Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

BattleCorp

happyoutscan wrote: »

Very few in this thread care about what could or couldn't happen in court, procedure etc etc

They should though. Legal courts tend to be a bit more reliable than the court of public opinion.

BattleCorp

Johnthemanager wrote: »

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

Penn

BattleCorp wrote: »

They should though. Legal courts tend to be a bit more reliable than the court of public opinion.

I'm reminded of Jeff Goldblum's quote in Jurassic Park.

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.”

Maria Bailey could take the hotel to court, and she probably could have won.

But that doesn't mean that she should have. That's the crux of the issue. She fell off the swing and hurt herself completely on her own, but because of the insurance/compensation issues we have in this country, she could take a case against the hotel because "Gosh, that swing I sat on after I'd had a drink or two where I had bottles in both hands and was reaching for something when I fell off... that swing was slightly slippery."

The Legal opinion may have proven she had a viable case. Public opinion is perfectly valid in stating that she shouldn't have taken the case against them in the first place.

BingCrosbee

She’s destroyed her life through her own dishonesty and will always be a figure of ridicule. She should just morph off into the background and join a local Golf club in south Dublin where there will be lots of her own pain in the hole types.

McFly85

BattleCorp wrote: »

They should though. Legal courts tend to be a bit more reliable than the court of public opinion.

Is she won her court case I think it would vindicate her in the eyes of very few-most would consider it an example of the broken compo culture in this country.

James Brown

The courts are merely people following a set of rules and interpreting them. They are not necessarily wise or sage by default.
Her wining wouldn't mean **** IMO. She still fell off a swing holding drink and lied about injuries. She still comes from FG a party that blamed high insurance fees on the public making frivolous claims and then made one herself.

hatrickpatrick

I think what a lot of those talking about the court case fail to realise is that a huge, huge number of people fundamentally disagree with the law itself, therefore a court outcome favourable to Bailey would mean nothing as it would merely be validation of a law which many believe shouldn't on the statute books to begin with.

The legal basis for liability when it comes to personal injuries is a ridiculously complicated web of intertwining legislation, but somebody did manage to link to the specific law which laid the fundamental basis for the idea that "an injury occurring in a business premises tends to be easy to pin on the business owner, and disregards the idea that being clumsy is just your own tough sh!t". That's why, regardless of the outcome of any court case, most would still fault Bailey and regard her as a scumbag for taking the case.

Essentially, in most peoples' eyes, drunk and trip or fall = pay your own medical bills, end of story. The vast majority of people don't agree with the currently mandated "duty of care" businesses have towards intoxicated customers, given that this attribute is entirely self-inflicted.

beakerjoe

BingCrosbee wrote: »

She’s destroyed her life through her own dishonesty and will always be a figure of ridicule. She should just morph off into the background and join a local Golf club in south Dublin where there will be lots of her own pain in the hole types.

She was appearing to do this until last week. Then she had her INM interview, a platform shes doenst deserve btw and shes brought it all back on again.

But the narcissist in her wants back into politics. So any criticism she gets is her own doing.

votecounts

People on here defending MB (regardless of what party she belongs to) should remind themselves that we have very high premiums because of crooks like her. Remind yourselves the next time you pay your premium:(

walshb

The other part to this is that this woman is not short of money. She would be from a well off background

Now, that is not to say people who have money and comfort should not be entitled to sue, legitimately!

But in her case, it paints to the greed element that bit clearer..

Her case reads bogus!

BattleCorp

votecounts wrote: »

People on here defending MB (regardless of what party she belongs to) should remind themselves that we have very high premiums because of crooks like her. Remind yourselves the next time you pay your premium:(

I don't see too many people defending Bailey. I'm not defending her. I've said I think she is exaggerating her injuries but I've also acknowledged that I've zero proof that she is doing so.

Personally speaking, my comments are more about how the system works and how people are rushing to judgement when they know jack sh1t about liability, legislation, personal injury procedures, how the courts work, medical records etc.

Fann Linn

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't see too many people defending Bailey. I'm not defending her. I've said I think she is exaggerating her injuries but I've also acknowledged that I've zero proof that she is doing so.

Personally speaking, my comments are more about how the system works and how people are rushing to judgement when they know jack sh1t about liability, legislation, personal injury procedures, how the courts work, medical records etc.

Did she go ahead with her claim?

BattleCorp

Fann Linn wrote: »

Did she go ahead with her claim?

Nope. She dropped it due to public opinion and the belief that if she dropped her claim she could save her political career.

Her polictical career is kaput. She ain't getting elected any time soon, or ever.

McMurphy

I think people are confusing battlecorp pointing out legal technicalities with defending Maria Bailey.

There's a distinct difference.

We know the courts are a soft touch here, battlecorp is most likely correct about bailey probably winning her case had she not have grown a conscience and cancelled have come under pressure from party colleagues because they were getting it in the neck about her.

Sure even in the Alan Farrell case, the judge commented on how it "was unusual" but still awarded him a token amount regardless.

KaneToad

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't see too many people defending Bailey. I'm not defending her. I've said I think she is exaggerating her injuries but I've also acknowledged that I've zero proof that she is doing so.

Personally speaking, my comments are more about how the system works and how people are rushing to judgement when they know jack sh1t about liability, legislation, personal injury procedures, how the courts work, medical records etc.

I've had to give up. I'm of a similar opinion to yourself but just being met with a barrage of accusations that I'm a Bailey supporter. That she's a crook. That's she's a Spoofer etc etc....

Some are even saying that if she went to court & won that she'd still be wrong. I don't know what to say to that....

beakerjoe

KaneToad wrote: »

I've had to give up. I'm of a similar opinion to yourself but just being met with a barrage of accusations that I'm a Bailey supporter. That she's a crook. That's she's a Spoofer etc etc....

Some are even saying that if she went to court & won that she'd still be wrong. I don't know what to say to that....

Whats your your opinion of her?

How likley is it that shes made a fraudlent claim?

walshb

KaneToad wrote: »

Some are even saying that if she went to court & won that she'd still be wrong. I don't know what to say to that....

Are you saying people could not possibly have this view and be morally right, or even right?

Does a court judgment in this type scene show a definitive right/wrong?

This is not an exact science..

I can say now that if she got to court and fought this and the court awarded her compensation, I would still be thinking it was not necessarily right of her to claim

Not all successful claims mean that the victor was correct and right..

Courts in many these claim cases make judgments that are not always exact and proper and correct..both in awarding compensation to claimants and NOT awarding.

beakerjoe

walshb wrote: »

Are you saying people could not possibly have this view and be morally right, or even right?

Does a court judgment in this type scene show a definitive right/wrong?

This is not an exact science..

I can say now that if she got to court and fought this and the court awarded her compensation, I would still be thinking it was not necessarily right of her to claim

Not all successful claims mean that the victor was correct and right..

Courts in many these claim cases make judgments that are not always exact and proper and correct..both in awarding compensation to claimants and NOT awarding.

If OJ can go to court and win, then anyone can. Doesnt mean they are right.

Bailey was not severely injured. You dont need to be a doctor to know she wasnt severely injured.

If she ran a race 2 and a half weeks later.... a 10k, at least 45 to mins of running for her, she was not severely injured.

Its that simple.

She made a frivolous claim and is paying the price.

All the 'abuse' she complains about is her own making. She made her bed, now she can lie in it.

Odyssey 2005

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.

You wouldn't expect anything else from that nodding ginnet.

Beechwoodspark

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

You wouldn't expect anything else from that nodding ginnet.

He was terrified the woke crowd would go after him.

He’s a terrible so called journalist and always was a fraud.

rob316

Jesus did I read another article yesterday that she went on the radio again?

Literally all you have to do is not say a word for a couple of years and you can resurface back into politics then. What mickey mouse PR company are advising her?

sydthebeat

KaneToad wrote: »

Some are even saying that if she went to court & won that she'd still be wrong. I don't know what to say to that....

I've sat in court and seen judges hand out compensation money like confetti when there was no tangible proof of injury.
Family members claiming of each other is a well trodden track for a certain section of our society.

I saw a case of 3 family members claiming off another immediate family members insurance when he drove into the back of another car on a round about. There was no medical intervention other than physio required, and no drugs prescribed stronger than panadol. No diagnosis of injury other than "presented with soft tissue injury". The judge that day awarded 50,000 between the three. They all claimed to have being wearing seat belts yet one claimed to have hit his head off the seat in from of him... Figure that one out.

Just because there's a pay out in court certainly does not mean that the claim is justified.

If these interviews were to test the waters for her restarting her political career then I think she has her answer. She’d struggle to get votes. FG would be measuring the reaction to her latest interviews and to add her to the ticket again be it in local or national elections or nominate her for the Seanad wouldn’t go down well with the public.

She’s all about the money and it would probably cost her to run a campaign as an independent and not get a result.

If you’re looking for a job, Maria, then go work in the local spar or centra like the rest of us who need money.

hatrickpatrick

KaneToad wrote: »

Some are even saying that if she went to court & won that she'd still be wrong. I don't know what to say to that....

She would be wrong, because the law itself is wrong. Injured by your own hand = 100% your own problem to deal with. The fact that the law says otherwise is absolutely ridiculous, and always has been.

Suckit

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

She would be wrong, because the law itself is wrong. Injured by your own hand = 100% your own problem to deal with. The fact that the law says otherwise is absolutely ridiculous, and always has been.

And FG themselves were in the middle of a campaign pretty much saying so when she tried to use it to her advantage.

smurgen

Suckit wrote: »

And FG themselves were in the middle of a campaign pretty much saying so when she tried to use it to her advantage.

FG are grand with white collar crime. This has been evidenced thoroughly over the last few decades.

hatrickpatrick

I'd generally be the last person to go for a "sins of the father" angle on anything, particularly in the case od a deceased parent - but Jesus, when you look at John Bailey's Wikipedia table of contents, the apple not falling far from the tree is the inevitable conclusion:

beakerjoe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd generally be the last person to go for a "sins of the father" angle on anything, particularly in the case od a deceased parent - but Jesus, when you look at John Bailey's Wikipedia table of contents, the apple not falling far from the tree is the inevitable conclusion:

And thats just what we know of.

markodaly

No doubt she made a serious error of judgement when it came to her claim, and paid the price for that, by losing her political career. However, this macabre fascination with her is over the top. Then again, she is a woman so I guess for the angry white males out there, its fair game.

poisonated

markodaly wrote: »

No doubt she made a serious error of judgement when it came to her claim, and paid the price for that, by losing her political career. However, this macabre fascination with her is over the top. Then again, she is a woman so I guess for the angry white males out there, its fair game.

I don’t think it’s because she is a woman to be fair.