Other's reactions? Come on. You cite yourself, an individual who was at the centre of defamation proceedings in an unrelated matter, and another who visits here on a semi-regular basis and who makes no secret of their allegiance. If you feel aggrieved, that may not be a "balanced" start from which to launch an assault. There's no rule against it but it dampens the argument. Quick question: Are all the journalists wrong in this matter or just a select few? My view is that to the reasonable fair-minded observer with no pecuniary interest, the coverage has been balanced, all things considered.
Agree with your point re: McEvoy J, but have been saying that all along. I look forward to the conclusion of the Hearing where, hopefully, the 2nd Defendant will testify. I think that may go a long way towards buttressing any defence, lest there be a yawning gap with the inevitable
Jones v Dunkel submission to be available. Following that and closing addresses, McEvoy J's judgment will be delivered and accepted, regardless of the outcome.
@Transvenosis comments are simply a succession of dim, hollow rantings. To quote Keating when describing a former Treasurer: 'All tip and no iceberg'.
