Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Danzy · 29-05-2019 1:45pm

everlast75 wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if she sued if FG tried to turf her out!

They surely have rules on bringing the party in to disrepute.

I'm sure that in the event of that threat being made, video would be leaked.

JeffKenna · 29-05-2019 1:45pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's the thing. She hasn't been shown to have told a lie.

Telling a lie is telling something factually incorrect on purpose. It is possible that she told something factually incorrect as a result of a lapse in memory. In that case, it wouldn't be a lie.

We all suspect it's a lie, but that hasn't been proven.

Using that logic it's impossible for anybody to tell a lie? The money was resting in my account...

everlast75 · 29-05-2019 1:45pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's the thing. She hasn't been shown to have told a lie.

Telling a lie is telling something factually incorrect on purpose. It is possible that she told something factually incorrect as a result of a lapse in memory. In that case, it wouldn't be a lie.

We all suspect it's a lie, but that hasn't been proven.

You and I are singing from the same hymn sheet here.

If I were to write down here what I think of her, it would be mostly censored. But that means Jack Sh1t in the legal arena.

She should and hopefully will be voted out. That's completely different to FG have legal grounds to throw her out of the party.

Earleybird · 29-05-2019 1:46pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's the thing. She hasn't been shown to have told a lie.

Telling a lie is telling something factually incorrect on purpose. It is possible that she told something factually incorrect as a result of a lapse in memory. In that case, it wouldn't be a lie.

We all suspect it's a lie, but that hasn't been proven.

Her and her poor father seem to get things factually incorrect on a very frequent basis. If I was to guess I would say it must be a genetic abnormality. Only explanation.

Stop moaning ffs · 29-05-2019 1:47pm

everlast75 wrote: »

You and I are singing from the same hymn sheet here.

If I were to write down here what I think of her, it would be mostly censored. But that means Jack Sh1t in the legal arena.

She should and hopefully will be voted out. That's completely different to FG have legal grounds to throw her out of the party.

Leo and FG are all about image and spin. Public perception is key.
They have no other option but to throw her out.

JPCN1 · 29-05-2019 1:49pm

rusty cole wrote: »

at this stage, I wouldn't say it's beyond her to pull an Angela Kearns and say she contemplated doing something drastic, just for the sympathy of it

Jeez, like what, have a go on a playground roundabout?

listermint · 29-05-2019 1:49pm

everlast75 wrote: »

You and I are singing from the same hymn sheet here.

If I were to write down here what I think of her, it would be mostly censored. But that means Jack Sh1t in the legal arena.

She should and hopefully will be voted out. That's completely different to FG have legal grounds to throw her out of the party.

Sorry but we have to disagree.

There is too much individual errors at this point to plea the oul mistake card, The assumptions card or any other card.

The angle you are coming at if from is 'let the judge decide' which is what she tried to do. Its too late for that. Based on what she put in her plea for the case, Which wasnt changed might i add. She lied. That's enough to bring the party into disrepute.

simple as that.

shes a sitting TD and one of her parties policies was to bring in changes to review the insurance problem in the country.

29-05-2019 1:50pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's the thing. She hasn't been shown to have told a lie.

Telling a lie is telling something factually incorrect on purpose. It is possible that she told something factually incorrect as a result of a lapse in memory. In that case, it wouldn't be a lie.

We all suspect it's a lie, but that hasn't been proven.

so are you suggesting a boards thread come with this level of burden to say she lied to chance her arm here?

because its pretty clear that she lied to chance her arm here.

ILoveYourVibes · 29-05-2019 1:50pm

Maria Bailey, she has previous claims of personal injuries.

The TD did not respond to queries from The Sunday Times last week about a personal injuries action filed in the name of Maria Bailey against Aer Lingus, her former employer, in 2004.

The case did not go to court and was either settled or withdrawn. Aer Lingus declined to comment.

BattleCorp · 29-05-2019 1:50pm

JeffKenna wrote: »

Using that logic it's impossible for anybody to tell a lie? The money was resting in my account...

I'm not saying this is the case with Bailey but it's a possibility.

I've occasionally remembered things incorrectly. We are human, it happens.

But the facts are that a factual inaccuracy doesn't always mean that someone lied.

In your example, the money is resting in the account so that's proof. Much harder to prove someone lied on purpose and didn't make a mistake.

ArrBee · 29-05-2019 1:50pm

everlast75 wrote: »

Look. I get people are p*ssed off at her.

Her interview with SOR was a disgrace.

But she has not been shown to have lied. She has claimed that she made a mistake.

It would be entirely different if it went to Court and the Court made a finding that she lied. But it didn't. I know she withdrew the case, but you can infer that the Court would have made that finding, but it didn't.

You say she lied. She said she made a mistake. There are no grounds to throw her out listed so far, that I can see.

I'll take a stab...
It's been said previously that bringing the party into disrepute is grounds.
Now, I don't know if that's actually true but it has been for sports so I can well imagine it.

In this case the damage that to the party has been mostly caused (IMO) by the radio interview which was done without the party involved.

I'd suggest that this would be a sufficient reason.

29-05-2019 1:52pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not saying this is the case with Bailey but it's a possibility.

I've occasionally remembered things incorrectly. We are human, it happens.

But the facts are that a factual inaccuracy doesn't always mean that someone lied.

In your example, the money is resting in the account so that's proof. Much harder to prove someone lied on purpose and didn't make a mistake.

the fact that ppl make honest mistakes does not mean that ppl dont lie

Wheety · 29-05-2019 1:53pm

cjmc wrote: »

Someone might have previously posted
But Leo has overseen some fcuking debacles. This mess , the children’s hospital, the national broadband project .
Any others ? I’m beginning to think that he was elected just to prove how liberal we’d become on the wave of equality we surfed and gay or not he’s an unmitigated fcuking disaster that we’ll look (and pay) back on for years to come . It’s not like it hasn’t happened before , repeatedly .

He's an awful Taoiseach. More concerned about PR than anything else. But when you're concentrating so hard on the image, you take your eye off the ball and then all the disasters you've overseen will result in a lot of bad PR. Which we're starting to see over the last year or two.

29-05-2019 1:54pm

I do get where ever last is coming from. What legal grounds do they have?

This story is not going away and usually I’d be expecting a resignation by now. But there hasn’t been which has me wondering if there are more party members involved that would damage FG even further and Maria has the best hand right now.

Sardonicat · 29-05-2019 1:54pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

To change a sworn affidavit takes more than ammending a text. She SWORE that the information was true. It was read to her and she SWORE it was true. Then she signed it. She lied. To get money.

She's a crook.

I get the outrage, like I said, she should be fcuked out so fast that she sh1ts herself but it's not correct to say that she lied in the Affidavit. The Affidavit may well be a pile of sh1t but that doesn't necessarily mean that she lied. She may have made a mistake. An error of memory. I've had to stand over Affidavits before that had inaccuracies and it's common for people to rectify mistakes under questioning in court.

She made a mistake when she told her legal team she couldn't run for 3 months. She made a mistake when she read this information as compiled by her legal team for submission and didn't correct them. She made a mistake when she raised her hand and swore it was true in front of a witness as it was being read to her. And she made a mistake when she signed it as true.

She's a crook

BattleCorp · 29-05-2019 1:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

the fact that ppl make honest mistakes does not mean that ppl dont lie

I 100% agree with you.

I actually don't believe her version of events. But I can't say for certain she was lying. I can suspect it, but suspecting it doesn't make it fact.

Suckit · 29-05-2019 1:55pm

everlast75 wrote: »

Look. I get people are p*ssed off at her.

Her interview with SOR was a disgrace.

But she has not been shown to have lied. She has claimed that she made a mistake.

It would be entirely different if it went to Court and the Court made a finding that she lied. But it didn't. I know she withdrew the case, but you can infer that the Court would have made that finding, but it didn't.

You say she lied. She said she made a mistake. There are no grounds to throw her out listed so far, that I can see.

Not being able to run for 3 months, but running 10k in 3 weeks was a lie, no?

She didn't realise that it would be gaining the public attention that it did when she posted it. She probably thought there would be no real investigation because who she is.
If she ran the 10k in 3 weeks, then there is a very high chance that she was training for weeks prior to it.
Also, the court papers that she claims she instructed her lawyers to ammend, were sworn affidavits, not a rough draft.

podgeandrodge · 29-05-2019 1:55pm

jon1981 wrote: »

I bet you she loses a couple of chair positions and then left to public to decide her faith in the next general election.

I'm not sure she'd swing it. (Apologies for probably 100th this joke made)

29-05-2019 1:55pm

front page on the indo is bad for FG again, Alan shatter quotes Leo by his own admission for being "Spin mad" and a media whore. He speaks very poorly of Leo Varadkars assassination of him..

As to who or what to believe, it's front page news on the INDO.

Did someone in FG sleep with or murder someone at the indo because they've a real hard on for fine gael this last two weeks and to be honest I'm feckin glad to read it for once.

everlast75 · 29-05-2019 1:56pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

A lack of confidence in her ability to make informed judgements on important decisions.

This is a woman who was unable to decide if she had something in her hands or not after all.

If that is legal grounds, then work away.

Every person has a right to issue proceedings. She can call it an error in judgement or whatever, but I just don't see that working.

JeffKenna wrote: »

Using that logic it's impossible for anybody to tell a lie? The money was resting in my account...

No. If a person goes into Dunnes, opens a bottle of olive oil, pours it on ground, takes a few steps back and then walks onto it, falls on their ass and then sues, then that's fraud.

If the CCTV shows Ms. Bailey doing something equivalent, then its game set and match

ohnonotgmail · 29-05-2019 1:56pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

I 100% agree with you.

I actually don't believe her version of events. But I can't say for certain she was lying. I can suspect it, but suspecting it doesn't make it fact.

the partys decision on what to do with her is not a court of law. No "beyond a reasonable doubt" required.

jon1981 · 29-05-2019 1:57pm

rusty cole wrote: »

front page on the indo is bad for FG again, Alan shatter quotes Leo by his own admission for being "Spin mad" and a media whore. He speaks very poorly of Leo Varadkars assassination of him..

As to who or what to believe, it's front page news on the INDO.

Did someone in FG sleep with or murder someone at the indo because they've a real hard on for fine gael this last two weeks and to be honest I'm feckin glad to read it for once.

I've always found the Irish Times to be easier on LV and FG in general. I guess the Indo spotted a differentiating position!

ArrBee · 29-05-2019 1:58pm

Earleybird wrote: »

Her and her poor father seem to get things factually incorrect on a very frequent basis. If I was to guess I would say it must be a genetic abnormality. Only explanation.

Factually incorrect.... hmmmm.
Maybe instead of lies, it was Fake Truth™

everlast75 · 29-05-2019 1:59pm

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I do get where ever last is coming from. What legal grounds do they have?

This story is not going away and usually I’d be expecting a resignation by now. But there hasn’t been which has me wondering if there are more party members involved that would damage FG even further and Maria has the best hand right now.

She should have taken a week off and went to Spain. A week and things would have blown over.

Her PR advice was not good, to put it lightly.

Suckit wrote: »

Not being able to run for 3 months, but running 10k in 3 weeks was a lie, no?

She didn't realise that it would be gaining the public attention that it did when she posted it. She probably thought there would be no real investigation because who she is.
If she ran the 10k in 3 weeks, then there is a very high chance that she was training for weeks prior to it.
Also, the court papers that she claims she instructed her lawyers to ammend, were sworn affidavits, not a rough draft.

It is, according to her, a mistake in a Court pleading about something that happened 3 years ago. That does not make it a proven lie.

BattleCorp · 29-05-2019 1:59pm

Sardonicat wrote: »

She made a mistake when she told her legal team she couldn't run for 3 months. She made a mistake when she read this information as compiled by her legal team for submission and didn't correct them. She made a mistake when she raised her hand and swore it was true in front of a witness as it was being read to her. And she made a mistake when she signed it as true.

She's a crook

Given the premise of innocent until proven guilty, your above statement (without the bit I crossed out) is correct. They are all mistakes until a judge rules otherwise.

And seeing as this will never see the inside of the courtroom (assuming she has the cop-on to drop the case), she won't be convicted of telling lies or exaggerating anything.

dublin99 · 29-05-2019 2:02pm

MB swore an Affidavit of verification to support what was in the pleadings (drafted by barrister based on information given by client).
You cannot change the contents of a sworn and filed affidavit.
You can try to amend the pleadings, probably by way of a Motion, if there is no consent from the other side.
You can swear another Affidavit. In this case, if the case goes to trial, everyone will see both versions. Judge can query and Counsel can cross examine plaintiff on the material differences :-)

Fact is that she tried to force a settlement by deliberately GROSSLY EXAGGERATING the extent of her injury, as demonstrated in her Affidavit.
The case was never going to reach trial stage. It was quick money and good legal fees for Madigans who expected it to settle if they agreed to a "discount" of what they had originally claimed. In terms of Cost Benefit Analysis, these cases were low risk and low cost for lawyers. Insurers nearly always settle to avid uncertainty or incurring more legal costs in defending.

I wonder which Doctor certified the extent of her injury and advised she could not run for three months?

BattleCorp · 29-05-2019 2:02pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the partys decision on what to do with her is not a court of law. No "beyond a reasonable doubt" required.

Yes, the party can throw her out. I did say the FG party could throw her out but they can't stop her from being a TD. Only an election can do that.

29-05-2019 2:02pm

I'm just glad Left leaning Leo is in the cross hairs as the buck stops with him. And sure pascal Donohoe is on his way to the Bilderberg summit now in Switzerland where he'll clink flutes (champagne ones) with the Dutch crowd building our hospital, whilst doing shots with the tears of Irish children

Dith ith thum quality thpread you've laid out for uthhh here misther chairman!

weldoninhio · 29-05-2019 2:03pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Given the premise of innocent until proven guilty, your above statement (without the bit I crossed out) is correct. They are all mistakes until a judge rules otherwise.

And seeing as this will never see the inside of the courtroom (assuming she has the cop-on to drop the case), she won't be convicted of telling lies or exaggerating anything.

That's absolute nonsense.

Everyone look out your windows, the sky has turned bright pink and it's raining euro's. I'll just leave this here until a judge rules if it's a lie. :rolleyes:

Bleedin' Schrodinger's lie.

ArrBee · 29-05-2019 2:04pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

I 100% agree with you.

I actually don't believe her version of events. But I can't say for certain she was lying. I can suspect it, but suspecting it doesn't make it fact.

At what point does it become fact?

Because if it can only become fact through a court ruling that is an incredible burden on everyday life. There needs to be ways of establishing, to a reasonable standard, if someone is lying without getting into a court room.

Sure, there should always be the right to overturn an assessment of lying through the courts, but there should be a way to establish initially that a lie has been told.

I'm thinking of employment disciplinary action for instance.

Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Comments