Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

RustyNut · 25-06-2019 11:39pm

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It’s the Strategic Communications Unit here in FG HQ, Paddy. It’s an important unit where we reply to gombeens on places like boards and the journal. Cliona is working the night shift on twitter and Facebook. Got a nespresso machine during the week so things are looking up.

Didn't Micheál make ye get rid of that.

March 5 2018 11:41 AM

Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has called on Taoiseach Leo Varadkar to disband the government’s Strategic Communications Unit because of concerns about the politicisation of the civil service

.

06/03/2018 - 07:24:00

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has all but confirmed the demise of his much-feted Strategic Communications Unit (SCU), saying it is “distracting” from the work of Government.

JohnnyFlash · 25-06-2019 11:40pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I don't anyone really believes you're a hired shill by FG, settle petal.

Yeah, fair enough they might have people within their ranks, absolutely dumb enough to basically admit insurance fraud, live on air.

But surely even they'd stop short at letting someone who claimed repeatedly to have committed electoral fraud to their benefit post "on their behalf" - and for anyone anywhere to give that same "paid shill" an ounce of creedance on the same site whatsoever.

Na "dude", just a stale act is all I'll chalk it down to. Get some rest son, tomorrow's another day.

Brevity. What’s the point you are trying to make?In general. What’s ‘grawing’ at you?

McMurphy · 25-06-2019 11:50pm

AngryHippie · 25-06-2019 11:53pm

FG are re-branding it from SCU to SVU.
like the tv show, only more Sesame Street and less sex crime

If someone has drawn a wage for how this fcuking circus has unfolded, they should well and truly be out of a job.

Snow Garden · 25-06-2019 11:58pm

mrpdap wrote: »

Hopefully

Bailey will most certainly lose her seat. Guaranteed. The election is too close for her to have any hope of the electorate forgetting. Besides this story will run and run even if FG extend the review to the Dail summer recess.

This story and the other Farrell story will be remembered every time a voter is paying through the nose for car or house or business insurance. Fine Gael is taking money from peoples pockets by not addressing insurance fraud and corruption. It's hugely damaging no matter how they deal with it.

Auguste Comte · 26-06-2019 12:01am

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

What's SCU?

Shady claims unit??

mickdw · 26-06-2019 12:43am

There must be a whole mountain of sh1t just under the surface waiting to bust out. Leo is just about holding it all back by keeping all sides on board. There is no other answer to why the party would take such a load of crap over something like this.
Unfortunately for Leo and FG, people outside of their control have the dirt on this case and it will surface just when it will do the real damage - during General Election campaign.
If they are silly enough to go into an election with this unresolved and with Bailey on the ballot, they really are pretty stupid.

holyhead · 26-06-2019 12:47am

I imagine Bailey is on borrowed time as a T.D. Not down to Leo mind only that the next GE will see her unseated. The fact that FG are concerned about leaks to the media about this case says a lot. Bailey in taking this case, now dropped, is the author of her own misfortune compounded by a truly disastrous self serving radio interview with SOR. FG would be better served tackling in a fundamental way the rising costs of insurance and the compensation culture which is sadly all too pervasive nowadays. Of course this will not happen!

Tokyo · 26-06-2019 3:28am

Moved from AH > CA

AngryHippie · 26-06-2019 3:35am

Nice one.

Where the thread belongs.

particularly now people are trying to kill it by assertion.

WHERES THE REPORT LEO?

Shemale · 26-06-2019 7:24am

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know this goes against the majority but they don't have enough evidence to get rid of the two of them.

Yes, Bailey's claim is questionable, but that isn't evidence. An inaccuracy in an affidavit, while problematic, isn't evidence of wrongdoing as it didn't get to court. Madigan providing advice and representing her client again isn't evidence and to be honest, I can't see what wrongdoing Madigan could have done. Solicitors advise clients all the time, it's their job.

People seem to be losing sight of the fact that it is without question that Bailey fell off the swing. Now if it was Bailey's fault or the hotel's fault, we can't say for certain. Only a court would have been able to rule on that. The fact that she fell meant that she had grounds to claim. Would she have won, I don't know. I have my doubts but weaker cases have succeeded in court before.

While none of us are happy with the claim etc., but there is no proof of wrongdoing. We all suspect there may be wrongdoing, but I don't think it's enough for FG to go after both of them, even if they had the will to do so.

Thats fair enough in isolation, however its more than that:
1) The dropping of the claim when it got publicised, particularly as CCTV was going to be used in defendants case
2) Her refusal of the offer of €600 for medical expenses
3) Her insistence on SOR she was only after medical expenses
4) She lodged her claim in circuit court with ceiling of €60,000
5) Her running of the 10k race 3 weeks after in a good time
6) Her claim on SOR she was claiming for €6,000 medical, how do you spend 6k on medical in 3 weeks
7) Return the €600 The Dean sent her, guilt perhaps
8) She said on SOR she had a bottle of beer in one hand, then let slip she had wine in the other
9) Is an adult that cant use a swing fit to be a TD

Large bottle small glass · 26-06-2019 8:00am

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Indeed it is. But if you put on your reading glasses, you'll note that the poster to whom I was responding had raised the Alan Farrell compensation case which took place last year and isn't related to the Bailey nonsense.

Farrell took a case for compo. A learned judge (and here we must all genuflect, for judges swear a solemn oath to uphold the Laws of Ireland and must therefore be regarded as superior beings) decided that he was entitled to some compo for his incurable hard neck - a verdict that meant that the other party had to pick up his legal costs. Unsavoury, I grant you, but at least his case went to court - AND HE WON.

Farrell's case was an assessment, you can't really lose.

The limit of district court is €15k, he was awarded €2.5k and got costs against him for the motion in relation to discovery which would have ate up much of the award.

As wins go it was pretty crap result.

On Bailey and allegations of "fraud", people aren't familiar of how unbelievably difficult it is to get a fraud finding in an Irish court. If a Defendant alleges fraud they are open to paying double if they can't prove it; once for the injury and once for the "false" allegation/defamation.

Barristers are afraid of their life in the main to plead it. Gardaí have no interest whatsoever in prosecuting it. For cnuts in society who have no reachable assets they can keep pulling the false/exaggerated claim handle with no meaningful punishment. GDPR laws make it even easier for such people.

When you hear after a civil case that papers/file will be forwarded to DPP that never really means anything there is no follow up criminal case in the vast majority of such cases.

We need reform around fraud, we need (like the UK) a specialist police unit for RTA fraud/staged accidents.

McMurphy · 26-06-2019 8:05am

AngryHippie wrote: »

Nice one.

Where the thread belongs.

particularly now people are trying to kill it by assertion.

WHERES THE REPORT LEO?

Not far away apparently....

For a story the public have no interest in, it's still getting it's fair share of coverage.

New article this am. FG's probe into Bailey swing claim nears end - and includes dossier of coverage by media

The "dossier of coverage by media" tacked on at the end there, lest FGers mistakenly forget they've royally pissed off someone in the industry.

Ms Bailey is understood to have been given a draft of the facts uncovered by the inquiry last week and drafts have been exchanged with the Dún Laoghaire TD.

A Fine Gael source with knowledge of the matter said yesterday: "Our work is more or less done."

Mr Kennedy is also understood to have spoken to Culture Minister Josepha Madigan as part of his probe.

She has refused to tell this newspaper what involvement, if any, she had in advising Ms Bailey to take a case against the Dean Hotel for the swing fall in 2015.

Ms Bailey was represented in the now dropped case by Madigans Solicitors, a firm that Ms Madigan left in 2017.

Ms Madigan has again refused to answer questions about the case. She walked away from the Irish Independent when asked about it at an event in the National Museum in Dublin yesterday.

Opposition lads throwing their oar in.

The inquiry's decision to try to find out how the information leaked to the media has been criticised by Fianna F and the National Union of Journalists, while Labour leader Brendan Howlin said yesterday it was "an extraordinary development".

He added: "I don't know whether that's Fine Gael or if it's the barrister acting on his own behalf but the notion that you try to cauterise the wound by finding the source is a very, very odd move... Fine Gael should answer the question - who exactly initiated that odd request?"

Odd request to accompany an odd claim Brendan.

But let's not forget the real point of why the report (FG love the old reports) was initially set up:

Fine Gael is now facing political calls for the internal inquiry to refocus on the legitimacy of Ms Bailey's claim.

As the party refuses to say whether or not the report will be published when it is finalised, Mr Howlin said Mr Kennedy's report should "of course" be published.

"It's a matter of public controversy and we need to know exactly what they've found out about it," he said.

Large bottle small glass · 26-06-2019 8:14am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Not far away apparently....

For a story the public have no interest in, it's still getting it's fair share of coverage.

New article this am. FG's probe into Bailey swing claim nears end - and includes dossier of coverage by media

The "dossier of coverage by media" tacked on at the end there, lest FGers mistakenly forget they've royally pissed off someone in the industry.

Opposition lads throwing their oar in.

Odd request to accompany an odd claim Brendan.

But let's not forget the real point of why the report (FG love the old reports) was initially set up:

I'm not sure where the "media leak" angle is coming from.

It looks very like an old Insurance company trick, you read out a whole load of pleadings in open court when there for a motion hearing. Nobody really listens to it but there is a reporter in the room. Its now reported on in the public domain.

The problem in Bailey putting it on paper not it being read out.

Pintman Paddy Losty · 26-06-2019 9:06am

Timing works out not too bad. Presume the report will be relatively bland. Won't be earth shattering. Will recommend that elected members disclose any planned proceedings to party HQ in advance.

Report will be released mid July. Just before the summer recess. It'll all be long long forgotten about come September when brexit is back on the news.

BattleCorp · 26-06-2019 9:46am

Shemale wrote: »

Thats fair enough in isolation, however its more than that:
1) The dropping of the claim when it got publicised, particularly as CCTV was going to be used in defendants case
2) Her refusal of the offer of €600 for medical expenses
3) Her insistence on SOR she was only after medical expenses
4) She lodged her claim in circuit court with ceiling of €60,000
5) Her running of the 10k race 3 weeks after in a good time
6) Her claim on SOR she was claiming for €6,000 medical, how do you spend 6k on medical in 3 weeks
7) Return the €600 The Dean sent her, guilt perhaps
8) She said on SOR she had a bottle of beer in one hand, then let slip she had wine in the other
9) Is an adult that cant use a swing fit to be a TD

I'm not a fan of Bailey and I hope she loses her seat but in answer to your points above:

1. We don't know what was on the CCTV. It may have shown wrongdoing by Bailey but if the hotel also did something wrong, Bailey would probably win her case but lose some of her compensation due to contributory negligence. The bar is set much higher for the hotel than it is for a customer so the hotel would be punished more than Bailey. Dropping the claim due to negative publicity also isn't proof that her claim was fraudulent.

2. Legally speaking, Bailey was in no way obligated to accept medical expenses. The law allows for her to also seek compensation so again, she did nothing wrong there.

3. Nobody believes that she only wanted her medical expenses covered. I don't believe she only wanted her medical expenses covered.

4. I don't know the nature of the injuries alleged in her medical reports but I'd guess the Circuit court was the correct place to lodge the claim. Just because she lodged the claim in the Circuit court in no way guarantees that she'd get anywhere near €60k.

5. Again that is only proof that she had somewhat recovered in three weeks. And she could say that she was still sore after the race. It's not a personal injury case-killer. There's still the three week period where she could claim that she couldn't run.

6. You don't have to spend the €6k medical expenses in the three weeks. Doctors often give a long term prognosis of maybe 6 to 9 months to a full recovery. That could mean 6 - 9 months of doctors visits, physio etc.

And here's another point. Just because you can do a 10k run doesn't mean that you are fully recovered. Maybe her injury only plays up when she is at rest and running actually relieves the symptoms. I've seen that kind of thing argued in court. Of course this is all speculation. I'm only talking about the types of things that are argued in claims against us.

7. When did she return the €600? I doubt it's guilt. Not many TD's suffer from that complex.

8. Yep, she made a boo-boo. But like I said in point 1, even if she did wrongdoing, maybe the hotel did too.

9. I 100% agree with you on this one, but the laws surrounding health and safety don't make sense to the average joe soap.

smurgen · 26-06-2019 10:07am

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Bailey and I hope she loses her seat but in answer to your points above:

1. We don't know what was on the CCTV. It may have shown wrongdoing by Bailey but if the hotel also did something wrong, Bailey would probably win her case but lose some of her compensation due to contributory negligence. The bar is set much higher for the hotel than it is for a customer so the hotel would be punished more than Bailey. Dropping the claim due to negative publicity also isn't proof that her claim was fraudulent.

2. Legally speaking, Bailey was in no way obligated to accept medical expenses. The law allows for her to also seek compensation so again, she did nothing wrong there.

3. Nobody believes that she only wanted her medical expenses covered. I don't believe she only wanted her medical expenses covered.

4. I don't know the nature of the injuries alleged in her medical reports but I'd guess the Circuit court was the correct place to lodge the claim. Just because she lodged the claim in the Circuit court in no way guarantees that she'd get anywhere near €60k.

5. Again that is only proof that she had somewhat recovered in three weeks. And she could say that she was still sore after the race. It's not a personal injury case-killer. There's still the three week period where she could claim that she couldn't run.

6. You don't have to spend the €6k medical expenses in the three weeks. Doctors often give a long term prognosis of maybe 6 to 9 months to a full recovery. That could mean 6 - 9 months of doctors visits, physio etc.

And here's another point. Just because you can do a 10k run doesn't mean that you are fully recovered. Maybe her injury only plays up when she is at rest and running actually relieves the symptoms. I've seen that kind of thing argued in court. Of course this is all speculation. I'm only talking about the types of things that are argued in claims against us.

7. When did she return the €600? I doubt it's guilt. Not many TD's suffer from that complex.

8. Yep, she made a boo-boo. But like I said in point 1, even if she did wrongdoing, maybe the hotel did too.

9. I 100% agree with you on this one, but the laws surrounding health and safety don't make sense to the average joe soap.

Jesus that's alot of slack you're cutting her. If this was any other party and one of their memebers i wonder would such downplaying and benifit of doubt be extended by FG supporters?

McMurphy · 26-06-2019 10:12am

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Timing works out not too bad. Presume the report will be relatively bland. Won't be earth shattering. Will recommend that elected members disclose any planned proceedings to party HQ in advance.

Report will be released mid July. Just before the summer recess. It'll all be long long forgotten about come September when brexit is back on the news.

>Insert comical Ali meme here<

ohnonotgmail · 26-06-2019 10:15am

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Timing works out not too bad. Presume the report will be relatively bland. Won't be earth shattering. Will recommend that elected members disclose any planned proceedings to party HQ in advance.

Report will be released mid July. Just before the summer recess. It'll all be long long forgotten about come September when brexit is back on the news.

Another classic post. Leo said the cheque will be in the post.

Jupiter Mulligan · 26-06-2019 10:35am

JeffKenna wrote: »

Without seeing the ballot paper I find it hard to see how you've decided that the FG candidate will be the best of a bad bunch?

Your point is valid. What I should have written is that, on the basis of previous GE results in my non-volatile rural constituency and given the present seat-holders, it appears likely that the FG candidate will be the most appealing on offer with a realistic chance of being elected. That said, my proviso regarding a possible SD candidate remains in play.

BattleCorp · 26-06-2019 10:35am

smurgen wrote: »

Jesus that's alot of slack you're cutting her. If this was any other party and one of their memebers i wonder would such downplaying and benifit of doubt be extended by FG supporters?

I couldn't give a flying fcuk about Bailey or FG. I've already condemned FG in this thread for acting the b0llix with the Country's finances. I'm not political other than having a fear of SF and crackpots like Claire Daly and the rest of the free everything brigade. I've no allegiance to any political party.

I'm just saying that the courts wouldn't be as condemning of Bailey's actions as many people on here think.

A good barrister combined with medical reports would most likely be able to argue away all the points made against Bailey in this thread.

golfball37 · 26-06-2019 10:37am

She told SOR she was covered by medical insurance too. What medical expenses did she need to recoup if it didn’t cost her anything?

Jupiter Mulligan · 26-06-2019 10:39am

InTheShadows wrote: »

Literally anyone is better than FG at this stage.

Fair enough, so Mick Lowry gets my no.1!

And my number 2 will go to Mattie McGrath.

Happy now?

Jupiter Mulligan · 26-06-2019 10:42am

BattleCorp wrote: »

I couldn't give a flying fcuk about Bailey or FG. I've already condemned FG in this thread for acting the b0llix with the Country's finances. I'm not political other than having a fear of SF and crackpots like Claire Daly and the rest of the free everything brigade. I've no allegiance to any political party.

I'm just saying that the courts wouldn't be as condemning of Bailey's actions as many people on here think.

A good barrister combined with medical reports would most likely be able to argue away all the points made against Bailey in this thread.

Agreed.

Which (for me) makes her gutless decision to withdraw her claim the most contemptible thing about the stupid woman!

She had a choice of letting a judge decide on whether or not she was entitled to comp0, or letting the mob decide, and she opted for mob law!

What a moron!

ohnonotgmail · 26-06-2019 10:43am

BattleCorp wrote: »

I couldn't give a flying fcuk about Bailey or FG. I've already condemned FG in this thread for acting the b0llix with the Country's finances. I'm not political other than having a fear of SF and crackpots like Claire Daly and the rest of the free everything brigade. I've no allegiance to any political party.

I'm just saying that the courts wouldn't be as condemning of Bailey's actions as many people on here think.

A good barrister combined with medical reports would most likely be able to argue away all the points made against Bailey in this thread.

what do the courts have to do with what happens from here on in? the court case is gone.

odyssey06 · 26-06-2019 10:46am

golfball37 wrote: »

She told SOR she was covered by medical insurance too. What medical expenses did she need to recoup if it didn’t cost her anything?

It's unlikely medical insurance covered everything, depends on what plan you have. There could be co-payments \ excesses \ cap on number of physio visits per year.

But €7000 seems like a very high amount if that is referring to her 'net' expenses after insurance refunds are factored in.

Floppybits · 26-06-2019 10:49am

Doesn't matter now, Leo the Liar has just said that the report is unlikely to be published and that he didn't instigate the witch hunt for the whistleblower.

Jupiter Mulligan · 26-06-2019 10:49am

golfball37 wrote: »

She told SOR she was covered by medical insurance too. What medical expenses did she need to recoup if it didn’t cost her anything?

PHI doesn't cover drugs and some policies don't cover GP or the full costs of physio treatment. But it seems clear that the hotel's offer to pay her medical expenses would have covered those costs.

I suspect that she'd have been looking for compo. for pain and suffering in court - and not for her medical expenses.

Fact is that she dug an gigantic hole for herself on the SOR show and has no-one to blame but herself. I wonder what she'll do after she loses her seat. Join the circus and become a trapeze artiste perhaps.

Auguste Comte · 26-06-2019 10:54am

[quote="Jupiter
She had a choice of letting a judge decide on whether or not she was entitled to comp0, or letting the mob decide, and she opted for mob law!

What a moron!

[/QUOTE]

There was no "mob" involved when Farrell withdrew his claim for damage to his car. I'm of the opinion that both cases were withdrawn because they couldn't be supported by evidence.

But yea blame the mob, the press, the whistleblower or anyone except the people involved.

smurgen · 26-06-2019 11:13am

Auguste Comte wrote: »

There was no "mob" involved when Farrell withdrew his claim for damage to his car. I'm of the opinion that both cases were withdrawn because they couldn't be supported by evidence.

But yea blame the mob, the press, the whistleblower or anyone except the people involved.

I wonder do FG supporters here describe revenue as a mob when they're pursuing people for welfare fraud?

BattleCorp · 26-06-2019 11:20am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what do the courts have to do with what happens from here on in? the court case is gone.

I was using my experience of dealing with claims to show the types of things that Bailey could have argued to show that her claim had some merit.

There are rules and evidence in court. There are no rules and evidence in the court of public opinion. I'm just saying that I'd rather there was evidence of a fraudulent claim before I'd openly accuse Bailey of making a fraudulent claim, which many people on here haven't waited for. And in my opinion, the evidence for a fraudulent claim isn't there. We may suspect it, but suspecting it isn't the same as proof.

By the way, are we sure the court case is gone? Bailey has said she is discontinuing the claim, but has she lodged papers in court to say that she withdraws the allegation? If she hasn't lodged the papers, then the case hasn't gone away yet.

RustyNut · 26-06-2019 11:22am

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Agreed.

Which (for me) makes her gutless decision to withdraw her claim the most contemptible thing about the stupid woman!

She had a choice of letting a judge decide on whether or not she was entitled to comp0, or letting the mob decide, and she opted for mob law!

What a moron!

This is one of the better TD's on Leo's team, according to himself, you are talking about. Careful now.

BattleCorp · 26-06-2019 11:22am

golfball37 wrote: »

She told SOR she was covered by medical insurance too. What medical expenses did she need to recoup if it didn’t cost her anything?

If you have car insurance and I crash into you from behind (my fault), why would you claim off your own insurance? You wouldn't. You'd claim off my insurance. I'd guess that is why Bailey went after the hotel. Plus, nobody believes she just wanted her medical bills paid.

BattleCorp · 26-06-2019 11:26am

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

PHI doesn't cover drugs and some policies don't cover GP or the full costs of physio treatment. But it seems clear that the hotel's offer to pay her medical expenses would have covered those costs.

I suspect that she'd have been looking for compo. for pain and suffering in court - and not for her medical expenses.

Fact is that she dug an gigantic hole for herself on the SOR show and has no-one to blame but herself.

€600 wouldn't go far when paying for medical expenses such as doctors visits, physio etc. We don't know what treatment she sought. You could rack up a €600 bill pretty quickly.

She was a gobsh1te to go on SOR. She did herself a heap of harm doing that.

ohnonotgmail · 26-06-2019 11:30am

BattleCorp wrote: »

I was using my experience of dealing with claims to show the types of things that Bailey could have argued to show that her claim had some merit.

There are rules and evidence in court. There are no rules and evidence in the court of public opinion. I'm just saying that I'd rather there was evidence of a fraudulent claim before I'd openly accuse Bailey of making a fraudulent claim, which many people on here haven't waited for. And in my opinion, the evidence for a fraudulent claim isn't there. We may suspect it, but suspecting it isn't the same as proof.

By the way, are we sure the court case is gone? Bailey has said she is discontinuing the claim, but has she lodged papers in court to say that she withdraws the allegation? If she hasn't lodged the papers, then the case hasn't gone away yet.

One thing we do know is that she has lied about the case. She said she was only claiming medical expenses. That was a lie. She said she was unable to run afterwards. She ran 3 weeks later in a time similar to previous runs. So that was also a lie. I'm sure there are many other lies she told.

RustyNut · 26-06-2019 11:31am

BattleCorp wrote: »

€600 wouldn't go far when paying for medical expenses such as doctors visits, physio etc. We don't know what treatment she sought. You could rack up a €600 bill pretty quickly.

She was a gobsh1te to go on SOR. She did herself a heap of harm doing that.

Has she said how much she was claiming for medical expenses? Would the district court not have been the appropriate court if she wasn't trying to milk it?

Jupiter Mulligan · 26-06-2019 11:43am

RustyNut wrote: »

This is one of the better TD's on Leo's team, according to himself, you are talking about. Careful now.

As if Bailey hadn't got enough problems of her own, trust Leo to apply the Judas kiss!

Jupiter Mulligan · 26-06-2019 11:45am

smurgen wrote: »

I wonder do FG supporters here describe revenue as a mob when they're pursuing people for welfare fraud?

I strongly doubt it. You see, the vast majority of FG supporters would be aware that the Revenue Commissioners have got absolutely nothing to do with pursuing Welfare fraudsters.

BattleCorp · 26-06-2019 11:45am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

One thing we do know is that she has lied about the case. She said she was only claiming medical expenses. That was a lie. She said she was unable to run afterwards. She ran 3 weeks later in a time similar to previous runs. So that was also a lie. I'm sure there are many other lies she told.

Yes, I don't believe that she only wanted medical expenses. But I'd stop a wee bit short of calling it an outright lie though because I don't know exactly what she was claiming for in court.

She can at least claim that she wasn't able to run for three weeks after the accident so there's no proof of a lie there.

Look, we suspect she was lying, but saying something that is inaccurate isn't necessarily lying. She could have been mistaken. Do I think she was mistaken, no, I don't think that. But I can't say with 100% certainty that she was lying.

BattleCorp · 26-06-2019 11:47am

RustyNut wrote: »

Has she said how much she was claiming for medical expenses? Would the district court not have been the appropriate court if she wasn't trying to milk it?

Probably. I doubt her medical expenses would have exceeded the max of the district court. But like I said earlier, I don't think she was just after her medical expenses.

I don't think she made public how much her medical expenses were.

ohnonotgmail · 26-06-2019 11:48am

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yes, I don't believe that she only wanted medical expenses. But I'd stop a wee bit short of calling it an outright lie though because I don't know exactly what she was claiming for in court.

If she was only claiming her medical expenses she would have not have brought it to the circuit court. So she was lying when she said she was only looking for her medical expenses.

BattleCorp wrote: »

She can at least claim that she wasn't able to run for three weeks after the accident so there's no proof of a lie there.

Look, we suspect she was lying, but saying something that is inaccurate isn't necessarily lying. She could have been mistaken. Do I think she was mistaken, no, I don't think that. But I can't say with 100% certainty that she was lying.

if she wasn't able to run at all in the three weeks before the race she would not have come anywhere near the time she did. So i'm pretty happy to say she lied about that as well.

Jupiter Mulligan · 26-06-2019 11:49am

Auguste Comte wrote: »

There was no "mob" involved when Farrell withdrew his claim for damage to his car. I'm of the opinion that both cases were withdrawn because they couldn't be supported by evidence.

But yea blame the mob, the press, the whistleblower or anyone except the people involved.

I'll blame whoever I like - with or without your permission.

Have you a crush on Farrell? Because you appear to have a craving to drag him into the Bailey thread at every conceivable opportunity. Perhaps you should seek help.

Shefwedfan · 26-06-2019 11:55am

Prime Time have released a little 5 min video on facebook.

More or less backing up the government and blaming the judges, saying the government can do nothing.

https://www.facebook.com/RTEPrimeTime/videos/489715611835548/

A load of bulls**t. But looks like the PR machine from FG is up and running.....

Also says the insurance companies are making money!!!!

RTE really are the lapdogs for the Government

givyjoe · 26-06-2019 12:01pm

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

I'll blame whoever I like - with or without your permission.

Have you a crush on Farrell? Because you appear to have a craving to drag him into the Bailey thread at every conceivable opportunity. Perhaps you should seek help.

Yeah, I mean they're in no way related at all.. none, definitely not. :rolleyes:.

BattleCorp · 26-06-2019 12:02pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If she was only claiming her medical expenses she would have not have brought it to the circuit court. So she was lying when she said she was only looking for her medical expenses.

if she wasn't able to run at all in the three weeks before the race she would not have come anywhere near the time she did. So i'm pretty happy to say she lied about that as well.

No argument with you on either point. But us suspecting it doesn't make it proof.

ohnonotgmail · 26-06-2019 12:03pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

No argument with you on either point. But us suspecting it doesn't make it proof.

who needs proof? again, this is not going to court.

twowheelsonly · 26-06-2019 12:04pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

Nice one.

Where the thread belongs.

particularly now people are trying to kill it by assertion.

WHERES THE REPORT LEO?

"Well we'd really love to show you the report but that's not the done thing...."

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/varadkar-on-swinggate-not-the-norm-of-any-party-to-publish-internal-party-inquiry-results-933077.html

Auguste Comte · 26-06-2019 12:08pm

givyjoe wrote: »

Yeah, I mean they're in no way related at all.. none, definitely not. :rolleyes:.

When you can't play the ball, play the man. A strong whiff of desperation really.

Auguste Comte · 26-06-2019 12:24pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

No argument with you on either point. But us suspecting it doesn't make it proof.

Proof is at the heart of the whole issue.

Bailey and Farrell were hoping to never have to prove anything and when push came to shove they couldn't.

Bang a claim in and hope that being among the "best of people" their dodgy claims wouldn't be questioned. It didn't work out to well for them.

A win for the honest little man.

Stop moaning ffs · 26-06-2019 12:26pm

Leo just signed his own political death warrant with that comment.

They really are working from a long obsolete playbook.

He really thinks people are going to forget this debacle and not hold FG to account?

As others have said, whatever is contained in that report obviously goes much deeper as it comes to the involvement of others and the players involved have clearly leveraged and threatened whatever revelations they can make if they’re removed.

This is going to backfire on him spectacularly.

He should have gotten out in front of this in the very first instance.

Too late now.

Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Comments