Louise, this case is vitally important, and this article is timely and necessary. Congratulations on your forensic presentation of the facts. You probably have seen Aisling's article on the disparity on the way Enoch Burke has been treated by Irish Courts compared to Kitty. (She is of course is allegedly Eamon Mc Cann of PBP's biological daughter-the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, as we say. This must go to appeal. John should seriously consider presenting himself in court instead of feeding the legal beast system-I know people who can help.
Brilliant analysis Louise. Kitty Holland should be well used to people disagreeing with her. That's journalism or at least it should be. This was clearly a show trial. If she was happy to receive the award for 'Journalist of the Year' for her abortion push she should be prepared for criticism too. It works both ways. I've stated in my last SK that I believe there's also a karmic element to this affair that still needs to be tidied up by JW before proceeding. It's a blockage in my view and a spiritual wrap/rap on the knuckles. Seasoned journalists know exactly what slander is and to pretend otherwise is not befitting of a man of his calibre and standing. Btw I don't believe Kitty Holland was slandered at all. You know what I mean. Your final paragraph on the number of babies aborted since the 8th was repealed is very sad indeed.
Thanks Louise this is a brilliant article and your best if you don't mind me saying and not just because it show's that John is been set up by the establishment but also it really brings it to our attention just how much the media had influenced the Irish people on voting for abortion.
This is great journalism Louise. Many thanks. It highlights the ongoing information war against any who question the prevailing narrative but also the crumbling feet of clay that are becoming increasingly clear of media of judicial protagonists.
Hospital associated sepsis is very commen in hospital's all over the world
Sepsis is more common than a heart attack
Sepsis can happen because of a lack of hygiene/ neglect from medical staff and because the patient was not given antibiotics and intravenous flouids as soon as it was known that the patient's kidney's were not putting out any urine which is one of the first signs of sepsis
Blood pressure that keeps dropping is another sign
Look up hospital acquired sepsis
A woman can also get sepsis and end up in A&E if they are bleeding badly and. have an infection after taking abortion pills with no medic present
Women that give birth in a maternity hospital are now more closely monitoŕed foŕ sepsis
Sepsis also seems to be a factor in convid deaths too. Leaky gut and breaking of the skin (injection or drip) can also play a role in introducing bacteria that are supposed to be one place, to another where they are not wanted, like in. the blood
There are endotoxins in the “covid”injections, due to e-coli used in the manufacturing (process number two).
The “covid” injections formulated and submitted for Emergency Use Approval used process number one ( polymerase chain reaction, or PCR) as a manufacturing tool. So a different product was administered to the unsuspecting masses. Hence much sepsis and “mysterious” illness in the “population”, which of course is made up of countless suffering individuals.
Very well researched , would be great as defence in a courtroom and I certainly agree John Waters shouldn't have been sued.
However , from my pro choice perspective the point of the heading of Holland's article would have been to draw attention to the unnecessary ,drawn out pain Savita went through for the days before she died when refused a termination . This corresponds to millions of women's torment at being in a position in Ireland where they did not have the right to make a decision primarily involving their own bodies. I haven't written any substack as writing is not my thing but if I do this is what it will be about .
Oh my God! You are mirroring Kitty Holland's untruthful lie she peddled by the omission of crucial facts - namely that because Savita was denied an abortion she therefor died. The Coroner's inquest and the HSE/ HIQA reports make clear the Sepsis not having been diagnosed at an earlier stage was the reason she sadly died.
Even though the 'pro-choice' Consultant Dr. Peter Boylan opined in his evidence that on balance of probabilities Savita would have survived had she been granted an abortion when she had first requested it - that does not amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt that as such she would have survived.
Voicing a mere opinion expert or otherwise when giving evidence does not amount to definitive proof. In any event, had the medical staff known before or at the time Savita had asked for an abortion such as to then comply in a timely manner as such to perform an abortion -it was still no guarantee her life would then have been saved.
The fact Dr. Peter Boylan stated this mere opinion as opposed him having provided definitive proof in his evidence is just heaping obfuscation upon Kitty Holland's obfuscation by perpetuating the false impression that the medical staff were aware Savita's life was at risk when they knew she had Sepsis but nevertheless still refused her requests for an abortion.
The media reports of the defamation trial dismayingly then collude in this perpetuation - by also not making it clear that it was unknown by the medical staff due to their neglect of Savita's care that she had Sepsis at the times she requested an abortion.
Furthermore, you come across as someone with the preserve of an unsound mind by identifying your pro-abortion stance as 'pro-choice' and stating women in Ireland " did not have the right to make a decision 'primarily' involving their own bodies".
Clearly, you and such women already did have such a choice and/ or right - by simply choosing and/ or deciding not to engage in having sexual intercourse when being cognizant of there being inherent risks that besides catching a nasty STD a consequence too of doing so might result in an unwanted pregnancy.
It's as simple as that. By virtue of the foregoing you ought properly and most accurately instead describe yourself and others like-minded as being 'pro-abortion'.
But it is obvious you are loathe to do so because such a description evinces upon you without euphemistic falsity the stark and barbaric reality of the deliberate murder of innocent unborn life.
Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy, in his judgment against Enoch Burke stated:
"the tort of defamation and the Defamation Act of 2009 do not provide a remedy for simply untrue statements made about a person. To obtain a remedy, a plaintiff must establish that the untrue statement tended to injure their reputation"
He concluded from this, that despite clear slander, there was no possible damage to Enoch Burke's reputation as he was in prison, so there was no case.
Judge John O’Connor is using a different standard in his judgment. He has not found or proven that there has been any tangible injury to Ms. Holland. Given that the battle lines are already drawn in a contentious issue, and John Waters was just arguing his position, it is very unlikely that there has been any damaging change to Kitty Holland's reputation at all resulting from his words.
Certainly, my opinion of Ms. Holland has not changed, as it is already as low as it can be.
Yep, if said standard which Mulcahy J. used to defeat Enoch Burke's defamation action was credible it should then have been adopted by O'Conor J. to defeat Kitty Holland's defamation action - by virtue that you as a reasonable member of society - have opined that Kitty Holland's reputation is already as low as it can be. - as in 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'.
But clearly Mulcahy J. in deploying this standard is egregiously disregarding the germane case law.
Mulcahy J. did not take into account the case law where it was found by Mattehws J. in a defamation action taken by a convicted and imprisoned child porn user that he nevertheless had a 'residual reputation'.
By virtue (or rather by vice) of the foregoing Mulcahy J. was essentially, perversely inferring that a God fearing man like Enoch Burke was lower than a convicted and imprisoned child porn user.
I think Mulcahy J is a recently appointed High Court judge who either does'nt know the apposite case law or else corruptly ignores it in any defamation case before him if the Plaintiff's worldview does not accord with his and/ or of those who appointed him to the High Court - quelle surprise!.
better late than never I got to read this... I don't believe beautiful Saveeta would have wanted her name and face to be associated with deaths of babies, as she had longed for that baby she lost... the cause was MISMANAGEMENT OF SEPSIS.....of that poor woman's death....typical incompetence in Irish hospitals....they are still running their DIAGNOSE YOUR OWN SEPSIS BULLSHIT CAMPAIGN in this kip of a country....that is YOUR JOB-HOSPITAL! Literally ENTER IRISH HOSPITALS AT YOUR OWN RISK!
This is journalism. Fantastically detailed breakdown Louise, well done, will share out on all platforms. Thanks.
Agreed. Well done Louise xx
Louise, this case is vitally important, and this article is timely and necessary. Congratulations on your forensic presentation of the facts. You probably have seen Aisling's article on the disparity on the way Enoch Burke has been treated by Irish Courts compared to Kitty. (She is of course is allegedly Eamon Mc Cann of PBP's biological daughter-the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, as we say. This must go to appeal. John should seriously consider presenting himself in court instead of feeding the legal beast system-I know people who can help.
This is the article that I tried to write 🤣.
Fantastic as usual Louise.
Brilliant analysis Louise. Kitty Holland should be well used to people disagreeing with her. That's journalism or at least it should be. This was clearly a show trial. If she was happy to receive the award for 'Journalist of the Year' for her abortion push she should be prepared for criticism too. It works both ways. I've stated in my last SK that I believe there's also a karmic element to this affair that still needs to be tidied up by JW before proceeding. It's a blockage in my view and a spiritual wrap/rap on the knuckles. Seasoned journalists know exactly what slander is and to pretend otherwise is not befitting of a man of his calibre and standing. Btw I don't believe Kitty Holland was slandered at all. You know what I mean. Your final paragraph on the number of babies aborted since the 8th was repealed is very sad indeed.
Thanks Louise this is a brilliant article and your best if you don't mind me saying and not just because it show's that John is been set up by the establishment but also it really brings it to our attention just how much the media had influenced the Irish people on voting for abortion.
This is great journalism Louise. Many thanks. It highlights the ongoing information war against any who question the prevailing narrative but also the crumbling feet of clay that are becoming increasingly clear of media of judicial protagonists.
Hospital associated sepsis is very commen in hospital's all over the world
Sepsis is more common than a heart attack
Sepsis can happen because of a lack of hygiene/ neglect from medical staff and because the patient was not given antibiotics and intravenous flouids as soon as it was known that the patient's kidney's were not putting out any urine which is one of the first signs of sepsis
Blood pressure that keeps dropping is another sign
Look up hospital acquired sepsis
A woman can also get sepsis and end up in A&E if they are bleeding badly and. have an infection after taking abortion pills with no medic present
Women that give birth in a maternity hospital are now more closely monitoŕed foŕ sepsis
Sepsis also seems to be a factor in convid deaths too. Leaky gut and breaking of the skin (injection or drip) can also play a role in introducing bacteria that are supposed to be one place, to another where they are not wanted, like in. the blood
There are endotoxins in the “covid”injections, due to e-coli used in the manufacturing (process number two).
The “covid” injections formulated and submitted for Emergency Use Approval used process number one ( polymerase chain reaction, or PCR) as a manufacturing tool. So a different product was administered to the unsuspecting masses. Hence much sepsis and “mysterious” illness in the “population”, which of course is made up of countless suffering individuals.
Thank you for providing such a well-written and detailed article Louise. I hope that John will appeal the ruling.
And you think he is gonna win against that machine, do you?
Very well researched , would be great as defence in a courtroom and I certainly agree John Waters shouldn't have been sued.
However , from my pro choice perspective the point of the heading of Holland's article would have been to draw attention to the unnecessary ,drawn out pain Savita went through for the days before she died when refused a termination . This corresponds to millions of women's torment at being in a position in Ireland where they did not have the right to make a decision primarily involving their own bodies. I haven't written any substack as writing is not my thing but if I do this is what it will be about .
I would read that Sarah. Different perspectives are important 🙏
Thanks Louise , absolutely 🙏
Oh my God! You are mirroring Kitty Holland's untruthful lie she peddled by the omission of crucial facts - namely that because Savita was denied an abortion she therefor died. The Coroner's inquest and the HSE/ HIQA reports make clear the Sepsis not having been diagnosed at an earlier stage was the reason she sadly died.
Even though the 'pro-choice' Consultant Dr. Peter Boylan opined in his evidence that on balance of probabilities Savita would have survived had she been granted an abortion when she had first requested it - that does not amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt that as such she would have survived.
Voicing a mere opinion expert or otherwise when giving evidence does not amount to definitive proof. In any event, had the medical staff known before or at the time Savita had asked for an abortion such as to then comply in a timely manner as such to perform an abortion -it was still no guarantee her life would then have been saved.
The fact Dr. Peter Boylan stated this mere opinion as opposed him having provided definitive proof in his evidence is just heaping obfuscation upon Kitty Holland's obfuscation by perpetuating the false impression that the medical staff were aware Savita's life was at risk when they knew she had Sepsis but nevertheless still refused her requests for an abortion.
The media reports of the defamation trial dismayingly then collude in this perpetuation - by also not making it clear that it was unknown by the medical staff due to their neglect of Savita's care that she had Sepsis at the times she requested an abortion.
Furthermore, you come across as someone with the preserve of an unsound mind by identifying your pro-abortion stance as 'pro-choice' and stating women in Ireland " did not have the right to make a decision 'primarily' involving their own bodies".
Clearly, you and such women already did have such a choice and/ or right - by simply choosing and/ or deciding not to engage in having sexual intercourse when being cognizant of there being inherent risks that besides catching a nasty STD a consequence too of doing so might result in an unwanted pregnancy.
It's as simple as that. By virtue of the foregoing you ought properly and most accurately instead describe yourself and others like-minded as being 'pro-abortion'.
But it is obvious you are loathe to do so because such a description evinces upon you without euphemistic falsity the stark and barbaric reality of the deliberate murder of innocent unborn life.
Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy, in his judgment against Enoch Burke stated:
"the tort of defamation and the Defamation Act of 2009 do not provide a remedy for simply untrue statements made about a person. To obtain a remedy, a plaintiff must establish that the untrue statement tended to injure their reputation"
He concluded from this, that despite clear slander, there was no possible damage to Enoch Burke's reputation as he was in prison, so there was no case.
Judge John O’Connor is using a different standard in his judgment. He has not found or proven that there has been any tangible injury to Ms. Holland. Given that the battle lines are already drawn in a contentious issue, and John Waters was just arguing his position, it is very unlikely that there has been any damaging change to Kitty Holland's reputation at all resulting from his words.
Certainly, my opinion of Ms. Holland has not changed, as it is already as low as it can be.
Yep, if said standard which Mulcahy J. used to defeat Enoch Burke's defamation action was credible it should then have been adopted by O'Conor J. to defeat Kitty Holland's defamation action - by virtue that you as a reasonable member of society - have opined that Kitty Holland's reputation is already as low as it can be. - as in 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'.
But clearly Mulcahy J. in deploying this standard is egregiously disregarding the germane case law.
Mulcahy J. did not take into account the case law where it was found by Mattehws J. in a defamation action taken by a convicted and imprisoned child porn user that he nevertheless had a 'residual reputation'.
see here: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=000869e6-df80-4481-9401-abe433d8ca3b - for a summary of this case and here: https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/1eb6fe67-8592-414b-a15a-79ce28a71738/2010_IECC_1_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH - for the full judgment in this case.
By virtue (or rather by vice) of the foregoing Mulcahy J. was essentially, perversely inferring that a God fearing man like Enoch Burke was lower than a convicted and imprisoned child porn user.
I think Mulcahy J is a recently appointed High Court judge who either does'nt know the apposite case law or else corruptly ignores it in any defamation case before him if the Plaintiff's worldview does not accord with his and/ or of those who appointed him to the High Court - quelle surprise!.
Always a pleasure to read actual journalism louise.
better late than never I got to read this... I don't believe beautiful Saveeta would have wanted her name and face to be associated with deaths of babies, as she had longed for that baby she lost... the cause was MISMANAGEMENT OF SEPSIS.....of that poor woman's death....typical incompetence in Irish hospitals....they are still running their DIAGNOSE YOUR OWN SEPSIS BULLSHIT CAMPAIGN in this kip of a country....that is YOUR JOB-HOSPITAL! Literally ENTER IRISH HOSPITALS AT YOUR OWN RISK!