Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

walshb

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Nearly 4 days you have only posted on this thread, no other thread on boards.....


You seem a small but obsessed, maybe its time you put down the internet, sorry the Maria Bailey thread

Checking me out I see...

Ok...

And start spell checking your replies to me, please. You’re confusing me.

banie01

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Nearly 4 days you have only posted on this thread, no other thread on boards.....


You seem a small but obsessed, maybe its time you put down the internet, sorry the Maria Bailey thread

It's a concerted misdirection, dilution and saturation effort IMO.
The high volume, Pro FG posters seem to be a tag team in they way the act.
It goes from the 3 amigos, to the ad hominems.

salmocab

walshb wrote: »

The whole fooking world can argue being wronged here, there and everywhere...

Where does all this money grabbing greed end.

Not arguing that the Créche is doing its job correctly, but for crying out loud, what compensation are these people looking for?

Parents all over the country “abusing” their children day in day out..

And here we have dozens of people running to solicitors to sue because of some sub standard food and cross words..

They didn’t receive what they paid for, Bailey on the other hand couldn’t do what a 2 year old is capable of and expected to get money for it.

walshb

salmocab wrote: »

They didn’t receive what they paid for, Bailey on the other hand couldn’t do what a 2 year old is capable of and expected to get money for it.

Yeh, look for a refund...some sort of deduction/refund

Probably think of that myself. But I certainly wouldn’t be suing for any more...

walshb

banie01 wrote: »

It's a concerted misdirection, dilution and saturation effort IMO.
The high volume, Pro FG posters seem to be a tag team in they way the act.
It goes from the 3 amigos, to the ad hominems.

I’m not pro FG. Never voted for them...

I also think MB needs to be removed.

salmocab

walshb wrote: »

Yeh, look for a refund...some sort of deduction/refund

Probably think of that myself. But I certainly wouldn’t be suing for any more...

Well presumably you don’t know what they are looking for but are trying to make some comparison with a woman who you do know what she was looking for because she is incapable of sitting without supervision.

Shefwedfan

walshb wrote: »

Checking me out I see...

Ok...

And start spell checking your replies to me, please. You’re confusing me.

Based on your replies so far it's not hard to confuse you


Another one on the ignore list

walshb

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Based on your replies so far it's not hard to confuse you


Another one on the ignore list

Getting pleasure out of your ignore list...love it, kiid..

Shefwedfan

salmocab wrote: »

They didn’t receive what they paid for, Bailey on the other hand couldn’t do what a 2 year old is capable of and expected to get money for it.

If you pay for a service and you dont receive that service correctly then you are entitled to compensation

If you pay for a service for a child and instead you get what could be compared to child abuse then yes you are 100% entitled to compensation


In reality a lot of the money earned by that creche was from the government as well, they should in fact be looking for compensation as well. They paid the creche to provide a government funded service and it was not provided to the standard required.



Going to a pub and falling off a seat because of your own stupity does not entitle you to compensation. The lies and everything afetr that should mean they are removed from their position.



I am still struggling to relate the two cases? like what sort of idiot would actually think anything about them is similar

walshb

salmocab wrote: »

Well presumably you don’t know what they are looking for but are trying to make some comparison with a woman who you do know what she was looking for because she is incapable of sitting without supervision.

Yes, we don’t know yet exactly what they want

But knowing people and society of late..

You can probably throw in emotional distress, long term learning difficulties, long term adjustment to society difficulties, trouble trusting people, trouble settling into routines, unable to hold down full fat milk, full fat noodles...

The whole 9 yards...from the parents I may add, not the young children..

Simple: the whole world is on the take..

McMurphy

walshb wrote: »

I’m not pro FG. Never voted for them...

I also think MB needs to be removed.

FG are starting to resemble the FF of 2011, were half the internet deny ever voting for them.

Bailey etc has left them toxic it would seem.

walshb

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I



I am still struggling to relate the two cases?

So stop then. You’re the only one comparing them..

For me. Bailey’s a chancer..

salmocab

walshb wrote: »

Yes, we don’t know yet exactly what they want

But knowing people and society of late..

You can probably throw in emotional distress, long term learning difficulties, long term adjustment to society difficulties, trouble trusting people, trouble settling into routines, unable to hold down full fat milk, full fat noodles...

The whole 9 yards...from the parents I may add, not the young children..

There is a whole thread about that crèche this one is about a grown woman who fell because she lacks abilities that small children have then tried to get compensated for it. After she was shown to have lied she then attempted to play the I’m a woman and a mother card therefore I’m the victim. What your doing is trying to muddy the waters between genuine claims and components culture, like people who call anyone who makes a planning objection a nimby when clearly they aren’t the same.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Yes, we don’t know yet exactly what they want

But knowing people and society of late..

You can probably throw in emotional distress, long term learning difficulties, long term adjustment to society difficulties, trouble trusting people, trouble settling into routines, unable to hold down full fat milk, full fat noodles...

The whole 9 yards...from the parents I may add, not the young children..

Simple: the whole world is on the take..

The crux of the matter here, however, is that a publicly elected official tried to extort €60,000 for an innocuous tumble off a swing while holding beverages in both hands. And subsequently displayed no remorse after being shamed into dropping her case. These people must be held to a higher standard as they represent us in Dáil Éireann.

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

The crux of the matter here, however, is that a publicly elected official tried to extort €60,000 for an innocuous tumble off a swing while holding beverages in both hands. These people must be held to a higher standard as they represent us in Dáil Éireann.

Agreed. She needs to go. Said that several times

Shefwedfan

salmocab wrote: »

There is a whole thread about that crèche this one is about a grown woman who fell because she lacks abilities that small children have then tried to get compensated for it. After she was shown to have lied she then attempted to play the I’m a woman and a mother card therefore I’m the victim. What your doing is trying to muddy the waters between genuine claims and components culture, like people who call anyone who makes a planning objection a nimby when clearly they aren’t the same.

Muddy the water is exactly. Trying to make out the whole country is on the take...


Trying to say it was in press and then when article was posted, suddenly it wasnt the press and it was a personal opinion



The best is reference to the fact it is the parent that are suing and not the children :P:P:P


A load of rubbish

This is it

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The crux of the matter here, however, is that a publicly elected official tried to extort €60,000 for an innocuous tumble off a swing while holding beverages in both hands. And subsequently displayed no remorse after being shamed into dropping her case. These people must be held to a higher standard as they represent us in Dáil Éireann.

€60,000? Where does it say that?

This is it

This is it wrote: »

€60,000? Where does it say that?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/ourview/td-withdraws-compensation-case-the-right-call-926812.html

angel eyes 2012

This is it wrote: »

€60,000? Where does it say that?

The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for personal injury actions is limited to €60,000. Therefore the maximum payout that Ms Bailey would be seeking was 60k. Presumably, she declined a lower offer from PIAB and fancied her chances in the Circuit Court.

If she was really shrewd she should have ran away (in a slow pace by her standards) with an offer from PIAB and the public would never be privy to any of this saga. But greed and obtuseness motivated her to proceed with the court proceedings and it has all unravelled in a spectacular fashion.

This is it

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/ourview/td-withdraws-compensation-case-the-right-call-926812.html

Isn't that just the maximum that can be awarded? The legal action was taken in the Circuit Court where damages of up to €60,000 can be awarded.

walshb

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The best is reference to the fact it is the parent that are suing and not the children :P:P:P


A load of rubbish

Never said that. But no surprise you interpreted as such..

This is it

angel eyes 2012 wrote: »

The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for personal injury actions is limited to €60,000. Therefore the maximum payout that Ms Bailey would be seeking was 60k. Presumably, she declined a lower offer from PIAB and fancied her chances in the Circuit Court.

If she was really shrewd she should have ran away (in a slow pace by her standards) with an offer from PIAB and the public would never be privy to any of this saga. But greed and obtuseness motivated her to proceed with the court proceedings and it has all unravelled in a spectacular fashion.

Ah yes, the maximum. I was wondering. There is a difference between "claimed €60,000" and "could claim upto a maximum of €60,000".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending her, I think she should be turfed out the door, but there's so many inaccuracies throughout the thread it's actually funny

This is it

This is it wrote: »

Ah yes, the maximum. I was wondering. There is a difference between "claimed €60,000" and "could claim upto a maximum of €60,000".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending her, I think she should be turfed out the door, but there's so many inaccuracies throughout the thread it's actually funny

You're not that naive, so don't pretend otherwise. You asked for evidence, and received it from a national newspaper. Bailey with her sheer sense of entitlement was going to pursue the highest amount available to her. That was automatically factored in. You're giggling mirthlessly into a vacuum.

WishUWereHere

walshb wrote: »

Checking me out I see...

Ok...

And start spell checking your replies to me, please. You’re confusing me.

Oh for goodness sake, please can you stop this nonsense?

WishUWereHere

walshb wrote: »

Getting pleasure out of your ignore list...love it, kiid..

You are just like the 3 amigos, name calling when challenged. C@n ye not conduct a conversation 2ithout not name calling? Examples, dude, kid.

walshb

WishUWereHere wrote: »

You are just like the 3 amigos, name calling when challenged. C@n ye not conduct a conversation 2ithout not name calling? Examples, dude, kid.

Was in response to being called a clown. Sometimes we react..I was only defending myself.

_Kaiser_

walshb wrote: »

Was in response to being called a clown. Sometimes we react..I was only defending myself.

Or just attempting to derail and deflect from the actual topic by filling the thread with nonsense and trying to link young children being swung around and held down face first into a mattress with a grown adult who couldn't even grasp the concept of using a swing - something I'm sure lots of those same children could have shown her - but tried a cash grab when she predictably landed on her ass.

I'm not fooled. I don't think anyone else is either.

McMurphy

This is it wrote: »

Isn't that just the maximum that can be awarded? The legal action was taken in the Circuit Court where damages of up to €60,000 can be awarded.

Anyone that plays the lotto plays for the jackpot, ie the maximum amount available.

Yes anyone will be happy with one of the lesser prizes, but the eye is always on the top prize.

Perhaps Ms Bailey had other motives for trying to extract 20k by letter, and when the Dean didn't flinch, go to a court where 60k is the max amount that can be awarded, but alas, even though she did nothing fraudulent, (and leo sanctioned her for same), she nonetheless dropped the claim, leaving us forever wondering.

Suckit

I really would love to know what she was thinking when she decided to do the interview with SOR.
Did she think she would put us all in our place? That we didn't understand what she deserved because of what she had gone through?
She must have had a red mist surrounding her head when she went in.

Plumbthedepths

Suckit wrote:

I really would love to know what she was thinking when she decided to do the interview with SOR. Did she think she would put us all in our place? That we didn't understand what she deserved because of what she had gone through? She must have had a red mist surrounding her head when she went in.

She sounded half cut on SOR tbh.