Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

dudara

The "shill" discussion stops here. Any future accusation or reference to shills will incur mod action.

Use Report Post if you want to report posts that you believe are in breach of the forum charter or Boards Terms of Use.

dudara

is_that_so

mikemac2 wrote: »

Ministers don't even reply themselves anymore

Anytime I contacted my local TDs I either got a letter, an email or a personal phone call

Maybe because I made clear I was a constituent, that might be the reason

When I say anytime I mean twice. I'm not a serial complainer :pac:

If they are both they do respond.

WishUWereHere

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Why not read the thread, that’s been asked multiple times and discussed multiple times

See SWF, there he/she goes again, trying to detract from the threads topic. I wrote a comment at 17h39, he/she replied at 17h43, even before I had hit the ignore button, which thankfully I have activated now.

Suckit

So regarding this €20,000 that Bailey went begging for, who gave her advice to write that letter?
Was that before she received any advice (which would be even weirder that she then received advice)?
Or was that the first piece of advice she got? When did Madigan stop giving her advice and when was the letter written?

Also, if Bailey had stuck to her story saying that she was told that she had a clear cut case, would that have got Madigan into trouble as a solicitor?

Snow Garden

The Taoiseach privatised the Maria Bailey scandal, making himself judge and jury, cutting out the law.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/gene-kerrigan-mr-justice-varadkar-has-ruled-on-bailey-38351906.html

A cutting article. Leo will not like it.

Now, in their hurry to be done with the scandal, parts of Fine Gael have assumed the appearance of a vengeful mob.
And the party leader has chosen a very questionable route out of the mess. One that involves word-play as a means of misleading the public.

Once the Maria Bailey scandal erupted, Fine Gael showed little interest in the facts of the case, the reality of alleged fraudulent claims, insurance company profits or small businesses closing because of rising insurance premiums. It's all been about limiting the political damage.

Members of the main political parties seldom take a stand on principle - they care about votes, office, party advancement and personal ambition.

We must bear this in mind: according to the Taoiseach, David Kennedy concluded that Maria Bailey swore an affidavit that verified a formal court
document in which she "overstated the impact of her injuries on her running".

To overstate the consequences of an accident, on oath, is a serious matter.
I don't know who David Kennedy is. We don't know what terms he worked under, what evidence he heard, exactly what conclusions he reached, and - crucially - how he worded those conclusions.

None of that has been deemed any of our business

There is no need to publish witness statements. There is, though, a need to publish Kennedy's conclusions and the basis for them.

The wording matters.
"The inquiry states that it was not a fraudulent claim", Varadkar says - but we can't see what the report actually says, allegedly because of confidential witness statements. This is misleading, and Varadkar must know that.

Varadkar has hijacked the issue. He has ruled on whether Bailey broke the law, he's given his own version of what the private FG report says.

The General Election debates will be fun. Harris and Coveney staying quiet for a good reason.

This story and insurance fraud will be associated with Fine Gael for a decade or more.
It's their P Flynn "I wanna tell you something, try it sometime" moment.

is_that_so

Snow Garden wrote: »

The Taoiseach privatised the Maria Bailey scandal, making himself judge and jury, cutting out the law.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/gene-kerrigan-mr-justice-varadkar-has-ruled-on-bailey-38351906.html

A cutting article. Leo will not like it.















The General Election debates will be fun. Harris and Coveney staying quiet for a good reason.

Serious question - are you actually allowed to cut and paste so much of an article? I thought there were copyright restrictions limiting you to a few lines.
As for the "article" well it's just Gene, doing his serial ranting thing. Been at it since the 80s.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote:

As for the "article" well it's just Gene, doing his serial ranting thing. Been at it since the 80s.

Is he wrong? Common tactic I suppose attack the messenger .

is_that_so

mikemac2 wrote: »

If Varadkar has been strong and kicked Bailey out of the party it could have been a win. As has been said many times her representation as a TD is up to the good people of Dun Laoghaire

I'm sure some will know parliamentary numbers and minority government but anyway at the moment we have the bizarre situation where FF blast FG yet still support them

Weak, reluctant, hesitant and unsure are exactly what you do not want in a leader. I've no doubt Enda Kenny or even Richard Bruton would have booted Deputy Bailey out of the party by now

All a bit pointless when they won't be back in situ for close to 2 months. Brexit and the Budget are a far higher priority at present. Kicking someone out raises the real risk that they will vote against the government on key issues. So politically it makes sense not to do so for now. How this ends may not be how it's currently situated but I really don't expect anything more for quite some time.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Is he wrong? Common tactic I suppose attack the messenger .

Gene? Yeah mostly. Next week or any other week you'll see him as a crank. Broken clock journalism is what he does!

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote:

Gene? Yeah mostly. Next week or any other week you'll see him as a crank. Broken clock journalism is what he does!

I read the article I think he's fairly spot on in his analysis of Leo's handling of the affair. I don't allow bias to cloud my judgement.

McMurphy

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Listen, dude, the reality is that Bailey’s career in politics is over, and people are far more engaged with issues like Brexit.

The shinnerbots will also be forced into a defensive posture soon. Another sex scandal due to emerge. Very very high profile as well. The apples didn’t fall far from the tree.

Today's M.O:

10 PRINT “Something something SInn Fein”

20 GOTO 10

Run

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I read the article I think he's fairly spot on in his analysis of Leo's handling of the affair. I don't allow bias to cloud my judgement.

Political options have already been covered and he's made one. You're free to build your own unbiased narrative around that. I've no bias against Gene. Objectively he's just appalling but he does a great line in rants.

EmmetSpiceland

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Today's M.O:

10 PRINT “Something something SInn Fein”

20 GOTO 10

Run

Hopefully he won’t run up a 50k bill at the tax payer’s “expense” with that carry on!!

Actually, I wonder if he has any “connections” to the printing business?

Snow Garden

is_that_so wrote: »

Serious question - are you actually allowed to cut and paste so much of an article? I thought there were copyright restrictions limiting you to a few lines.
As for the "article" well it's just Gene, doing his serial ranting thing. Been at it since the 80s.

Feel free to critique the article. I thought every line was spot on.

McMurphy

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Hopefully he won’t run up a 50k bill at the tax payer’s “expense” with that carry on!!

Actually, I wonder if he has any “connections” to the printing business?

As I was saying.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Today's M.O:

10 PRINT “Something something SInn Fein”

20 GOTO 10

Run

is_that_so

Snow Garden wrote: »

Feel free to critique the article. I thought every line was spot on.

Well he seems to echo what you're thinking so of course he is! His MO is to carefully select some "salient" facts, all of which will lead to prove he was right in the first place. I know that kind of thing is popular and he's got the style and the emotive language down pat but really it's all about him.

Snow Garden

is_that_so wrote: »

Well he seems to echo what you're thinking so of course he is! His MO is to carefully select some "salient" facts, all of which will lead to prove he was right in the first place. I know that kind of thing is popular and he's got the style and the emotive language down pat but really it's all about him.

So any facts you disagree with? Great critique by the way..

McMurphy

is_that_so wrote: »

Well he seems to echo what you're thinking so of course he is! His MO is to carefully select some "salient" facts, all of which will lead to prove he was right in the first place. I know that kind of thing is popular and he's got the style and the emotive language down pat but really it's all about him.

Would you care to pick out any specific parts you disagree with from the article and we can analyse it?

is_that_so

Snow Garden wrote: »

So any facts you disagree with?

The DPP stuff in the first line is out and out crap and he's made up all that guff about what he imagines the purpose of the report is. It had a single aim, to get to the bottom of what MB did. You did notice the utterly irrelevant reference to insurance costs and morality in there? That's his classic triggering mechanism and you're sucked in. The rest is Gene showing how he cleverly he's worked it out.

Go find some of his other articles. He does it the same way every time. A little bit of truth, play around with it, some choice trigger words and then he's away.

is_that_so

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Would you care to pick out any specific parts you disagree with from the article and we can analyse it?

Analyse? I think he does nothing more than shoddy, sensationalist opinion pieces and any link of his IMO is a poor source. I'm happy to look at other sources though! I bet he had you at Mr Justice Varadkar!:D

Shefwedfan

is_that_so wrote: »

The DPP stuff in the first line is out and out crap and he's made up all that guff about what he imagines the purpose of the report is. It had a single aim, to get to the bottom of what MB did. You did notice the utterly irrelevant reference to insurance costs and morality in there? That's his classic triggering mechanism and you're sucked in. The rest is Gene showing how he cleverly he's worked it out.

Go find some of his other articles. He does it the same way every time. A little bit of truth, play around with it, some choice trigger words and then he's away.

I think his point is relevant, especially in submitting the finding of the document
And not the entire document

Leo has taken over the legal system, if something illegal was found out in the report he has decided he is the person who will judge on it,,.....not really legal is that?

But sure nothing legal is really going on here

Snow Garden

is_that_so wrote: »

The DPP stuff in the first line is out and out crap and he's made up all that guff about what he imagines the purpose of the report is. It had a single aim, to get to the bottom of what MB did. You did notice the utterly irrelevant reference to insurance costs and morality in there? That's his classic triggering mechanism and you're sucked in. The rest is Gene showing how he cleverly he's worked it out.

Go find some of his other articles. He does it the same way every time. A little bit of truth, play around with it, some choice trigger words and then he's away.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/gene-kerrigan-mr-justice-varadkar-has-ruled-on-bailey-38351906.html

Last week, Leo Varadkar acted as DPP, defence counsel, judge and jury in the matter of Maria Bailey-v-a swing.

Nobody can argue with that sentence given the report or it's terms of reference were not published (for nonsense reasons). Not even you
Leo only gave us his interpretation of the report. Judge and jury etc.

It hasn't been about truth, about justice, morality or insurance costs - it has been, and it remains, all about the image of Fine Gael.

I think you missed the key word above....hasn't
Again impossible for you to disagree with above.

Please do go on though...

Snow Garden

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/gene-kerrigan-mr-justice-varadkar-has-ruled-on-bailey-38351906.html

I think this is a key point that FG miss time and time again.

The inquiry report isn't published; Varadkar made a statement that supposedly summarised aspects of the report. His excuse for not publishing is that witnesses were interviewed on a confidential basis.
This is nonsense.
It gives the impression that there are all sorts of private matters, inside information, which witnesses revealed on a strictly confidential basis. There's no evidence that this happened.

is_that_so

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I think his point is relevant, especially in submitting the finding of the document
And not the entire document

Leo has taken over the legal system, if something illegal was found out in the report he has decided he is the person who will judge on it,,.....not really legal is that?

But sure nothing legal is really going on here

What gave you gave you the idea it was part of the legal system? They carried out an internal investigation and chose someone beyond reproach to do so.

McMurphy

is_that_so wrote: »

Go find some of his other articles. He does it the same way every time. A little bit of truth, play around with it, some choice trigger words and then he's away.

Sounds a bit like Leo's statement on what exactly Kennedys report said.

What's the difference in an exaggerated claim and a fraudulent one btw:D?

is_that_so

Snow Garden wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/gene-kerrigan-mr-justice-varadkar-has-ruled-on-bailey-38351906.html



Nobody can argue with that sentence given the report or it's terms of reference were not published (for nonsense reasons). Not even you
Leo only gave us his interpretation of the report. Judge and jury etc.



I think you missed the key word above....hasn't
Again impossible for you to disagree with above.

Please do go on though...

I'd rather stick pins in my eyes but I'm happy he floats your boat on this.

is_that_so

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Sounds a bit like Leo's statement on what exactly Kennedys report said.

What's the difference in an exaggerated claim and a fraudulent one btw:D?

One may be a whole easier to prove legally.

Shefwedfan

is_that_so wrote: »

What gave you gave you the idea it was part of the legal system? They carried out an internal investigation and chose someone beyond reproach to do so.

Did they?

According to Leo he was never given the power to promise the report would not go public....but that is what he done

Leo said he would have released the report only that had happened

So if this person was hired who gave him the right to make a decision if the report was going to be released or not?

So either Leo is lying? Or this guy is a bit dodgy

Do you agree?

is_that_so

Snow Garden wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/gene-kerrigan-mr-justice-varadkar-has-ruled-on-bailey-38351906.html

I think this is a key point that FG miss time and time again.

You've made my point about him quite well. He trots out all sorts of loose speculation with no support. This stuff works well with a captive audience.

gives the impression that there are all sorts of private matters, inside information, which witnesses revealed on a strictly confidential basis. There's no evidence that this happened

tototoe

is_that_so wrote: »

It had a single aim, to get to the bottom of what MB did.

It's aim, was to take the heat out of the story and hope the plebs forgot about it, and the media had moved on by the time the report came out. It failed in that regard.