Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

beakerjoe

No again Danni wrote: »

Im not questioning her morals.

Im saying that i saw some of the level of abuse she received myself over it and I see some people justifying that abuse because she 'deserves scorn'.

I think I've made clear my opinion so I'll just leave it at that.

Do I deserve to get burnt if I play with fire?

She took a risk, she got burnt. She lied, was caught out.

Its hard to have sympathy when she brought it all on herself.

Suckit

For the most part nobody ever deserves abuse, but she got it due to her own arrogance and lack of scruples (I don't agree with it).
She should not be trying to take the moral high ground now and attempting to belittle others, on top of that she shouldn't ever be allowed back into politics as she has shown zero regrets for trying to scam untold amounts of cash from others.
This is just another case of her bad judgement by doing an interview. She can bitch, moan, complain all she likes, it is all her own doing.
If she actually wants to achieve anything, she would be better off keeping her head down, saying nothing and plugging away with whatever keeps her busy. This is a crass attempt at a shortcut back into the public eye by attempting to get people to feel sorry for her and it has (as would be expected) badly worked against her with the exception of a few die-hard FG supporters that believe they can do no wrong.

CageWager

All this Caroline Flack nonsense is just classic distraction tactics to get away from the salient facts:

1. MB was an elected public representative who we (rightly) hold to a higher standard.

2. MB took a FRAUDULENT court case in a blatant compo culture cash grab which is a CRIME for which she was never charged (gardai probably too busy making dancing videos).

3. MB was rumbled by the newspapers for saying in sworn legal documents that she could not run for 3 months when in fact she completed a 10k run just 3 weeks after the swing incident. So an open and shut case of LYING.

As someone who has paid extortionate insurance premiums for my entire life due to fraudsters like MB and the gravy train legal system in Ireland, not only do I have ZERO sympathy for her, I think that we need to purge all PROVEN LIARS from elected office in order to stop the cronyism of the past.

End of rant.

fantaiscool

CageWager wrote: »

All this Caroline Flack nonsense is just classic distraction tactics to get away from the salient facts:

1. MB was an elected public representative who we (rightly) hold to a higher standard.

2. MB took a FRAUDULENT court case in a blatant compo culture cash grab which is a CRIME for which she was never charged (gardai probably too busy making dancing videos).

3. MB was rumbled by the newspapers for saying in sworn legal documents that she could not run for 3 months when in fact she completed a 10k run just 3 weeks after the swing incident. So an open and shut case of LYING.

As someone who has paid extortionate insurance premiums for my entire life due to fraudsters like MB and the gravy train legal system in Ireland, not only do I have ZERO sympathy for her, I think that we need to purge all PROVEN LIARS from elected office in order to stop the cronyism of the past.

End of rant.

There are some people who are so unable to take responsibility for their actions that they will maintain their story to the bitter end. Whether or not they know they are lying I'm not sure. It's possible that they have convinced themselves they have been wronged despite clear evidence to the contrary. I think it's a very interesting question. And it opens up another question of her mental health. Is she even capable of realizing why shes in this mess? Imagine if she actually believes what shes saying.

Muahahaha

McFly85 wrote: »

People aren’t looking for negatives to focus on. They would like answers from Maria as to why her claim wasn’t fraudulent. And this will be continually brought up as long as she’s looking to remain in the public eye.

Regarding the abuse, it’s difficult to quantify. I and others have said she is putting everything from mild jokes to death threats under the umbrella of abuse. From Twitter I can see the vast majority make fun of her, some are angry as she attempted fraud, neither is really abuse.

If she is getting death threats, she should absolutely be able to bring these to the guards and/or name and shame, I think she would have public support with it.

Thats actually a very salient point because from the interview she just did with the Indo she was giving out about Halloween costumes and pantomimes. Thats not abuse, its political satire and if she cant handle it then politics isnt the game for her. Politicians of all stripes are subject to satire and parody, be that some sham dressed up as Bertie with a Pinnochio nose on him in the local Paddys Day parade or Phil Hogan with his golf clubs. Political satire is part of what a healthy democracy is, its the simple idea that no one is above ridicule for their actions.

What Bailey is trying here is to use all kinds of valid criticism and lumping it under the 'online abuse' umbrella. Then she introduces Caroline Flack in an effort at a false equivalence argument, its pretty pathetic.

Anyway if Bailey wants a comeback bring it on I say, she entertained us for much of 2019 and we could really do with more of the same in 2021. Im also wondering about the timing of this comeback, lets not forget that her and Simon Coveney are good friends and he backed her to the hilt in this controversy. Could Maria be spotting an upcoming opportunity and is laying the groundwork for it now?

whisky_galore

beakerjoe wrote: »

Do I deserve to get burnt if I play with fire?

She took a risk, she got burnt. She lied, was caught out.

Its hard to have sympathy when she brought it all on herself.

She repeatedly sticks her head into a fire and wonders why she gets burnt.

The public has little sympathy for her then as now.

CollyFlower

"jump off a cliff" is that the worst thing that was said to her? If there was worse then that she would have use it... That woman is so full of self pity.

padd b1975

She's deluded if she thinks she can get back into national politics.

Her replacement Jennifer Carroll MacNeill has been excellent.

James Brown

padd b1975 wrote: »

She's deluded if she thinks she can get back into national politics.

Her replacement Jennifer Carroll MacNeill has been excellent.

She's the one threatened the young FG lad not to run for Council or she'd show HQ some snap chat he'd posted?
Must have had a pal looking to run.

Natterjack from Kerry

padd b1975 wrote: »

She's deluded if she thinks she can get back into national politics.

Her replacement Jennifer Carroll MacNeill has been excellent.

She is very good alright - Ireland's first lady premier in the making ?

James Brown

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

She is very good alright - Ireland's first lady premier in the making ?

The FG housing advisor during the period we'd record numbers of homeless children and housing/homeless crises also breaking records? Sounds like a possible FG party ĺeader.

Gen.Zhukov

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

She is very good alright - Ireland's first lady premier in the making ?

Every time J C MacNeill comes on, the little needle on my old analogue c**t meter, twitches a bit.

BattleCorp

What I'm learning here is that an awful lot of people don't understand how the laws work when it comes to personal injury claims.

This isn't a defence of Bailey by the way, I'm just stating how things work.

Bailey had a very winnable case against the hotel and here's why.

1. The hotel had a swing in a place where people who consume drink are likely to be. You mightn't think this is a big thing but I think most people on here would think that a person with drink shouldn't be using a swing. Do most people agree with that? And if the average person thinks that, then an accident involving that swing is very foreseeable. And if it's foreseeable, then the hotel should have done something about it, i.e. removed it. In other words, the hotel left a health and safety hazard for drunk people there and did nothing about it. Sounds stupid, but that's the way the law works.

2. It could have been argued that the swing was defective. After the Bailey incident the hotel put non-slip tape on the swing. It could be argued that the swing was too slippy, thus the addition of the non-slip tape. Again, you might not think this is a big thing but it would be argued to death in court and would probably gain some traction (no pun intended).

3. A weak point in Bailey's case would be that she could be held partially to blame, i.e. contributory negligence. It's claimed that she was holding something in both hands. If this is true (and according to reports it is), then she would have been criticised for not holding on properly but that doesn't absolve the hotel from their responsibilities in 1 and 2 above. If she won her case and was found to be partially to blame, she might lose a percentage of her award but she wouldn't have lost it all.

Claiming she wasn't trained in the use of the swing is a bit ridiculous but the aim of the legal team is to throw enough sh1t at the hotel and hope some of it sticks.

4. Most people on here suspect Bailey is lying or exaggerating her claim. I suspect that too but I can't say that for sure. Yes, she ran a race 3 weeks after the incident but that isn't proof that she wasn't injured in the incident. What we think doesn't count. It's what is written in her medical reports that count. And we aren't privvy to them. Not many of us are doctors and even less of us are psychic doctors who know Bailey's medical condition following the incident.

5. People are saying that she lied in her Affidavit when she said she couldn't run for three months. It's a serious offence to tell lies or exaggerate a claim in court and a claim can be dismissed under s.26. This inconsistency between her running and her Affidavit isn't proof that she lied. It looks like it but it could have been an error. In reality she couldn't run for three weeks. It could easily be claimed that it was a typing error, three months typed instead of three weeks. I doubt that's what happened but it's easy to amend Affidavits in court. While it looks bad, it isn't proof that she was lying. It would have been great to see that inconsistency tested in court but seeing as it never got to court, it can't be proved to be a lie.

So, while it may look to many that Bailey is lying, there's actually very little almost zero proof that she was. People can suspect all they like, but that's not proof.

6. Anyone thinking that Bailey should be done for fraud doesn't understand how high the bar is for a fraud conviction and as much as Bailey sickens most of us, she doesn't come remotely close to reaching that standard.

beakerjoe

BattleCorp wrote: »

What I'm learning here is that an awful lot of people don't understand how the laws work when it comes to personal injury claims.

This isn't a defence of Bailey by the way, I'm just stating how things work.

Bailey had a very winnable case against the hotel and here's why.

4. Most people on here suspect Bailey is lying or exaggerating her claim. I suspect that too but I can't say that for sure. Yes, she ran a race 3 weeks after the incident but that isn't proof that she wasn't injured in the incident.

.

She wasnt injured enough to stop her running a race. Thus, she wasnt injured enough to warrant compensation in my opinion.

beakerjoe

Also we can speculate about errors on affidavits, but there is no claims of errors from her side. It looks like she signed an affidavit that contained untruths.

Her signed affidavit has contradicted the fact of her running a face. Thats enough for me, as joe public at least, to assume she lied.

punisher5112

BattleCorp wrote: »

What I'm learning here is that an awful lot of people don't understand how the laws work when it comes to personal injury claims.

This isn't a defence of Bailey by the way, I'm just stating how things work.

Bailey had a very winnable case against the hotel and here's why.

1. The hotel had a swing in a place where people who consume drink are likely to be. You mightn't think this is a big thing but I think most people on here would think that a person with drink shouldn't be using a swing. Do most people agree with that? And if the average person thinks that, then an accident involving that swing is very foreseeable. And if it's foreseeable, then the hotel should have done something about it, i.e. removed it. In other words, the hotel left a health and safety hazard for drunk people there and did nothing about it. Sounds stupid, but that's the way the law works.

2. It could have been argued that the swing was defective. After the Bailey incident the hotel put non-slip tape on the swing. It could be argued that the swing was too slippy, thus the addition of the non-slip tape. Again, you might not think this is a big thing but it would be argued to death in court and would probably gain some traction (no pun intended).

3. A weak point in Bailey's case would be that she could be held partially to blame, i.e. contributory negligence. It's claimed that she was holding something in both hands. If this is true (and according to reports it is), then she would have been criticised for not holding on properly but that doesn't absolve the hotel from their responsibilities in 1 and 2 above. If she won her case and was found to be partially to blame, she might lose a percentage of her award but she wouldn't have lost it all.

Claiming she wasn't trained in the use of the swing is a bit ridiculous but the aim of the legal team is to throw enough sh1t at the hotel and hope some of it sticks.

4. Most people on here suspect Bailey is lying or exaggerating her claim. I suspect that too but I can't say that for sure. Yes, she ran a race 3 weeks after the incident but that isn't proof that she wasn't injured in the incident. What we think doesn't count. It's what is written in her medical reports that count. And we aren't privvy to them. Not many of us are doctors and even less of us are psychic doctors who know Bailey's medical condition following the incident.

5. People are saying that she lied in her Affidavit when she said she couldn't run for three months. It's a serious offence to tell lies or exaggerate a claim in court and a claim can be dismissed under s.26. This inconsistency between her running and her Affidavit isn't proof that she lied. It looks like it but it could have been an error. In reality she couldn't run for three weeks. It could easily be claimed that it was a typing error, three months typed instead of three weeks. I doubt that's what happened but it's easy to amend Affidavits in court. While it looks bad, it isn't proof that she was lying. It would have been great to see that inconsistency tested in court but seeing as it never got to court, it can't be proved to be a lie.

So, while it may look to many that Bailey is lying, there's actually very little almost zero proof that she was. People can suspect all they like, but that's not proof.

6. Anyone thinking that Bailey should be done for fraud doesn't understand how high the bar is for a fraud conviction and as much as Bailey sickens most of us, she doesn't come remotely close to reaching that standard.

Then same coild be said of stools, chairs,vsteps, doors, door handles, different levels in in carpet or wood floors etc etc....

She was on the swing with a bottle in one hand and a glass in the other.....

Even a toddler knows to hold on with both hands.

Can't use drink as a defence as one should be able to control their actions.


The biggest issues with claims are, they're paying out crazy amounts and for the most moronic the better it seems.

Suckit

BattleCorp wrote: »

What I'm learning here is that an awful lot of people don't understand how the laws work when it comes to personal injury claims.

This isn't a defence of Bailey by the way, I'm just stating how things work.

Bailey had a very winnable case against the hotel and here's why.

1. The hotel had a swing in a place where people who consume drink are likely to be. You mightn't think this is a big thing but I think most people on here would think that a person with drink shouldn't be using a swing. Do most people agree with that? And if the average person thinks that, then an accident involving that swing is very foreseeable. And if it's foreseeable, then the hotel should have done something about it, i.e. removed it. In other words, the hotel left a health and safety hazard for drunk people there and did nothing about it. Sounds stupid, but that's the way the law works.

I'll be honest, I didn't read past part 1.
How can you tell her case was very winnable without having seen the CCTV? Also part of the reason it got so much attention was because it was OTT ridiculous.
In regards to the swing, it's not really a 'swing' in the conventional sense. You can't push it back and get a good height out of it etc. In fact IIRC it moves less than a stool or chair.
Also, part of her case was that she hadn't drank very much at all, and it was nothing to do with alcohol, but in fact that she couldn't use a normal swing because her hands were full.
I do get where you are coming from though, and while it may be how the law works, it doesn't make it right that somebody can take advantage of it like that. I also still don't think it was very winnable.

James Brown

It's not if she would have won or not. It's an obvious frivolous claim. She is from a party that put rising insurance costs on the public for making frivolous claims.
If she won it would be because a grown adult didn't have the wherewithal to hold on when sitting on a swing.
She also showed arrogance about it.
Then there's the going for a race and claiming she couldn't.
A chancer.

Suckit

The three weeks training for the race.
I think there is so much wrong with it etc., but just found myself replying to a 'very winnable case' and the horrible thing is it's most likely correct in the bigger scheme of things, even if I am contradicting my previous post...

Polar101

I feel sympathy for anyone suffering from a long-term injury, and I'm sure she received some abuse that was over the top.

I feel a lot less sympathy for someone who got caught in what looked like an insurance scam (especially since she is/was a politician), then gave a completely ridiculous interview on national radio, and is now back in the media about it. There's no defending that Sean O'Rourke intervew, it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

BattleCorp

beakerjoe wrote: »

She wasnt injured enough to stop her running a race. Thus, she wasnt injured enough to warrant compensation in my opinion.

Exactly. Your opinion. Worth exactly as much as my one. I think she may have been exaggerating but I've no proof, and in the absence of proof.........she hasn't lied.

BattleCorp

punisher5112 wrote: »

She was on the swing with a bottle in one hand and a glass in the other.....

Even a toddler knows to hold on with both hands.

Can't use drink as a defence as one should be able to control their actions.


The biggest issues with claims are, they're paying out crazy amounts and for the most moronic the better it seems.

I'm actually agreeing with you here. Personal responsibility seems to be gone out of the window.

And the awards are crazy. I see PIAB awarding people €15k to €20k for someone out of work for a week or two. Crazy.

McFly85

BattleCorp wrote: »

What I'm learning here is that an awful lot of people don't understand how the laws work when it comes to personal injury claims.

This isn't a defence of Bailey by the way, I'm just stating how things work.

Bailey had a very winnable case against the hotel and here's why.

1. The hotel had a swing in a place where people who consume drink are likely to be. You mightn't think this is a big thing but I think most people on here would think that a person with drink shouldn't be using a swing. Do most people agree with that? And if the average person thinks that, then an accident involving that swing is very foreseeable. And if it's foreseeable, then the hotel should have done something about it, i.e. removed it. In other words, the hotel left a health and safety hazard for drunk people there and did nothing about it. Sounds stupid, but that's the way the law works.

2. It could have been argued that the swing was defective. After the Bailey incident the hotel put non-slip tape on the swing. It could be argued that the swing was too slippy, thus the addition of the non-slip tape. Again, you might not think this is a big thing but it would be argued to death in court and would probably gain some traction (no pun intended).

3. A weak point in Bailey's case would be that she could be held partially to blame, i.e. contributory negligence. It's claimed that she was holding something in both hands. If this is true (and according to reports it is), then she would have been criticised for not holding on properly but that doesn't absolve the hotel from their responsibilities in 1 and 2 above. If she won her case and was found to be partially to blame, she might lose a percentage of her award but she wouldn't have lost it all.

Claiming she wasn't trained in the use of the swing is a bit ridiculous but the aim of the legal team is to throw enough sh1t at the hotel and hope some of it sticks.

4. Most people on here suspect Bailey is lying or exaggerating her claim. I suspect that too but I can't say that for sure. Yes, she ran a race 3 weeks after the incident but that isn't proof that she wasn't injured in the incident. What we think doesn't count. It's what is written in her medical reports that count. And we aren't privvy to them. Not many of us are doctors and even less of us are psychic doctors who know Bailey's medical condition following the incident.

5. People are saying that she lied in her Affidavit when she said she couldn't run for three months. It's a serious offence to tell lies or exaggerate a claim in court and a claim can be dismissed under s.26. This inconsistency between her running and her Affidavit isn't proof that she lied. It looks like it but it could have been an error. In reality she couldn't run for three weeks. It could easily be claimed that it was a typing error, three months typed instead of three weeks. I doubt that's what happened but it's easy to amend Affidavits in court. While it looks bad, it isn't proof that she was lying. It would have been great to see that inconsistency tested in court but seeing as it never got to court, it can't be proved to be a lie.

So, while it may look to many that Bailey is lying, there's actually very little almost zero proof that she was. People can suspect all they like, but that's not proof.

6. Anyone thinking that Bailey should be done for fraud doesn't understand how high the bar is for a fraud conviction and as much as Bailey sickens most of us, she doesn't come remotely close to reaching that standard.

If you take these things in Isolation maybe, but altogether:

Took a case against a hotel where her most likely defence was that she was unsupervised on a swing(and hasn't admitted this because it would be career suicide)

Claimed she was only looking for her expenses to be covered which the hotel had already agreed to and also filed in the circuit court suggesting she was looking for minimum €15k

A critical error in her affidavit in the amount of time she was unable to run. She may be able to claim a clerical error, but it could equally be claimed that she was exaggerating her injury - it's impossible to know considering when the case was dropped.

Even just one of those is enough for the public to find her case frivolous, and that's what this is about, not her winning or losing a claim, but her chancing her arm trying to get an undeserved insurance payout in the first place. She claimed in the O'Rourke interview that she accepts that she is held to a higher standard as a public representative but her actions don't tally with that. She was asked to explain all of the above but instead of that she tried to push the narrative to online abuse.

It is absolutely her right as a human being to not have to explain her case to anybody. But if she wants to be a public representative then she needs to understand the public aren't as stupid as she thinks they are, and deserve to know the full truth behind her insurance case if they are ever to decide to trust her again.

beakerjoe

BattleCorp wrote: »

Exactly. Your opinion. Worth exactly as much as my one. I think she may have been exaggerating but I've no proof, and in the absence of proof.........she hasn't lied.

She ran a race..... when "injured", proving she wasnt injured at all. Thats the proof.

beakerjoe

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm actually agreeing with you here. Personal responsibility seems to be gone out of the window.

And the awards are crazy. I see PIAB awarding people €15k to €20k for someone out of work for a week or two. Crazy.

Some lads got 12k for drinking spoilt milk in Tescos last year.

Its beyond a joke.

BattleCorp

beakerjoe wrote: »

She ran a race..... when "injured", proving she wasnt injured at all. Thats the proof.

I fully acknowledge it looks bad for Bailey........but that's not proof to a legal standard.

givyjoe

BattleCorp wrote: »

I fully acknowledge it looks bad for Bailey........but that's not proof to a legal standard.

Luckily we're not in a courtroom, so let's not beat around the bush. She clearly lied about her the extent of her injuries, if she had any at all. If she hadn't of completely shot herself in the foot, one way such a claim would be thrown out of secret of footage of the claimant engaging in activities, which disprove the injuries they claim to suffer, e.g. crutches required after an accident, yet filmed playing football. We clearly don't need that in this example as Bailey (monumentally) stupidly posted on social media about her marathon escapades making it impossible for her to have actually suffered the injuries she claimed.

This is why she obviously dropped the case when she further hung herself out to dry live on radio, not the supposed abuse she received. Her dropping the case due to abuse is almost as unbelievable as her claim in the first place.

As for legal standard, do you mean in a criminal case prosecuting her for insurance fraud?

JeffKenna

BattleCorp wrote: »

I fully acknowledge it looks bad for Bailey........but that's not proof to a legal standard.

As far as I know there can't be proof to a legal standard when the case was dropped. Anyone can swear an affidavit and change it right up to the court date. It seems a risk free gamble when the majority of cases are settled before court but I don't have a legal background so stand to be corrected.

rob316

Do you know how much insurance give out for claims without literally any evidence. I know someone who works for an insurance company and he said they pay out 10k on whiplash claims without even blinking for small fender bender collisions. Its impossible to prove in court so its not worth the hassle.

If she had pursued this case, she would of won, you can be sure of it.

BattleCorp

givyjoe wrote: »

Luckily we're not in a courtroom, so let's not beat around the bush. She clearly lied about her the extent of her injuries, if she had any at all.

I don't disagree that it looks like she may have lied about the extent of her injuries, but once again, us thinking that isn't proof.

If she hadn't of completely shot herself in the foot,

Yep. Not only that but she shot herself in both feet, and her knees.

one way such a claim would be thrown out of secret of footage of the claimant engaging in activities, which disprove the injuries they claim to suffer, e.g. crutches required after an accident, yet filmed playing football. We clearly don't need that in this example as Bailey (monumentally) stupidly posted on social media about her marathon escapades making it impossible for her to have actually suffered the injuries she claimed.

Not aware of that secret footage you mention but I don't deny those things may have happened. Doesn't take away from the fact that she fell off a swing and 'may' have been injured.

If this case had reached court, it's possible the case could have been dismissed on a s.26 but it didn't get that far so we'll never know.

One other thing of note. She ran a race 3 weeks after the incident. Who's to say she wasn't injured for 2.5 weeks and then recovered enough to run a race. Something like that wouldn't be a bar on putting in a claim. We've lads in work putting in claims for 3 days absence.

This is why she obviously dropped the case when she further hung herself out to dry live on radio, not the supposed abuse she received. Her dropping the case due to abuse is almost as unbelievable as her claim in the first place.

Like I said, she shot herself in both feet and both knees and her mouth did the shooting.

As for legal standard, do you mean in a criminal case prosecuting her for insurance fraud?

Yes, there's fcukall evidence for a criminal case against her for insurance fraud - something many on here were pushing for.