New father sues midwife for €38000

jimmycrackcorm · 25-02-2009 02:31PM

Svalbard wrote: »

"Mr McAuley, of Beatty Park, Celbridge, Co Kildare"

Hmmmm, I wonder if a letter would get there without the house number?

Perhaps if you posted your own name and address without the house number, we could establish an answer.

Nodin · 25-02-2009 02:33PM

mike65 wrote: »

I can only think this couple are the sort who drive car like this and think they're it.

Pimp and Pimpette?

Oh The Humanity · 25-02-2009 02:34PM

Sounds like one of those 'oh the Wonder of me' types of people, who imagines that he is the only person on the planet to have ever had a baby before.

I'd say he lead a lonley and friendless life before the Trophy wife came along and is now in an ecstasy of self love with the amazingness of it all !!!

Sounds like one of those people who will attempt to show the dvd's to 'friends' ie anyone whatsoever who calls to the house:
a reluctant relative who borrowed the lawn-mower....
moonies, salesmen, kids scrumping for apples....

Sad, the poor kid

DonJose · 25-02-2009 02:36PM

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

THAT would have been interesting- were people ringing in abuse?

What a tool.

You can listen to it at

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/

Scroll down to Shows from the past week and click on Wednesday, it starts at roughly 29:50 into the show.

Mr. Incognito · 25-02-2009 02:36PM

Where's the child? I don't see Mommy pushing a stroller- probably been lumped at home with her Eastern European cousins, "you know how they are such a distracting dahling."

godtabh · 25-02-2009 02:37PM

Svalbard wrote: »

"Mr McAuley, of Beatty Park, Celbridge, Co Kildare"

Hmmmm, I wonder if a letter would get there without the house number?

Send him one but be sure to put your return address on it

Biggins · 25-02-2009 02:47PM

The twat put material items over the life of his child - he don't deserve kids.

Fair play to the judge for sending this time waster packing.
As for the mid-wife - I hope she gets a deservedly good drink from a friend.
Its the least she deserves after been treated badly by this money grabbing bozo!

Svalbard · 25-02-2009 02:50PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Perhaps if you posted your own name and address without the house number, we could establish an answer.

kearnsr wrote: »

Send him one but be sure to put your return address on it

Why would I do that, that makes no sense? You guys are CRAZY!

Ginny · 25-02-2009 02:53PM

DonJose wrote: »

You can listen to it at

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/

Scroll down to Shows from the past week and click on Wednesday, it starts at roughly 29:50 into the show.

God they're awful, wonder if they got paid for the interview?

Kintarō Hattori · 25-02-2009 02:55PM

mumhaabu wrote: »

The fact that his wife is Lithuanian says alot as no Irish woman in her right mind would give this plonker the time of time.

What does it say exactly? There are plenty of irish women who in the past have given the time of day to plonkers. Her being Lithuanian has nothing to do with anything.

Sean Quagmire wrote: »

Yea especially as time of time is the best time of all

Ehh what?

Brock Lemon Greengrocer wrote: »

Some people also respect copyright.
Old fashioned, I know.

How does it affect copyright? The story was posted with a link to the Indo.

Sundew · 25-02-2009 02:57PM

He is the type of person that thinks money buys him the right to do whatever he wants. All too common nowdays.
He actually mentioned on the radio that it was his first time buyimg/using a camcorder. Did he not learn anything recording etiquette before embarking on his filming exploits. Is he Scottish?

theirish · 25-02-2009 03:06PM

I would have to agree with all of you on this one I mean as long as the baby is healthy what else matters!!

r3nu4l · 25-02-2009 03:10PM

T-K-O wrote: »

Well think about it - you never see footage of operations going wrong. I've seen it happen many time in numerous different documentaries.

I've seen plenty, I watched plenty of live percutaneous coronary interventional procedures as they were being filmed. I've seen two go wrong, one where a stent collapsed and broke inside the artery, another where a valve was being guided across the aorta, came detached from the guidewire and was got lodged in the aorta. In both cases, teh cameras kept rolling.

Svalbard wrote: »

Ever been in a delivery room trying to help a newborn who is struggling to breathe?

Yes unfortunately I have.

No? Didn't think so.

Make assumptions much?

Distractions aren't wanted. Why did he want to film his child struggling for breath? You would think he would have bigger concerns.

Yes you would, wouldn't you? I think so too.

Was he trying to make a snuff movie maybe?

Are you just being a little over-emotive and OTT? :rolleyes:

You can look at this anyway you want but the man is still a bint. He should have had to pay compo to the midwife.

Yup the man is a 'bint', in fact I can think of plenty of worse things to call him than 'bint' but the fact remains that nowhere does it state that he got in the way. Have YOU ever been in a theatre when something went wrong and someone was getting in the way? If you have been then you know that the person or thing in the way doesn't get the chance to stay in the way for long.

I'm not defending the guy one bit but some people here can't seem to see that. :rolleyes: In my capacity as a Medical Writer I've worked with senior Midwives and I can tell you that the best are people that:
a) aren't to be trifled with
b) get the job done regardless of what's going on around them.

I'm questioning the motive for asking for the camera to be turned off. If he was getting in the way for his morbid close-up then that's fine. If she was simply ascribing her morals (this isn't right, how dare you!) then she should have minded her own business and got on with the job. If she was covering her own arse then that's understandable (but still wrong). I wouldn't want some layer using a video to question my professional handling of a situation.

Finally, let me make it clear for some of the people that don't seem to get me. I think this man was wrong to continue filming, wrong to then take the midwife to court and is a bit of a tool. Happy now that I've spelt it out? :rolleyes:

Jesus Juice · 25-02-2009 03:19PM

Who wants to look a vage on its own... especially with a screaming baby coming out and all the placenta!!:eek:sick.

herya · 25-02-2009 03:20PM

They say it was a caesarean birth, a full surgical procedure and an emergency at that - he wasn't filming his wife giving birth he was filming her being cut open. And when the baby was taken out and had difficulties breathing he only wanted to continue filming ffs. What a piece of work.

Svalbard · 25-02-2009 03:24PM

r3nu4l wrote: »

I've seen plenty, I watched plenty of live percutaneous coronary interventional procedures as they were being filmed. I've seen two go wrong, one where a stent collapsed and broke inside the artery, another where a valve was being guided across the aorta, came detached from the guidewire and was got lodged in the aorta. In both cases, teh cameras kept rolling.

Yes unfortunately I have.

Make assumptions much?

Yes you would, wouldn't you? I think so too.

Are you just being a little over-emotive and OTT? :rolleyes:

Yup the man is a 'bint', in fact I can think of plenty of worse things to call him than 'bint' but the fact remains that nowhere does it state that he got in the way. Have YOU ever been in a theatre when something went wrong and someone was getting in the way? If you have been then you know that the person or thing in the way doesn't get the chance to stay in the way for long.

I'm not defending the guy one bit but some people here can't seem to see that. :rolleyes: In my capacity as a Medical Writer I've worked with senior Midwives and I can tell you that the best are people that:
a) aren't to be trifled with
b) get the job done regardless of what's going on around them.

I'm questioning the motive for asking for the camera to be turned off. If he was getting in the way for his morbid close-up then that's fine. If she was simply ascribing her morals (this isn't right, how dare you!) then she should have minded her own business and got on with the job. If she was covering her own arse then that's understandable (but still wrong). I wouldn't want some layer using a video to question my professional handling of a situation.

Finally, let me make it clear for some of the people that don't seem to get me. I think this man was wrong to continue filming, wrong to then take the midwife to court and is a bit of a tool. Happy now that I've spelt it out? :rolleyes:

You clearly made all that up. You're worse than a bint.

JIZZLORD · 25-02-2009 03:34PM

knob end tbh

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 25-02-2009 03:38PM

"every precious moment of the first minutes of his baby's life"

I don't get it. He is suing for what exactly? This prick just ruins it for everyone else. Now hospitals will be against filming. Personally I rather not see the birth part, afterwards though, I would like to have some pictures and maybe a video to play back 15-20 years later... you know?

What was the 12K for? Is it a private hospital? Excuse my ignorance please.

beth-lou · 25-02-2009 03:41PM

Adam Old-fashioned Crowbar wrote: »

What was the 12K for? Is it a private hospital? Excuse my ignorance please.

Yep, it's a private hospital.

dublinario · 25-02-2009 03:47PM

I can actually see his point of view. I think that midwife was completely out of order, drunk on power, barking orders at all and sundry. You know, one day she might be having a child of her own, and how would she feel if some uppity midwife told her to put down the camera and push?

Gummy Panda · 25-02-2009 03:48PM

Seriously, I think this is all about the money. He has probably realised what a waste that 12k was and is trying to recover it. complaining of fake violations of contract is usually a way for idiot consumers to try get what they want.

Also i love how he had a verbal agreement on recording with no terms and conditions yet he says this is a violation of it.

mollypop · 25-02-2009 03:50PM

dublinario wrote: »

I can actually see his point of view. I think that midwife was completely out of order, drunk on power, barking orders at all and sundry. You know, one day she might be having a child of her own, and how would she feel if some uppity midwife told her to put down the camera and push?

Are you serious?

Zonda999 · 25-02-2009 03:53PM

What an ignoramus!!

I do hope he's reading is and knows what people think of him!

BTW. what solicitor in their right mind would have taken this tards case??

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 25-02-2009 03:54PM

mollypop wrote: »

Are you serious?

No no, he is joking... hehe...

dublinario · 25-02-2009 03:54PM

mollypop wrote: »

Are you serious?

Absolutely. This is a witch hunt. You've got a man who loves his child so much, that he's willing to risk everything -- including the child's death -- to immortalise the beginnings of the child's life. Now that is love.

But you've got this craven, fascist hag muscling in on these sacred moments, marring them with her aggressive dictates. She needs locking up, or at least a lesson on manners.

pwd · 25-02-2009 04:01PM

It's important to be aware of the existance of people like this: People who will try to sue someone when they save their child's life. It's incomprehensible to me. There are a lot of people like this though.

seamus · 25-02-2009 04:04PM

"Hello, yes, is that Lovely Lithuanian Ladies ltd? It is? Great. Look, I am happy enough with my recent delivery but my order specifically said, 'Must not have a gammy womb'. I'm a little bit annoyed that you'd sell me a product with a clearly gammy womb. Is there anything you can do for me? No, I can't really get a new one now, I've nowhere to put the old one. Maybe you can refund me half of the cost? Oh, you don't do refunds. Well, yes, yes, yes I know that you can't guarantee the quality of the merchandise, but I'd at least expect some sort of comeback if it wasn't up to scratch. Right, ok, yeah whatever, I'll be talking to my solicitor about how to get my money back".

dublinario · 25-02-2009 04:06PM

pwd wrote: »

It's important to be aware of the existance of people like this: People who will try to sue someone when they save their child's life. though.

Woah, woah. Now hold on, we don't have all the facts. We have no idea whether the midwife actually saved the child's life. Very likely the child would have rallied anyway, and would delight in reliving the experience on videotape, 20 years from now. But that kid has been robbed of that opportunity by a woman who, frankly, would be flogged for her impudence in less tolerant societies.

az2wp0sye65487 · 25-02-2009 04:08PM

seamus wrote: »

"Hello, yes, is that Lovely Lithuanian Ladies ltd? It is? Great. Look, I am happy enough with my recent delivery but my order specifically said, 'Must not have a gammy womb'. I'm a little bit annoyed that you'd sell me a product with a clearly gammy womb. Is there anything you can do for me? No, I can't really get a new one now, I've nowhere to put the old one. Maybe you can refund me half of the cost? Oh, you don't do refunds. Well, yes, yes, yes I know that you can't guarantee the quality of the merchandise, but I'd at least expect some sort of comeback if it wasn't up to scratch. Right, ok, yeah whatever, I'll be talking to my solicitor about how to get my money back".

Hilarious

kinetic · 25-02-2009 04:12PM

two words to describe these people SCUM and BAGS!!!

New father sues midwife for €38000

Comments