives first, as it duly shall, you can see it posted on this blog or on another if the censors manage to close this one down. The freedom to write will not only be defended but vigorously asserted whatever the odds. Allison Morris will become a byword for censorship. And if prison is the going rate to achieve that it will be a price well worth paying. In this case silence is not a commodity that money can buy.”

Again, to claim that `Allison Morris will become a byword for censorship’ is another attack on her journalistic integrity, which threatens her livelihood. She has a right to complain about libellous remarks directed at her.


·       In a comment about this, from Carrie Twomey at 4:43 PM, August 13, 2013 Reply
From Carrie Twomey

“All either Barnes or Morris, or indeed anyone who has a problem or concern with The Pensive Quill, need do is contact Anthony to discuss it – as was shown when Kevin Cooper initially contacted him over a year ago about Allison’s concerns. Even the Appeals Tribunal grasped this – no attempt at conciliation whatsoever was made before going for the nuclear option. Now it appears the only objective for them all along was to secure headlines to discredit Anthony in the middle of the Boston College fight rather than because of any real sense of grievance.

“We never respond well to legal threats, whether it is from Editors such as Noel Doran, who first threatened Anthony with legal action on behalf of Allison over a year ago, or should it be whatever libel lawyer chooses to act on her behalf now (I wonder if the Irish News is footing her bill?). I do not think many people would respond favourably to legal threats, especially if that is the first entreaty made, which in Allison’s case, apart from the informal NUJ approach which saw her request granted, has been the only form of entreaty made – legal threats or being hauled before Ethics Councils. Of all things!

“Compounded with the bullshit she has spread to further her legal threats and sanctions, and the utter disdain displayed by choosing a football match over attendance at the hearing of her own complaint, is it any wonder her position is viewed with utter amazement - the sheer brass neck of it all? Just who exactly does she think she is?

“After dragging Anthony through that farce of the NUJ complaint, securing the headlines in the middle of the BC case, not bothering to show up in London, and now seeminly siccing her lawyers on us, any sympathy I may have had for her feelings being hurt is long spent. Seriously, fuck her. She’s no interest in resolving anything. Unless there’s some other agenda fueling her actions, she just wants to escape condemnation for being the asshole she is. Well, that ain’t gonna happen as long as she continues to act like an asshole.”


Regarding the suggestion that “All either Barnes or Morris, or indeed anyone who has a problem or concern with The Pensive Quill, need do is contact Anthony to discuss it – as was shown when Kevin Cooper initially contacted him over a year ago about Allison’s concerns.”

The Irish News contacted Mr McIntyre to express its concerns about the earlier libel on Ms Morris.

Mr McIntyre was extremely reluctant to remove the offending article and took quite some time to do so – even after the original host site had removed it. It was the Irish News Chapel who contacted the branch which triggered the involvement of Mr Cooper and Mr McIntyre has indicated in correspondence that the removal of the offending article was being done with extremely bad grace.

In an email sent to Irish News editor Noel Doran on May 29, 2012, which Mr McIntyre has published on his own website’s `wiki dump’, he wrote:

“Given his financial situation, Mark is in no position to engage in a protacted legal battle. He has removed the piece from his website due to the threat of legal action from your representatives, and he has requested that we also remove his article. As such, we have obliged Mark by removing his article from the blog, and we trust that should resolve your concerns.

“However, we do so in reliance upon your undertaking not to wax triumphal by publishing the removal of the article from our site in the pages of the Irish News, or causing that fact to be published anywhere else. If that happens, we will be compelled to defend robustly our original publication, which would only serve to defeat the object of your threat of legal proceedings.”

It is factually inaccurate to claim that “no attempt at conciliation whatsoever was made before going for the nuclear option”.


We are happy to provide witness statements confirming that both parties were left together for an hour-long discussion between Allison and Mr McIntyre on the day of the hearing in Belfast, during which she repeatedly asked him to publicise on his website Ed Moloney’s affidavit re his March 2010 interview of Dolours Price, an interview conducted around the same time as Allison had interviewed Dolours Price. Mr McIntyre absolutely refused to publicise this affidavit.

We believe this is because it would fatally undermine the claimed justification of Mr McIntyre’s vociferous condemnation of Ms Morris for interviewing Dolours Price in the full knowledge that his friend and colleague Mr Moloney also interviewed her shortly afterwards.

In short, it would expose his hypocrisy and the sand on which his entire campaign of harassment has been built.

We have supplied said affidavit for your information.


ED MOLONEY’S AFFIDAVIT:

Case 1:11-mc-91078-RGS Document 5-5 Filed 06/07/11 Page 11 of 16
 
- 12 -35. In or around March 2010, I re-interviewed Dolours Price, giving her, orally, thesame assurances of confidentiality that had applied to her earlier interviews with AnthonyMcIntyre, and telling her that the interviews would be stored at Boston College under the sameterms of confidentiality that had applied to those earlier interviews. I always understood thatadditional material could be added to interviewees’ files and that they would also be covered bythe original confidentiality agreements. I then passed these interview materials to Robert O’Neillat the Burns Library, with instructions to lodge them in her file. He accepted the materials.Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury.Dated: June 2, 2011 /s/ Ed MoloneyEd Moloney
Case 1:11-mc-91078-RGS Document 5-5 Filed 06/07/11 Page 12 of 16


The chapel contends that it is both ludicrous and offensive to suggest that “the only objective for them all along was to secure headlines to discredit Anthony in the middle of the Boston College fight rather than because of any real sense of grievance.”

We again point out that Ms Morris has not written anything about the other member, Mr McIntyre. As has been detailed to this point, her sense of grievance about his behaviour is very real and endorsed by her chapel colleagues who unanimously backed a motion supporting her and instigating this complaint.

His attempts to portray her as the aggressor in this dispute fly in the face of the facts and are intended to lower her reputation as a journalist, which would threaten her livelihood and working conditions.

Mr McIntyre continues to push his claims about how Allison treated the Dolours Price story.

From `True to their Words’ comments, August 14:
By AM [clearly Anthony McIntyre]

“And some reporters extract information, when apparently told by family members the interviewee is unwell and incapable of giving an interview. Yet they go and print parts of that interview. But seem to hold back parts for fear of being sued? "Who Knows?". Then the interview apparently ends up in another newspaper 3 days later.”


It has been made clear to Mr McIntyre that his version of events is incorrect and he has no proof for his claims, yet he continues to denigrate Allison’s working practices and those of The Irish News, which has more than 80 per cent union membership.

·        Mr McIntyre’s articles which are detrimental to the profession of journalism have continued to be published since the submission of our complaint to the Branch:

From `Invertebrate Journalism’, August 30:

“The kiss-up kick-down ethic seems to have considerable purchase within that particular chapel of the NUJ.

“I no more have to respect Allison Morris than she has to respect me. Unlike the supine NUJ chapel at the Irish News, I don’t happen to think that is some sort of journalistic crime for which a member of the union should be sanctioned. Then again my views on ethics and those of the people at the Irish News would seem to be radically different and now seem to clash frequently enough. While I have a consistent ‘put up with’ attitude to its views they seem to take a ‘shut up’ response to mine. Not a very rewarding experience trying to shut me up.”

Contrary to Mr McIntyre’s stated position, the NUJ rulebook states that `members are expected to treat other members of the union and union staff, with consideration and respect…’

Again in that article this member denigrates The Irish News chapel:

“Not only has the Irish News chapel prostrated itself before the Ethics Council it has also exhibited bovine conformity to what it thinks the editor/bishop wants, leading me to suspect that the virus of co-option has been cause for rejoicing rather than resisting. Just as under a regime of old style corporatism, the chapel has been co-opted into the church of the management.”

He then includes a graphic with the text: `Management? All the way. Supine every day. The Irish News. NUJ Chapel.

Then he writes:

“Is the invertebrate NUJ chapel at the paper so devoid of autonomous standing that it can think of nothing more progressive than tugging the forelock to management? Is it incapable of conceiving of anything more radical than slavishly exercising its self induced powerlessness against the journalist protecting sources and not against those who endanger them?”

AM then comments re this article on September 2:

“when you talk of comradeship in the NUJ, the chapel at the Irish News immediately thinks ‘comrade editor.’ It is a characteristic best encapsulated in the UDM attitude of yes, yes, yes Ian MacGregor, no, no, no Arthur Scargill.”

From `Reporting to London’, September 2, Mr McIntyre conjures up a conspiracy theory:

“Perhaps it is just my imagination but am I wrong to sniff the scent of collusion between the actions of the NUJ chapel at the Irish News who tattled to Dear Sarah, and the ‘former director of publicity for Sinn Fein’ who also went a-squealing to her? Both letters were written on the same day; the former publicity director's in the morning followed by the chapel's a few hours later. Both were eager to point out to Sarah how I had said ghastly things about either her or the Ethics Council. And both praised the same council for having taken action against me. Coordination, collaboration, or coincidence?”

The Irish News Chapel can confirm that, as he suspected, this is just his imagination. He is welcome to question Danny Morrison about any contact with The Irish News chapel over this matter. We have not contacted him on this matter and have no plans to do so.

He continues to make things up about what the Irish News Chapel is doing and to show no respect to fellow members of the NUJ:

“In true journalistic fashion the underhand attempts at imposing censorship from the obsequious NUJ chapel at the Irish News will be shared with our readers.”

* The Irish News chapel was following NUJ procedures in contacting the Branch Secretary.
As FOC, Mr Archer was chosen to be the chapel’s designated representative as required in the rules. He enjoys the full support and confidence of Ms Morris and all members who have endorsed this action.
Mr Doran is not a member of the chapel and has had no part in the chapel’s complaint.

AM says:
6:58 AM, September 11, 2013 Reply

Don't expect the chapel there to know too much about anything. Its aspiration to intellectual greatness is learning to say 'yes Noel' in 12 different languages.

We wish to draw the NUJ’s attention to this message on Mr McIntyre’s own site:

• Libelous comments will not be published. Do not abuse the Anonymous facility or your posts will no longer be published

The chapel contends that this message, along with Mr McIntyre’s long membership of the NUJ, including a stint on the Ethics Council, shows that the member is fully aware of his responsibilities and is not merely mistakenly writing and publishing what can perhaps best be described as bile. Indeed he is doing this in full awareness of what is expected from those who enjoy the privileges that come with membership of the NUJ.

In conclusion, much of the content in his series of articles about Allison Morris and The Irish News is in breach of the NUJ’s membership responsibilities and detrimental to the interests of the union and the profession of journalism.




Irish News NUJ Chapel Rule 24 Complaint


Do you find yourself thinking bad thoughts about the Irish News? Are you tempted to write those bad thoughts down? Given the Irish News' habit of suing its uppity readers, you should not do so unprepared! You need the DIY Irish News Critic Kit!

Anyone who criticises or questions the Irish News and their reporters knows it's only a matter of time before a solicitor's letter from Johnsons arrives at the door. Now YOU can pre-empt that action by filling out your OWN letter at the same time you write your bad thoughts with this standard template!

Armed with your own pre-prepared threatening letter already formatted and ready to go, you can let the Irish News know you've already got a letter from Johnsons for thinking bad thoughts about them. Whether you send it to yourself or the Irish News sends it to you, the result is the same!

Thinking bad thoughts and ready to write them down? ACT NOW!

Just fill in the relevant details and you're ready to go!



LC/0070000730

*INSERT DATE HERE*

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

*INSERT NAME & ADDRESS HERE*

Dear Sir/Madam [delete as necessary],

RE: OUR CLIENT – ALLISON MORRIS

We have been instructed by Allison Morris, a leading and highly respected senior staff journalist with the Irish News in respect of false, defamatory, and harassing material which you have published on a website entitled “*insert website name here*” which can be located at the following link (“the website”):

*INSERT WEBSITE ADDRESS HERE*

*INSERT ALLEGATIONS HERE* (2 paragraph limit recommended) - ensure use of following phrases or similar as a minimum: "highly defamatory" "motivated by malice" "falsely state that our client behaved in an unprofessional and dishonest manner" "reckless allegations could endanger her personal security."

As the author and publisher of these allegations you are liable, along with the Internet Service Provider, for the resulting damage to our client’s reputation. Now that you are on notice of the defamatory and abusive material you are publishing, we require you to:

1. Immediately and permanently delete the defamatory and abusive content from your server, and effect the removal of any reference to our client on the website;

2. Immediately provide your undertaking in writing not to allow the same or similar allegations contained on the website to be cached or otherwise stored in any way.

*CONSIDER ADDITIONAL PARA HERE* (A mention of Editor Noel Doran in this section to give added gravitas would not go amiss)

In these circumstances, pending confirmation of the above, we reserve all of our client’s rights, including the right to issue legal proceedings against you in support of a claim for substantial damages.

We look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.

Yours faithfully,

JOHNSONS


Do-It-Yourself Irish News Critic Kit



Tell The Irish News Hands Off The Internet

We have reason to believe that efforts are being made to close The Pensive Quill website down.

We host no illegal content, we are breaching no law in the United States (where the site is hosted), and, as has been well documented, there is absolutely no legitimate reason for such a pursuit. Any effort to close The Pensive Quill website is politically and/or personally motivated, by those seeking to hide their unethical behaviour. These actions are pursued by the Irish News and its reporter and associates.

We are therefore seeking to create mirror sites, and additionally, we invite third parties to mirror our site in its entirety. We invite those third parties, outside of the UK and Ireland, who can offer support, to contact us directly.

Any effort to prevent the disclosure of the Irish News’ willful and ill-advised pursuit of The Pensive Quill in order to cover-up the unethical behaviour of its reporter cannot, and will not, be allowed to succeed.

These legal tactics and letters are issued like confetti in order to police the web and the media behind the scenes; the sad fact is many outlets and individuals are intimidated into silence and comply, which enables the success of censorship. The wider public is not aware of this as the fear of being sued and dragged through court keeps people silent.

We are not going silently into the night over this, and in exposing what the Irish News and its reporter are doing here, we hope that it lifts the lid on the prevalent scare tactics employed and frees up discussion on their use across Ireland north and south.

We also intend by taking a stand against this to demonstrate that refusing to comply with the demands of censors weakens the power of the bully. Much like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, we intend on pulling the curtain back to demonstrate the Wizard has no more power than what is freely given to him. We refuse to give any censor power over us.

We will not be intimidated into silence.

Thank you

THE PENSIVE QUILL



Action Request

Please stand up against the Irish News' attempt to police the internet and suppress freedom of speech. Reproduce these articles across the web:

NUJ Wiki Dump

NUJ Vindicates Boston College Researcher

What Price Justice

The Weird World of an Irish News Journalist

I Have a Right to be Angry

Are you being Gagged?

True to Their Words

Invertebrate Journalism

Reporting to London

Not Censored by the Irish News

2nd NUJ Complaint Filed: As Sure As Day Follows Night

Do-It-Yourself Irish News Critic Kit

Irish News NUJ Chapel Rule 24 Complaint

Anthony McIntyre Response to Irish News NUJ Chapel Complaint on Behalf of Allison Morris





Background

We believe the origins of the first subpoena of the Boston College Belfast Project Oral History Archives were set in motion by Irish News reporter Allison Morris, who conducted an interview with former IRA volunteer Dolours Price. Dolours was heavily medicated and being treated for a variety of ills at the time. Her family objected to the interview and requested it not be published. The Irish News restricted what they published. However, 3 days after the Irish News story ran, a friend and colleague of Morris’ at the Sunday Life tabloid, Ciaran Barnes, ran a front page spread containing everything the Irish News left out.

In Ciaran Barnes’ report, he implied that he had heard Dolours Price’s Boston College tapes. US Attorney Carmen Ortiz's office subsequently submitted both Morris and Barnes’ stories as evidence to justify the first subpoena. Barnes never had access to the Boston College tapes and we believe it was Morris’ interview he based his report on. The PSNI did not seek Morris’ notes or records until after it was pointed out in court documents that they had never approached her or Barnes, 16 months after the original publication of her interview. She and the Irish News told the PSNI they retained no material; the PSNI accepted this and did not pursue the matter further.

Barnes and Morris brought a Code of Conduct complaint against Anthony McIntyre in their union, the National Union of Journalists. The NUJ’s Ethics Council railroaded the complaint against McIntyre and suspended him for 6 months. He appealed this and the NUJ Appeals Tribunal tossed everything out, completely vindicating him.

Neither Morris nor Barnes attended the appeal hearing, suggesting that the objective all along was to discredit him in the middle of the source protection/1st and 4th Amendment battle to protect the confidentiality of the oral history archives against government incursion, adding stress and pressure in an attempt to break him.

Immediately following the Ethics Council verdict being over-turned, Morris attempted to re-try her complaint on a legal blog, and was caught in an astounding lieThe Pensive Quill documented this and other questionable behavior around the Irish News and its reporter Allison Morris. The Irish News’ Editor Noel Doran began to contact The Pensive Quill in an obvious attempt to lay groundwork for a legal case. A solicitor’s letter from Johnsons then arrived demanding that The Pensive Quill remove all its material about Allison Morris.



With thanks to The Expendable Project for the wording used in the clarion call for action - their request for mirror sites was used as a template.



Stand Up Against The Irish News Censorship of The Pensive Quill









LC/0070000730

4 September 2013

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Mr Anthony McIntyre
Drogheda
Co. Louth

Dear Sir,

RE: OUR CLIENT – ALLISON MORRIS

We have been instructed by Allison Morris, a leading and highly respected senior staff journalist with the Irish News in respect of false, defamatory, and harassing material which you have published on a website entitled “thepensivequill” which can be located at the following link (“the website”):

http://thepensivequill.am

The website contains grossly offensive material about our client which is fundamentally untrue, highly defamatory and motivated by malice. For example, you falsely state that our client behaved in an unprofessional and dishonest manner during her dealings with Dolours Price and allege that our client has been involved in unethical journalistic practices. You further outrageously infer that our client has links with the illegal dissident Republican group Oglaigh na hEireann. This blatant attempt to undermine our client’s journalistic integrity is even more concerning given that you are aware that such reckless allegations could endanger her personal security.

Furthermore, it is clear that your website is being used by yourself and others as a platform for malicious, defamatory and highly personal attacks on our client. A series of extremely abusive and threatening posts, including, inter alia, those entitled, “What Price Justice”, “The Weird World of an Irish News Journalist” “I Have A Right To Be Angry”, and “Are You Being Gagged?” published on your website constitute a sustained campaign of harassment against our client.

As the author and publisher of these allegations you are liable, along with the Internet Service Provider, for the resulting damage to our client’s reputation. Now that you are on notice of the defamatory and abusive material you are publishing, we require you to:

1. Immediately and permanently delete the defamatory and abusive content from your server, and effect the removal of any reference to our client on the website;

2. Immediately provide your undertaking in writing not to allow the same or similar allegations contained on the website to be cached or otherwise stored in any way.

Our client has no desire to become embroiled in litigation and would prefer if this matter could be resolved amicably. Indeed, our client’s editor, Mr. Noel Doran, has contacted you on several occasions in an effort to resolve this matter without recourse to legal proceedings. Our client is disappointed to note that you have repeatedly refused to engage constructively with Mr. Doran’s attempts to settle this matter.

In these circumstances, pending confirmation of the above, we reserve all of our client’s rights, including the right to issue legal proceedings against you in support of a claim for substantial damages.

We look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.

Yours faithfully,

JOHNSONS



CORRESPONDENCE WITH IRISH NEWS EDITOR NOEL DORAN
"Indeed, our client’s editor, Mr. Noel Doran, has contacted you on several occasions in an effort to resolve this matter without recourse to legal proceedings. Our client is disappointed to note that you have repeatedly refused to engage constructively with Mr. Doran’s attempts to settle this matter."

From: Noel Doran
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:06 AM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: website

Anthony,

Having just returned to work after annual leave, I have had an
opportunity to review the personal attacks on Allison Morris and the
other derogatory references to The Irish News and myself which have
been appearing on your website.

I can say with certainty that many of the claims you have published
are either entirely misleading or completely false, and, as you are
aware, no attempt has been made to check any of the background with me.

I am very concerned about these developments at a number of levels
and I believe it is important that we should have a telephone
discussion without delay. I would be obliged if you could provide a
contact number and a time when you would be available.

Noel Doran,
The Irish News.

 ——— 

From: Anthony McIntyre
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2013 7:35 PM
To: Noel Doran
Subject: Re: website

Noel,

If the purpose of you calling is to threaten legal action, or continue with
your previous threat of legal action, I have not the slightest interest in
talking with you. I am, however, happy to offer you a more magnanimous
right of reply than I was afforded in your paper's coverage of my successful
appeal against the baseless accusations of your reporter.

Anthony

 ——— 

From: Noel Doran
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:34 PM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: Re: website


Anthony,

The claims in your latest message are as misleading as those on your
website are false. However, if you do not wish to discuss these
matters either before or after publication, my options are limited. I
believe that I have consistently set out to engage with you since we
first spoke some seven years ago.  As a considered position, perhaps
you could confirm that you do not have `the slightest interest' in my
point of view ?

Noel Doran.

 ——— 

From: Anthony McIntyre
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:34 PM
To: Noel Doran
Subject: Re: website

Noel:

I confirm nothing of the sort. I will indeed be very interested to read your
reply.  You continue to state that "many of the claims you have published
are either entirely misleading or completely false" without any further
explanation. As I stated I am more than happy to offer you a magnanimous
right of reply, with as much space you would like, certainly more than I was
afforded in your paper's coverage of my successful appeal against the
baseless accusations of your reporter. Anything you send in shall be carried
in full, and this gives you plenty of space to air your grievances, or
correct the record.

In our last conversation, which took place over a year ago, you immediately
sought to censor me by threatening legal action against me on behalf of your
reporter over The Pensive Quill's coverage of what I believe to be her
unethical behaviour. You did not pause to engage in any exchange of views
then, nor have you sought to debate this matter with me at any time since,
so I have no faith that you are genuinely seeking any resolution now.

If you genuinely would like to speak to me on these issues I am and have
always been available to discuss them, as my attendance at both NUJ hearings
instigated by your reporter's complaint illustrates.

If the purpose of your speaking with me is to attempt further censorship -
contrary to your public pronouncements on the value of free speech - or
again to threaten legal action, you can speak directly to my lawyer.

Anthony

 ——— 

From: Noel Doran
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 1:38 PM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: Re: website

Anthony,

You say that I have not explained why a large section of the material
you published was either misleading or false, but that was the whole
point of my attempt to open some form of dialogue with you. This is
also exactly what I also set out to do in my previous telephone call
to you 15 months ago, which concerned the decision by an individual
named Mark McGregor to withdraw a defamatory article from his
personal blog which you had republished on your own website. Allowing
an article to remain online which the author had already accepted
that he could not stand over would have left you in an extremely
vulnerable position, and I believed the best approach was to
informally update you on the sequence of events. It is extraordinary
that you should present my telephone call as a threat when it
actually enabled you to avoid a legal action for which you had no
possible defence. In my email to you of August 21, I said it was
important that we should have a discussion about the latest
derogatory references to Allison Morris, The Irish News and myself
which have appeared on your website and I asked if you would be
available to take a call from me. I did not introduce any
preconditions and I never mentioned the involvement of solicitors -
although I note that you have directed me to an unnamed lawyer in
your message below. My suggestion of an informal telephone
conversation remains on the table, and I would be obliged if you
would provide a definitive response to this proposal.

Noel Doran.

 ——— 

From: Anthony McIntyre
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 3:20 PM
To: Noel Doran
Subject: Re: website

Noel,

if is concerns you that much then please check your schedule and make 
arrangements to meet in Drogheda at your earliest convenience.

Anthony

 ——— 

From: Noel Doran
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:12 PM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: Re: website

Anthony,

This is my fourth message to you in the space of a week, all making
the same simple request that we should have a telephone conversation
about what are plainly serious and urgent matters involving your
website. There is no more a necessity for me to travel to Drogheda
than there is for you to come to Belfast, and I do not understand why
you have been unable to either accept or reject my suggestion. I
would be grateful for a straightforward and final response indicating
if or when you may be available to take my call.

Noel Doran.

 ——— 

From: Anthony McIntyre
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:21 PM
To: Noel Doran
Subject: Re: website

Noel,

You have my numbers. Nothing stopped you from calling me while your reporter 
was making baseless accusations against me to the NUJ and nothing is 
stopping you now. That you have not called me at any point along the way is 
not my doing. I certainly have not stopped you from picking up the phone.

I am and have always been available. Unlike your reporter I made the effort 
to attend both NUJ hearings even at great cost to myself and my family in 
order to facilitate dialogue on the issue; clearly I am willing to listen to 
anyone, anywhere, at any time. I have no football matches to attend that I 
am aware of on the horizon.

I welcome any genuine point of view but yet another vexatious threat on 
behalf of your unethical and truth-challenged reporter, in a futile attempt 
to censor me, is a waste of everyone's time.

I also will reiterate you have the option of a full right of reply, with 
plenty of space to air your grievances, or correct the record as you see it. 
You will certainly have much more space than your paper afforded me in the 
tiniest corner of page 10.  Anything you send in shall be carried in full.

However, you have my numbers so I fail to understand why you need my 
permission to call me. I am also available for you to meet with in Drogheda, 
at any time depending on your schedule. Surely if the matters are as plainly 
serious and urgent as you describe you would have already called or made 
arrangements to see me by now, instead of buggering around with this 
inexplicable pretence of needing some sort of permission to ring.

You can also Skype me: 

Anthony

 ——— 

From: Noel Doran
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:02 AM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: Re: website

Anthony,

I do not have your telephone number. It is more than a year since I
last spoke to you, and, other than an email address automatically
stored in our system, I had no reason to retain your contact details.
Asking for your number, in order to arrange a straightforward
telephone conversation at a mutually convenient time, is a simple act
of courtesy. I do not understand why you are instead raising football
matches and NUJ hearings in which I had no involvement. What I need
to do is have a telephone discussion with you about serious and
urgent matters relating to your website. We have reached a stage,
after five messages on my part over the last week, where a definitive
and immediate response to my proposal is essential. If you feel
unable to provide a telephone number and a time when you are
available, I will draw my own conclusions.

Noel Doran.

 ——— 

From: Anthony McIntyre
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:17 PM
To: Noel Doran
Subject: Re: website

Noel,

and Bimpe doesn't have it either I suppose.

Football matches sometimes prove the worth of a person's character and 
reliability.

If you want you can call me this afternoon. I will be at 353 XX XXXX 
between 1 and 3pm. I will listen to what you want to say. That is the one 
guarantee you have.

Any attempt to censor or the vaguest hint at a legal threat just put the 
phone down before I do

Anthony

 ——— 

From: Noel Doran
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 5:02 PM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: Re: website


Anthony,

As I indicated during our telephone conversation on Wednesday, it is
essential that the issues arising from the material on your website
in relation to Allison Morris, The Irish News and myself are
addressed immediately. I do not intend to go through again all the
aspects which are either misleading, false or dangerous, but the
article you published under the name of Paul Campbell sums up my
overall concerns.

Although you spoke of a commitment to the ethics of journalism, you
readily agreed that the by-line of Paul Campbell was invented and no
contact had been made with those who were the subject of the
allegations in the article in advance of publication. As a result,
your website has carried a completely misleading account of the
dealings between our paper and Dolours Price which falsely stated
that separate threats to the life of Allison Morris were `seemingly
made up,' `baseless' and `laughable'.

I can state with certainty that serious threats have been made
against Allison Morris by both loyalist and republican sources. Over
a number of years, and again more recently, I personally dealt with
the police and other groups in relation to these matters. I know the
gravity of the cases which were investigated and I am appalled that
your website should put forward such reckless and totally untrue claims.

Similar points could be made about most of the other articles
referring to The Irish News on your website, and the only
appropriate course of action for you is to withdraw all the material
in question at once.

I noted your views on the National Union of Journalists, The Sunday
Life and the website of Ted Folkman, but it should be obvious that
none of these could be remotely considered to be under my
jurisdiction. I would be prepared to consider further dialogue about
your opinions on the content of The Irish News, but only after you
have confirmed the removal of all the unacceptable material you have
published about our paper. The false claims on your website have
already been reflected on outlets linked to loyalist extremists,
adding further to my deep sense of alarm for our staff. I look
forward to hearing from you without delay.

Noel Doran.

 ——— 

From: Anthony McIntyre
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 18:22 PM
To: Noel Doran
Subject: Re: website

Noel,

We listened to you for over an hour on Wednesday and have studied your 
email. We have endeavoured to find substance in your discourse that would 
give us grounds to reconsider our position. In neither your phone contact 
nor email have you persuasively demonstrated that it is essential that we 
bow to your demands.

You have failed utterly to show that any of the published material was 
‘misleading, false or dangerous.’

We did not ‘readily’ agree that the by-line by Paul Campbell was an 
invention. We stated no definitive position on it, opting to allow you to 
draw whatever conclusions you wished, right or wrong.

The items in the piece that you say concerned you were already in the public 
domain and you have put your position in respect of them into the public 
domain also. There was no compelling reason why you needed to be contacted 
when your response was a matter of public record.  We do not accept that our 
‘website has carried a completely misleading account of the dealings between 
(your) paper and Dolours Price’. We believe we have the evidence to show 
that the challenge to your account of the meeting can be substantiated. This 
does not mean that you are falsifying the account, merely that we have a 
version of what happened which is totally at odds with your own. Our account 
has been put in the public domain elsewhere including via sworn affidavit. 
You also engaged in a public exchange with Ed Moloney in respect of the 
account in which you presented your side of the argument.

We see no evidence in your perspective that would substantively challenge 
the view of Paul Campbell that the threat Allison Morris claimed she faced 
as a result of Mark McGregor’s piece in her complaint to the NUJ was 
`seemingly made up,' `baseless' and `laughable'. You, when challenged on 
Wednesday, could produce nothing to show that there was any threat to 
Allison Morris’s life that resulted from anything that appeared on our 
website. You refer to your dialogue with the police but at no point have you 
been able, when invited, to demonstrate that any matters pertaining to our 
site formed part of that dialogue. You seem to have taken refuge behind 
general assertions and avoided dealing with the specificities that are 
essential if you are to impress upon us a serious concern on your part.

Were Allison Morris under threat that resulted from material on our website 
I believe the police would have alerted me. I fail to see why they would 
not. I would be open to any suggestion from any quarter that material be 
withdrawn if it endangered the life of any person. That would apply as every 
bit as much to a member of the PSNI as it would to a journalist. All have 
equal right not to be under threat. I have consistently spoken out against 
the use of political violence. In your own paper in October 2000 I made the 
point that republicans should never again use force in pursuit of their 
goals. It is a position that I have never once had cause to resile from.

You ‘state with certainty that serious threats have been made against 
Allison Morris by both loyalist and republican sources.’

Again, this is the broad brush with which you hope to sweep aside all 
narratives that you find unacceptable. Paul Campbell has constructed such a 
narrative. Unlike your generalisations Campbell’s narrative is specifically 
linked to claims made by Allison Morris to the NUJ that she was under threat 
as a result of material that appeared on our website. Campbell has called 
into serious question in a strongly cogent fashion the suggestion that 
Allison Morrison is under any threat in the context I have outlined.  You 
have failed to come up with even a modicum of evidence that Paul Campbell 
made ‘reckless and totally untrue claims.’

I am as concerned as anyone else that a person might face threat. I am even 
more concerned if the threat was to be result of anything that I have been 
responsible for. But it is all too easy to censor the freedom to write on 
the basis of an alleged threat for which no evidence has been forthcoming.

Indeed, during Wednesday’s call you reminded me that I had actually written 
to you supporting Allison Morris when you office was picketed by republicans 
opposed to what she was writing. Because we find ourselves on the opposite 
side of the argument from a person does not mean we would ever wish to see 
them harmed. Writing you in opposition to picketing is not consistent with 
someone who would approve threats.

You want all material in relation to the Irish News withdrawn from the 
website. This in my view is simply an attempt by you to censor us and by 
extension have questions raised about your paper hushed up.  I don’t find 
this in any way acceptable and I am deeply disappointed that a paper with a 
record of facilitating the freedom to write in an environment that was not 
always conducive to it should be making this sort of demand of one of its 
critics.

For us to yield to your demand that we remove all the material you find 
unacceptable would be to acquiesce in a censor’s charter. It is a power we 
will never confer onto you. While we hold to the maxim that we can write 
what we like, what we like shall continue to be informed, shaped, and 
constrained by wider considerations foremost of which remains the question 
of harm that may arise as a result of what is written. We seek to see no one 
harmed but it is not our role to protect people from the offence that may 
accrue from an opinion they might find ‘unacceptable.’

I genuinely regret that we have been unable to reach a satisfactory 
resolution of this matter given the very positive relationship we have had 
with your paper over the years. But your demand that we basically shut up 
and then talk to you offline once we do is totally unreasonable.

What we shall do again is offer you or any of your staff the unfettered 
ability to respond in full to any issues raised on the blog. In addition to 
being speedily facilitated you will have unlimited space to make your case 
as often and as strongly as you wish. That seems a much healthier way of 
addressing a clash of perspectives between rival narratives than the gagging 
of one by the other.

In conclusion I ask you to confirm whether you wish to avail of our offer of 
right of reply, and if that will finally resolve the matter for the benefit 
of all parties.

Anthony

 ——— 

From: Noel Doran
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 11:01 AM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: website

Anthony,

I was saddened by the tone of your response. Your
evasiveness after being caught inventing a
by-line for your personal attacks was
particularly telling, and follows your consistent
failure to check a range of false allegations in
advance of publication. You were given every
opportunity to voluntarily withdraw the tainted
material, in the interests of an agreed
resolution, and your refusal has been duly noted.



Noel Doran.


Complete coverage:




NOT CENSORED BY THE IRISH NEWS