Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

20-03-2021 2:29pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Most parents explain to their kids at a young age, don’t post personal information on social media that you don’t want the world to see. If she made a claim for injuries that is available to the public, then posted on social media of her athletic prowess, she should be looking closer to home for someone to blame if it was reported on.

This is the same woman who was taking a claim against the hotel because their swing wasn't supervised. Maybe it's just a case of bad parenting!

Fann Linn · 20-03-2021 2:30pm

Clown puts in dodgy claim & when found out cries the victim. I hope this story continues until the next election.

20-03-2021 2:35pm

Fann Linn wrote: »

Clown puts in dodgy claim & when found out cries the victim. I hope this story continues until the next election.

She has proved her stamina in matters of poor PR, it’ll take a while for any court case relating to her recent action, can’t see Indo backing down so this could still be ongoing in 2 years. Either way, she’s done as a creditable candidate for any elected office.

banie01 · 20-03-2021 2:40pm

Penn wrote: »

I think it's going to be about the information included in the court documents, eg. her saying she couldn't run for three months, whereas it was her own public info which disproved that.

GDPR doesn't apply to court filings, so I fail to see what her angle her will be?
Apart from family court, and certain other matters primarily criminal and commercial the courts operate in public.
It's one of the prime tenets of justice and is constitutionally provided in 34.1.

Her court filing and associated documentary evidence is a matter of public record.
Her posting her successful run and info on the time, was also made public by her.

I'm completely at a loss as to what angle she has here.
My own experience on GDPR is more than just passing, I wrote and implemented the policy for a major Irish Telco in cooperation with our DPO(who's a barrister) but this screams to me of a desperate effort to at least throw any action she might take subsequent to this into the realm of an administrative justice action.
Yet even at that?

Her decision not to progress her claim was a personal one, it was not forced upon her.
Her issues with FG, well if she pursued an action there I'd have no doubt that the SC report will be made public and do her even more reputational harm.

None of this makes sense, unless there is some angle she is pushing that is not yet public?
And that would be at odds with her claim IMO.

WishUWereHere · 20-03-2021 2:50pm

Garrett Tangy Hedgehog wrote: »

Likely. She is some dose this one. Does not do herself any favours whatsoever.

Doesn’t do the Irish public any favours either.

WishUWereHere · 20-03-2021 2:54pm

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to their privacy. If personal information of hers was accessed in contravention of GDPR both INM and perhaps the Dean will be in serious bother.

Predictable that people decide to continue the pile on her though. She is more than entitled to make a complaint to the DPC, when private personal information was published by the media. If successful the payout will dwarf the personal injury claim.

Sorry Pat, Bailey was off the radar until SHE went public a few weeks ago by doing that BO’C interview.

Nobody but herself to blame. I’m just amazed she has people coming on here defending her.

WishUWereHere · 20-03-2021 2:57pm

dontmindme wrote: »

The narrative will shift to a claim of how unfairly she was treated - vindicated by a legal settlement. She might save her good name yet.

GOOD name? Lol

Rothko · 20-03-2021 2:59pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Why would the dean be in trouble? Also it's publicly available she ran a 10k sure she posted it on social media and the fact she was at the time involved in a court case isn't private info either.

I'm at a loss to what info you think was accessed that brings GDPR into this tbh?

He won't reply

20-03-2021 3:01pm

dontmindme wrote: »

The narrative will shift to a claim of how unfairly she was treated - vindicated by a legal settlement. She might save her good name yet.

I really can’t see that happening, insurance fraud is to emotive an issue. Even if she wins a privacy case, it won’t change the fact that she made a fraudulent claim.

notsoyoungwan · 20-03-2021 3:09pm

beakerjoe wrote: »

Theres many faucets to GDPR. It may not be concerning a breach. Hard to tell at this stage.

Well Bailey certainly seems to think there’s money available on tap for compo claims

Muahahaha · 20-03-2021 3:09pm

Nothing like a bit of Maria Bailey entertainment on Saturday afternoon during lockdown, she really is the gift that keeps giving.

I wonder whats going on in the background between Bailey and the Indo. It was them she gave her recent 'poor me' interview to and that photo they always use of Maria with her sad face on was taken by a Sunday Independent photographer in her home for another 'poor me' article that she gave them an interview for after the initial controversy broke out.

But now more than a year and a half after the event she is complaining about her media partner on grounds of data protection. She's had more than 18 months to put in a complaint of that nature but didnt do it in that time, yet now here she is complaining to the Data Protection Commission ages after the event. Sounds to me like Baileys relationship with the Indo has changed in the last week and she is now lashing out at them by calling in the DPC. She had had lots of time on her hands to do it before now but didnt, something strange about that.

McMurphy · 20-03-2021 3:09pm

dontmindme wrote: »

The narrative will shift to a claim of how unfairly she was treated - vindicated by a legal settlement. She might save her good name yet.

She fell off a swing while holding drinks in each hand on July 10th*, then tried to sue the hotel, citing she was seriously enough injured to prevent her "running at all" for 3 months.

It was then shown (,by her own social media pages) that not only was she at Longitude on July 18th, but also ran "The Bay 10km" in 53mins on August 3rd** I make that 24 days, not 3 months.

July 10th* - August 3rd** is 24 days, a hell of a lot less than 3 months.

I don't think she'll be saving her good name anytime soon.

Full timeline of the whole sorry mess available here btw.

https://headtopics.com/ie/timeline-how-the-maria-bailey-swing-gate-controversy-unfolded-independent-ie-7076557

20-03-2021 3:11pm

Dav010 wrote: »

She has proved her stamina in matters of poor PR, it’ll take a while for any court case relating to her recent action, can’t see Indo backing down so this could still be ongoing in 2 years. Either way, she’s done as a creditable candidate for any elected office.

She’ll hope for an seat in Seanad but I don’t think anyone’s that’s stupid to nominate her

beakerjoe · 20-03-2021 3:21pm

I have my opinion of her. Ive made up my mind about her. Nothing in the last few weeks will change that, actually her interviews solidify my thoughts on her. Shes a brass necked individual trying to pull a fast one and her recent interviews in which she compares herself to Caroline Flack do nothing but confirm my thoughts on her.

Shes a public figure, she is deserving of the criticism she gets and gets zero sympathy from me.

Her complaint with the DPC means little at this stage. Hard to comment when we dont know what the complaint is about or who its against.

What I will say its very likely she is seeking a decision from the DPC to strengthen any legal case shes considering.

If she wants a career in politics, she should own her mistakes and move on. Her quest to make others accountable for her own foolishness is shameful.

beakerjoe · 20-03-2021 3:45pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Nothing like a bit of Maria Bailey entertainment on Saturday afternoon during lockdown, she really is the gift that keeps giving.

I wonder whats going on in the background between Bailey and the Indo. It was them she gave her recent 'poor me' interview to and that photo they always use of Maria with her sad face on was taken by a Sunday Independent photographer in her home for another 'poor me' article that she gave them an interview for after the initial controversy broke out.

But now more than a year and a half after the event she is complaining about her media partner on grounds of data protection. She's had more than 18 months to put in a complaint of that nature but didnt do it in that time, yet now here she is complaining to the Data Protection Commission ages after the event. Sounds to me like Baileys relationship with the Indo has changed in the last week and she is now lashing out at them by calling in the DPC. She had had lots of time on her hands to do it before now but didnt, something strange about that.

Its not certain that her complaint is againt the INM or is it clear who its against.

My gut tells me it isnt against INM. The recent interview suggests shes not going for them.

Could be against the Dean, though Im unsure what angle she could complain about them.

It could be against Fine Gael.

Sure its hard to even know what shes complaining about.

When more details come out hopefully her motives could be clearer.

Suckit · 20-03-2021 3:59pm

Could it also be about the 'leaked transcripts' from her GP or wherever they came from. Wasn't she going on about that at the start of the SOR interview?

beakerjoe · 20-03-2021 4:04pm

Suckit wrote: »

Could it also be about the 'leaked transcripts' from her GP or wherever they came from. Wasn't she going on about that at the start of the SOR interview?

She wants to know where the INM got their information.

Normally companies have to be transparent about where they got your data from.

However, now Im no expert, but I dont think it applies to journalists.

Quandary · 20-03-2021 4:11pm

WishUWereHere wrote: »

Sorry Pat, Bailey was off the radar until SHE went public a few weeks ago by doing that BO’C interview.

Nobody but herself to blame. I’m just amazed she has people coming on here defending her.

Search the thread for Pats contributions and you'll see he has great time for Bailey.

One of her most vociferous and ardent defenders/deflectors

hatrickpatrick · 20-03-2021 4:42pm

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to their privacy.

Politicians should always be an exception to this.

WishUWereHere · 20-03-2021 4:51pm

Quandary wrote: »

Search the thread for Pats contributions and you'll see he has great time for Bailey.

One of her most vociferous and ardent defenders/deflectors

Oh I know, Paddy is one of the legendary 3 amigos lol

Muahahaha · 20-03-2021 5:24pm

beakerjoe wrote: »

Its not certain that her complaint is againt the INM or is it clear who its against.

My gut tells me it isnt against INM. The recent interview suggests shes not going for them.

The Indo seem to think its against them and how they covered the story of Swinggate

The Data Protection Commission has launched a statutory inquiry against Independent News and Media on foot of a complaint by former TD Maria Bailey.

It is understood the investigation relates to coverage of a personal injuries claim taken by Ms Bailey which became commonly referred to as ‘swinggate’.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/data-commission-investigates-complaint-from-maria-bailey-40218386.html

Johnthemanager · 20-03-2021 6:13pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

The Indo seem to think its against them and how they covered the story of Swinggate

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/data-commission-investigates-complaint-from-maria-bailey-40218386.html

I'm torn now. I wouldn't lose any sleep if she cleaned them out either.

punisher5112 · 20-03-2021 6:17pm

Suppose she might want a new fireplace and some other bits for the house.....

martingriff · 20-03-2021 6:24pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Politicians should always be an exception to this.

Really does this include there family also

banie01 · 20-03-2021 6:27pm

martingriff wrote: »

Really does this include there family also

Where the family profits or gains advantage by dint of their relatives position, of course it should.

Given the amount of relatives employed by TD's and other reps, the issuance of cheques and payments to spouses rather than the office holder?

Yes, of course it should apply to family members.
Where public office has potential to be abused, it's not just the office holder that stands to gain or to peddle influence.

martingriff · 20-03-2021 6:36pm

banie01 wrote: »

Where the family profits or gains advantage by dint of their relatives position, of course it should.

Given the amount of relatives employed by TD's and other reps, the issuance of cheques and payments to spouses rather than the office holder?

Yes, of course it should apply to family members.
Where public office has potential to be abused, it's not just the office holder that stands to gain or to peddle influence.

Is that private life though

banie01 · 20-03-2021 6:42pm

martingriff wrote: »

Is that private life though

No, nor is undertaking litigation whilst claiming 3 months incapacity and self publishing information that proves you weren't and that you ran a 10km race aswell as attended a music festival.

There is no "privacy" issue at play here that isn't completely undermines by
1. Filing claim in court which is a matter of public record.
2. Publishing the details that undermined her claim.

martingriff · 20-03-2021 7:15pm

banie01 wrote: »

No, nor is undertaking litigation whilst claiming 3 months incapacity and self publishing information that proves you weren't and that you ran a 10km race aswell as attended a music festival.

There is no "privacy" issue at play here that isn't completely undermines by
1. Filing claim in court which is a matter of public record.
2. Publishing the details that undermined her claim.

I mean anything in the public domain like court filing, getting a job, or public on your social media is fine.

Medical data should not be unless declared in court materials that the public can access.

The original post I should have went and checked to see if there was more as I was going more private in private life if you know what I mean

happyoutscan · 20-03-2021 8:30pm

Wow.

She is nowhere near right.

Bigger ego than Leo, that's saying something.

beakerjoe · 20-03-2021 11:41pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

The Indo seem to think its against them and how they covered the story of Swinggate

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/data-commission-investigates-complaint-from-maria-bailey-40218386.html

Sorry, I miswrote what I intended to say.

I meant that her DPC complaint is with INM but thats not where her gripe may be.

INM just hold information, more specifically she wants to know where they obtained certain data.

Now she probably already knows where it cane from but cant prove it and she hoping this investigation by DPC allows her proof of how they obtained it.

While shes probably unhappy at INM obtained it, shes probably after their source.

Now who their source is could be her party who did an investigation, her GP, a friend who had this information, it could be the hotel, or anyone else.

Of its the hotel, then they might be in trouble. Legal action against them could be again on the horizon.

If its Fine Gael, then she could also be seeking a legal challenge or perhaps leverage for something else. Leo already has had enough embarrassment over leaks, this wouldn't be soenthing FG would want in the open.

If its a friend or another indivudual then, it all depends where this indivdiual obtained it from

I cant see INM being compelled to reveal a source. The DPC may find out, but Ms Bailey may not be entitled under law to know who provided this information.

We can easily assume Bailey wont be going away from the public eye soon either way.

The last line of the article suggests shes unhappy with hiw FG treated her. I bet thats where her motivations lie.

PatrickSmithUS · 29-03-2021 7:58pm

I know a long time has passed and the culture might be a bit different now but the cheek of her taking this action when she was part of a Government supposedly seeking reform in relation to personal injury claims, to stop driving insurance rates up is still unthinkable.

We're almost at the point where solicitors need to be taken out of the equation. Large awards should be for life changing suffering and long term stress or medical negligence, not falling off a swing when you're drunk.

happyoutscan · 29-03-2021 8:23pm

PatrickSmithUS wrote: »

Large awards should be for life changing suffering and long term stress or medical negligence, not falling off a swing when you're drunk.

I'd remove all whiplash and soft-tissue damages from claims as well. If it isn't obvious, **** off with your whinging.

Too many ***** looking for easy money.

expectationlost · 29-03-2021 8:43pm

has she complained to the DPC about the Dean Hotel or anyone associated with them? or just INM https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/data-commission-investigates-complaint-from-maria-bailey-40218386.html surely its the leaker, not the news receiver, that may have breached her privacy as far as the DPC is concerned.

29-03-2021 8:55pm

Is there anything to stop a defendant disclosing information relating to a claim in a civil case?

beakerjoe · 29-03-2021 8:55pm

expectationlost wrote: »

has she complained to the DPC about the Dean Hotel or anyone associated with them? or just INM https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/data-commission-investigates-complaint-from-maria-bailey-40218386.html surely its the leaker, not the news receiver, that may have breached her privacy as far as the DPC is concerned.

Not necessarily.

Organisations have to be transparent about how they collected the data. Thing is, there is also rules which allow papers and media outlets process data where GDPR doesnt apply.

Her rights will be balanced against the media outlet.

I imagine INM dont wanna reveal their source. Cant imagine they will be made to... it would set a major precedent.

expectationlost · 29-03-2021 9:03pm

beakerjoe wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Organisations have to be transparent about how they collected the data. Thing is, there is also rules which allow papers and media outlets process data where GDPR doesnt apply.

Her rights will be balanced against the media outlet.

I imagine INM dont wanna reveal their source. Cant imagine they will be made to... it would set a major precedent.

if you think a newspaper breached your privacy do you not go to the press ombudsman/council (Industry self regulatory body) and then the courts? Do you really go to the DPC?

contrast this with the INM 19+ story where it was about internal data searching and it would be an DPC issue....

beakerjoe · 29-03-2021 9:04pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Is there anything to stop a defendant disclosing information relating to a claim in a civil case?

If its an organisation then its a potential GDPR infringement

beakerjoe · 29-03-2021 9:06pm

expectationlost wrote: »

if you think a newspaper breached your privacy do you not go to the press ombudsman/council (Industry self regulatory body) and then the courts? Do you really go to the DPC?

contrast this with the INM 19+ story where it was about internal data searching and it would be an DPC issue....

This isnt about a breach of privacy. It appears she is looking for information on where INM collected her medical data.

PatrickSmithUS · 30-03-2021 11:36am

happyoutscan wrote: »

I'd remove all whiplash and soft-tissue damages from claims as well. If it isn't obvious, **** off with your whinging.

Too many ***** looking for easy money.

Was the book of Quantum amended for personal injury awards at all recently?

From a layperson's perspective I find it hard to think that there can't be definite figures applied to certain injuries, allowing for some adjustment due on the impact on daily life.

BattleCorp · 30-03-2021 11:38am

beakerjoe wrote: »

This isnt about a breach of privacy. It appears she is looking for information on where INM collected her medical data.

If INM had medical data on me, I'd be looking for information on where they accessed it.

beakerjoe · 30-03-2021 11:41am

BattleCorp wrote: »

If INM had medical data on me, I'd be looking for information on where they accessed it.

I would too.

Whether you'd get that information is another thing.

ohnonotgmail · 30-03-2021 11:49am

beakerjoe wrote: »

This isnt about a breach of privacy. It appears she is looking for information on where INM collected her medical data.

what medical data is she alleging they collected?

beakerjoe · 30-03-2021 11:56am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what medical data is she alleging they collected?

God knows. I imagine it was some data published by them.

By initiating a statutory inquiry the DPC puts itself in a position to issue an information notice compelling a third party to hand over specified information

Thats from the INM article, so its not specifically medical data perhaps. She is looking for data they hold relating her her and how they obtained it.

30-03-2021 12:03pm

I wonder if it’s to do with having drinks in her hands whilst on the swing?

I’ll fess up, I was there and saw said drinks. I wasn’t but we could all do an I’m Spartacus on it

beakerjoe · 30-03-2021 12:09pm

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I wonder if it’s to do with having drinks in her hands whilst on the swing?

I’ll fess up, I was there and saw said drinks. I wasn’t but we could all do an I’m Spartacus on it

I imagine she believes information was leaked to INM. I think she is seeking information to see who was responsible.

Shes looking to pinpoint who it was.

expectationlost · 30-03-2021 12:10pm

beakerjoe wrote: »

This isnt about a breach of privacy. It appears she is looking for information on where INM collected her medical data.

they didn't collect it somebody gave it to them

beakerjoe · 30-03-2021 12:13pm

expectationlost wrote: »

they didn't collect it somebody gave it to them

But when someone gives it to them they are collecting it/obtaining it.

ohnonotgmail · 30-03-2021 12:17pm

beakerjoe wrote: »

But when someone gives it to them they are collecting it/obtaining it.

If a court decides somebody giving their eyewitness account of an event to a journalist counts as personal data about the person involved in an event then say goodbye to investigative journalism.

beakerjoe · 30-03-2021 12:38pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If a court decides somebody giving their eyewitness account of an event to a journalist counts as personal data about the person involved in an event then say goodbye to investigative journalism.

Well there is a rule within GDPR that allows Journos to act outside of GDPR. Like the reporting on Court Cases etc.

We arent privy to the exact details of this enquiry beyond the brief information INM reported last week. But it may have a huge knock on affect regarding individuals providing info to journalists in confidentiality.

BattleCorp · 30-03-2021 2:16pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If a court decides somebody giving their eyewitness account of an event to a journalist counts as personal data about the person involved in an event then say goodbye to investigative journalism.

If Bailey can be identified from a written eyewitness account that was leaked either from the Dean's records or from the solicitors, then that's probably a breach of GDPR.

If the eyewitness told a rake of people what they saw, then that's not a breach of GDPR. That's my take anyway.

Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

Comments