Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

KevRossi

BattleCorp wrote: »

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 swing is there as an attraction. Look at the amount of people Instagramming and Tweeting themselves on it and you'll see how popular it is. These posts get hits and it all adds to free publicity for the Dean Hotel.

Thousands (literally) of people have sat on that swing, some drunk, some sober, many somwhere inbetween. No doubt some have slipped, fallen or been pushed from the swing.

Of the thousands of people who sat on it, only one fell off it and then felt that they had to sue the hotel on the basis that there were no supervisors for the swing and no signage on how to use it.

That one person is a member of our government, she's in the public eye and as such she can expect criticism, satire and ridicule for taking them to court on spurious grounds.

At a guess, the USA and Ireland are two countries on this planet where it is accepted to take a case like that; i.e. 'I fell as nobody told me how to use the swing'. I'm not sure if there are any others.

The story is daft, and maddening at the same time, and when one of the major issues facing people in this country is rising insurance costs and the hidden other costs that we have, it's no wonder there is a huge backlash to her and her claim.

She also had the stupidity to keep going with this, in the belief that she has done nothing wrong. Madigan and Farrell had the sense to shut up and keep their heads down. Bailey lacks that basic common sense.

She is hugely responsible for all that has befallen her.

whisky_galore

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.

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

Clearly it's not a children's play area with a ball pit and a slide. They're intended for adults, an area to hang out with the girlies and take pics for the 'gram.

givyjoe

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.

If swings were so unnecessary and dangerous, they wouldn't be in playgrounds used by toddlers up and down the country. You keep this stick up as if she has a credible argument, the points you keep making in her defense are ludicrous, never mind completely undermined by the fact she ran a marathon while supposedly injured.They probably shouldn't have stairs, drunk people can't be trusted to walk down them either. This grown woman is incapable of using a child's toy safely and actually thinks it's someone else's fault.

At no point has she even attempted to explain the above, what injuries she really suffered, how or why she believes the hotel were at fault or clarified any of the mind boggling inconsistencies in her claim. The woman couldn't/wouldn't even clarify what she had on her hands. Supposedly that's for a judge to adjudicate.

BattleCorp

KevRossi wrote: »

Thousands (literally) of people have sat on that swing, some drunk, some sober, many somwhere inbetween. No doubt some have slipped, fallen or been pushed from the swing.

I'm not attacking you so please don't take this as such but if, like you say, 'no doubt' some people have fallen from the swing in the past, then mabye some of them fell off the swing before Bailey's incident. If that 'no doubt' happened, then that only makes Bailey's case stronger. The fact that none of them were either injured enough or inclined enough to take a personal injury claim is immaterial.

Of the thousands of people who sat on it, only one fell off it and then felt that they had to sue the hotel on the basis that there were no supervisors for the swing and no signage on how to use it.

Regarding the supervisors and signage etc, that's some of the things her solicitors may have argued. If you stick your hand in a machine in work and get injured, you can argue that there was inadequate training, supervision and signage. Bailey's legal people doing the same here.

That one person is a member of our government, she's in the public eye and as such she can expect criticism, satire and ridicule for taking them to court on spurious grounds.

Agreed on the public eye part. Not sure about the spurious as it's my belief she would have won her case if she continued with it, albeit with contributory negligence.

The story is daft, and maddening at the same time, and when one of the major issues facing people in this country is rising insurance costs and the hidden other costs that we have, it's no wonder there is a huge backlash to her and her claim.

The laws are too onerous on business owners and the courts are too generous to idiots. Agreed that people are fed up with it.

She also had the stupidity to keep going with this, in the belief that she has done nothing wrong. Madigan and Farrell had the sense to shut up and keep their heads down. Bailey lacks that basic common sense.

She is hugely responsible for all that has befallen her.

Agreed.

martingriff

whisky_galore wrote: »

Clearly it's not a children's play area with a ball pit and a slide. They're intended for adults, an area to hang out with the girlies and take pics for the 'gram.

Thanks for that was not 100% sure just read the post above this about it

BattleCorp

givyjoe wrote: »

If swings were so unnecessary and dangerous, they wouldn't be in playgrounds used by toddlers up and down the country.

Are toddlers up and down the country usually drinking when they are using the swings?

And typically the area around swings in playgrounds is covered in cork tiles to make sure that if someone does fall, they are much less likely to get injured.

You keep this stick up as if she has a credible argument, the points you keep making in her defense are ludicrous, never mind completely undermined by the fact she ran a marathon while supposedly injured.

Facts are important. She didn't run a marathon. But yes, I do think she had a credible argument. You know why I think she had a credible argument, because I work in the health and safety field and manage personal injury claims for my employer. I think the only way she would have lost her case would be if she was proven to be telling lies and then her claim could have been dismissed under s.26.

They probably shouldn't have stairs, drunk people can't be trusted to walk down them either. This grown woman is incapable of using a child's toy safely and actually thinks it's someone else's fault.

Stairs are necessary, a swing in a hotel isn't. And protections such as non-slip surfaces, handrails etc are put on stairs. What was put on the swing? Non-slip tape apparently after Bailey's incident.

At no point has she even attempted to explain the above, what injuries she really suffered, how or why she believes the hotel were at fault or clarified any of the mind boggling inconsistencies in her claim. The woman couldn't/wouldn't even clarify what she had on her hands. Supposedly that's for a judge to adjudicate.

She's a clown. No doubt about that. And even though she was a politician and in the public eye, nobody is legally required to reveal their medical information to the general public.

Penn

givyjoe wrote: »

If swings were so unnecessary and dangerous, they wouldn't be in playgrounds used by toddlers up and down the country. You keep this stick up as if she has a credible argument, the points you keep making in her defense are ludicrous, never mind completely undermined by the fact she ran a marathon while supposedly injured.They probably shouldn't have stairs, drunk people can't be trusted to walk down them either. This grown woman is incapable of using a child's toy safely and actually thinks it's someone else's fault.

At no point has she even attempted to explain the above, what injuries she really suffered, how or why she believes the hotel were at fault or clarified any of the mind boggling inconsistencies in her claim. The woman couldn't/wouldn't even clarify what she had on her hands. Supposedly that's for a judge to adjudicate.

How many pubs/hotels/restaurants have open fireplaces? Legally, could they be held somewhat negligent if a drunk person puts their hand in a fire and brings a case against them? Yeah, probably. They didn't have a fireguard, didn't have warning signs saying "Do not put your hand in the fire", didn't have a security man beside the fire keeping people back from it.

Or maybe dumbasses should be held liable for sticking their hand in a fire.

She sat on a swing after having a drink or two, she had items in both hands and was reaching for something, and she fell off. Regardless of whether she exaggerated her injuries afterwards or not, she should have had the full cop on to know she was at fault. But as she said in the SoR interview, she was advised by her solicitors that she had a case, and she decided to take it.

Anyway, just listening to the BoC interview now. It's very clear the whole reason the interview was set up was purely because of the mental health/abuse aspect of what happened in the aftermath, rather than what happened. Same with the newspaper interview she did. This is clearly her angle for trying to get back into politics, and choosing who/when she does interviews very carefully. That's only going to fly for so long. As soon as she's properly challenged on it, that's when we'll see a very different side to her imo.

BattleCorp

Penn wrote: »

How many pubs/hotels/restaurants have open fireplaces? Legally, could they be held somewhat negligent if a drunk person puts their hand in a fire and brings a case against them? Yeah, probably. They didn't have a fireguard, didn't have warning signs saying "Do not put your hand in the fire", didn't have a security man beside the fire keeping people back from it.

Funny enough now that you mention it, the last time I was in a hotel (pre-lockdown), the hotel had a perspex (or similar material) screen across the fireplace to stop people falling into it. When I remember what hotel it was I'll post the name.

KaneToad

beakerjoe wrote: »

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.

This is the issue I have.

You acknowledge you don't have the full facts. And you dismiss the possible existence of unknown facts that would be in her favour.

I think this is a paradoxical situation.

How do you know she doesn't have severe injuries? Have you medically examined her? Are you qualified to do so?

You'll probably retort that she ran that race. But that does not categorically mean she didn't have severe injuries.

Your speculation, based on partial facts, is not conclusive.

Penn

KaneToad wrote: »

This is the issue I have.

You acknowledge you don't have the full facts. And you dismiss the possible existence of unknown facts that would be in her favour.

I think this is a paradoxical situation.

How do you know she doesn't have severe injuries? Have you medically examined her? Are you qualified to do so?

You'll probably retort that she ran that race. But that does not categorically mean she didn't have severe injuries.

Your speculation, based on partial facts, is not conclusive.

It is a fact that her signed affidavit stated she couldn't run for three months due to her injuries, yet she ran a 10k (seemingly in a close time to her usual) three weeks after the fall.

That's not speculation. She may have had injuries, but her signed affidavit overstated the extent of same.

gmisk

walshb wrote: »

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/

The more you read into it....the dodgier it is.
There is the dodgy claim for "damage" to his car?
https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/td-alan-farrell-claimed-880-worth-of-car-repairs-after-minor-collision-but-later-dropped-case-38183291.html

Or how about the dodgy claim for whiplash of 15k in same crash?...which was seriously like something out of the fast and furious (it was at 5km per hour)
https://extra.ie/2019/06/05/news/irish-news/alan-farrell-whiplash-claim

All the while complaining about....rising insurance costs...
https://www.thesun.ie/news/4222407/alan-farrell-michael-noonan-tackle-rising-insurance-whiplash-payout-compo/

Or you can look at his dodgy expenses?https://www.thejournal.ie/tds-senators-expenses-dail-maria-bailey-4845883-Oct2019/

POBox19

Awful interview, listened back on the RTE Player. BOC gave her enough rope and she took it!
She must have taken the same media lessons as Phil Hogan did after Golfgate 'I did nothing wrong'. I'd say that she's unelectable, but she's testing the water to see if sympathy will garner some support in FG and her constituency.

KaneToad

Penn wrote: »

It is a fact that her signed affidavit stated she couldn't run for three months due to her injuries, yet she ran a 10k (seemingly in a close time to her usual) three weeks after the fall.

That's not speculation. She may have had injuries, but her signed affidavit overstated the extent of same.

But, as per the statement of (then) Taoiseach:

Deputy Bailey signed an affidavit (linked to a personal injuries summons) that over-stated the impact of her injuries on her running. The inquiry concludes that it is unlikely that a court would conclude that she deliberately sought to mislead as other legal documents talk about her running being restricted rather than not being able to run at all.

It's not that straightforward. She overstated in some legal documents but didn't in others.

Its regrettable that she didn't get her day in court. It would have revealed everything.

walshb

KaneToad wrote: »

But, as per the statement of (then) Taoiseach:

Deputy Bailey signed an affidavit (linked to a personal injuries summons) that over-stated the impact of her injuries on her running. The inquiry concludes that it is unlikely that a court would conclude that she deliberately sought to mislead as other legal documents talk about her running being restricted rather than not being able to run at all.

It's not that straightforward. She overstated in some legal documents but didn't in others.

Its regrettable that she didn't get her day in court. It would have revealed everything.

You seem to think courts are like yes/no machines that give exact and correct and precise information and judgments..

They are not. They can be open to a lot of argument and disagreement and subjectivity. They are simply human beings debating and arguing each other..

The law is never open and shut all the time..

BattleCorp

Penn wrote: »

It is a fact that her signed affidavit stated she couldn't run for three months due to her injuries, yet she ran a 10k (seemingly in a close time to her usual) three weeks after the fall.

That's not speculation. She may have had injuries, but her signed affidavit overstated the extent of same.

We will never know conclusively if it was a lie or not because it didn't go to court but it's possible that the unable to run for three months claim was an error. Maybe someone in the solicitor's office typed three months instead of three weeks. These errors rarely happen, but they do happen from time to time and are easily rectified once the court case starts. Now I know that you'll have to search a long way for someone to believe that excuse but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. And without the benefit of a court case, we will never know if it was an error or if it was lies. So it's wrong to call it a lie as we don't have proof that it's a lie.

happyoutscan

BattleCorp wrote: »

We will never know conclusively if it was a lie or not because it didn't go to court but it's possible that the unable to run for three months claim was an error. Maybe someone in the solicitor's office typed three months instead of three weeks. These errors rarely happen, but they do happen from time to time and are easily rectified once the court case starts. Now I know that you'll have to search a long way for someone to believe that excuse but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. And without the benefit of a court case, we will never know if it was an error or if it was lies. So it's wrong to call it a lie as we don't have proof that it's a lie.

I've read some ridiculous posts on boards over the years - some of them my own - but this is easily the most ridiculous ****e I've ever read.

Absolute 100% guff.

KaneToad

walshb wrote: »

You seem to think courts are like yes/no machines that give exact and correct and precise information and judgments..

They are not. They can be open to a lot of argument and disagreement and subjectivity. They are simply human beings debating and arguing each other..

The law is never open and shut all the time..

Agreed. But I would hold a court judgement higher than the speculation of punters on boards, myself included.

BattleCorp

happyoutscan wrote: »

I've read some ridiculous posts on boards over the years - some of them my own - but this is easily the most ridiculous ****e I've ever read.

Absolute 100% guff.

Are you saying it's impossible that an error could have occurred?

I personally don't believe it was an error, but I acknowledge it's possible.

Penn

BattleCorp wrote: »

We will never know conclusively if it was a lie or not because it didn't go to court but it's possible that the unable to run for three months claim was an error. Maybe someone in the solicitor's office typed three months instead of three weeks. These errors rarely happen, but they do happen from time to time and are easily rectified once the court case starts. Now I know that you'll have to search a long way for someone to believe that excuse but that doesn't mean that it isn't possible. And without the benefit of a court case, we will never know if it was an error or if it was lies. So it's wrong to call it a lie as we don't have proof that it's a lie.

Me calling it a lie is personal opinion. I have no problem clarifying that. But that doesn't negate that the affidavit she signed and which was based on her own account (regardless of who typed it up for her to sign) said she couldn't run for three months even though she ran a 10k three weeks later in a decent time. If we're talking about what we have actual proof of, there's nothing wrong with stating that.

Genuine mistake or intentional lie? Who knows. I believe it to have been a lie based on her own actions and words once the case was made public and particularly the interview with Sean O'Rourke.

happyoutscan

Lies, lies and more lies is all she's good for.

The exasperation in her voice during the interview told all, not that there was any real doubt if she was running a 10k 3 weeks after suffering 'serious injuries' falling 18" off a silly swing.

To not think it was lies from the outset is mind-boggling, absolutely mind-boggling.

KaneToad

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are you saying it's impossible that an error could have occurred?

I personally don't believe it was an error, but I acknowledge it's possible.

That's exactly what they are saying. This is the weakness of their argument. They are 100% sure of the full facts without possession or knowledge of the full facts.

beakerjoe

KaneToad wrote: »

This is the issue I have.

How do you know she doesn't have severe injuries? Have you medically examined her? Are you qualified to do so?

You'll probably retort that she ran that race. But that does not categorically mean she didn't have severe injuries.

Your speculation, based on partial facts, is not conclusive.

You cant run a 10k with severe injuries.

If you can, then they arent severe

Keep defending her though.

beakerjoe

KaneToad wrote: »

That's exactly what they are saying. This is the weakness of their argument. They are 100% sure of the full facts without possession or knowledge of the full facts.

But theres no evidence or suggestion that an error occurred.

She said 3months and she hasnt stated it was an error.

We can safely assume its 3 months as she swore.

2011abc

I was unclogging a drain in my Mam's house and had my arm, shoulder deep in all sorts of nastiness but my ears felt dirtier listening to RTE( radio on in kitchen 24/7 to repel intruders!) .Truly a new low for them .Mind you with the neck on yer wan I predict she will be a Minister before the decade is out .

KaneToad

beakerjoe wrote: »

You cant run a 10k with severe injuries.

If you can, then they arent severe

Keep defending her though.

Again, you're confusing your opinion with fact. Did you examine her? Do you know what the injury was?

If I lost my hand in an industrial accident, I'd consider that a severe injury. I'd still be able to run a 10k.

I'm not defending her. I've no affiliation to her. I'm defending the process. It should have been allowed to play out in the appropriate manner.

gmisk

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/it-destroyed-me-maria-bailey-on-swing-gate-controversy-1.4497233

This contains lots of quotes but the one that stands out for me...
"I wasn’t deselected, I was deleted. I think that word says more than anything. I had already been sanctioned, I had apologised countless times,” she said."

She apologized countless times?! When and for what?!

I literally have not heard her apologize once!

Penn

beakerjoe wrote: »

But theres no evidence or suggestion that an error occurred.

She said 3months and she hasnt stated it was an error.

We can safely assume its 3 months as she swore.

She did say when asked in the SoR interview that the 3 months was an error and they would have corrected that before the court date.

Personally I don't believe that. The fact that nobody had noticed or discovered the mistake on their own side until it was found by someone else when it was made public, and then "Oh well we would have fixed that" just seems like a cop out. Same as when she accidentally admitted she had items in both hands while on the swing, and when SoR asked her to clarify it she kept repeating about how it would be for a judge to adjudicate on (even though it was no longer going to go to court because she'd pulled the case).

I think they were trying to make her injuries seem worse than they were to strengthen her case, because 3 months sounds better than 3 weeks which is more of a minor inconvenience than an injury.

gmisk

Penn wrote: »

She did say when asked in the SoR interview that the 3 months was an error and they would have corrected that before the court date.

Personally I don't believe that. The fact that nobody had noticed or discovered the mistake on their own side until it was found by someone else when it was made public, and then "Oh well we would have fixed that" just seems like a cop out. Same as when she accidentally admitted she had items in both hands while on the swing, and when SoR asked her to clarify it she kept repeating about how it would be for a judge to adjudicate on (even though it was no longer going to go to court because she'd pulled the case).

I think they were trying to make her injuries seem worse than they were to strengthen her case, because 3 months sounds better than 3 weeks which is more of a minor inconvenience than an injury.

Even if the 3 week instead of 3 months thing was an error (I sincerely doubt it).
She was still well enough to go to longitude - 8 days after her accident....that doesn't seem too severe to me

KaneToad

beakerjoe wrote: »

But theres no evidence or suggestion that an error occurred.

She said 3months and she hasnt stated it was an error.

We can safely assume its 3 months as she swore.

Yet the SC who did the internal investigation came to the conclusion:

Deputy Bailey signed an affidavit (linked to a personal injuries summons) that over-stated the impact of her injuries on her running. The inquiry concludes that it is unlikely that a court would conclude that she deliberately sought to mislead as other legal documents talk about her running being restricted rather than not being able to run at all.


Which suggests there is some confusion. She seems to be arguing that her running was both "restricted" and "impossible."

A court case would have been great to flush out the truth. Instead we have the court of public opinion which is hardly a bastion of impartially.

happyoutscan

KaneToad wrote: »

If I lost my hand in an industrial accident, I'd consider that a severe injury. I'd still be able to run a 10k.

Just rang a mate of mine who had his thumb and themar eminence (part of the palm) amputated only 3 months ago. He said not a ****ing hope could he have ran a 10km 3 weeks after the op.

I didn't ask him why because I'm happy enough to take his word for it.