Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

Cluedo Monopoly

Deleted User wrote: »

You’d make multiples of what you earn as a TD owning a pharmacy. Sure I know lads working in non-management IT who make way more than a TD and with far less hours. Far easier ways to make money than becoming a backbencher. Terrible hours as well, and the online abuse from SF supporters is reaching breaking point these days.

Most of the lads (always lads) complaining about politicians pay are the sort who are too lazy and too stupid to run for office themselves. They prefer to just complain about them on the internet.

That wasn’t aimed at you btw. Just the overall reality.

Fair point but you also have to look beyond the salary. Bailey herself, as a punishment from Leo, lost the chair of some committee which was getting her an extra 10,000 per year.

There are many perks and opportunities not to mention the expenses (Bailey went mad on those too and got caught).

Many politicians need a seat just to fill their ego. And then there are the opportunities elsewhere - look at Dara Murphy absolutely creaming the expenses (fraudulently many thought) and then swanning off to a job in the EU. Dara completely disregarded his Cork constituents for years and has no intention of paying back the expenses. Eoghan Murphy is getting a job in the UN I believe. Hell, Enda is now doing travel shows after his massive pension!

TD love being TDs. They also love gravy (I am sure the 3 pharmacies would remain going concerns too). Very few politicians do it for the right reasons e.g. Catherine Connolly (Ind) is one. The other kind of politician are easily attracted to the profession when they see the dodgy 'opportunities' regularly. Unpunished usually.

Cluedo Monopoly

McMurphy wrote: »

I know you're fond of the inverted commas Emmett, but how was it a "smart" move? Last time I looked she's still Kate O'Connell - the ex TD.

It wasn't a smart enough move to hang on to her seat anyway, I think Kate would have been more concerned with the negative consequences with highfalutin with someone who would make a very questionable insurance claim, and whether her constituents cared, (which they evidently did).

So with that in mind, wasn't a smart enough move, was it?

As it happened, Maria essentially brought down the government when she said she would not support the government in the Harris no confidence vote (Jan 2020). Leo wanted the GE in April/May but was forced to go early, when the polls were not good, and in winter. It had disastrous consequences for FG who lost 12 seats including O'Connell.

Pintman Paddy Losty

McMurphy wrote: »

I know you're fond of the inverted commas Emmett, but how was it a "smart" move? Last time I looked she's still Kate O'Connell - the ex TD.

It wasn't a smart enough move to hang on to her seat anyway, I think Kate would have been more concerned with the negative consequences with highfalutin with someone who would make a very questionable insurance claim, and whether her constituents cared, (which they evidently did).

So with that in mind, wasn't a smart enough move, was it?

No surprises that you're launching vitriol at another female TD. Very personalised as well

beakerjoe

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

No surprises that you're launching vitriol at another female TD. Very personalised as well

Stop making it about gender, its about competence.

And its hardly vitriol. Real your hyperbole in.

Your classist comments still linger, yet you feel thats ok.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

INM is already in hot water for releasing personal data. Releasing any video would breach GDPR. In fact even retaining footage this long would be problematic.

GDPR is just magic hand waving these days.

beakerjoe

fvp4 wrote: »

GDPR is just magic hand waving these days.

Sure GDPR wont apply to INM in certain circumstances and INM arent in any hot water at all. At most they will have to reveal who they obtained information from, which most likely wont happen either.

Also retaining data may be lawful in many cases so it depends on the reasons its retained.

I'll be shocked if anything substantial comes out of this investigation by the data lads.

Dav010

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

No surprises that you're launching vitriol at another female TD. Very personalised as well

Is gender important? I would have thought it was more a commentary on a well publicised event.

Pintman Paddy Losty

beakerjoe wrote: »

Stop making it about gender, its about competence.

And its hardly vitriol. Real your hyperbole in.

Your classist comments still linger, yet you feel thats ok.

*Reel

beakerjoe

beakerjoe wrote: »

Sure GDPR wont apply to INM in certain circumstances and INM arent in any hot water at all. At most they will have to reveal who they obtained information from, which most likely wont happen either.

Also retaining data may be lawful in many cases so it depends on the reasons its retained.

I'll be shocked if anything substantial comes out of this investigation by the data lads.

Sure. Why would a newspaper be in any hot water. Newspapers are not data controllers and there’s a public interest clause in GDPR.

GDPR wasn’t set up to stop newspapers reporting on news in the public interest. If it has that effect in practice then it needs to be torn down.

jammiedodgers

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

No surprises that you're launching vitriol at another female TD. Very personalised as well

Dead right Paddy. A persons gender shouldn't come into it only their social class.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Probably not the sorts that ever voted for her. Her voters are from the more well to do areas.

beakerjoe

beakerjoe wrote: »

Stop making it about gender, its about competence.

And its hardly vitriol. Real your hyperbole in.

Your classist comments still linger, yet you feel thats ok.

Don't bother. Waft of desperation off those posts, trying to introduce red herrings that no one addressed. Bailey is tainted goods, and any carefully orchestrated attempt at public rehabilitation will receive short thrift. Rationally minded voters don't want a compulsive liar in high office, it's as simple as that. Quite amusing to witness the usual suspect(s) rearing up with a series of irrelevancies, unsuccessfully diverting posters down disingenuous cul de sacs. Must. Try. Harder.

WishUWereHere

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

No surprises that you're launching vitriol at another female TD. Very personalised as well

Welcome back Pat. Am still waiting for proof of Your earlier statement where Hou said that ‘INM are in hot water’

Have you ANY proof to back up that remark?

WishUWereHere

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Don't bother. Waft of desperation off those posts, trying to introduce red herrings that no one addressed. Bailey is tainted goods, and any carefully orchestrated attempt at public rehabilitation will receive short thrift. Rationally minded voters don't want a compulsive liar in high office, it's as simple as that. Quite amusing to witness the usual suspect(s) rearing up with a series of irrelevancies, unsuccessfully diverting posters down disingenuous cul de sacs. Must. Try. Harder.

Remember B H, nothing would make the 3 amigos happier than to get this thread closed.

Pintman Paddy Losty

WishUWereHere wrote: »

Welcome back Pat. Am still waiting for proof of Your earlier statement where Hou said that ‘INM are in hot water’

Have you ANY proof to back up that remark?

They are facing legal proceedings.

Pintman Paddy Losty

WishUWereHere wrote: »

Remember B H, nothing would make the 3 amigos happier than to get this thread closed.

This thread should be closed. It's about a former TD and is no longer relavent. As they say in Fort Knox... "Lock her up, boys."

McMurphy

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

This thread should be closed. It's about a former TD and is no longer relavent. As they say in Fort Knox... "Lock her up, boys."

Apt comment considering the thread and it's subject.

jammiedodgers

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

This thread should be closed. It's about a former TD and is no longer relavent. As they say in Fort Knox... "Lock her up, boys."

Absolutely. How dare the plebs make any comment on someone with Maria Bailey's social status. What utter filth. Don't they know the type of upper class royalty that voted for her?

Dav010

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

This thread should be closed. It's about a former TD and is no longer relavent. As they say in Fort Knox... "Lock her up, boys."

I’m not sure that you get to be the arbiter of relevance.

Though Ms Bailey lost her seat at the last election, I suspect she still has political aspirations. And if memory serves, the resurrection of this thread was in response to her bringing the subject back into focus with another interview.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Don't bother. Waft of desperation off those posts, trying to introduce red herrings that no one addressed. Bailey is tainted goods, and any carefully orchestrated attempt at public rehabilitation will receive short thrift. Rationally minded voters don't want a compulsive liar in high office, it's as simple as that. Quite amusing to witness the usual suspect(s) rearing up with a series of irrelevancies, unsuccessfully diverting posters down disingenuous cul de sacs. Must. Try. Harder.

This is an incredibly difficult block of text to understand. What are you trying to say? Use simple language, instead of mixing metaphors.

Anyways, good piece on BoC yesterday about the wretched abuse politicians now receive online. Lorraine Higgins was a Labour senator who was threatened with rape for example. It might be better suited to another thread, but why do some men (it’s always men) feel it’s ok to spend their absolutely bleak and pitiful lives insulting public reps on the internet?

salmocab

Is putting it’s always men in brackets the official party line for deflection?

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is an incredibly difficult block of text to understand. What are you trying to say? Use simple language, instead of mixing metaphors.

Anyways, good piece on BoC hi yesterday about the wretched abuse politicians now receive online. Lorraine Higgins was a Labour senator who was threatened with rape for example. It might be better suited to another thread, but why do some men (it’s always men) feel it’s ok to spend their absolutely bleak and pitiful lives insulting public reps on the internet?

Because they do stupid things?


There are a lot more strands to this story than some public rep hoist by her own petard.

Notably, but not exhaustive.

• The public anger at the cost of insurance.
• The promise from the FG Government that they would tackle the insurance industry and reduce premiums.
• The ridiculousness of the event leading to the claim, an adult falling off a child’s swing.
• The fact that her own carelessness and alcohol appears to have played a part.
• she exaggerated her injuries, was stupid enough to run a mini marathon soon after claiming injury, then even more stupidly, posted about it on her Facebook page.
• She took legal advice, then made a claim for negligence against a business. The response most adults would have to an event like this would be embarrassment, and the hope that no one in the vicinity had a camera, and recorded an adult falling off a swing.
• And the crowning glory, the radio interview, probably the weirdest, stupidest example of self sabotage this country has seen. Apart from the claims of being badly hurt, surely she must have known that this particular issue, fraudulent insurance claims was a red hot topic and the equivalent of taking the pin out of a career grenade.

So please, spare us the indignation, the shouts of gender bias and the unfairness of it all. I do agree with you that social media should be moderated and abuse should not be tolerated, but calling out public reps when they do stupid things is not abuse, no one here is threatening here.

Gen.Zhukov

salmocab wrote: »

I see so you’re claiming it’s sexism whilst also claiming that it’s only men who engage in it.

JohnnyFlash used to do that a lot.

Oh wait...

beakerjoe

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

They are facing legal proceedings.

Linky?

WishUWereHere

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You're best make your point and leave this thread. Most of the angrier posters are not up early in the morning. Stay out of here in the evenings as you will be on the receiving end of a torrent of abuse by that stage.

Aah Patt good morning.

You made a statement here a couple of pages ago on this thread that the INM is in ‘hot water’.

This is my 3rd time asking, where is the proof to make this statement? My 1st time asking, I said I’m not doubting You, but Your failure to produce evidence to back up Your statement is sowing doubt in my mind.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Just wait and see. I can't say anything more about it

beakerjoe

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Just wait and see. I can't say anything more about it

So youve nothing....thanks

Rothko

beakerjoe wrote: »

So youve nothing....thanks

Usually he doesn't even bother replying (because he isn't capable of coming up with a clever response) so at least that's a small improvement.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Rothko wrote: »

Usually he doesn't even bother replying (because he isn't capable of coming up with a clever response) so at least that's a small improvement.

Less of the personals, pal.

Ten of Swords

Pintman Paddy Losty do not post in this thread again

KevRossi

If it's any help, a very rough calculation would indicate that Maria Bailey is down at least €160,000-180,000* in wages, expenses and add-ons (attendance, €10K p.a. for chairing a committee etc. etc etc. etc.) since the incident went public.

It was two years ago this month. A small bit of a victory for the 'little people'. She can still park her car in the Dail free of charge and have a drink in the Dail Mambers bar, where nobody wants to associate with her, but that's about it.

*Probably well in excess of that.