Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

beakerjoe

KaneToad wrote: »

Again, while you may be 100% correct, you are making statements that are not proven.

The only proven fact in your statement is that she is an adult.

She fell off a swing whike drunk with 2 drinks, one in each hand.... shes responsible. She was negligent.

Defend her all you want, and by all means continue to play devils advocate, but its not rocket science. I and the majority of posters see her shenangians for what they are.

The most likely explaination is usually the correct one.

NIMAN

Night and day between that interview and the one SOR did with her.

I think Brendan took it very easy on her, since she was playing the mental health/abuse angle. And bringing her dad and kids into it too.

It was basically an unchallenged public statement from her.

beakerjoe

She shouldnt be given a platform.... please go away Swinglady.

KaneToad

beakerjoe wrote: »

She fell off a swing whike drunk with 2 drinks, one in each hand.... shes responsible. She was negligent.

Defend her all you want, and by all means continue to play devils advocate, but its not rocket science. I and the majority of posters see her shenangians for what they are.

The most likely explaination is usually the correct one.

I'm not defending her. I don't know much about her. I'm defending/arguing for due process and a fair hearing.

You're claiming she was drunk. That is 100% your opinion. What are you defining as drunk?

You are claiming she was negligent. Again that's your opinion. It may be correct but it's not an informed opinion. A court would have conclusively attributed negligence that would be beyond argument.

I agree that the most likely explanation is usually the correct one. But what about the cases where it's not?

I wouldn't like my fate to be decided on what usually happens and what most people think based on their limited knowledge of the facts.

I don't think my stance is outrageous or trolling. I think the treatment of Bailey is as bad as the insidious cancel culture that we are seeing more of.

We have systems/mechanisms to deal with these scenarios. Let them work.

walshb

NIMAN wrote: »

Night and day between that interview and the one SOR did with her.

I think Brendan took it very easy on her, since she was playing the mental health/abuse angle. And bringing her dad and kids into it too.

It was basically an unchallenged public statement from her.

Pretty much this is what it was

A well scripted hammed up statement!

Very odd..

KaneToad

beakerjoe wrote: »

She shouldnt be given a platform.... please go away Swinglady.

But it is precisely the unfair pressure that was put on her that has led to situation where she does have a platform. She can, for ever more, claim to have been wronged. And no one can conclusively prove her incorrect in her assertions.

She should have had her day in court. Then we would know exactly where we stand.

beakerjoe

KaneToad wrote: »

I'm not defending her. I don't know much about her. I'm defending/arguing for due process and a fair hearing.

You're claiming she was drunk. That is 100% your opinion. What are you defining as drunk?

You are claiming she was negligent. Again that's your opinion. It may be correct but it's not an informed opinion. A court would have conclusively attributed negligence that would be beyond argument.

I agree that the most likely explanation is usually the correct one. But what about the cases where it's not?

I wouldn't like my fate to be decided on what usually happens and what most people think based on their limited knowledge of the facts.

I don't think my stance is outrageous or trolling. I think the treatment of Bailey is as bad as the insidious cancel culture that we are seeing more of.

We have systems/mechanisms to deal with these scenarios. Let them work.

Please.

She is an adult.... fact.

She fell off a swing.... fact.

She was holding 2 drinks, therefore not taking proper care as she had 1 drink in each hand and no hands on the swing. ... fact.

She was under the influnce of alcohol.... fact.

She claims she was severely injured.... fact.

She was not injured enough to compete in a race 2 and a half weeks later.... fact.

She claims she couldnt run for 3 months.... thats a fact.

Its her fault and shes a fraud. A chancer. Why are you trying to justify her actions? Why defend her?

Are you Maria Bailey? Are you a family friend?

walshb

KaneToad wrote: »

But it is precisely the unfair pressure that was put on her that has led to situation where she does have a platform. She can, for ever more, claim to have been wronged. And no one can conclusively prove her incorrect in her assertions.

She should have had her day in court. Then we would know exactly where we stand.

Did she and her team not drop the case?

Her choice to drop it, no?

beakerjoe

KaneToad wrote: »

But it is precisely the unfair pressure that was put on her that has led to situation where she does have a platform. She can, for ever more, claim to have been wronged. And no one can conclusively prove her incorrect in her assertions.

She should have had her day in court. Then we would know exactly where we stand.

Unfair? .......

capefear

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/maria-bailey-was-afraid-to-push-children-on-playground-swing-following-controversy/ar-BB1e4n7Q?li=BBr5KbJ


Fair play to the dean hotel for not settling for an out of court payment as that’s what she was hoping for, it worked for Aer Lingus and she thought it would work against the hotel.

It’s just a pity that the CCTV wasn’t released as it would just show how stupid she was and to use Caroline Flack to try and gain pity is just disgraceful.

The PR drive she is on now must be to try and restart her political career and the sad thing is she probably will get voted back in as this is Ireland after all and we are not blessed when it comes to our politicians.

beakerjoe

walshb wrote: »

Did she and her team not drop the case?

Her choice to drop it, no?

She could have went ahead with it. Surprised she didnt considering her brass neck.

salmocab

KaneToad wrote: »

Again, I think this is thin ice. Your belief, or my belief isn't what is important.
.

Again she was a politician people’s beliefs are all that’s important

McMurphy

beakerjoe wrote: »

She could have went ahead with it. Surprised she didnt considering her brass neck.

She dropped the case because of the negative publicity it was bringing on herself, Madigan and fine gael in general, due to peer pressure from the party, rather than any moral compass I would guess.

Never forget, she herself admitted she was told it would most likely never make it to court and therefore her name would never get out.

If she has people advising her on PR - they need to be all put into cannons and fired off into the atmosphere, she should just shuffle off quietly into obscurity now and stop with this high moral grandstanding, and attempting to rewrite history.

Said it before and repeat it now, Josepha Madigan is just as culpable in this sorry episode as Maria is, and it's a thundering disgrace she hot off scott free imo.

KaneToad

walshb wrote: »

Did she and her team not drop the case?

Her choice to drop it, no?

She was put under pressure to drop it. She (mistakenly) thought it might save her political career.

Floppybits

The start of FG's rehabilitation of Maria Bailey.

McMurphy

KaneToad wrote: »

She was put under pressure to drop it. She (mistakenly) thought it might save her political career.

Only because political candidates were getting earfuls about her on the doorsteps while canvassing for the local elections, ie she was costing them votes.


Let's not pretend it was for any reasons of decency or morals. Leo didn't even think he had to remove her from the ticket FFS, that was only done when her local fg branch demanded it happened.

beakerjoe

KaneToad wrote: »

She was put under pressure to drop it. She (mistakenly) thought it might save her political career.

And she got what she deserves.

I believe shes a chancer. And its important because as this appears to be an obvious PR campaign to see if shes going back into politics, if she makes herself available for election my opinion and the opinion of other peoole will decide if shes elected again.

Ireland needs less of her.

KaneToad

beakerjoe wrote: »

Please.

She is an adult.... fact.

She fell off a swing.... fact.

She was holding 2 drinks, therefore not taking proper care as she had 1 drink in each hand and no hands on the swing. ... fact.

She was under the influnce of alcohol.... fact.

She claims she was severely injured.... fact.

She was not injured enough to compete in a race 2 and a half weeks later.... fact.

She claims she couldnt run for 3 months.... thats a fact.

Its her fault and shes a fraud. A chancer. Why are you trying to justify her actions? Why defend her?

Are you Maria Bailey? Are you a family friend?

I'm neither. I'm not even a FG voter. But that's irrelevant and nothing to do with my point. You're deflecting by trying to attack the poster.

Despite your points above, you do not have the full facts. (Neither do I). There may be other facts that mitigate what you state. You seem very certain that there aren't - what are you basing this on?

I'm not defending her. I'm defending the process. I disagree with how she was treated. If it were anyone else in her shoes I would still disagree with the process.

You are calling her a fraud and a chancer. Would you identify yourself publically and do the same?

I would have liked to have formed my opinion on her based on the full facts. You are happy to do so based on limited facts.

I wouldn't like to be a defendant with you as a juror. You'd have your mind made up before the trial started.

KaneToad

McMurphy wrote: »

Only because political candidates were getting earfuls about her on the doorsteps while canvassing for the local elections, ie she was costing them votes.


Let's not pretend it was for any reasons of decency or morals. Leo didn't even think he had to remove her from the ticket FFS, that was only done when her local fg branch demanded it happened.

Agreed.

The truth was irrelevant. When others were feeling the heat, she got the chop.

GhostyMcGhost

KaneToad wrote: »

I'm neither. I'm not even a FG voter. But that's irrelevant and nothing to do with my point. You're deflecting by trying to attack the poster.

Despite your points above, you do not have the full facts. (Neither do I). There may be other facts that mitigate what you state. You seem very certain that there aren't - what are you basing this on?

I'm not defending her. I'm defending the process. I disagree with how she was treated. If it were anyone else in her shoes I would still disagree with the process.

You are calling her a fraud and a chancer. Would you identify yourself publically and do the same?

I would have liked to have formed my opinion on her based on the full facts. You are happy to do so based on limited facts.

I wouldn't like to be a defendant with you as a juror. You'd have your mind made up before the trial started.

It shouldn’t even get to a trial. There’s criminal cases taking years yet we entertain things like this

I know this particular case was dropped, but only because of the public backlash

McMurphy

KaneToad wrote: »

I'm neither. I'm not even a FG voter. But that's irrelevant and nothing to do with my point. You're deflecting by trying to attack the poster.

Despite your points above, you do not have the full facts. (Neither do I). There may be other facts that mitigate what you state. You seem very certain that there aren't - what are you basing this on?

I'm not defending her. I'm defending the process. I disagree with how she was treated. If it were anyone else in her shoes I would still disagree with the process.

You are calling her a fraud and a chancer. Would you identify yourself publically and do the same?

I would have liked to have formed my opinion on her based on the full facts. You are happy to do so based on limited facts.

I wouldn't like to be a defendant with you as a juror. You'd have your mind made up before the trial started.

I think anyone* on a jury looking at a case where the defendant claimed that they were seriously injured, and once an avid runner, but "who couldn't run at all for 3 months" yet there was clear evidence on her social media that she was actually running, (and running pretty bloody well), 3 weeks afterwards, might also agree that she wasn't being entirely truthful, and might question her integrity and the actual grounds for her claim to begin with.

*Sane

walshb

KaneToad wrote: »

She was put under pressure to drop it. She (mistakenly) thought it might save her political career.

Ok,

So in my view this paints her in an even worse light..forced to drop what appears to be a chancing and greedy type claim.

You are going on about all these facts..

In these cases, facts are never really proper and clear and dead certain..

The woman was under the influence of alcohol and had a wee accident..

She should NOT have tried to screw a business because of this...

The details we know of are damning enough for me. Running 10k s when supposedly properly injured..

And even if she suffered some injury, why is someone else to blame for it?

BattleCorp

beakerjoe wrote: »

Shes an adult.... she got herself drunk.... she got an a swing when drunk and didnt protect herself.

Its her fault.

You are partially right. She shouldn't have gotten onto a swing when she had consumed alcohol. I'll give you that. But you have to ask if the hotel were partially responsible too.

Why was there a swing in the hotel and was it in good condition? You don't seem to be addressing that question at all.

Why do most other pubs and hotels not have swings? I'll tell you why. Because drunk people frequent pubs and hotels and drunk people shouldn't be on swings...........because it's unnecessary and dangerous.

The hotel were foolish (and maybe negligent) in having a slippy swing there in the first place. And if the hotel were negligent, it isn't all Bailey's fault. Yes, some of it is Bailey's fault but I think from looking at the reports of what happened that blame should be shared in this instance.

All that said, Bailey keeps on making a clown out of herself every single time she opens her mouth.

martingriff

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are partially right. She shouldn't have gotten onto a swing when she had consumed alcohol. I'll give you that. But you have to ask if the hotel were partially responsible too.

Why was there a swing in the hotel and was it in good condition? You don't seem to be addressing that question at all.

Why do most other pubs and hotels not have swings? I'll tell you why. Because drunk people frequent pubs and hotels and drunk people shouldn't be on swings...........because it's unnecessary and dangerous.

The hotel were foolish (and maybe negligent) in having a slippy swing there in the first place. And if the hotel were negligent, it isn't all Bailey's fault. Yes, some of it is Bailey's fault but I think from looking at the reports of what happened that blame should be shared in this instance.

All that said, Bailey keeps on making a clown out of herself every single time she opens her mouth.

So we should sterilise places incase people will do stupid stuff. Maybe they have a swing for kids to play on when they are there with there parents.

So no the poster was not partially right they were fully right. She did a stupid idiotic and she is the 1 responsible for that

beakerjoe

KaneToad wrote: »

I'm neither. I'm not even a FG voter. But that's irrelevant and nothing to do with my point. You're deflecting by trying to attack the poster.

Despite your points above, you do not have the full facts. (Neither do I). There may be other facts that mitigate what you state. You seem very certain that there aren't - what are you basing this on?

I'm not defending her. I'm defending the process. I disagree with how she was treated. If it were anyone else in her shoes I would still disagree with the process.

You are calling her a fraud and a chancer. Would you identify yourself publically and do the same?

I would have liked to have formed my opinion on her based on the full facts. You are happy to do so based on limited facts.

I wouldn't like to be a defendant with you as a juror. You'd have your mind made up before the trial started.

I may not have all the facts, but what facts would come to light that would paint her in a better light?

Drunk person is careless and falls from ger own neglect of herself.

Then sues cause of severe injuries.

Then isnt severely injured.

I cant see what information could come out to make her not look like a chancer.

BattleCorp

martingriff wrote: »

So we should sterilise places incase people will do stupid stuff. Maybe they have a swing for kids to play on when they are there with there parents.

If you want to do your best to avoid personal injury claims, then you pretty much have to do that.

All businesses are required to carry out a risk assessment on all activities. The hotel would be no different. A risk assessment identifies hazards and then recommends control measures to reduce the risk of injury caused by those hazards. I would think that a swing in a place where drunk people are likely to be is certainly an easy hazard to identify. And if it was identified, what control measures were put in place to make sure nobody got injured? Non-slip tape was put on it after Bailey's accident so that might indicate that the swing may have been too slippy - and that would be something in Bailey's favour.

If I did a risk assessment on the hotel and saw the swing, I would have asked for it to be removed as I can see that it's a potential hazard.

I wonder does the hotel still have the swing there?

So no the poster was not partially right they were fully right. She did a stupid idiotic and she is the 1 responsible for that

The poster is probably right that Bailey did a stupid thing if she wasn't holding on to the swing correctly in the first place. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Bailey is 100% responsible for the incident. The hotel may have been also negligent by having the swing there in the first place and having a swing that was slippy.

Like I've said in earlier posts, it looks like the hotel were negligent and Bailey was also negligent. When both parties are negligent, usually the injured party wins their court case as there is more of an onus on the business than there is on the customer. For example, go into your local Spar scuttered and fall over a box on the floor and you'll stand a good chance of winning your case, even though you were blotto.

givyjoe

Rothko wrote: »

2/10

That's seriously generous.

BattleCorp

beakerjoe wrote: »

Drunk person is careless and falls from ger own neglect of herself.

Speculation.

Then sues cause of severe injuries.

True.

Then isnt severely injured.

Speculation.

I cant see what information could come out to make her not look like a chancer.

Sort of agreed. No matter what she does she'll look like a chancer. Her mouth is doing her no favours. Maybe if she released medical records or something like that, if she has them.......but that ain't going to happen.

James Brown

Fine Gael told us it was our fault insurance costs were rising. They said frivolous claims were the problem. Then two of their member got caught out engaging in same.
Farrell got les press because he did the standard con, whiplash. Bailey fell off a ****ing swing while holding booze in each hand and was arrogant and lied about her injuries.
She's still arrogant about it.

walshb

James Brown wrote: »

Fine Gael told us it was our fault insurance costs were rising. They said frivolous claims were the problem. Then two of their member got caught out engaging in same.
Farrell got les press because he did the standard con, whiplash. Bailey fell off a ****ing swing while holding booze in each hand and was arrogant and lied about her injuries.
She's still arrogant about it.

Hold on.

Is there evidence that Farrell’s case is suspect/fraudulent?

I thought his case was a legitimate claim..

Ok, doesn’t read well. https://www.thesun.ie/news/4208026/alan-farrell-football-match-crash-compo-claim/amp/