Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

Rothko

CDarby wrote: »

Unsure why it's ok for you to insult users of the site though (which is clearly what you are doing when you mention Reddit etc), when did that kind of behaviour become acceptable?

Apart from insulting people using the site and contributing to the thread by referring to them as oddballs and losers, you are clearly talking a load of baloney about this being about anyone's gender, and "the thread not reaching 10k regardless of who they were or what party they were from"

Have a look at the thread about Leo Varadkar and leaking documents....... Well on its way to reaching 10k posts.

He sounds like a very angry man to me.

Rothko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The thread about the man suing the hotel could reach 10,000 posts if his defenders and he himself were keen on portraying the attacks on him as sexist. It’s the FGers who often keep it going.



I’ve rarely commented on this thread myself but these kind of comments are generalised ad hominens. You’ve basically called the opposition to you here sexist losers, and oddballs. This adds little to the debate. I’ve reported it.

As a floating centrist voter who has voted fg, as the best of bad lot, this isn’t going to win anybody over. What fg should have done with Maria is drop her like a hot potato. Defending her actions by abusing the opposition as sexist troglodytes isn’t cutting it. She’s unpopular as it is.

Well said

WishUWereHere

KevRossi wrote: »

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.

Under what guise is Bailey still allowed to park her car FOC in the Dail AND use tax payers money to frequent the members bar.

Hope there’s no swings in Kildare Street🙄

WishUWereHere

WishUWereHere wrote: »

Under what guise is Bailey still allowed to park her car FOC in the Dail AND use tax payers money to frequent the members bar.

Hope there’s no swings in Kildare Street🙄

Hasten to add she isn’t even a TD, are there others doing the same? If this is true ( and I have no reason to doubt it ) this abuse of tax payers money is totally wrong.

KevRossi

WishUWereHere wrote: »

Under what guise is Bailey still allowed to park her car FOC in the Dail AND use tax payers money to frequent the members bar.

Hope there’s no swings in Kildare Street��

Both are perks that are open to any TD, be they a sitting TD or a former TD.

They have lifelong free parking in the Dail car park. They can leave the car there and wander around town for as long as they wish. They were complaining about parking spaces a few years back, they wanted to rip out the carpark and replace it with an underground one. All paid for by the taxpayer.

They don't get free booze in the Dail Bar, but they do get entry to it. It's not subsidised but it's decently priced for a city centre bar. There are two bars there beside each other, one is for the general public, the other is only open to former and sitting TD's and Senators. Nobody else allowed in, no journalists, no party workers, no spouses.

FrancieBrady

KevRossi wrote: »

Both are perks that are open to any TD, be they a sitting TD or a former TD.

They don't get free booze in the Dail Bar, but they do get entry to it. It's not subsidised but it's decently priced for a city centre bar. There are two bars there beside each other, one is for the general public, the other is only open to former and sitting TD's and Senators. Nobody else allowed in, no journalists, no party workers, no spouses.

Some of them get free booze...are those bar tabs paid yet that were in the newspapers a while ago?

McMurphy

Few posts been deleted and tidied up by the looks of things, seems I missed a bit of an episode earlier. I don't think I'll have to get the brain out of first gear to work out who was posting the insults etc.

SeanW

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 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?

I thought the post was fairly clear. The only thing unclear is the gender angle. MB attracted negative attention to herself for trying to scam a hotel into paying for her stupidity, at a time when leisure businesses and facilities all across this country were closing because of insane public liability costs in terms of insurance premia and lawsuits. And now after trying to scam the hotel, she's back attacking the very cornerstone of a free press - the privilege of journalist-source confidentiality.

What exactly does gender have to do with this? How is Lorraine Higgins involved in the case?

beakerjoe

Again if it was a male politician Id feel the same way about this politician.

The only thing thats kept this thread going is MB herself. Recent interviews, recent action in against INM (which I cant see her getting what she wants).

The maker of her own demise. Like any other disgraced politician, she has the choice of cutting her loses by staying out of the spotlight or trying to claw away back into politics. She chose the latter and I believe it will be in vain. The hotel incident is still a bad taste in voters mouths.

Cluedo Monopoly

beakerjoe wrote: »

Again if it was a male politician Id feel the same way about this politician.

The only thing thats kept this thread going is MB herself. Recent interviews, recent action in against INM (which I cant see her getting what she wants).

The maker of her own demise. Like any other disgraced politician, she has the choice of cutting her loses by staying out of the spotlight or trying to claw away back into politics. She chose the latter and I believe it will be in vain. The hotel incident is still a bad taste in voters mouths.

It always sickened me that Alan Farrell (FG) got away with it and is still somehow a TD.

He was also worst offender in the expenses audit (4,214 Euros). Bailey was 2nd of the TDs listed.

Why would you vote that lad back in???

https://www.thejournal.ie/tds-senators-expenses-dail-maria-bailey-4845883-Oct2019/

beakerjoe

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

It always sickened me that Alan Farrell (FG) got away with it and is still somehow a TD.

He was also worst offender in the expenses audit (4,214 Euros). Bailey was 2nd of the TDs listed.

Why would you vote that lad back in???

https://www.thejournal.ie/tds-senators-expenses-dail-maria-bailey-4845883-Oct2019/

I agree. Hes as bad. No complaint here.

EmmetSpiceland

SeanW wrote: »

MB attracted negative attention to herself for trying to scam a hotel into paying for her stupidity, at a time when leisure businesses and facilities all across this country were closing because of insane public liability costs in terms of insurance premia and lawsuits.

And now, it seems, she’s “attracting” it whenever there’s an insurance story in the news. In fact, that’s the very reason why this thread has been “resurrected”.

Would it not be more “appropriate” to have a, separate, insurance thread where stories that have, literally, nothing to do with this woman and everything to do with random insurance stories could go?

I mean, she is being held “accountable” for her own actions but she really shouldn’t have to pay for the actions of, random, others.

Dav010

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

And now, it seems, she’s “attracting” it whenever there’s an insurance story in the news. In fact, that’s the very reason why this thread has been “resurrected”.

Would it not be more “appropriate” to have a, separate, insurance thread where stories that have, literally, nothing to do with this woman and everything to do with random insurance stories could go?

I mean, she is being held “accountable” for her own actions but she really shouldn’t have to pay for the actions of, random, others.

She’s not paying for the actions of others though.

SeanW

I "don't know" what all the "double quoting" is "about". It seems a little "weird." To be fair, I haven't read every post in this thread, but it seems like the reason it's being resurrected is because she's going after a newspaper to try to force their journalist to rat out a confidential source. That's worthy of criticism itself, and AFAIK, it's something she's done recently with a case ongoing.

And it's also perfectly fair for her to be a poster-child for insurance fraud. As a sitting TD at the time, she shared responsibility for legislation, including for matters such as public liability. Expecting a government with people like her (and her lawyer, who is still a TD and minister) in it to help small businesses and leisure facilities being driven to the wall with public liability costs would be like appointing John Gotti Minister for Justice to crack down on organised crime or making Typhoid Mary Minister for Health.

I don't expect much from politicians, but I draw the line at being an arrogant, blood sucking parasite, and attacking the foundation of a free press.

WishUWereHere

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

And now, it seems, she’s “attracting” it whenever there’s an insurance story in the news. In fact, that’s the very reason why this thread has been “resurrected”.

Would it not be more “appropriate” to have a, separate, insurance thread where stories that have, literally, nothing to do with this woman and everything to do with random insurance stories could go?

I mean, she is being held “accountable” for her own actions but she really shouldn’t have to pay for the actions of, random, others.

Sorry but this thread was re-invigorated by Bailey giving that interview with Brendan O’Connor, not by some other ‘insurance story’.

EmmetSpiceland

WishUWereHere wrote: »

Sorry but this thread was re-invigorated by Bailey giving that interview with Brendan O’Connor, not by some other ‘insurance story’.

Well that’s not true. There was a month between the last post and the post, below, highlighting an insurance “story” that has nothing to do with Bailey.

the purple tin wrote: »

https://www.sundayworld.com/news/irish-news/judge-dismisses-60k-claim-against-sunway-travel-over-child-5-injured-by-ceiling-fan-40348039.html

Nothing whatsoever.

Penn

It's not the fault of people here that reading about a spurious insurance claim makes them think of Maria Bailey.

She's made her name synonymous with it now.

McMurphy

Penn wrote: »

It's not the fault of people here that reading about a spurious insurance claim makes them think of Maria Bailey.

She's made her name synonymous with it now.

Exactly penn, insurance claims that make it to the media because they don't appear legit will always conjure up images of Maria Bailey, Alan Farrell etc for many people, and that's a direct result of the activities of Alan Farrell and Maria Bailey, and that of the FG party who wanted to try and sweep it all under the carpet.

Maria Bailey was only deleted from the ticket because of her local branch, Leo was cool with it in case anyone needs reminding.

KevRossi

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

It always sickened me that Alan Farrell (FG) got away with it and is still somehow a TD.

He was also worst offender in the expenses audit (4,214 Euros). Bailey was 2nd of the TDs listed.

Why would you vote that lad back in???

https://www.thejournal.ie/tds-senators-expenses-dail-maria-bailey-4845883-Oct2019/

He got away with it because he kept his mouth shut and his head down for a few weeks. Same as Josepha Madigan, even though she had to do a number of public engagements as Minister she refused to talk about it.

If Bailey had ordered her solicitor to drop the charge, made a public apology and shut up thereafter, she would very probably still be a TD. It was her interview on Sean O'Rourke that sealed her fate. She was warned against doing it by FG advisors, but she made her own bed that day.

kingstevii

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

And now, it seems, she’s “attracting” it whenever there’s an insurance story in the news. In fact, that’s the very reason why this thread has been “resurrected”.

Would it not be more “appropriate” to have a, separate, insurance thread where stories that have, literally, nothing to do with this woman and everything to do with random insurance stories could go?

I mean, she is being held “accountable” for her own actions but she really shouldn’t have to pay for the actions of, random, others.

Sorry Maria, you're dead right. Best of luck in the next election!

beakerjoe

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Well that’s not true. There was a month between the last post and the post, below, highlighting an insurance “story” that has nothing to do with Bailey.



Nothing whatsoever.

While Im no fan of MB, to be fair the thread was dead until resurrected with a link that didnt reference MB directly.

punisher5112

beakerjoe wrote: »

While Im no fan of MB, to be fair the thread was dead until resurrected with a link that didnt reference MB directly.

No... She came back to try and stir up the bleeding hearts.....

She is a scammer and a liar.

beakerjoe

punisher5112 wrote: »

No... She came back to try and stir up the bleeding hearts.....

She is a scammer and a liar.

Im not disputing that. But the thread was inactive for a month or so until Purple Tin posted. Thats a fact.

Dav010

beakerjoe wrote: »

Im not disputing that. But the thread was inactive for a month or so until Purple Tin posted. Thats a fact.

Should we forget this whole saga?

Wishful thinking, Ms Bailey will live long in infamy, she is now the poster child of fraudulent negligence claims.

Penn

beakerjoe wrote: »

Im not disputing that. But the thread was inactive for a month or so until Purple Tin posted. Thats a fact.

And again, I think it's because she's made her own name intrinsically linked to spurious insurance claims, that when one comes up, some people think of Maria Bailey.

I think if she hadn't done those recent interviews where it seems like she's trying to angle her way back into political life, chances are no-one would have went searching for this thread to bump it. But her continued intransigence about it and refusal to accept any responsibility for it at the time or in her recent interviews.... She is the face of spurious insurance claims. Making a spurious insurance claim is "doing a Bailey".

Sultan of Bling

Penn wrote:

I think if she hadn't done those recent interviews where it seems like she's trying to angle her way back into political life, chances are no-one would have went searching for this thread to bump it. But her continued intransigence about it and refusal to accept any responsibility for it at the time or in her recent interviews.... She is the face of spurious insurance claims. Making a spurious insurance claim is "doing a Bailey".

Love this.

Maybe a new thread can be set up to highlight ridiculous personal injury claims.

It can be called "people doing a bailey".

Dav010

Sultan of Bling wrote: »

Love this.

Maybe a new thread can be set up to highlight ridiculous personal injury claims.

It can be called "people doing a bailey".

Politicians sabotaging their own careers could be “doing a Bailey”, doing ill advised interviews could be “doing a Bailey”, as could falling off a swing while sitting stationary.

beakerjoe

Dav010 wrote: »

Should we forget this whole saga?

Wishful thinking, Ms Bailey will live long in infamy, she is now the poster child of fraudulent negligence claims.

I wont be forgetting it nor will buisness owners and those who purchase insurance in her constituency

KevRossi

beakerjoe wrote: »

Im not disputing that. But the thread was inactive for a month or so until Purple Tin posted. Thats a fact.

The thread was inactive for over 8 months until Maria Bailey decided to do a few interviews in February where she compared herself to Caroline Flack.

She's the gift that keeps on giving. She may have been trying to gauge public mood for some return to politics (maybe co-opted as a Councillor), but it backfired badly. For her own sake she should forget politics, avoid the public eye and try to sort herself a soft, well paid job with one of her Dad's old cronies.

SeanW

beakerjoe wrote: »

Im not disputing that. But the thread was inactive for a month or so until Purple Tin posted. Thats a fact.

She chose to make herself relevant by filing more actions in connection with her first lawsuit. This time in a direct attack on the free press. So the fact that she's still being discussed is her fault, no-one elses.