Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

boombang

walshb wrote: »

Leo did not claim or accuse that MB was telling lies...

Had he done so, he himself could have found himself in a spot of bother.

He was careful with how he worded his views on it

Does he believe or think she told lies? Possibly. Only he can answer this.

He said he couldn't square her story. Says to me that he's not denying the possibility of her lying. It was carefully worded and certainly not a ringing endorsement of her truthfulness.

kevthegaff

Should claims not be made public online, our single farm payments are online to see for the taxpayers. It might deter some

is_that_so

kevthegaff wrote: »

Should claims not be made public online, our single farm payments are online to see for the taxpayers. It might deter some

Privacy and GDPR come in into it. A lot of cases are settled with no disclosure. Recalibrate the awards and they become less attractive.

walshb

boombang wrote: »

He said he couldn't square her story. Says to me that he's not denying the possibility of her lying. It was carefully worded and certainly not a ringing endorsement of her truthfulness.

Agreed....

To lie is to make a claim or statement you know to be untrue in order to deliberately mislead or deceive.

Does Leo believe that MB did this? Yes, quite possibly he does.

McMurphy

is_that_so wrote: »

Privacy and GDPR come in into it. A lot of cases are settled with no disclosure.

I think this was the Ultimate master plan that completely fell asunder in the end, remember?

SOR: Do you believe the hotel should have had a supervisor there?

MB: Sean, that legal case was put forward, right, that’s what you do when you put forward a case. What I’m saying to you is, I asked a number of months back ‘is this worth the hassle?’ because to be honest I just want to get on with my life ... I was told ‘you have nothing to fear’, and I distinctly asked ‘when will this information become public?’ so I can prepare myself for it being out there.

And I was told ‘this will not be public until you are before the courts’ and I was perfectly fine with that.

They were hoping on settlement before it got to court. Need further proof? Check out her shaking them down for 20k.

Recalibrate the awards and they become less attractive.

And the repercussions for bringing forth a spurious claim with overstated injuries.

is_that_so

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I think this was the Ultimate master plan that completely fell asunder in the end, remember?



They were hoping on settlement before it got to court. Need further proof? Check out her shaking them down for 20k.

And the repercussions for bringing forth a spurious claim with overstated injuries.

Eh OK. No idea what any of that has to do with my post but go you.

McMurphy

walshb wrote: »

Agreed....

To lie is to make a claim or statement you know to be untrue in order to deliberately mislead or deceive.

Does Leo believe that MB did this? Yes, quite possibly he does.

And Leo sanctioned Maria (in Leo's eyes) for doing nothing wrong except telling *inconsistencies and overstating her injuries*.




*Lies in pleb-talk.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote:

Eh OK. No idea what any of that has to do with my post but go you.

You said cases are settled with no disclosure, the poster was pointing out this was the idea behind the 20k shakedown. It's quite obvious what his point was, you for some reason are feigning confusion.

McMurphy

is_that_so wrote: »

Eh OK. No idea what any of that has to do with my post but go you.

You do know, but will continue in your disingenuous nonsense anyway.

You said and I quote

A lot of cases are settled with no disclosure

And I replied with my post. Stop with the impartial neutral observer facade, it doesn't wash I'm afraid.

is_that_so

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You do know, but will continue in your disingenuous nonsense anyway.

You said and I quote

And I replied with my post. Stop with the impartial neutral observer facade, it doesn't wash I'm afraid.

Well you win the internet again. Go you. I'm really not sure why you continue to indulge in this shadow boxing or responding to my posts. You really don't care what I have to say anyway just as long as you think you can point score. You have a nice day now.

Plumbthedepths

walshb wrote:

Does Leo believe that MB did this? Yes, quite possibly he does.

No particular reason why I choose this comment other than to ask you a few questions.....
1 . Do you believe Bailey is a liar and unfit to hold public office?
2 . Do you think Madigan has questions to answer?
3 . Do you have any opinion on how Leo has handled the matter?
4 . Finally based on the fact that both Bailey and Farrell are still members of the FG parliamentary party do you believe FG has any credibility when they claim they want to tackle fraudulent claims and the high cost of insurance?
I would appreciate your answers but I understand you not obligated to reply.

walshb

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

No particular reason why I choose this comment other than to ask you a few questions.....
1 . Do you believe Bailey is a liar and unfit to hold public office?
2 . Do you think Madigan has questions to answer?
3 . Do you have any opinion on how Leo has handled the matter?
4 . Finally based on the fact that both Bailey and Farrell are still members of the FG parliamentary party do you believe FG has any credibility when they claim they want to tackle fraudulent claims and the high cost of insurance?
I would appreciate your answers but I understand you not obligated to reply.

It would be rather foolish of me to be on a public forum calling someone a liar or claiming someone to be a liar..

So, I actually may go over some older posts to make sure I have not...

McMurphy

is_that_so wrote: »

Well you win the internet again. Go you. I'm really not sure why you continue to indulge in this shadow boxing or responding to my posts. You really don't care what I have to say anyway just as long as you think you can point score. You have a nice day now.

Point score?

On the face of it, we were seemingly in agreement, you point out about how some cases are settled before court and remain undisclosed, I pointed out that it appeared to be the route Madigan and bailey probably anticipated to travel but were called out.

You then feigned ignorance about the relevance of my post to yours, and when called out respond with this.

In my mind now, following that response I'm visualizing a child walking home with his ball under the arm in protest because the other team scored a goal.

Plumbthedepths

walshb wrote:

It would be rather foolish of me to be on a public forum calling someone a liar or claiming someone to be a liar..

MB went on S.O.R. and said she was only seeking 7 k to cover medical expenses. A letter on MB's behalf seen by the Indo was seeking 20 k. She lied about the amount she was seeking ergo she is a liar. There are several other instances of her lying but this as they say is clear cut.
I see you have wish to answer the questions I posed.

is_that_so

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Point score?

On the face of it, we were seemingly in agreement, you point out about how some cases are settled before court and remain undisclosed, I pointed out that it appeared to be the route Madigan and bailey hoped to travel but were called out.

I'm pretty sure you didn't. So why not actually say all of this? It's a whole lot better than your one line retorts. No evidence your original response has any link to my post at all.

sydthebeat

is_that_so wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you didn't. So why not actually say all of this? It's a whole lot better than your one line retorts. No evidence your original response has any link to my post at all.

He did actually.... When he quoted MB

Auguste Comte

Has the €20,000 demand letter been published? I wonder who's heading is at the top and who's signature is at the bottom?

McMurphy

is_that_so wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you didn't. So why not actually say all of this? It's a whole lot better than your one line retorts. No evidence your original response has any link to my post at all.

You're obviously only reading parts of the posts you want to read.

Here's my reply to your point made about cases being settled before court and so undisclosed.

is_that_so wrote: »

Privacy and GDPR come in into it. A lot of cases are settled with no disclosure.

I think this was the Ultimate master plan that completely fell asunder in the end, remember?

SOR: Do you believe the hotel should have had a supervisor there?

MB: Sean, that legal case was put forward, right, that’s what you do when you put forward a case. What I’m saying to you is, I asked a number of months back ‘is this worth the hassle?’ because to be honest I just want to get on with my life ... I was told ‘you have nothing to fear’, and I distinctly asked ‘when will this information become public?’ so I can prepare myself for it being out there.

And I was told ‘this will not be public until you are before the courts’ and I was perfectly fine with that.

They were hoping on settlement before it got to court. Need further proof? Check out her shaking them down for 20k.

Recalibrate the awards and they become less attractive.

And the repercussions for bringing forth a spurious claim with overstated injuries.

walshb

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

MB went on S.O.R. and said she was only seeking 7 k to cover medical expenses. A letter on MB's behalf seen by the Indo was seeking 20 k. She lied about the amount she was seeking ergo she is a liar. There are several other instances of her lying but this as they say is clear cut.
I see you have wish to answer the questions I posed.

I'll get back later on the other questions..

I will not label anyone a liar on a public forum....

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote:

I'm pretty sure you didn't. So why not actually say all of this? It's a whole lot better than your one line retorts. No evidence your original response has any link to my post at all.

You are being deliberately obtuse. It is quite clear what the link to your post and that of the other poster was yet you feign ignorance. Disingenuous tbh.

Plumbthedepths

walshb wrote:

I will not label anyone a liar on a public forum....

Even when the evidence is there in abundance?
Don't bother with the questions. I thought they were quite straightforward if they require a period of time to mull over I don't think I would receive a frank and honest answer.

walshb

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Even when the evidence is there in abundance?
Don't bother with the questions. I thought they were quite straightforward if they require a period of time to mull over I don't think I would receive a frank and honest answer.

Jesus, relax..

I'll take it from your hostile and aggressive tone that it's best to let this go then...

is_that_so

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You're obviously only reading parts of the posts you want to read.

Here's my reply to your point made about cases being settled before court and so undisclosed.



I think this was the Ultimate master plan that completely fell asunder in the end, remember?



They were hoping on settlement before it got to court. Need further proof? Check out her shaking them down for 20k.

And the repercussions for bringing forth a spurious claim with overstated injuries.

Oh I read it. Sorry, I really see no connection to a comment I made about whether claims should be published.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You are being deliberately obtuse. It is quite clear what the link to your post and that of the other poster was yet you feign ignorance. Disingenuous tbh.

Did you read the post I originally responded to?

Plumbthedepths

walshb wrote:

I'll take it from your hostile and aggressive time that it's best to let this go then...

You posed multiple questions yesterday to several posters myself included. I like others did not shy away from answering your questions.
If this gives the out you want so be it. Just refrain from posing any further questions to me, thanks.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote:

Did you read the post I originally responded to?

I did and so did another poster, we both saw the link. The poster who made the connection with your post also explained the reasoning behind the link he made and yet you still ignore it. As I said you are behaving in a very disingenuous fashion.

sydthebeat

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I did and so did another poster, we both saw the link. The poster who made the connection with your post also explained the reasoning behind the link he made and yet you still ignore it. As I said you are behaving in a very disingenuous fashion.

agreed

the link is 100% obvious

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I did and so did another poster, we both saw the link. The poster who made the connection with your post also explained the reasoning behind the link he made and yet you still ignore it. As I said you are behaving in a very disingenuous fashion.

Topic sentence in my post referred to privacy issue. Second offered exposition on that comment. That you chose to view it as something else is a communication failure on both our parts!

Snow Garden

walshb wrote: »

Jesus, relax..

I'll take it from your hostile and aggressive tone that it's best to let this go then...

To be fair I think you lost the argument a long time ago.

McMurphy

is_that_so wrote: »

Oh I read it. Sorry, I really see no connection to a comment I made about whether claims should be published.

That's because you are willingly ignoring it, because the connection couldn't be clearer.

And I was told ‘this will not be public until you are before the courts

’