Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Options
1…245246248250251…315

Comments

  • Options
    #7412
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭pablo128


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Did she, is it? If she did she would be prosecuted. Fraud is a very serious offense. So, why hasn't that happened?* The review concluded she didn't perpetrate fraud.

    * Don't say it's because she's a TD. The reason this is in the national newspapers and getting so much coverage is because she's a TD. If Mary from down the road did it it might have made page 2 for a day. So, being a TD is offering her no protection, the opposite if anything.

    Are you bonkers or something? FG/IFP are the party who are supposed to be tackling the scourge of insurance fraud and sky high quotes, only to find their own members are in the thick of it.


  • Options
    #7413
    ChikiChiki
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭ChikiChiki


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What Fraud? Bailey's case was reviewed by a barrister and no fraud was found. What are the other 2 cases?

    Re Bailey, it's looking like she lied (she's definitely coming across as a bit thick (in the head and skinned)) when stating the amount she requested. But, that's not fraud.

    Fraud Definition: "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain"

    The reported stated Maria Bailey did overstate the extent of here injuries.

    Overstate definition; "state too strongly; exaggerate"
    Exaggerate definition ; "represent (something) as being larger, better, or worse than it really is.

    By that definitition the test for Fraud has been met and criminal proceedings should proceed. The statement actually confirms this.


  • Options
    #7414
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ChikiChiki wrote: »
    The reported stated Maria Bailey did overstate the extent of here injuries.

    The same report said she didn't commit fraud. Take it up with them.


  • Options
    #7415
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No. The gardai can request it though.

    Re bailey, if the request for compensation (20k?) is larger than what she said hopefully that'll be enough to have the whip taken away from her. I don't agree that the Dail arithmetic would necessitate a GE. With FF's continued support there's no reason for that.

    You're saying this as if Leo hasn't seen the report, and if Kennedy uncovered all the facts, he and leo would already be well aware of this, yet he didn't take the whip away.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's a lot easier to hurl from the ditch, SF for example have made great strides doing just that. It's also easier to make promises (again SF are taskmasters at this) when you're in opposition.

    SF, SF, SF, SF
    Deleted User wrote: »
    What Fraud? Bailey's case was reviewed by a barrister and no fraud was found. What are the other 2 cases?

    Re Bailey, it's looking like she lied (she's definitely coming across as a bit thick (in the head and skinned)) when stating the amount she requested. But, that's not fraud.

    She overstated the extent of her injuries, which would mean she exaggerated them.

    I've asked before, is there any difference in an exaggerated claim and a fraudulent one?


  • Options
    #7416
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Are you bonkers or something? FG/IFP are the party who are supposed to be tackling the scourge of insurance fraud and sky high quotes, only to find their own members are in the thick of it.

    Are you bonkers or something? ALL government parties (past and future) are expected to tackle the scourge of insurance fraud and sky hig quotes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7417
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭pablo128


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The same report said she didn't commit fraud. Take it up with them.

    Could you give us a link to that report, or even quote the relevant section, as it's clear from your posting that you have read it in its entirety?


  • Options
    #7418
    cameramonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What Fraud? Bailey's case was reviewed by a barrister and no fraud was found. What are the other 2 cases?

    Re Bailey, it's looking like she lied (she's definitely coming across as a bit thick (in the head and skinned)) when stating the amount she requested. But, that's not fraud.


    One barrister hired and paid I presume by FG gave an opinion on the Bailey case. But it's just an opinion it has no standing in law , legally my opinion or yours is just as valid. When FG hired the barrister they already know what the outcome will be , the barrister was just there to give some gravitas but it means nothing only that that was the outcome that FG wanted. It was about stopping the fire spreading to Madigan and to stop damage to FG support in the next elections.


  • Options
    #7419
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭pablo128


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Are you bonkers or something? ALL government parties (past and future) are expected to tackle the scourge of insurance fraud and sky hig quotes.

    Well they should be held to a far higher standard than Mary down the road.


  • Options
    #7420
    Snow Garden
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Snow Garden


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Are police making the laws now, I thought it was down to the judiciary and the Dail. A lawyer reviewed her case and said it wasn't fraud.

    Oh yeah, have you read the report? It was an internal investigation by the same party committing the fraud. Please send us a link to it. Why wasn't it published?


  • Options
    #7421
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The same report said she didn't commit fraud. Take it up with them.

    Leo and the person he sanctioned to undertake the report said it wasn't fraud.

    This would be the same leo who initially wasn't sure if he would publish the findings of the report because "he hadn't seen it, and didn't know what was in it"

    Then when he did see it, and knew exactly what was in it, brought a "Kennedy spoke with people with anonymity assurance" that he couldn't "possibly undermine" onto the pitch.

    Not very credible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7422
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    You're saying this as if Leo hasn't seen the report, and if Kennedy uncovered all the facts, he and leo would already be well aware of this, yet he didn't take the whip away.

    I've no idea. Where did the source come from that she asked for €20k. This may have come from the Dean relatively recently.
    Johnny Dogs wrote: »

    SF, SF, SF, SF

    Overkill, you only need to repeat it three times to attract the bogeyman ! :p
    Johnny Dogs wrote: »

    She overstated the extent of her injuries, which would mean she exaggerated them.

    As I said take it up with the person that said her claim was exaggerated but wasn't fraud. One explanation would be that while exaggerated, it wasn't done so knowingly by her. Hard to believe, but technically possible. Maybe that's what the lawyer meant. I haven't read the report.


  • Options
    #7423
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Could you give us a link to that report, or even quote the relevant section, as it's clear from your posting that you have read it in its entirety?
    Snow Garden wrote: »
    Oh yeah, have you read the report? It was an internal investigation by the same party committing the fraud. Please send us a link to it. Why wasn't it published?

    Ah lads, ye're gas. Ye've cherry picked what you wanted from the report FRAUD! but not the other elements. Of course I've not read the report, neither have ye. I'm going on what I heard on the radio.


  • Options
    #7424
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭pablo128


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I've no idea. Where did the source come from that she asked for €20k. This may have come from the Dean relatively recently.



    Overkill, you only need to repeat it three times to attract the bogeyman ! :p



    As I said take it up with the person that said her claim was exaggerated but wasn't fraud. One explanation would be that while exaggerated, it wasn't done so knowingly by her. Hard to believe, but technically possible. Maybe that's what the lawyer meant. I haven't read the report.

    You haven't read the report, but have no issue with coming on here and making claims as to what was in the report.

    Another FG/IFP shill it seems.


  • Options
    #7425
    ChikiChiki
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭ChikiChiki


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The same report said she didn't commit fraud. Take it up with them.

    I know, completley bizzare because the facts point to the opposite. Its a mealy mouthed statement probably drafted up by Leos PR person. And a very poorly written one at that.

    Having the name of David Kennedy SC mentioned adds a layer of credence to the report, nothing more. Before the inquiry was commenced, im sure the main consideration and paremeters of the report was damage limitation to the Fine Gael party.


  • Options
    #7426
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    cameramonkey wrote: »
    One barrister hired and paid I presume by FG gave an opinion on the Bailey case. But it's just an opinion it has no standing in law , legally my opinion or yours is just as valid. When FG hired the barrister they already know what the outcome will be , the barrister was just there to give some gravitas but it means nothing only that that was the outcome that FG wanted. It was about stopping the fire spreading to Madigan and to stop damage to FG support in the next elections.

    Supposition, M'Lord. It was reported as an independent review. If you wish to disregard off you go. But, it was also the report that said she exaggerated. Hardly what an in the pocket lawyer would report.


  • Options
    #7427
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    pablo128 wrote: »
    You haven't read the report, but have no issue with coming on here and making claims as to what was in the report.

    Another FG/IFP shill it seems.




    I worked that out already


    Quick look at the previous posts and anything SF is jumped on


    I guess the originally lads got found out so they sent in back up.....unfortuneatly this person is a subtle as a sledge hammer

    Also seems to have issues reading


  • Options
    #7428
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Well they should be held to a far higher standard than Mary down the road.

    Absolutely they should and she should be fired from the FG party for the evident incompetence alone. But, I was expecting some to say she was getting away with fraud because she was a TD. Highly unlikely.


  • Options
    #7429
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Supposition, M'Lord. It was reported as an independent review. If you wish to disregard off you go. But, it was also the report that said she exaggerated. Hardly what an in the pocket lawyer would report.

    The report didn't say she exaggerated though, it said "overstated" the extent of her injuries, which is somewhat less sinister and direct than using the word exaggerated, and is exactly like something an "in the pocket lawyer" would come up with.


  • Options
    #7430
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    pablo128 wrote: »
    You haven't read the report, but have no issue with coming on here and making claims as to what was in the report.

    Another FG/IFP shill it seems.

    I reported what I heard. Was any of what I reported as hearing incorrect? Should be easy to disregard what I said in that case and you win smug bugger of the day award.


  • Options
    #7431
    Charmeleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Charmeleon


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Supposition, M'Lord. It was reported as an independent review. If you wish to disregard off you go. But, it was also the report that said she exaggerated. Hardly what an in the pocket lawyer would report.

    If they denied she exaggerated they would have to publicly state that running a long distance timed event during the three months she was unable to run are not incompatible. They had no option but to admit she exaggerated the impact of her injuries in a signed legal document.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7432
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ChikiChiki wrote: »
    I know, completley bizzare because the facts point to the opposite. Its a mealy mouthed statement probably drafted up by Leos PR person. And a very poorly written one at that.

    Having the name of David Kennedy SC mentioned adds a layer of credence to the report, nothing more. Before the inquiry was commenced, im sure the main consideration and paremeters of the report was damage limitation to the Fine Gael party.
    pablo128 wrote: »
    You haven't read the report, but have no issue with coming on here and making claims as to what was in the report.

    Another FG/IFP shill it seems.
    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    I worked that out already


    Quick look at the previous posts and anything SF is jumped on


    I guess the originally lads got found out so they sent in back up.....unfortuneatly this person is a subtle as a sledge hammer

    Also seems to have issues reading


    Okay Trolls - here ye go... There's this thing called google. I wont expect an apology.

    https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/other/td-maria-bailey-has-suffered-badly-for-her-mistake-but-this-isnt-over-yet/ar-AAELgIp

    For a start, he concludes that this was not a fraudulent case. It's true that Ms Bailey suffered injuries when she fell from a swing in The Dean Hotel in July 2015.


  • Options
    #7433
    Suckit
    Registered Users Posts: 11,215 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    Well, I've just woken up and I'm reading through todays posts.. :D
    Holy Camolie!
    I think(hope) they have the CCTV footage. If they have that letter, they must have more. But are they going to make us wait. A little bit more tomorrow.
    They will not be happy until MB is gone, and rightly so. She is probably still blaming everyone but herself.
    The reminder of events in yesterdays Indo must be preparing us for this week.
    I am looking forward to this. Hopefully it will bring the house down. This lot are too incompetent to run a corner shop, let alone a country.
    Dun Laoghaire and Fingal, you can vote in Bailey and Farrell all you want, I'll be doing my part for the rest of the country, by making sure I don't vote FG as long as those and a few others are employed by the party.


  • Options
    #7434
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭pablo128


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Supposition, M'Lord. It was reported as an independent review. If you wish to disregard off you go. But, it was also the report that said she exaggerated. Hardly what an in the pocket lawyer would report.

    The world and it's mother knew she had exaggerated her claim when the Independent newspaper exposed her for running a 10k race 3 weeks after the accident, while claiming she could not run at all for 3 months afterwards.

    We didn't need a report to tell us that.


  • Options
    #7435
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Deleted User wrote:
    What Fraud? Bailey's case was reviewed by a barrister and no fraud was found. What are the other 2 cases?


    You seen the report?


  • Options
    #7436
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    The report didn't say she exaggerated though, it said "overstated" the extent of her injuries, which is somewhat less sinister and direct than using the word exaggerated, and is exactly like something an "in the pocket lawyer" would come up with.

    I can neither prove or disprove whether the lawyer is or isn't in the pocket of FG. I would suggest such a high profile legal professional wouldn't jeopardise their reputation for a relatively small amount of money, especially for such a high profile case.


  • Options
    #7437
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Okay Trolls - here ye go... There's this thing called google. I wont expect an apology.

    https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/other/td-maria-bailey-has-suffered-badly-for-her-mistake-but-this-isnt-over-yet/ar-AAELgIp

    For a start, he concludes that this was not a fraudulent case. It's true that Ms Bailey suffered injuries when she fell from a swing in The Dean Hotel in July 2015.

    Lol ......

    Who are you quoting as saying it concluded it wasn't fraudulent?

    And without the report being published, how do we know if what they're saying the report concluded is true?

    I could say I've a 9 inch flute encrusted with diamonds, but I'm definitely not getting it out and showing it to the room.


  • Options
    #7438
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    You seen the report?

    Do keep up. Thanks.


  • Options
    #7439
    Charmeleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Charmeleon


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Okay Trolls - here ye go... There's this thing called google. I wont expect an apology.

    https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/other/td-maria-bailey-has-suffered-badly-for-her-mistake-but-this-isnt-over-yet/ar-AAELgIp

    For a start, he concludes that this was not a fraudulent case. It's true that Ms Bailey suffered injuries when she fell from a swing in The Dean Hotel in July 2015.

    It may be true that she hurt herself, it can also be true that it was entirely her own fault and the hotel are not liable. Trying to claim the hotel was negligent and exaggerating your injuries can be fraudulent whether she was truly injured or not. Don’t swallow such spin so readily.


  • Options
    #7440
    Suckit
    Registered Users Posts: 11,215 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    Would it be illegal for the Dean to have re-enactments, on the half hour, every half hour replicating the CCTV footage meticulously right down to the dust on the floor. €50 entry fee. I'd pay :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7441
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Shefwedfan wrote: »

    Also seems to have issues reading

    Can you elaborate. You made a fool of yourself going off topic, claiming we were a joke of a country. I tried to explain in appropriately simple terms why this wasn't the case. Did you feel belittled and came up with the equivalent of a childhood slur?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement