100% agree and accept the defamation thing. I wouldn't go posting details saying that John Doe in IE was on a serious kickback from a vendor if I only had a hunch about it or had heard rumours about it.
However, if I had (as seems to be claimed in some of the posts) pretty strong evidence about it and I wasn't fully sure of it *but it was still a serious issue* I would be in touch with one of our more crusading journos and feed him/her a little of the information. Or I would be in touch with the opposition transport people and feed them a little of the *evidence*.
Maybe RUI are doing this, but it's not communicated in the posts here.
I'm thinking of posts like this - "Those of us in the know, know how deep it goes and very senior people are going to find themselves in serious trouble.
We know all about the holiday cottage scam"
If it is so sure that high ranking people will be in serious trouble then by all means plough ahead and make it happen. If it's not so sure, or it's just rumour then it's no different than I said in an earlier post - "I know all about the mess up with the donut supplies on a certain train ex-Dublin on Tuesdays. I've been watching it for some time and I have a dossier compiled but I can't let you into the details. I'm keeping my eagle-eye on it and will be for some time to come. I know who you are." I can say this as much as I like but there will continue to be donut irregularities on that train.
Seriously guys, if there's hard evidence then you should act on it. If you have acted on it then you should communicate this. If there's no hard evidence then you should perhaps rethink some of the definitive wording you are using.
I'm all for armchair fist-wavers (like me) taking the occasional potshot at IE, but I'm doing it as an individual. I think RUI needs to step up to the plate as an orgainsation with an interest in improving the transport environment. If you have hard evidence you ought to use it in my view.
z
|