Maria Bailey still “Seriously Injured”

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

She's seriously injured a year after it but was able to run a 10k a couple of weeks after it.

It's obvious she got some pr advise....lie low for a year then try to restart the career. Start by trying to get a bit of sympathy, say you are still feeling effects of the fall.

Cynical exercise in career "rehabilitation", and there won't be many takers. This interview with Sean O'Rourke shredded any remaining credibility:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/transcript-of-maria-bailey-interview-on-sean-o-rourke-show-1.3905867

When you gone, you stay gone.

She should've been prosecuted

1874

Zaph wrote: »

Of course it does, and I firmly believe that she should have been prosecuted for that. But I don't feel compelled to go out of my way to tell her that I think she's a crook.

Thats nothing compared to what else she alleged, apparently she was told to jump off a cliff, maybe they were giving her advice on where the money to be made is though

Cienciano

. Ms Bailey said she believes something positive came out of Swing-gate, and that’s highlighting the effect that online abuse has.

So the one thing she learned was that everyone else was wrong except her.

runawaybishop

I think it's important this is shared any time she is mentioned. The neck of her.

https://twitter.com/MarianKeyes/status/1195105440855666691?s=01

Purple Mountain

Link?

gmisk

I'm surprised there wasn't more digging into her previous personal injury claims...when she worked at Aer Lingus....she has form...

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Cynical exercise in career "rehabilitation", and there won't be many takers. This interview with Sean O'Rourke shredded any remaining credibility:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/transcript-of-maria-bailey-interview-on-sean-o-rourke-show-1.3905867

When you gone, you stay gone.

I'll never forget that interview.....had to pull in at side of road....thought it was Mario rosenstock gift grub.....can never understand why her handlers/ advisors let her near a microphone

BattleCorp

Zaph wrote: »

Of course it does, and I firmly believe that she should have been prosecuted for that. But I don't feel compelled to go out of my way to tell her that I think she's a crook.

You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to get a conviction for insurance fraud. And Bailey's case doesn't come close to that.

She did fall off the swing. That did happen. So she didn't make that up.

Having a swing in a hotel where people would be drinking is stupid on the part of the hotel. It's entirely forseeable that someone could have a few bevvies on board and fall off the swing.

The hotel altered the swing following the incident where they put a non-slip surface on the swing. I think it was non-lip tape. That also points to the fact that the swing may have been slippy and therefore more dangerous.

Now you might think I'm clutching at straws but both of those things are very much points in favour of Bailey should she have continued on with her personal injury claim. The hotel would have found it very difficult to win that case.

The only way Bailey could be in trouble legally for insurance fraud would be if she was caught out telling lies in court. That didn't happen because she dropped her case before it got to court.

golfball37

gmisk wrote: »

I'm surprised there wasn't more digging into her previous personal injury claims when she worked at Aer Lingus....she has form...

She got 6 figures from them allegedly. Who knew it was noisy working at an airport

happyoutscan

BattleCorp wrote: »

You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to get a conviction for insurance fraud. And Bailey's case doesn't come close to that.

She did fall off the swing. That did happen. So she didn't make that up.

Having a swing in a hotel where people would be drinking is stupid on the part of the hotel. It's entirely forseeable that someone could have a few bevvies on board and fall off the swing.

The hotel altered the swing following the incident where they put a non-slip surface on the swing. I think it was non-lip tape. That also points to the fact that the swing may have been slippy and therefore more dangerous.

Now you might think I'm clutching at straws but both of those things are very much points in favour of Bailey should she have continued on with her personal injury claim. The hotel would have found it very difficult to win that case.

The only way Bailey could be in trouble legally for insurance fraud would be if she was caught out telling lies in court. That didn't happen because she dropped her case before it got to court.

Yep, she fell off a swing but didn't hurt herself. Well not enough to stop her running a 10k a few weeks later.

She was on a cash grab, nothing more. Why do you defend her?

buried

BattleCorp wrote: »

The only way Bailey could be in trouble legally for insurance fraud would be if she was caught out telling lies in court. That didn't happen because she dropped her case before it got to court.

She made out she was injured back then but ran a 10km race three weeks after her initial fall. She dropped the case because she didn't have a leg to stand on.
Again.

gmisk

golfball37 wrote: »

She got 6 figures from them allegedly. Who knew it was noisy working at an airport

I heard the same!
She got away with it once...got greedy and thought....ah sure maybe I should get another one when I can.

It was a ridiculous claim..she fell off a swing..while holding a bottle/glass while reaching for another bottle/glass...she was so badly injured she managed to go to longitude 8 days after and she ran a 10k less than 2 weeks later....

gmisk

happyoutscan wrote: »

Yep, she fell off a swing but didn't hurt herself. Well not enough to stop her running a 10k a few weeks later.

She was on a cash grab, nothing more. Why do you defend her?

She also attended longitude 8 days after the fall...

BattleCorp

happyoutscan wrote: »

Yep, she fell off a swing but didn't hurt herself. Well not enough to stop her running a 10k a few weeks later.

She was on a cash grab, nothing more. Why do you defend her?

How do you know she didn't hurt herself? Genuine question. She did a run a few weeks later but that isn't proof that she wasn't injured in the fall.

And yes, I agree with you that it was a cash grab. It's after backfiring bigtime and costing her far more than she would have gotten in her claim.

I don't particularly feel sorry for her............my only point is that, given my experience in dealing with personal injury claims (I'm not a legal professional but I deal with them) she had a very strong case based on what happened. The hotel would have found it extremely difficult to defend the case. I think their only chance of success would have been if they could catch Bailey out in a lie on the stand or in an Affidavit.

Did she guild the lilly..........who knows, it's possible........I'm not privvy to her medical reports.

People saying she should have been prosecuted don't know what they are talking about.

yabadabado

golfball37 wrote: »

She got 6 figures from them allegedly. Who knew it was noisy working at an airport

What were her injuries there ?

buried

Let her back on the radio again. God knows we could all do with a laugh.

earlyevening

Here we go again. If at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again..

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/maria-bailey-sues-news-publisher-in-high-court-over-coverage-of-swing-gate-39241331.html

golfball37

yabadabado wrote: »

What were her injuries there ?

Aural. That’s with an A !

BattleCorp

buried wrote: »

She made out she was injured back then but ran a 10km race three weeks after her initial fall. She dropped the case because she didn't have a leg to stand on.
Again.

That's not proof she wasn't injured.

She dropped the case because of the public attention, not because she didn't have a leg to stand on.

Her problem was that she dropped it too late. Once the public knew about it, it was curtains for her political career.

gmisk

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'll never forget that interview.....had to pull in at side of road....thought it was Mario rosenstock gift grub.....can never understand why her handlers/ advisors let her near a microphone

I was in stitches.

The part with him asking so you admit you were on the swing holding a glass of wine in one hand while you reached for a bottle your friend was holding...she said....well that is up to a judge to decide....lol

golfball37

She lied in an affidavit made with Josepha Madigans law firm. She said she couldn’t run or exercise after her injuries in a sworn legal statement which would have been a record for the court.
She should have been pursued for fraud imo

gmisk

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's not proof she wasn't injured.

She dropped the case because of the public attention, not because she didn't have a leg to stand on.

Her problem was that she dropped it too late. Once the public knew about it, it was curtains for her political career.

Alan Farrell managed to hang on and even got some money out of his dodgy claim though.
Not sure why he didn't receive same attention...I honestly think the interview did for her

McCrack

BattleCorp wrote: »

You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to get a conviction for insurance fraud. And Bailey's case doesn't come close to that.

She did fall off the swing. That did happen. So she didn't make that up.

Having a swing in a hotel where people would be drinking is stupid on the part of the hotel. It's entirely forseeable that someone could have a few bevvies on board and fall off the swing.

The hotel altered the swing following the incident where they put a non-slip surface on the swing. I think it was non-lip tape. That also points to the fact that the swing may have been slippy and therefore more dangerous.

Now you might think I'm clutching at straws but both of those things are very much points in favour of Bailey should she have continued on with her personal injury claim. The hotel would have found it very difficult to win that case.

The only way Bailey could be in trouble legally for insurance fraud would be if she was caught out telling lies in court. That didn't happen because she dropped her case before it got to court.

I agree with you on the liability aspect it's more the s26 aspect that caught her out or at least had the potential to if the hotel pushed it (no pun intended)

alchemist33

I hope this interview backfires as much as the radio interview did. The sense of entitlement has only intensified.

BattleCorp

golfball37 wrote: »

She lied in an affidavit made with Josepha Madigans law firm. She said she couldn’t run or exercise after her injuries in a sworn legal statement which would have been a record for the court.
She should have been pursued for fraud imo

Nope. You need a bit more proof than that.

Like I said earlier, I agree with people that it was a cash grab. And one that backfired spectacularly because of the negative publicity.

buried

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's not proof she wasn't injured.

She dropped the case because of the public attention, not because she didn't have a leg to stand on.

Her problem was that she dropped it too late. Once the public knew about it, it was curtains for her political career.

How could she be injured and run and complete a 10km race? She didn't run the race on a Playstation Virtual mat

Augme

That interview will live long in the memory and be one of those political moments people will remember for a long time.

I'm stunned she thinks that the best way to get back into the spotlight is to do a piece like this just highlights her decision making abilities have not improved in the slightest. Wtf is she thinking,a genuine lol fron me reading the latest article.

Her arguments are basically as follows - Still claims she is injured, still thinks she didn't do anything wrong, links herself to caroline flack, the only mistake she made was doing the interviews ew because she got caught out and everyone saw what she was truly like.


Haha, jesus. The notions in this one. Like father like daughter.

gmisk

buried wrote: »

How could she be injured and run and complete a 10km race? She didn't run the race on a Playstation Virtual mat

But it wasn't even a good time....for her...lol
She was clearly badly injured....

buried

buried wrote: »

How could she be injured and run and complete a 10km race? She didn't run the race on a Playstation Virtual mat

Didn't she run a 55 min 10k, that's not somebody who's injured