
Gerry Adams to donate 100,000 euros to Irish language and Palestinian charities
Last Friday a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euros (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article.
The BBC will also have to pay Mr Adams's legal costs.
During an eight-minute video posted on the official Sinn Fein YouTube channel, Mr Adams accused the BBC of showing 'arrogance' when it did not resolve the dispute after he issued legal letters nine years ago.
In Putting Manners On The BBC – The Gerry Adams Blog, Mr Adams said that the BBC has been held accountable for the content it broadcasts.
Mr Adams said: 'As for the money that the jury awarded me in damages, I will donate this to good causes.
'These will include the children of Gaza, groups in Ireland involved in helping the homeless, Cumann Carad, the Irish language sector and other projects like this in west Belfast.'
He added: 'When the case began six weeks ago, the BBC's legal strategy was evident very quickly. Their narrative was that pursued by successive British and Irish governments for years.
'They blamed everything during the conflict on Irish Republicans and by extension, during this trial, on me.
'The BBC lawyers embarked on a Jesuitical presentation of the case that tried to convince the jurors that the words broadcast and published by the British Broadcasting Corporation, that I had sanctioned the murder of Denis Donaldson, did not, in fact, mean that I sanctioned the murder of Denis Donaldson.
'They were, they said, that's the British Broadcasting Corporation, not defending the truth of the accusation.
'Instead they were defending, they claimed, their journalism, which they said was fair and reasonable, in the public interest and made in good faith.
'They concluded their case by trying to exert moral pressure on the jurors by claiming that a defeat for the British Broadcasting Corporation would be a blow to freedom of speech and a setback to victims.
'In the end the jury didn't buy in to any of this.
'On all the key issues the jurors unanimously accepted that the script used by the Spotlight programme did mean that I had sanctioned and approved the murder of Denis Donaldson.'
He said that after the BBC's decision to air the Spotlight programme, he decided to sue the broadcaster.
Mr Adams said the BBC could have resolved the dispute there and then.
'They chose not to. Why? That's a question to be asked. Why did they not resolve this issue when they could have?
'Was it arrogance? Yes, that's part of it. But I also suspect political interference.
'In January, the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer responded to a decision in the High Court in Belfast, which included that I and, by implication, up to 400 other former internees, were wrongfully detained and that we were entitled to compensation.
'Mr Starmer told the British Parliament that he would look at every conceivable way to block compensation being paid.'
Mr Adams also urged the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan to met Denis Donaldson's family.
He signed off by saying 'slan agus tog go bog e', which means goodbye and take it easy.
Earlier this week the BBC was granted time to consider appealing against the jury's decision.
The broadcaster was granted a stay on paying the full costs and damages to allow it time to consider whether to lodge an appeal.
The stay was subject to paying half the damages (50,000 euros or £42,000) and 250,000 euros (£210,000) towards solicitors' fees.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
YouTube is no replacement for old media
Young people now choose to watch YouTube more than any traditional TV channel, according to Ofcom figures. Founded just 20 years ago, YouTube has around 2.7 billion users in more than 80 countries. It has effectively become the biggest TV channel in the world. With 720,000 hours of video uploaded every day, this explosion of content provides the viewer with virtually unlimited choice. It has democratised content creation and allowed an extraordinary diversity of voices to bypass almost all editorial oversight. There is much to celebrate in the media revolution. Artists, musicians, commentators and performers can now build and interact with their audiences directly, relying on their own creativity alone. Consumers have a range of content undreamt of just a few decades ago when the only question was which of the four terrestrial TV channels to watch. At the same time, however, the lack of any filter or editorial control provides real risks to democracies which rely on an informed public and high quality journalism. Without any kind of moderation, platforms like YouTube provide fertile ground for misinformation and disinformation, allowing conspiracy theorists and hostile states equal space with professional reporting and properly resourced high quality content. Unlike the public service broadcasters (PSBs) which are bound by strict editorial standards and regulatory oversight, YouTube, TikTok and other platforms rely on algorithms which prioritise engagement over accuracy. Sensationalist, misleading or outright false content often garners more views, likes and shares, amplifying its reach. This distorts the information and facts which voters need to have in order to make informed decisions at election time. Despite this huge increase in the number of competing providers of video content, the need for reliable and trusted public service broadcasting remains greater than ever. The range of entertainment across the TV channels and streaming services is vast, benefiting viewers and creators alike. However, consumers also need to have sources of trusted and factual information on which they can rely. Public service broadcasters are governed by the Broadcasting Code and are required to be impartial and not to give undue offence. The quality press like the Telegraph survive on a reputation for accuracy and properly researched investigative journalism. Yet both are threatened by the rapid growth of unregulated and often unreliable social media platforms. The steady decline in the reach of public service broadcasters that we have seen in the past 10 years is likely to accelerate as we approach the time when terrestrial transmission will cease and all TV viewing will be via the internet. Sales of physical newspapers will continue to fall, with some already shifting to digital-only distribution. As viewers and readers move to online platforms, advertisers inevitably follow. Last year, YouTube made more than $36 bn from advertising. With so much free content available, it is tougher to persuade consumers to pay subscriptions for news content or to pay a compulsory licence fee in order to watch live TV. The latest BBC annual report records that the number of licence-fee payers fell yet again, by another 300,000 last year. Governments of both colours have struggled to support professional media. The latest Media Act, which I took through parliament just 18 months ago, requires that the PSB channels are given prominence (appearing at the top of the programme guide) on connected TV platforms, set-top boxes and streaming sticks. This has already been overtaken as more and more consumers reject scheduled TV and turn straight to on-demand services. Ofcom warned this week that the future of public service media is at stake and called for YouTube in particular to do more to ensure that this content is prominent and easy to find. There are other steps that government and regulators can take. More needs to be done to improve media literacy and to encourage consumers not to accept every claim online and instead to rely upon trusted news providers. The Competition Authority will need to use its new powers to ensure that those who create news content are properly rewarded by the tech platforms that disseminate it. And, as AI offers greater competition by scraping news content and re-presenting it, robust copyright laws must ensure that those who created it are able to control its use and receive appropriate payment. The challenge for policy makers and news organisations remains how best to adapt to a rapidly changing media landscape while protecting the principles of accuracy and impartiality on which a functioning democracy depends.


Powys County Times
2 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Convictions after two young friends killed in machete attacks months apart
Two teenage friends aged just 14 and 15 were killed in gang-related machete attacks four months apart, it can now be reported. Daejaun Campbell cried out 'I'm 15, don't let me die' after he was ambushed in Woolwich, south-east London, on September 22 last year, the Old Bailey heard. On Wednesday, a boy aged 17, was found guilty of his murder after a jury deliberated for more than 19 hours. Co-accused Marko Balaz, 19, from Abbey Wood, south-east London, was found not guilty of murder, but convicted of manslaughter. A third defendant, Jacob Losiewicz, 18, also from Abbey Wood, was cleared of wrongdoing. It can now be reported that Daejaun was friends with 14-year-old Kelyan Bokassa, who was fatally stabbed by two 16-year-old boys with machetes on a bus in Woolwich months later on January 7. Aspiring rapper Kelyan, nicknamed Grippa, had featured in a YouTube music video entitled Gotta Eat – in which he was seen crouching beside a floral tribute to Daejaun. Last Friday, two 16-year-old youths were detained for at least 15 years and 10 months after pleading guilty at the Old Bailey to Kelyan's murder. The two boys' murders, though not directly related, bore striking similarities and have resulted in pleas by their families to end the 'senseless killings'. Last week, Kelyan's mother Marie Bokassa made an appeal for authorities to do more to stop the violence, saying: 'Our streets are bleeding.' In the wake of Daejaun's murder, his family released a statement in which Daejaun was described as 'naturally gifted, intelligent, creative and musically talented'. They said: 'The brutal manner which Daejaun was taken away from us is sad, and he not the first young person nor will he be the last, this senseless killing needs to stop.' Both killings had been linked to street gang culture with Daejaun described as being exploited and groomed by older youths. Daejaun was allegedly targeted for a 'gang check' when he was spotted near a house the defendants were visiting. Prosecutor Mukul Chawla KC had said he was attacked by Balaz and the 17-year-old boy. He said a witness had heard Daejaun screaming and calling for 'help' as he was stabbed. He also threw a large knife that he was carrying although it appears to have only hit a metal fence or railing and broken into pieces, the court had heard. The 17-year-old attacker was caught on video dropping his machete and leaning down to pick it up as he made off. Daejaun fell to his knees in the street having suffered two stab wounds and six superficial cuts. Losiewicz had driven the others to the scene and was nearby, the court had heard. Mr Chawla told jurors the motive for the killing was unclear but that Daejaun had been carrying money and drugs, possibly crack cocaine. He said: 'He may therefore have been a person exploited, by reason of his age if for no other reason, to be used as carrier and supplier of drugs by organisations that will use younger people and other vulnerable people for those purposes. 'That may be or may have been the reason why he was attacked.' The two older defendants admitted being at the scene but denied being involved in Daejaun's killing. The 17-year-old youth admitted the killing but claimed he acted in self defence and alone. He had previously pleaded guilty to possessing an offensive weapon – a machete – in a public place. The 17-year-old also had previous convictions for carrying a 'kukri' style knife in 2021 and having a machete and affray relating to a fight in October 2023 in which a male suffered a cut to his face and a stab wound. The court heard Balaz had previous convictions for carrying knives and possession of cannabis. Mr Losiewicz had no convictions to his name.

Leader Live
3 hours ago
- Leader Live
UK Government urged to reconsider decision to cut cash for peace fund
The Government confirmed it had decided not to continue with the £1 million contribution to the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) in 2024-25, citing a 'very challenging fiscal position'. The IFI was originally set up by the UK and Irish governments as an independent international organisation in 1986. It delivers a range of peace and reconciliation initiatives across Northern Ireland and Irish border counties, including supporting communities to work towards removal of the remaining peace walls. Sinn Fein North Belfast MP John Finucane said he is concerned about the move, and said he will raise it directly with Secretary of State Hilary Benn. 'It is extremely concerning that the British Government is to cut funding for IFI,' he said. 'IFI was established to promote peace, reconciliation and a better future for all communities across Ireland. 'Peace is hard-won and hard-fought. It can never be taken for granted, and crucial funds like this must continue to be supported. 'The British Government should be increasing funding in light of the withdrawal of US support, not imposing further hardship. 'I will be writing to British Secretary of State Hilary Benn, calling for his Government to reverse this decision and ensure IFI can continue its vital grassroots-led programmes.' Responding, a UK Government spokesperson said: 'This Government inherited a very challenging fiscal position, and needed to take difficult but necessary decisions to place the public finances on a sustainable footing. 'As a result, the Government has decided not to continue with the £1 million contribution to the International Fund for Ireland in 2024-25. 'The Government remains supportive of the IFI's aims of promoting peace and reconciliation.'