General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

VinLieger

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is getting silly now.

There is no question that the event occurred.
Neither a plaintiff (nor their solicitor) are obliged to present the defendant's case (i.e. contributory negligence) - they are entitled to put their best foot forward.
Being present when the event occurred has no impact on the level of damages which may have arisen - why would a solicitor be obliged to investigate the veracity of the information their client provides?

Being present has nothing to do with the level of damages being sought it matters because if she witnessed the event so would be well aware the fault was entirely on Bailey yet then in her capacity as a solicitor still recommended Bailey sue for damages, this then makes her a prime example of what is wrong with the legal system and its enabling of the claims culture.

FreudianSlippers

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/3/enacted/en/html#sec3

Muahahaha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is getting silly now.

There is no question that the event occurred.
Neither a plaintiff (nor their solicitor) are obliged to present the defendant's case (i.e. contributory negligence) - they are entitled to put their best foot forward.
Being present when the event occurred has no impact on the level of damages which may have arisen - why would a solicitor be obliged to investigate the veracity of the information their client provides?

Its not the courts that Madigan needs to be worried about, its the court of public opinion. If it did come out that she was present with Bailey in the Dean Hotel then this mess will explode even further, the media would have a field day. People would also be asking if Madigans presence was in the report and why Leo knew about it yet covered it up. He's had more than two months now to get a lid on this but its just been own goal after own goal. Now one of his own TDs is calling for Bailey not to stand for re-election, people in his own party are not happy with how it has been dealt with.

blanch152

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/3/enacted/en/html#sec3

Now that is the problem. Some amendment may be necessary of that Act.

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

Its not the courts that Madigan needs to be worried about, its the court of public opinion. If it did come out that she was present with Bailey in the Dean Hotel then this mess will explode even further, the media would have a field day. People would also be asking if Madigans presence was in the report and why Leo knew about it yet covered it up. He's had more than two months now to get a lid on this but its just been own goal after own goal. Now one of his own TDs is calling for Bailey not to stand for re-election, people in his own party are not happy with how it has been dealt with.

The court of public opinion, otherwise known as mob rule.

The court of public opinion which had two gardai in Mullingar condemned even though a Tribunal later found they had done no wrong.
The court of public opinion which had Frances Fitzgerald condemned even though a Tribunal later found she acted appropriately.
Poor old Alan Shatter went through court case after Tribunal and cleared his good name, but that didn't matter to the court of public opinion.

FreudianSlippers

Muahahaha wrote: »

Its not the courts that Madigan needs to be worried about, its the court of public opinion. If it did come out that she was present with Bailey in the Dean Hotel then this mess will explode even further, the media would have a field day. People would also be asking if Madigans presence was in the report and why Leo knew about it yet covered it up. He's had more than two months now to get a lid on this but its just been own goal after own goal. Now one of his own TDs is calling for Bailey not to stand for re-election, people in his own party are not happy with how it has been dealt with.

I don't disagree with you, but I think it's a shift of the goalposts as you quote my post in isolation, given I never said otherwise.

FreudianSlippers

blanch152 wrote: »

Now that is the problem. Some amendment may be necessary of that Act.

I mean is it really a great idea to have a swing in a bar? Is it not at least foreseeable that someone could get injured?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

The court of public opinion, otherwise known as mob rule.

The court of public opinion which had two gardai in Mullingar condemned even though a Tribunal later found they had done no wrong.
The court of public opinion which had Frances Fitzgerald condemned even though a Tribunal later found she acted appropriately.
Poor old Alan Shatter went through court case after Tribunal and cleared his good name, but that didn't matter to the court of public opinion.

Lol, you're ignoring the fact that Maria Bailey was under absolutely no obligation to drop her case and have "her own good name" cleared, instead she chose not to.

The report further gave leo and his team an opportunity to "clear both hers and Josephas good name" yet they won't publish it.

Lastly, Maria Bailey said the following about Maria Bailey's personal injury case.

"I recognise and regret the difficulties this issue caused for the Taoiseach and my colleagues during the recent elections," she said, while adding that she now regrets "very much" taking the case.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I mean is it really a great idea to have a swing in a bar? Is it not at least foreseeable that someone could get injured?

They had knives, glasses, big high stools and steep stairs in the pub I was in last week.

Accident waiting to happen.

That swing is less than a foot from the ground btw.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

They had knives, glasses, big high stools and steep stairs in the pub I was in last week.

Accident waiting to happen.

:rolleyes:

That swing is less than a foot from the ground btw.

I've been there a number of times for my sins and have seen a few people fall off of it or almost fall off it.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Great rebuttal. I can't be arsed, but I'm willing to guess that if I took less than fifteen minutes of my time, I'd find numerous reports of pub goers injuring themselves on all of the above whilst on a night or day out. What's the most dangerous scenario, a blind drunk person with a knife or glass in their hands, falling off a stool or down a flight of stairs, or a (according to Maria Bailey) sober adult posing on a swing less than a feet off the ground?

It's this bollxollogy of over fragile compo chasing culture that have started to get festivals and events in the leisure industry in the country cancelled because they can't afford the insurance premiums.

I've been there a number of times for my sins and have seen a few people fall off of it or almost fall off it.

And I bet they all got up, laughed, called themselves big eejits and then carried on their merry way.

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

Poor old Alan Shatter went through court case after Tribunal and cleared his good name, but that didn't matter to the court of public opinion.

I know blanch, first poor Shatter was attacked by Leo Varadkar and then he got shafted by Enda Kenny and to top it all off the pesky FG mob in his own constituency no longer wanted him to represent them and they choose a Green candidate instead, I presume you were pretty happy with the shafting of Shatter given how the Greens gained from it? Poor Alan just couldnt catch a break with the angry mob not wanting to vote for him.

And Bailey will likely face the same fate, a mob of voters won't vote for her. The court of public opinion is a cruel place to be when you've shown yourself to be unfit to represent those whose votes you seek.

VinLieger

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

:rolleyes:


I've been there a number of times for my sins and have seen a few people fall off of it or almost fall off it.

And how many of them were acting the maggot and it was entirely their fault? Why are you defending her and the compo culture she empitomises is what i would like to know?

FreudianSlippers

VinLieger wrote: »

And how many of them were acting the maggot and it was entirely their fault?

Neither you nor I know that.

Why are you defending her and the compo culture she empitomises [sic] is what i would like to know?

Maybe try reading the thread? I'm not "defending" either of those things.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Great rebuttal. I can't be arsed, but I'm willing to guess that if I took less than fifteen minutes of my time, I'd find numerous reports of pub goers injuring themselves on all of the above whilst on a night or day out. What's the most dangerous scenario, a blind drunk person with a knife or glass in their hands, falling off a stool or down a flight of stairs, or a (according to Maria Bailey) sober adult posing on a swing less than a feet off the ground?

It's not a great rebuttal to a totally stupid analogy. The law is quite clear on the difference between the usual contents of a pub (glasses, chairs, knives, etc.) and swings. There is a common duty of care standard which treats the typical contents of an establishment differently to something which an establishment knows or ought to have known could be dangerous. In that regard an establishment is legally required to ensure that a visitor to the premises does not suffer injury or damage by reason of any danger existing thereon.

You're going to tell me you can search for 15 mins and find no examples of people suing pubs?

It's this bollxollogy of over fragile compo chasing culture that have started to get festivals and events in the leisure industry in the country cancelled because they can't afford the insurance premiums.

I think you'll find, to a great extent, that this is merely an excuse from insurance companies. The remainder can be dealt with by making the PAIB model of compensation much more appealing.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

The topic is General Irish Government discussion. Legal issues can be discussed in Legal Discussion and there is a lengthy thread on the Maria Bailey issue in the Current Affairs forum:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057982304

Alternatively a new thread can be set up about whatever issue it is intended to discuss so long as it fits in with the charter.

Idbatterim

If the indo are now also an anti fg voice , it might sway many of those on the fence ! Varadkar bring turfed out even despiteva bookimg economy, which is all that he thinks matters. Will be hilarious!

VinLieger

Idbatterim wrote: »

If the indo are now also an anti fg voice , it might sway many of those on the fence ! Varadkar bring turfed out even despiteva bookimg economy, which is all that he thinks matters. Will be hilarious!

Sad to see an irish paper hoping onto the tory/farage narative

is_that_so

Idbatterim wrote: »

If the indo are now also an anti fg voice , it might sway many of those on the fence ! Varadkar bring turfed out even despiteva bookimg economy, which is all that he thinks matters. Will be hilarious!

They've always had more fondness for FF, especially in the Bertie days. That said, finding government scandals to fill its pages is what any paper does.

BonnieSituation

is_that_so wrote: »

They've always had more fondness for FF, especially in the Bertie days. That said, finding government scandals to fill its pages is what any paper does.

It was only from the Bertie days.

The 1997 election was when the Indo swung from an FG paper (as it was historically) to being an FF/Celtic tiger paper.

You'd think Fionan Sheehan would at least try and be native.

Loafing Oaf

is_that_so wrote: »

That said, finding government scandals to fill its pages is what any paper does.

Yep that's their job. I see no reason to believe there's any broader political agenda at work here.

James Brown

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Yep that's their job. I see no reason to believe there's any broader political agenda at work here.

Now O'Brien is out of the Indo it might look like it because they are now more critical of O'Brien's benefactors, Fine Gael.
What shouldn't need saying, but sadly often does, the governing party of the day will receive more attention and general criticism than any other party for very obvious reasons. Labour barely get a mention these days, for example.
I view the Indo as a bit of a comic myself. It's a red top in broadsheet clothing.

James Brown

The letter from the Department of Health warned Ms Walsh that the consequences of repeating the remarks in public would result in "a very strong response" and asked her to withdraw her original claims, regarding his role.

"You have also issued tweets in which you have made baseless allegations against me which are at variance with the facts", the letter stated.

Ms Walsh was invited on to the CervicalCheck Steering Group last year as a patient representative by the Minister for Health.

A spokesperson for Minister Simon Harris said he was not aware of the letter in advance of it being sent.

The spokesperson said the minister accepted the context of the letter, as outlined by the department, under the Freedom of Information document release.

More departmental, official correspondence going out and nobody telling Simon. Aside from 'the scandal of hospital trolleys' what other national scandals have him distracted? Brexit?
I would suggest running the Department of health like an office, where somebody in authority is aware and clears correspondence speaking for the department before it goes out. Doesn't even have to be Harris. They could meet every other week and catch him up on stuff.

Uriel.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

More departmental, official correspondence going out and nobody telling Simon. Aside from 'the scandal of hospital trolleys' what other national scandals have him distracted? Brexit?

Sounds like an issue between the CMO and the person. Don't know what she is alleged to have said, but reading the article he seemed annoyed that something he felt was untrue was being attributed to him. Given his position and the importance of reputation in the medical field its not a surprise. I'm not saying he is right or wrong, I don't know the circumstances. However, it doesn't seem like an issue for the Minister, more of a personal/professional issue

James Brown

Uriel. wrote: »

Sounds like an issue between the CMO and the person. Don't know what she is alleged to have said, but reading the article he seemed annoyed that something he felt was untrue was being attributed to him. Given his position and the importance of reputation in the medical field its not a surprise. I'm not saying he is right or wrong, I don't know the circumstances. However, it doesn't seem like an issue for the Minister, more of a personal/professional issue

I would read it as him maybe sending a solicitors letter rather than using the office of Department of Health in such a manner.
It is embarrassing for Harris, IMO, that the health department has officially been used in this capacity. If I were him I'd like to know anytime my department makes thinly veiled threats.

Topgear on Dave

Uriel. wrote: »

Sounds like an issue between the CMO and the person. Don't know what she is alleged to have said, but reading the article he seemed annoyed that something he felt was untrue was being attributed to him. Given his position and the importance of reputation in the medical field its not a surprise. I'm not saying he is right or wrong, I don't know the circumstances. However, it doesn't seem like an issue for the Minister, more of a personal/professional issue

She made a very VERY serious allegation against him. I'm not a bit surprised he wrote back.

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1164910259485515778

AndrewJRenko

Matt Barrett wrote: »

More departmental, official correspondence going out and nobody telling Simon. Aside from 'the scandal of hospital trolleys' what other national scandals have him distracted? Brexit?
I would suggest running the Department of health like an office, where somebody in authority is aware and clears correspondence speaking for the department before it goes out. Doesn't even have to be Harris. They could meet every other week and catch him up on stuff.

The CMO IS 'somebody in authority'. He is the CMO.

I haven't looked at the legislation, but it is possibly a statutory role with functions and powers independent of the Minister.

Who do you think is going to 'clear the decisions' of the CMO - do we need a Chief CMO?

Uriel.

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

She made a very VERY serious allegation against him. I'm not a bit surprised he wrote back.

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1164910259485515778

Im not surprised about his response if that is what she said. The whole CC thing was a mess to begin, a mess that was made even greater by the media, vulture legal heads and opportunistic politicians.

James Brown

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The CMO IS 'somebody in authority'. He is the CMO.

I haven't looked at the legislation, but it is possibly a statutory role with functions and powers independent of the Minister.

Who do you think is going to 'clear the decisions' of the CMO - do we need a Chief CMO?

I'm tired of ministers, in this case Harris, using the 'I wasn't aware'. It's not a defense, you should know when your department is carrying out such actions. There should be an admin who tells Harris of things of import that he might need to know. It's basic industrial estate office etiquette.

Uriel. wrote: »

Im not surprised about his response if that is what she said. The whole CC thing was a mess to begin, a mess that was made even greater by the media, vulture legal heads and opportunistic politicians.

He should have used a solicitor rather than the office.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm tired of ministers, in this case Harris, using the 'I wasn't aware'. It's not a defense, you should know when your department is carrying out such actions. There should be an admin who tells Harris of things of import that he might need to know. It's basic industrial estate office etiquette.



He should have used a solicitor rather than the office.

We have been down this road before. Certain posters want Ministers to be made aware of every single letter and email that their hundreds of civil servants send out every day.

Most of them haven't a clue what it is like to work in a Government Department and neither do they understand the Public Service Management Act 1997, which is well worth a read for understanding how and why civil servants can act without telling the Minister about every single thing that they are doing.

In this particular case, where a civil servant was defamed by a member of the public, why does the Minister have to be told? Are civil servants not entitled to their good name? Can twitter users and anonymous internet posters say what they like about civil servants and not take account of the defamation acts?

I think some people just like to moan, complain and whinge. It is certainly true of some journalists.