Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Odyssey 2005 · 24-05-2019 3:32pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

FG was hoping to increase their CC representative count by 20/30. Wonder will Bailey have an affect. She may have swung several voters away with her antics.

FG wont get one vote from here,and there are 5 votes in this home.

Odyssey 2005 · 24-05-2019 3:35pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'd be fuming if I were an FG candidate.

I'd be wearing a mask.

Odyssey 2005 · 24-05-2019 3:37pm

golfball37 wrote: »

She returned a cheque for 600e the hotel gave her for medical expenses. Some neck.

Literally

BENDYBINN · 24-05-2019 3:39pm

Hear she plans to give all money received to charity as a way of saving face..

Plumbthedepths · 24-05-2019 3:43pm

BENDYBINN wrote:

Hear she plans to give all money received to charity as a way of saving face..

So pursuing a compo claim is now to be seen as a charitable endeavour?

salmocab · 24-05-2019 3:45pm

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Hear she plans to give all money received to charity as a way of saving face..

Ah driving the cost of insurance up and then just giving it away, moron.

ToBeFrank123 · 24-05-2019 3:47pm

I think this underlines more of the same laissez faire leadership from Leo.

This courtcase is deeply unpopular with most people including core FG voters who are now questioning their support for the party. This for many is the straw which broke the camel's back.

Leo should have told her from day 1 if you pursue this case you're on your own and have no future in the party.

It will be interesting to see how FG fare in local and EU elections.

Odyssey 2005 · 24-05-2019 3:48pm

Anyone would think this fookin clown is without sin !!

Suckit · 24-05-2019 3:51pm

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Hear she plans to give all money received to charity as a way of saving face..

Any links to that? I can't find it. Charity is probably her own.......... :pac:

GarIT · 24-05-2019 3:53pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think this underlines more of the same laissez faire leadership from Leo.

This courtcase is deeply unpopular with most people including core FG voters who are now questioning their support for the party. This for many is the straw which broke the camel's back.

Leo should have told her from day 1 if you pursue this case you're on your own and have no future in the party.

It will be interesting to see how FG fare in local and EU elections.

Between that and Francis Fitzgerald claiming she returned a dog to its owner when she had nothing to do it with they lost my votes.

McMurphy · 24-05-2019 3:59pm

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Hear she plans to give all money received to charity as a way of saving face..

Her re-election campaign doesn't count as a charitable cause I'm afraid.

partyguinness · 24-05-2019 4:01pm

nuac wrote: »

BC sustained very serious injuries

Indeed he did- life changing. But he was still trespassing.

24-05-2019 4:27pm

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Why wouldn't the case proceed or a fair trial be impossible? This is a civil case that would be tried in the circuit court by a judge without a jury.

Finally got around to looking up the case-law on this.

The Supreme Court case of Cullen v Toibin & Magill [1984] I.L.R.M. 577

Mr Mitchell, for the defendants, submits that there is no danger of the plaintiff being prejudiced in his appeal by the publication of the article because the appeal will come before three professional judges who are trained to exclude irrelevant or inadmissible matter from their minds. No doubt judges are so trained and for that reason courts have traditionally taken a less serious view of adverse pre-trial publicity where a case was to be tried by a judge or judges alone than when it was to be tried by a judge sitting with a jury. Certainly the courts have taken this view when the adverse publicity consisted of mere general assertions e.g. that an alleged statement was involuntary, but that is not the present case. Speaking for my own part I think it would be unwise to assume that judges are totally immune from frailties commonly held to afflict jurors. This problem was discussed by the English King's Bench in the case of R v Davies, ex p. Delbert-Evans [1945] KB 435. Humphreys J referred (at pp. 442–443) to the embarrassment caused to a judge who is told matters which he would rather not hear and which make it more difficult for him to do what is his duty. Oliver J agreed with these sentiments and in a dictum which appears at page 445 of the report, he puts the matter as follows:

In my view, on the authorities, contempt of court can be committed, at any time until the case is ended, and it is not ended until after the hearing and decision of an appeal, if there has been an appeal. I fully agree with my Lord, and I share his view as to the importance of the matter, that jurors are not the only people whose minds can be affected by prejudice. [ In my view, it is absurd to suggest that judges' minds could not be affected by prejudice ].1 One of the evils of inadmissible matter being disseminated is that no one can tell what effect a particular piece of information may have upon his mind. [He cannot be sure himself; his mind is not a thing with regard to which it can be said exactly what material brought it to any particular view at any moment]. Why, as my Lord has asked, and I can think of no better word should a judge be ‘embarrassed’ by having matters put into his mind, the effect of which it is impossible to estimate or assess?

jmayo · 24-05-2019 5:32pm

Yurt! wrote: »

No you don't. One man one vote. That's democracy.

Since it is After Hours after all, do you get two votes if you sometimes identify as a woman ?

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Anyone would think this fookin clown is without sin !!

That fooking clown deserves to spend eternity in purgatory with danny healy rae.

NIMAN · 24-05-2019 5:40pm

Off on a tangent, but good to see another chancer shown up

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/appalling-waste-of-time-man-who-claimed-he-was-humiliated-when-friends-bag-checked-in-shop-has-75k-damages-claim-dismissed-38144591.html

What is the costs situation in this? Does this chancer have to pay anything?

Its about time that any claimants were made to pay costs if they lose, would knock the majority of fraudulent claims on the head.

hatrickpatrick · 24-05-2019 5:42pm

Just back from voting. Really hope Alice Mary Higgins gets a seat for Europe, and hoping against hope that Frances "nothing to see here, I don't know how to use an email client" FitzGerald doesn't get anywhere near it.

Suckit · 24-05-2019 5:44pm

^^ That one was linked to already a page or two back.

He had a year and a half to go through the motions, and think about what he was doing. What a f***ing moron.
He literally must have been thinking about the massive payout and convinced himself it was happening.

For somebody that is worried about a stain on his character, what a f***ing moron. I can't think of anything else to say about him.

Wheety · 24-05-2019 5:47pm

Yeah we need frivolous claims thrown out more often we costs awarded against.

It seems like an automatic payout if a security guard checks your bag and you haven't stolen anything.

They're just doing their job.

is_that_so · 24-05-2019 5:50pm

Wheety wrote: »

Yeah we need frivolous claims thrown out more often we costs awarded against.

It seems like an automatic payout if a security guard checks your bag and you haven't stolen anything.

They're just doing their job.

No, they are not. That's actually defamation of character. They need to have evidence. Not justified to go to court over it though.

is_that_so · 24-05-2019 5:51pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just back from voting. Really hope Alice Mary Higgins gets a seat for Europe, and hoping against hope that Frances "nothing to see here, I don't know how to use an email client" FitzGerald doesn't get anywhere near it.

She does seem likely to top the poll. Exit poll after 10 pm tonight on Late Late.

Wheety · 24-05-2019 5:51pm

is_that_so wrote: »

No, they are not. That's actually defamation of character. They need to have evidence. Not justified to go to court over it though.

You saying a security guard can't look in your bag if the alarm goes off?

Also if it is free money automatically for this, it leads to cases like the woman who brought a bottle of coke into a shop and put it on a shelf, then did her shopping and grabbed the bottle on the way so it looked like she was stealing it.

Suckit · 24-05-2019 5:58pm

Wheety wrote: »

You saying a security guard can't look in your bag if the alarm goes off?

Also if it is free money automatically for this, it leads to cases like the woman who brought a bottle of coke into a shop and put it on a shelf, then did her shopping and grabbed the bottle on the way so it looked like she was stealing it.

I'm not 100%, but I don't think security guards have the right to search you. They can detain you unti Gardaí arrive, but that's it, I think. Kind of like a citizens arrest.

jmreire · 24-05-2019 6:03pm

Suckit wrote: »

^^ That one was linked to already a page or two back.

He had a year and a half to go through the motions, and think about what he was doing. What a f***ing moron.
He literally must have been thinking about the massive payout and convinced himself it was happening.

For somebody that is worried about a stain on his character, what a f***ing moron. I can't think of anything else to say about him.

The question is, why would he NOT do it? When nearly every day you can read in the papers about the Courts awarding large sums of money for what seem's to be frivolous claim's? And no punishment if the claim is kicked out because it is a scam? It's a win /win situation for the claimant. He wins, he gets a payout. He loses, nothing happens. The whole situation is rotten to the core.

24-05-2019 6:04pm

Wheety wrote: »

You saying a security guard can't look in your bag if the alarm goes off?

Also if it is free money automatically for this, it leads to cases like the woman who brought a bottle of coke into a shop and put it on a shelf, then did her shopping and grabbed the bottle on the way so it looked like she was stealing it.

No security have no rights to look in your bag, asking to do so can be seen as an accusation of theft.

I worked security for 10 years and if you did this you'd have your cards handed to you if it turned out that you were in the wrong.

Standard procedure to bring the person back to a non public area and wait for the guards, explain your suspicion and have the guards ask the person to open the bag, as they have the legal right to search, a security guard does not.

McMurphy · 24-05-2019 6:05pm

Suckit wrote: »

I'm not 100%, but I don't think security guards have the right to search you. They can detain you unti Gardarrive, but that's it, I think. Kind of like a citizens arrest.

That was my understanding also.

is_that_so · 24-05-2019 6:07pm

Wheety wrote: »

You saying a security guard can't look in your bag if the alarm goes off?

Also if it is free money automatically for this, it leads to cases like the woman who brought a bottle of coke into a shop and put it on a shelf, then did her shopping and grabbed the bottle on the way so it looked like she was stealing it.

Alarm going off is possible evidence. Getting you to open your bag without it is an offence.

24-05-2019 6:10pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Alarm going off is possible evidence. Getting you to open your bag without it is an offence.

The alarm going off is not possible evidence, tags left on from other stores can trigger alarms in other stores.
If you stop someone based purely on that your accusing them of shoplifting. You better be right or have your cheque book ready.

salmocab · 24-05-2019 6:11pm

DubInMeath wrote: »

No security have no rights to look in your bag, asking to do so can be seen as an accusation of theft.

I worked security for 10 years and if you did this you'd have your cards handed to you if it turned out that you were in the wrong.

Standard procedure to bring the person back to a non public area and wait for the guards, explain your suspicion and have the guards ask the person to open the bag, as they have the legal right to search, a security guard does not.

Out of interest what would happen if the person said no won’t be going anywhere non public but happy to wait for guard in the shop?

Suckit · 24-05-2019 6:18pm

salmocab wrote: »

Out of interest what would happen if the person said no won’t be going anywhere non public but happy to wait for guard in the shop?

The private area is for them. So nobody sees them being detained.

If they want they can wait in the shop, but don't lt them near the swings.

24-05-2019 6:27pm

salmocab wrote: »

Out of interest what would happen if the person said no won’t be going anywhere non public but happy to wait for guard in the shop?

You just wait with them on the shop floor, with another member of staff with you as a witness. Same as if brought back to a non public area, regardless of the person's gender but back when I was working in the industry, you would make sure to have a female member of staff with you if stopping a female member of the public. Doubt that has changed but I haven't worked in security in nearly 20 years.

One point however is that, unless it's a large department store with different holders the person would only be stopped after they left or attempted to leave the store without paying.

In my experience, the stay on the shop floor cases were the ones hoping to be let go by causing a scene which never worked with me and normally had them escalating enough to have justified reason for moving them off the floor physically.

Again I was always 100% certain before stopping someone, even the slightest doubt that I was wrong or they might have dropped what they had I just let them walk.

The Rape of Lucretia · 24-05-2019 6:59pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if she was pulled in by HQ and told to drop the claim

That kind of thing possibly passes in paramilitary organisation oriented parties, but FG would be strongly in favour of the rights of free citizens, and in letting the law take its course. Its a more sophisticated attitude than much of the Irish electorate would understand, but it follows the right course despite the rabble it has to govern and their more simplistic view of the world.
Avoid letting this type of tabloid, whinge, attitude affect you, get out there, do the right thing, for yourself and the greater good, and vote for your FG and FF candidates.

buried · 24-05-2019 7:00pm

lol

Suckit · 24-05-2019 7:01pm

Just back from voting and I forgot about the referendum. Couldn't really care which way that goes I suppose, apart from taxes, I can't really see why anyone gets married.

The length of the EU ballot :eek:

hatrickpatrick · 24-05-2019 7:04pm

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

FG would be strongly in favour of the rights of free citizens

And yet they deploy a three-line whip, only used in rare circumstances in most functioning parliamentary democracies, for every single vote from legislative votes to motions on lunch menus in the Dáil bar :pac:

hatrickpatrick · 24-05-2019 7:07pm

Suckit wrote: »

Just back from voting and I forgot about the referendum. Couldn't really care which way that goes I suppose, apart from taxes, I can't really see why anyone gets married.

The length of the EU ballot :eek:

I made the mistake of filling out the referendum ballot first, before immediately remembering why I swore I'd never do that again - flipped over to the EU ballot and immediately put an X next to Alice Mary Higgins, my intended #1. Had to ask for it to be spoiled and get a new one - the woman at the desk for my polling card number said I was one of many people who'd done this today, so at least it's not a moment of complete eejitry

24-05-2019 7:20pm

Wheety wrote: »

Yeah we need frivolous claims thrown out more often we costs awarded against.

It seems like an automatic payout if a security guard checks your bag and you haven't stolen anything.

They're just doing their job.

DublinMeath already answered this, but there's also a very good reason why it's illegal for anybody except a Garda to detain or arrest any person on the street who is suspected of having committed a crime. Vigilantism.

What would you do if an ordinary member of the public detained you on Grafton Street, in front of hundreds of people, and strongly implied that you had just committed a crime? Well, it's no different to circulating a pamphlet and implying the same thing. It is defamatory.

A security guard is just another member of the public. We cannot, and should not, go down the rabbit hole of private militia operating like a regular police force, and so it's important that security guards (so-called) don't enjoy any greater legal protections than some crank on Grafton Street.

If anyone detained me in that way in a supermarket, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to see a solicitor about it. Unless of course I really had shoplifted

*slides out of the thread with everyone's wallets*

Odyssey 2005 · 24-05-2019 7:21pm

jmayo wrote: »

Since it is After Hours after all, do you get two votes if you sometimes identify as a woman ?

That fooking clown deserves to spend eternity in purgatory with danny healy rae.

Dafuk did Healy Rae do to deserve to be stuck with that yoke for eternity ?!

Muahahaha · 24-05-2019 7:34pm

Even Shane Roos sticking the boot in now

www.twitter.com/Shane_RossTD/status/1131826835619229696

ILoveYourVibes · 24-05-2019 7:36pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Even Shane Roos stciking the boot in now

https://i.redd.it/kptsrcofu4031.jpg

You know its bad now.

hatrickpatrick · 24-05-2019 7:40pm

This is inevitably going to start trending as #swinggate, but can I propose we get ahead of them and call it #swingersgate instead?

Muahahaha · 24-05-2019 7:58pm

Neonite · 24-05-2019 8:40pm

The incident happened in 2015 which would have been at the top of the compo boom to be fair to her. Hard to time the market

mikeym · 24-05-2019 8:42pm

I wonder was this mishap caught on camera?

buried · 24-05-2019 8:54pm

mikeym wrote: »

I wonder was this mishap caught on camera?

Probably recorded it themselves. Seems every little thing these lame f**king eegits do is recorded for some video/photo online insta-twitbook account

BENDYBINN · 24-05-2019 8:58pm

Fine Gael the laughing stock of Ireland.....

The Rape of Lucretia · 24-05-2019 9:05pm

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Fine Gael the laughing stock of Ireland.....

Only for the feeble minded.
They are the best option going. That much of the electorate can't see that, is the reason behind many of the country's problems.

Idbatterim · 24-05-2019 9:12pm

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Only for the feeble minded.
They are the best option going. That much of the electorate can't see that, is the reason behind many of the country's problems.

Lol! Fifty percent marginal rate on low income workers. Housing a scandal. You can really tell who is on the receiving end of this crisis and those, simply through timing , are not. A minority are probably high earners and can get by, fair play to them. Most probably got their housing etc for a pittance compared to now , of course it was still “always difficult to get on the ladder” it’s just several times more difficult now ...

Sheep breeder · 24-05-2019 9:13pm

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This bit is incorrect. The FG crew are clearly the most competent people we have to govern us. FF close behind.
All the rest - just ensure they are at the bottom of your ballot paper preference. Every Irish citizen has a responsibility to do this today. You have to stop voting for independents, IRA refugees, and novelty acts. If don't, you will get the poorly run country you will have asked for. Don't let issues like this injury case distract you from voting correctly.

Thank god we live in a democracy and one vote per person with freedom of choice from the above sh the. Dictatorship is dead in Ireland.

buried · 24-05-2019 9:15pm

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Only for the feeble minded.
They are the best option going. That much of the electorate can't see that, is the reason behind many of the country's problems.

I suppose 8 years of these utter clowns in power got nothing to do with it either?

Plumbthedepths · 24-05-2019 9:23pm

I'm amazed people are rising/ responding to someone with the initials T.R.O.L. Ah well.....

Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Comments