Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

lbc2019

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Full of contradictions and came across as a pathological liar. If she is not gone from FG by the end of the week she will weather it. There should be no alternative option to them.

Her poor father couldnt remember the donations from the developers- or if he had actually objected

Happy4all

Sin City wrote: »

Looks like two are in trouble there
Might be another lawsuit coming

Look it's a lot easier for kids...they are cheating holding on with two hands.

vriesmays

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

How high was she when she fell?

A glass of wine at home and one drink at the hotel.

jmayo

holyhead wrote: »

She may have gotten a start in politics due to her father but the electorate voted her in so she is there on merit. She most likely has put a ticking clock on her political career. She will be a focus going forward for vitriol and ridicule. She played the victim right through her RTE interview. Amazed Sean didn't ask her why she dropped the case.

1. You always keep both hands on a swing. For her to bring a case knowing she had alcohol in one hand if not two, at the time, was downright daft.
2. To give incorrect information on a statement of fact and then say she was entitled to correct it subsequently just doesn't tally.
3. She is a public representative in the national parliament. By taking her case to the courts she ensured it became public. Anyone with a brain cell knows this looks bad taking the case she was taking against the hotel.
4. To go on national radio and play the victim having taken a spurious case is not daft.
5. To put up on social media about running a race weeks after being 'injured' and knowing she was taking a case against a hotel was daft.
6. Insisting on national radio that you had a case, after you dropped it and admitted holding alcohol while on a swing is daft.

The only conclusion is that the sooner this woman is out of public life the better. For the nation and herself.

I couldn't care less about the steaming pile of shyte that she is.

She was quite happy to screw a business and an insurance company out of money through bogus claims, all because of her own stupidity in now knowing how to operate something a 4 year old could manage.

Now no doubt some eejits see this as a rich business and a rich insurance company, but ultimately we all end up paying for these claims.

Question is, can she be found to be lying on a sworn affidavit to a court ?

She should be forced out of her party and out of the Dail immediately as she is no better than those we hear about setting up bogus traffic accidents with relatives, walking into holes they have previously moved hoardings from, etc.

Leo needs to be pushed on this as we know the sniffling fecker is too concerned with hanging in there to risk losing another vote.

Marcusm

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Not at all. I think many comments here are prejudiced and, not having answered many questions to their satisfaction, want to find fault with all aspects of her interview.
In fact, if her aim was to deflect, avoid answering specific points, and distract with issues like right to privacy, media hounding, etc, she did it pretty well. A typical frustrating 'politicians' answers if you will. But quite skilfully, robustly, and yes, articulately, done.
If anything, I think the weakness was with ORourke, who I guess must indeed know her - he did not press her several times when she was there to be skewered, and a more Paxman type tenacity, would not have let her off with some of the evasive 'answers'.

One of the most difficult things for an interviewer is to give the subject “space” and not jump on every statement. I think he (properly) senses that with enough rope she’d hang herself. This she did fairly quickly. If he had pressed too hard at that point she might have garnered some sympathy. Instead he gave her more space and she eviscerated herself with a blunt knife while all the time being oblivious to her (political) suicide. There’s no recovery from that!

Marcusm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Btw the dean hotel said in a statement to rte that they haven't received a notice that the Caen has been dropped. Should Maria bailey have said anything about the case before it was officially dropped.

It’s a civil action in the Circuit Court and is this heard by a judge without a jury. Comment or reporting restrictions are generally to avoid biased juries which would not be relevant here. Hard to see how it is not fair comment for the journalists. The case was heard in public and presumably the claim and affidavits are publicly available documents?

JP Liz V1

I'd say her fellow FG TDs are sick of being asked, Simon Harris asked on VM1 news, is he her cousin?

Trigger Happy

She needs to learn a lot about defending the indefensible if she wants to further her political career.

Marcusm

BENDYBINN wrote: »

The simple question that wasn’t asked.......Maria, why was this the hotels fault?
Why was she not asked this?

He did ask her how she thought the hotel was negligent and stated that was up to a legal person. Funnily enough, I thought a finding of negligence was a finding of fact not of law.

Marcusm

Sin City wrote: »

He should have indeed. I havent heard the interview yet so I cant say what was said but it sounds like from what bits I have been reading that he let her off lightly

He pressed her on this point; he didn’t savage her. I think he recognised that anyone listening could decide what an utter idiot she is.

smurgen

In all fairness as an ordinary paye worker I'm nervous if the tax goes out of date in my car.where do the likes of maria bailey get their sence of untouchableness? They just seem to think they can get away with anything.

Jupiter Mulligan

Marcusm wrote: »

He did ask her how she thought the hotel was negligent and stated that was up to a legal person. Funnily enough, I thought a finding of negligence was a finding of fact not of law.

By offering to pay her medical bills, surely the hotel was conceding (possibly wrongly) that it has some sort of responsibility for what happened?

lbc2019

lbc2019 wrote: »

Josepha Madigans husband afaik

Is that known?

At the same time as the accident, Josepha Madigan (according to Oireachtas declarations of interest) had a business interest in Madigan Solicitors and as far as I know was in their employment.

Josepha Madigan is declining to comment on whether or not she provided Bailey with a legal opinion, or helped draft the affidavit in which false information was averred.

Odyssey 2005

:)

dublin99

I don't know what kind of upbringing she has had and what does she teach her own children.

Should someone who clearly cannot tell what is right and what is wrong, and is incapable of seeing her own mistakes (or apologise for them), be allowed to be a TD responsible of important decisions in Government?

nomdeboardie

And this is why we can't have nice thswings

The world continually shrinks for children, for adults...

UsBus

Think she has been listening to Chandler's quit smoking tapes...
I am a strong confident woman, who doesn't need to smoke anymore.......
Feminists everywhere tearing up their hard earned progress listening to this disgrace. And what a poor public speaker for a politician. Like you could almost hear the lies leaking out in between her excuses...

homerjay2005

it was a shocking interview, really really awful. she used the word entitled multiple times as well as refusing to accept any blame that what she has done was wrong.

she thought she could draw a line under it with the interview but all she has done is make it much worse.

cisk wrote: »

"I'm a strong female Politician and some people don't like that"


Pathetic.

i heard that part and it would madden you that shed try pull the sexist remark.....alot of the complaints about her online are coming from woman.

everybody who critices her is a bully, a sexist, a keyboard warrier etc...

RasTa

jos28 wrote: »

I'm shocked at this image from our local park :eek::eek:
Children playing on swings and not a supervisor or list of instructions in sight :eek:

Two are missing safety mats. Think of the $$$

eviltwin

The arrogance of her. She thought she'd say her bit and that would be it. It's telling that she chose to speak on the SOR show, she knew anyone else would rip her to shreads.

And as for that "strong woman" comment....give over love. I'm as feminist as they come and she's nothing but a narcissistic bitch. She should be held legally accountable if possible for lying. Delighted the hotel has been vindicated and hopefully this hasn't impacted their business too much.

Trigger Happy

eviltwin wrote: »

Delighted the hotel has been vindicated and hopefully this hasn't impacted their business too much.

If anything it could be good publicity for them. Nice spot too albeit a bit expensive for the food.

Idbatterim

Trigger Happy wrote: »

She needs to learn a lot about defending the indefensible if she wants to further her political career.

The expert at it , varadkar, can give her lessons!

homerjay2005

eviltwin wrote: »

The arrogance of her.

dont think she is arrogant, its just downright grasp of common sense and knowing the difference between right and wrong.

expectationlost

at some point after 2015 Dean Hotel added grip tape to its swing seats (Bailey referenced shiny wooden seats in her interview)

https://www.tripadvisor.ie/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186605-d7274480-i135727117-The_Dean-Dublin_County_Dublin.html#135727117 https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dublin-td-maria-bailey-who-fell-off-swing-wasnt-holding-on-properly-hotel-claims-38132076.html

The high horse brigade

Is therea podcast of this interview, I could do with a laugh

Laois_Man

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Is therea podcast of this interview, I could do with a laugh

You can play it here

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0527/1051931-maria-bailey/

Toe curling!

holyhead

eviltwin wrote: »

The arrogance of her. She thought she'd say her bit and that would be it. It's telling that she chose to speak on the SOR show, she knew anyone else would rip her to spreads.

And as for that "strong woman" comment....give over love. I'm as feminist as they come and she's nothing but a narcissistic bitch. She should be held legally accountable if possible for lying. Delighted the hotel has been vindicated and hopefully this hasn't impacted their business too much.

The problem is any legal action by a 'customer' has a number of consequences.

1. Stress on the management/owner of the establishment. Something Maria Bailey hasn't acknowledged.
2. It takes time for the establishment to contact their insurance and deal with a claim however spurious. Time which could have been spent more productively.
3. A claim taken always has the potential to up an establishment's insurance premium whether paid out or not. Insurance company may view the establishment as being more high risk in terms of claims being brought.
4. Negative publicity for the hotel.
5. Spurious claims makes it harder for genuine cases to be processed.

She is truly odious to have done this. Her interview with Sean on RTE showed her to be odious in words as well as actions.

FixdePitchmark

I'll be honest and go slightly against the polished grain.

It seems a daft thing to have in a pub / hotel.

Also - there is a massive difference between a real genuine injury and a fake claim - seems to be lost in story.

angel eyes 2012

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

By offering to pay her medical bills, surely the hotel was conceding (possibly wrongly) that it has some sort of responsibility for what happened?

The offer would have been made by the hotel without prejudice ie not admitting liability for the incident.

Father Hernandez

The fact that she has now been caught out is great and we're all having a great time having a laugh at how pathetic this greedy TD was.

What should really come out of this now though is for some sort of action to be taken against her (or can it?)

Given her somewhat high profile, she made the papers given the ridiculous/lubricious claim but what sort of message does that send to someone who is very much low profile? A chancer and there are plenty of them will continue to make false claims and get away with it if A) they're successful and get loads of money & if unsuccessful, nothing happens to either party bar maybe a few people knowing you're a chancer?

Surely if you make a claim and then back down because its simply not true, action should be taken against you?

Farce this claims culture is seen as an easy way out to make a few quid