Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

KaneToad

happyoutscan wrote: »

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.

Good for him. I rang a mate who said the exact opposite. Do you see the problem here?

walshb

KaneToad wrote: »

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.

You know, in this case I don’t think the court flushes out anything...

It’s very simple: she fell of a swing whilst having alcohol in her system and her two hands occupied..

Rather than accept she was at fault and to blame, she decided to try and screw the business premises..

That is it!!!

KaneToad

walshb wrote: »

You know, in this case I don’t think the court flushes out anything...

It’s very simple: she fell of a swing whilst having alcohol in her system and her two hands occupied..

Rather than accept she was at fault and to blame, she decided to try and screw the business premises..

That is it!!!

This is my problem in a nutshell.

You have all the answers but based on what? Your opinion of what you think happened.

I don't know what happened. Like you, I have my opinions/suspicions but that's all they are, opinions.

She should have been let take her case without harrassment. Let the chips fall where they may and then we can decide based on the facts.

happyoutscan

KaneToad wrote: »

Good for him. I rang a mate who said the exact opposite. Do you see the problem here?

I do. One of us is lying and it isn't me.

KaneToad

happyoutscan wrote: »

I do. One of us is lying and it isn't me.

Guess again.

Hint: Your friend/ or my friend can both be 100% correct. Their scenario is irrelevant. Bailey's medical assessment - which neither of us know - is what counts.

walshb

KaneToad wrote: »

This is my problem in a nutshell.

You have all the answers but based on what? Your opinion of what you think happened.

I don't know what happened. Like you, I have my opinions/suspicions but that's all they are, opinions.

She should have been let take her case without harrassment. Let the chips fall where they may and then we can decide based on the facts.

Usually I am exactly like this. Like your view..

Here I am swaying by the other way..

beakerjoe

KaneToad wrote: »

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.

Not 3 weeks later. Kop on

Youre confusing fiction with reality.

You lose your hand and youre running a race in 3 weeks.... no your not.

McMurphy

KaneToad wrote: »

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.

Where did you read the report?

It wasn't published as far as I know. Meaning Leo can say that David Kennedy said whatever Leo wants, if it's not ever going to be published, who's going to contradict it?

KaneToad

McMurphy wrote: »

Where did you read the report?

It wasn't published as far as I know. Meaning Leo can say that David Kennedy said whatever Leo wants, if it's not ever going to be published, who's going to contradict it?

You're correct. That's a quote from the Taoiseach.

McMurphy

KaneToad wrote: »

You're correct. That's a quote from the Taoiseach.

The Tanaiste (who was Taoiseach then) is a known liar. I'd take that quote of his with s hefty dose of salt.

KaneToad

beakerjoe wrote: »

Not 3 weeks later. Kop on

Youre confusing fiction with reality.

You lose your hand and youre running a race in 3 weeks.... no your not.

I contend that you're confusing your opinion with fact. Telling someone to "Kop on" wouldn't win you much arguments in a formal settings.

You're getting bogged down in a moot point. You said you couldn't be seriously injured and run 10k three weeks later. I disagreed. I agree that it's unlikely that a serious injury would allow you to run a 10k. But it's not impossible. You are adamant that it is impossible.

The reason I raised the point, in that fashion, is that; you don't know what Bailey alleges her serious injury was, despite this, you know categorically that this (unknown) injury should impede her from running a 10k. That's quite a leap.

You are basing a lot on assumptions and opinion. I'd rather have had her progress with her day in court so that we could analyze the full facts. She would have progressed to court if the pile on against her hadn't occurred. It's a pity she didn't...

beakerjoe

If Spoofer Bailey fell off a swing whe most likley injured her back, legs, arms or banged her noggin. She wouldn't lose a hand.

If she severely injures any of those, she aint running a face in 3 weeks time.

She didnt severely injury herself.

Shes a fraud despite what her defenders suggest. How anyone can defend her without being related or paid or have something to gain is beyond me.

beakerjoe

KaneToad wrote: »

I contend that you're confusing your opinion with fact. Telling someone to "Kop on" wouldn't win you much arguments in a formal settings.

You're getting bogged down in a moot point. You said you couldn't be seriously injured and run 10k three weeks later. I disagreed. I agree that it's unlikely that a serious injury would allow you to run a 10k. But it's not impossible. You are adamant that it is impossible.

The reason I raised the point, in that fashion, is that; you don't know what Bailey alleges her serious injury was, despite this, you know categorically that this (unknown) injury should impede her from running a 10k. That's quite a leap.

You are basing a lot on assumptions and opinion. I'd rather have had her progress with her day in court so that we could analyze the full facts. She would have progressed to court if the pile on against her hadn't occurred. It's a pity she didn't...

Severely.... thats the word. It suggests its an extremely bad injury. You have an extremely bad injury, you are in no position to run a race in 2 and a half weeks.

And if she is in a position to run a race, her injuries arent that bad.

Your defence of an insutnace fraudster is mind boggling.

walshb

beakerjoe wrote: »

Severely.... thats the word. It suggests its an extremely bad injury. You have an extremely bad injury, you are in no position to run a race in 2 and a half weeks.

And if she is in a position to run a race, her injuries arent that bad.

Your defence of an insutnace fraudster is mind boggling.

This is it pretty much

Fell off a swing and claims serious injury..

The most demanding activity of all if suffering a significant injury from a fall would be running....

What a hard neck. And very arrogant and foolish to go off running 3 weeks after you supposedly suffered injuries from a fall of you own making, and then trying to screw a claim on the business premises!!

KaneToad

beakerjoe wrote: »

If Spoofer Bailey fell off a swing whe most likley injured her back, legs, arms or banged her noggin. She wouldn't lose a hand.

If she severely injures any of those, she aint running a face in 3 weeks time.

She didnt severely injury herself.

Shes a fraud despite what her defenders suggest. How anyone can defend her without being related or paid or have something to gain is beyond me.

I never said she lost a hand, you're misrepresenting my point.

All of what you say above is your opinion.
I'd rather hear the opinion of the doctor who examined her.

I can't help you if its beyond you as to why someone would rather have a due process take it's course instead of the current passage of events.

Would you not like her to have had her day in court? Then you could see whether all your theories or assumptions were right? As it stands, that's all they are... no more than mine are - which incidentally, aren't a million miles different to yours.

For the final time, I'm not defending her. I'm arguing against the pile on against her which has left us without any definitive answers.

KaneToad

walshb wrote: »

This is it pretty much

Fell off a swing and claims serious injury..

The most demanding activity of all if suffering a significant injury from a fall would be running....

What a hard neck. And very arrogant and foolish to go off running 3 weeks after you supposedly suffered injuries from a fall of you own making, and then trying to screw a claim on the business premises!!

More armchair diagnoses here. Are you a doctor? Did you examine her? Did you see her medical notes?

I didn't. But someone did. That would have come out in a civil case. Then we would all have informed opinions. All we have is speculation now.

walshb

KaneToad wrote: »

More armchair diagnoses here. Are you a doctor? Did you examine her? Did you see her medical notes?

I didn't. But someone did. That would have come out in a civil case. Then we would all have informed opinions. All we have is speculation now.

You know, after all is said and done, who gives a toss.

She created all this. Her fault.

Her injuries, however severe they are/were..

Bogus claim!

happyoutscan

Very few in this thread care about what could or couldn't happen in court, procedure etc etc because this is such an obvious attempt at acting the maggot.

She's a dodge and her behaviour has exemplified that. She has an ego that wouldn't permit herself to apologise and lie low in order to let this blow over.

She buried herself on the Sean show. As for the most recent interview and her bringing up Caroline Flack, how pathetic can you be. Lisa Chambers wading in with her schtick in an attempt to remain relevant (your ****ing not Lisa).

I won't even mention Alan Farrell, another absolute shyster.

Rotten to the ****ing core.

beakerjoe

KaneToad wrote: »

I never said she lost a hand, you're misrepresenting my point.

All of what you say above is your opinion.
I'd rather hear the opinion of the doctor who examined her.

I can't help you if its beyond you as to why someone would rather have a due process take it's course instead of the current passage of events.

Would you not like her to have had her day in court? Then you could see whether all your theories or assumptions were right? As it stands, that's all they are... no more than mine are - which incidentally, aren't a million miles different to yours.

For the final time, I'm not defending her. I'm arguing against the pile on against her which has left us without any definitive answers.

You don't need to be a doctor to know what a severe injury is.

Severe suggests its serious, when a footballer gets a severe injury they cant play for at least 4 to 6 months. Concussion, broken leg, slipped disc, torn ligaments, shattered knee cap, fractured spine... all injurys Id consider severe.

Tell me what severe injury could she possibly suffer from falling off a swing when drunk that would allow her to succesfully run a 10 2 and a half weeks later. How severe is severe?

Shes a chancer. Her injuries were not severe. If they were she wouldnt be lacing up her asics to beat her best time.

If it was a minor injury.... sure she could possibly race. Not a severe one.

You are defending a fraud. Hopefully the public sees her for what she really is if she ever gets on an election ticket again.

beakerjoe

walshb wrote: »

This is it pretty much

Fell off a swing and claims serious injury..

The most demanding activity of all if suffering a significant injury from a fall would be running....

What a hard neck. And very arrogant and foolish to go off running 3 weeks after you supposedly suffered injuries from a fall of you own making, and then trying to screw a claim on the business premises!!

Ive had minor back issues, minor arm issues and other minor impact injuries that stop me from playing football for weeks.

Running after a severe injury is codswhollop. She wasnt injured and everyone knows it. A fraud.

Sheep Shagger

beakerjoe wrote: »

Ive had minor back issues, minor arm issues and other minor impact injuries that stop me from playing football for weeks.

Running after a severe injury is codswhollop. She wasnt injured and everyone knows it. A fraud.

Yep she tried to get compo and got caught out - my heart bleeds.

WishUWereHere

KaneToad wrote: »

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

How do you know that she mistakenly thought it might save her political career?

Sheep breeder

2011abc wrote: »

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 .

Have to agree with your prediction, she will back in Leo bosom in FG and put on some committee to get her back into run for election and will be voted back in by the yummy mummies. She has the neck to get back to the gravy and RTÉ giving her air time today is a stepping stone. Would they give time to honest genuine person.

happyoutscan

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Have to agree with your prediction, she will back in Leo bosom in FG and put on some committee to get her back into run for election and will be voted back in by the yummy mummies. She has the neck to get back to the gravy and RTÉ giving her air time today is a stepping stone. Would they give time to honest genuine person.

I don't think she will get re-elected again. She's toxic at this stage.

McFly85

Just listened to the interview there - she might be the most tone-deaf politician I've ever heard. It was basically the same as the O'Rourke interview except without Maria being challenged on anything, but it was interesting nonetheless.

She is still vague on the type of abuse she's been getting. From her demeanour and statements like her being afraid to go out and do a weekly shop it could sound like serious stuff, but she just makes a comment on not wanting to repeat the bad things. It's difficult to believe she was getting death threats or serious abuse without calling it out. She should feel empowered to do so these days-look at what happened when Ian Wright called out that little scrote on social media. I'd be interested to know if she passed on any of this abuse to the Gardai.

What she does go into, however, is the mockery. There were swings at festivals, halloween costumes etc. This, I would consider, is a completely normal social reaction to the story, as it's basically a ridiculous situation. I can get why she doesn't like it, but she must realise that the way she handled this situation pretty much directly caused it. If she wanted it to stop, she should own it, accept that it was ridiculous, and apologise for taking the case. She has had hundreds of opportunities to do so, but has never apologised for taking the case, and has only ever focused on how she is a victim.

I also thought it was interesting when she was talking about the amount of front pages she was on. She made a comment about "more important things happening that week like Teresa May leaving office", like she shouldn't be reported on at all. If she honestly doesn't understand why her story was of interest to the Irish public then she is really completely clueless. And again, she needs to realise that it was her own actions that gave the story legs in the first place. "No Comment" would have been far more effective for her.

The one time Brendan mentions the potential frivolity of her case he's shut down immediately. She still will not talk about it because I suspect she knows she'll get herself into even more trouble.

All in all it's another interview where she's complaining about the fallout from her direct actions, while taking none of the responsibility for it. If there's any fairness in this situation she'll never represent the public again.

Johnthemanager

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.

About the same possibilty as Beyonce wanting to come round and shag me!

Cluedo Monopoly

gmisk wrote: »

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/

Farrell should not be a TD. It's astounds me he was re-elected.

Bailey managed to bring down the government. She forced the election in February whereas Leo was planning for April/May. Huge difference. Bailey's political career is over.

salmocab

McFly85 wrote: »

Just listened to the interview there - she might be the most tone-deaf politician I've ever heard. It was basically the same as the O'Rourke interview except without Maria being challenged on anything, but it was interesting nonetheless.

She is still vague on the type of abuse she's been getting. From her demeanour and statements like her being afraid to go out and do a weekly shop it could sound like serious stuff, but she just makes a comment on not wanting to repeat the bad things. It's difficult to believe she was getting death threats or serious abuse without calling it out. She should feel empowered to do so these days-look at what happened when Ian Wright called out that little scrote on social media. I'd be interested to know if she passed on any of this abuse to the Gardai.

What she does go into, however, is the mockery. There were swings at festivals, halloween costumes etc. This, I would consider, is a completely normal social reaction to the story, as it's basically a ridiculous situation. I can get why she doesn't like it, but she must realise that the way she handled this situation pretty much directly caused it. If she wanted it to stop, she should own it, accept that it was ridiculous, and apologise for taking the case. She has had hundreds of opportunities to do so, but has never apologised for taking the case, and has only ever focused on how she is a victim.

I also thought it was interesting when she was talking about the amount of front pages she was on. She made a comment about "more important things happening that week like Teresa May leaving office", like she shouldn't be reported on at all. If she honestly doesn't understand why her story was of interest to the Irish public then she is really completely clueless. And again, she needs to realise that it was her own actions that gave the story legs in the first place. "No Comment" would have been far more effective for her.

The one time Brendan mentions the potential frivolity of her case he's shut down immediately. She still will not talk about it because I suspect she knows she'll get herself into even more trouble.

All in all it's another interview where she's complaining about the fallout from her direct actions, while taking none of the responsibility for it. If there's any fairness in this situation she'll never represent the public again.

She still takes absolutely no personal responsibility for any of the things that have happened, in fact she has consistently played the victim in the whole thing.

givyjoe

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Have to agree with your prediction, she will back in Leo bosom in FG and put on some committee to get her back into run for election and will be voted back in by the yummy mummies. She has the neck to get back to the gravy and RTÉ giving her air time today is a stepping stone. Would they give time to honest genuine person.

Not a chance.. on twitter she likes everything and anything that even remotely criticizes Leo and I'm he's noticed or is told.

givyjoe

Johnthemanager wrote: »

About the same possibilty as Beyonce wanting to come round and shag me!

Precisely. it's so unbelievable unlikely that is ridiculous even suggesting it as a possible explanation. Just as an unlikely and incredible as ever other attempt to play devils advocate here for her. Bonkers stuff. She might claim it was simply an error to cover up what we all know it actually was.