General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

markodaly · 17-05-2019 1:44pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Did you think it might have been Pascal? If you can't be bothered following the provided link, that's on you.

Link dumping is against the charter, my friend.

James Brown · 17-05-2019 1:58pm

blanch152 wrote: »

To be honest, that statement goes beyond lands flowing with milk and honey and into the realms of taxing unicorns and rainbows.

How can you say that it is achievable? Do you have any independent evidence to back up this statement?

indeedin I do:

Fine Gael will use roadside street lights to introduce high-speed broadband to every part of the country, according to the party's local election manifesto.

A draft copy of the election manifesto, which has been obtained by the Sunday Independent, says Fine Gael will roll out broadband for every home, business or school, "regardless of how remote or rural" their location is.

https://www.independent.ie/ca/irish-news/politics/fg-promises-highspeed-broadband-by-street-light-38035416.html

blanch152 wrote: »

We should have kept the fixed line infrastructure as when we split ESB and Eirgrid. That is on FF. To be fair, the lesson was learned.

I agree, but there was no lesson. As I said to Johnny the other day that presupposes value for the taxpayer is the goal.

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, not a single person has been able to explain how to do it cheaper, not one. No politician, no poster on here. They have whinged and cried about the cost, but haven't been able to say how it could be done cheaper.

Just yesterday you were saying nobody had legitimate concerns about costing.
I know it's costing is flawed so how do you know it couldn't? Part of the problem is FG pushing ahead with a questionable process and thankfully jack of all trades Denis O'Brien and his consortium were the last men standing willing to brazen out the deal because they care so much I'd imagine. I find it unlikely that the water meter man is in it for kicks and if his consortium see a shilling in it, others might too?
See below:

Major value-for-money reports on the National Broadband Plan consistently overestimated by €1 billion costs facing the operator.

The error in the cost-benefit analyses carried out by PwC was discovered only in the weeks before the Government decided to proceed with the plan.

The mistaken figure, which overestimated the costs to the operator by €1.079 billion, was discovered between February and April.

That error, coupled with repeated concerns expressed about the robustness and basis of the study, led the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER) to conclude the cost-benefit analysis was not credible.

The €1 billion error is disclosed in the final lengthy submission the department made to Government opposing the project.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/value-reports-on-broadband-plan-overstated-operator-costs-by-1bn-1.3892370

blanch152 wrote: »

On the other hand, not a single other country in the world, bar small city states, have pursued a policy of fibre broadband to every home. Why? Because it costs too much and isn't a worthwhile policy.

I disagree. If we are selling ourselves as a tech savvy nation we need availability to broadband. Not every home would want it, but if they do they should be able to get it IMO. This would help business set up outside of Dublin for instance.

blanch152 wrote: »

Politics is simple. This is how FG see it.

(1) Project goes through - We are bringing broadband to every house in the country while those idiots in the opposition are trying to deny it to you. Result: Votes.

(2) Project doesn't go through - That mean opposition has stopped us bringing broadband to you. They have made us go back to the start and it will cost more and take longer. Result: Votes for FG rather than opposition.

If (2) happens, they don't have to actually spend the €3bn and can spend it on Luas in Cork and DART Underground. Result: Bonus votes.

Pretty much, but it's how Fine Gael works, not politics. We are just battle weary dealing with low grade political parties such as FF/FG to expect any better.

blanch152 wrote: »

In response to this scenario, the opposition are playing the mismanagement card as it is the only one they have. It actually doesn't matter to them that going back to start will mean a higher cost and longer delay. They will blame that on FG. It also doesn't matter that this is the wrong idea as there are no votes in that. They hope that the public focus on the mismanagement issue rather than on the subsequent delay. As they are only interested in the next election, the problem in five years time of people living on top of a mountain asking where is my broadband can be dealt with then.

I would happily go back to square one as Leo put it rather than build on sand with a money hole adjacent. It could well end up like IW/metering, 'our own' will make out like bandits and it all falls apart at great waste to the tax payer.

blanch152 wrote: »

As a result of the political playacting (essentially a result of minority government), the real issue of why should we actually bring fibre to every boreen in the country is being ignored.

It is actually interesting to read the threads on this. You can see clearly those who are just following a party line and parrotting there is no other option (FG) or this is all about consultants, Denis O'Brien and the cost (FF, SF, PBP).

The real independent thinkers are questioning the rationale for the whole project.

Not one person in government anyway.
It's a vote getter for sure but I think if we have access in rural areas it might just breath economic life into some.

Podge_irl · 17-05-2019 2:16pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I disagree. If we are selling ourselves as a tech savvy nation we need availability to broadband. Not every home would want it, but if they do they should be able to get it IMO. This would help business set up outside of Dublin for instance.

It's a vote getter for sure but I think if we have access in rural areas it might just breath economic life into some.

Ensuring broadband access in every town (or even village) in Ireland would have the benefits you are looking for. The economic benefit of connecting a one-off house in rural Galway to broadband is going to be utterly negligible and is irrelevant to our "tech-savvy" image.

The general argument of that IT article seems to be that the whole project should be scrapped, not that it could be done cheaper.

blanch152 · 17-05-2019 2:32pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

indeedin I do:

I agree, but there was no lesson. As I said to Johnny the other day that presupposes value for the taxpayer is the goal.

Just yesterday you were saying nobody had legitimate concerns about costing.
I know it's costing is flawed so how do you know it couldn't? Part of the problem is FG pushing ahead with a questionable process and thankfully jack of all trades Denis O'Brien and his consortium were the last men standing willing to brazen out the deal because they care so much I'd imagine. I find it unlikely that the water meter man is in it for kicks and if his consortium see a shilling in it, others might too?
See below:

I disagree. If we are selling ourselves as a tech savvy nation we need availability to broadband. Not every home would want it, but if they do they should be able to get it IMO. This would help business set up outside of Dublin for instance.

Pretty much, but it's how Fine Gael works, not politics. We are just battle weary dealing with low grade political parties such as FF/FG to expect any better.

I would happily go back to square one as Leo put it rather than build on sand with a money hole adjacent. It could well end up like IW/metering, 'our own' will make out like bandits and it all falls apart at great waste to the tax payer.

Not one person in government anyway.
It's a vote getter for sure but I think if we have access in rural areas if might just breath economic life into some.

Just to remind you, I asked whether anyone had set out whether it could be done cheaper?

This was the key point of my post that you were replying to:

"Again, not a single person has been able to explain how to do it cheaper, not one. No politician, no poster on here. They have whinged and cried about the cost, but haven't been able to say how it could be done cheaper."

That point remains unanswered, because everyone knows that it will cost at least €3 billion, probably a lot more in the end.

As for breathing life into rural areas, that only works if you end one-off housing and build villages and towns. At the moment, the contribution to climate change problems from one-off rural dwellers is huge, that can't continue.

James Brown · 17-05-2019 2:52pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

Ensuring broadband access in every town (or even village) in Ireland would have the benefits you are looking for. The economic benefit of connecting a one-off house in rural Galway to broadband is going to be utterly negligible and is irrelevant to our "tech-savvy" image.

The general argument of that IT article seems to be that the whole project should be scrapped, not that it could be done cheaper.

I don't know what charges will be like for one off connection. Are they obliged to offer connections at a loss? If in the least every town and village have access it would be a good thing IMO.

I was using it to show that any ideas on cost are pretty much based on flawed PWC assessments.

blanch152 wrote: »

Just to remind you, I asked whether anyone had set out whether it could be done cheaper?

This was the key point of my post that you were replying to:

"Again, not a single person has been able to explain how to do it cheaper, not one. No politician, no poster on here. They have whinged and cried about the cost, but haven't been able to say how it could be done cheaper."

That point remains unanswered, because everyone knows that it will cost at least €3 billion, probably a lot more in the end.

In the interest of pedantry, I did not directly answer your question. To clarify, nobody seems to know exactly how much it will cost therefore I cannot say if it could be done cheaper, only that costs, thus far, have been exaggerated. I thought I made that pretty clear in my initial response.

Maybe we should look at who dropped out of the tendering process and if PWC miscalculations on costing played a role. Also what kept Denis O'Brien's consortium in gaining them preferred bidder status, while others dropped out, despite PWC miscalculations?
Not to forget PWC investigating their own advice re the Children's Hospital. The state/FG business phone book must be the size of a post-it.

Muahahaha · 17-05-2019 3:33pm

So Leo and Trump, Dromoland Castle or nowhere? Dont think the Don will meet him anywhere other than Doonbeg, its the bestest golf course in the world, etc and he's not going to give a competitor good publicity. Rumours were circulating that if it Leo doesnt go down to Doonbeg then the trip is off and he'll just visit Scotland instead.

PeadarCo · 17-05-2019 7:08pm

Matt Barrett wrote:

It use to be carried out by the LA's and contractors, overseen by the Dept. of the Environment, now it's carried out by the LA's and contractors, but with an IW HQ and more money for upgrades. I never saw any point in IW, (and therefore consultants, board, laughing yoga etc.) outside of FG looking after it's own. Not to forget the Sitserv deal is still under investigation.

I notice in all of what you have posted you have avoided my question cost. Care to answer it?

James Brown · 17-05-2019 7:41pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

I notice in all of what you have posted you have avoided my question cost. Care to answer it?

I didn't avoid it. I commented on the topic.
Zero, by the way. It wasn't needed at all. I said as much. Apologies if it wasn't clear enough. The Dept. of the Environment could have continued overseeing the LA's and contractors without setting up IW. The only difference we see is a national improvement plan of sorts and more money, which might have been substantially more if not for IW and the metering farce, consultants, payback, jobs for our own, sweet deal, laughing yoga etc.

ancapailldorcha · 17-05-2019 8:47pm

markodaly wrote: »

Link dumping is against the charter, my friend.

So is backseat modding. Use the report function if you see a problem.

PeadarCo · 17-05-2019 9:37pm

Matt Barrett wrote:

I didn't avoid it. I commented on the topic. Zero, by the way. It wasn't needed at all. I said as much. Apologies if it wasn't clear enough. The Dept. of the Environment could have continued overseeing the LA's and contractors without setting up IW. The only difference we see is a national improvement plan of sorts and more money, which might have been substantially more if not for IW and the metering farce, consultants, payback, jobs for our own, sweet deal, laughing yoga etc.

My comment wasn't about Irish water my comment was about the broadband contract. What was superfluous about the work that was done?

Consultant's exist because they have very specialised skills that are too costly to maintain for most organisations on a normal basis.

On the topic of Irish water unfortunately I disagree. The idea that you wouldn't need to bring in specialists when starting it up and taking over from the 30 odd country councils is completely unrealistic in terms of IT alone, never mind all the other transitional issues which the Irish public sector has a bad reputation of managing. The HSE and Ppars project being stand out examples.

markodaly · 18-05-2019 1:15am

PeadarCo wrote: »

My comment wasn't about Irish water my comment was about the broadband contract. What was superfluous about the work that was done?

Consultant's exist because they have very specialised skills that are too costly to maintain for most organisations on a normal basis.

On the topic of Irish water unfortunately I disagree. The idea that you wouldn't need to bring in specialists when starting it up and taking over from the 30 odd country councils is completely unrealistic in terms of IT alone, never mind all the other transitional issues which the Irish public sector has a bad reputation of managing. The HSE and Ppars project being stand out examples.

Are sure, we could also just ask a bunch of Taxi drivers how to fix everything. We all know they are experts in everything. From project management, programming to deploying IT infrastructure.

Ireland is no exception to the idea that people spout easy solutions to fix very complex problems. It's the 'build the wall' mentality spouted by Trump supporters. In Ireland, its usually about TD's pay, privatisation, consultants and the arch boggy man of them all, Denis O'Brien.

Every malcontent, superfluous, anti-intellectual rant about 'da government' usually contains at least one of those four points. Entirely predictable and entirely a waste of everyone's time.

McMurphy · 21-05-2019 1:24pm

I see Maria Bailey, TD for FG in Dun Laoghaire is suing the Dean hotel in Dublin because she fell off of a swing in the establishment.

The basis of her claim is , wait for it.

]

In circuit court proceedings, she accused the hotel of negligence, saying the swing was "unsupervised" and there were no signs to instruct patrons how to safely use it.

You read that correctly, a 43 year old mother elected to legislate is suing a Dublin business because she was left unsupervised on a swing, and their was no signs anywhere directing people how to use it.

Note.

Ms Bailey was not in court. She is being represented by Madigan Solicitors, a law firm run by a brother of Culture Minister Josepha Madigan. Ms Madigan, a solicitor, stepped away from the firm after becoming a TD.

Great PR for her and the party I'm sure.

BonnieSituation · 21-05-2019 10:16pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I see Maria Bailey, TD for FG in Dun Laoghaire is suing the Dean hotel in Dublin because she fell off of a swing in the establishment.

The basis of her claim is , wait for it.

]

You read that correctly, a 43 year old mother elected to legislate is suing a Dublin business because she was left unsupervised on a swing, and their was no signs anywhere directing people how to use it.

Note.

Great PR for her and the party I'm sure.

Leo must be going ape after that. Ridiculous carry on.

James Brown · 22-05-2019 9:23am

PeadarCo wrote: »

My comment wasn't about Irish water my comment was about the broadband contract. What was superfluous about the work that was done?

Consultant's exist because they have very specialised skills that are too costly to maintain for most organisations on a normal basis.

On the topic of Irish water unfortunately I disagree. The idea that you wouldn't need to bring in specialists when starting it up and taking over from the 30 odd country councils is completely unrealistic in terms of IT alone, never mind all the other transitional issues which the Irish public sector has a bad reputation of managing. The HSE and Ppars project being stand out examples.

You responded to a one line comment on IW and I responded to that. It wasn't clear to me anyway.
Consultants aren't a finite entity. Theres degrees of usefulness. It's like hiring Bertie Ahern as a financial advisor and telling people what 'advisor' means.

There are similarities in both processes.
If the deal is queered or not great but, it needs to be stopped and scrutinised, unless of course they are fine with seemingly unspecified costing to the tax payer and the Denis O'Brien consortium.
The problem thus far is the preferred bidder on foot of PWC and their reporting on costs being exaggerated and this bidder remaining to receive preffered bidder status under a 'sure they're all we have' get out of jail free card as it were if and when it goes tits up for the tax payer as it likely will based on the record of this fiscally conservative Fine Gael party.

Do you have faith in this government to get the tax payer a good deal? I don't based on their record and the process so far.

James Brown · 22-05-2019 9:32am

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Leo must be going ape after that. Ridiculous carry on.

This is different because something. Like Leo's nimbyism. Theres plenty of hypocrisy to go around with FG.

McMurphy · 25-05-2019 10:27am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I see Maria Bailey, TD for FG in Dun Laoghaire is suing the Dean hotel in Dublin because she fell off of a swing in the establishment.

The basis of her claim is , wait for it.

]

You read that correctly, a 43 year old mother elected to legislate is suing a Dublin business because she was left unsupervised on a swing, and their was no signs anywhere directing people how to use it.

Note.

Great PR for her and the party I'm sure.

Maria could be in more than just a spot of bother, and to make matters worse, sure hasn't she entangled Josepha Madigans family law firm into the middle of what appears to be a truth stretching compo claim.

TD Bailey ran 10km race three weeks after swing fall

Fine Gael TD Maria Bailey took part in a 10km race three weeks after falling from a swing in a Dublin hotel.

The politician lodged a personal injuries claim on the basis that she suffered injuries to her head, lower back and hip after falling backward off the swing in the well-known Dean Hotel.

It is claimed Ms Bailey can no longer sit or stand for long periods without experiencing pain and discomfort as a result of the incident on July 10, 2015.

Eight days later she attended the Longitude music festival.

Itssoeasy · 25-05-2019 10:42am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Maria could be in more than just a spot of bother, and to make matters worse, sure hasn't she entangled Josepha Madigans family law firm into the middle of what appears to be a truth stretching compo claim.

TD Bailey ran 10km race three weeks after swing fall

Yeah she has some explaining to do it seems.

James Brown · 25-05-2019 3:52pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Maria could be in more than just a spot of bother, and to make matters worse, sure hasn't she entangled Josepha Madigans family law firm into the middle of what appears to be a truth stretching compo claim.

TD Bailey ran 10km race three weeks after swing fall

If she were a single mother on welfare we'd be hearing thunderous comments and spin off threads on spongers and the like, cutting welfare etc. This is a privileged TD, also funded by the tax payer yet somehow garners less attention.

McMurphy · 25-05-2019 6:48pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If she were a single mother on welfare we'd be hearing thunderous comments and spin off threads on spongers and the like, cutting welfare etc. This is a privileged TD, also funded by the tax payer yet somehow garners less attention.

She's dropped the claim, which imo is an admission that the claim was never legitimate to begin with.

Let's see what Leo does with a spoofer who lodges questionable claims against a business, whilst pledging to tackle same.

Toxic now, she must surely be toast.

McMurphy · 27-05-2019 12:08pm

Maria's interview with Sean O'Rourke is car crash material.

I would say she's finished, and possibly Josepha Madigan will join her.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1132950765033725953?s=19

blanch152 · 27-05-2019 12:11pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Maria's interview with Sean O'Rourke is car crash material.

I would say she's finished, and possibly Josepha Madigan will join her.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1132950765033725953?s=19

I have seen you posting several times across threads on this with respect to Josepha Madigan.

Which aspect of client confidentiality do you expect her to break, if she was the solicitor involved?

McMurphy · 27-05-2019 12:35pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I have seen you posting several times across threads on this with respect to Josepha Madigan.

Which aspect of client confidentiality do you expect her to break, if she was the solicitor involved?

What are you on about?

James Brown · 27-05-2019 1:45pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Maria's interview with Sean O'Rourke is car crash material.

I would say she's finished, and possibly Josepha Madigan will join her.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1132950765033725953?s=19

Varadkar was saying Bailey didn't consult with the party. I suppose he can pull, consulted with a party member but not Fine Gael proper, if she did receive advice from Madigan?

We'll no doubt have this issue pulled down a legalese rabbit hole shortly.
The sight of Bailey holding a bottle of beer on a (highly polished) swing and falling while reaching for wine must have been something.

McMurphy · 27-05-2019 1:59pm

The story that keeps giving, both Josepha Madigan and Maria Bailey are refusing to confirm or deny if Josepha had any involvement in either instigating it, or providing legal advise in the case.

The way this story has evolved, I wouldn't be surprised if that too is leaked, or, if Bailey is hung out to dry, spills the beans.

I have bookmarked that car crash interview, because I'm going to get immense enjoyment from hearing it a few more times.

Muahahaha · 27-05-2019 2:02pm

FG, the party of fraudulent insurance claims, you couldnt make it up

McMurphy · 27-05-2019 2:15pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

FG, the party of fraudulent insurance claims, you couldnt make it up

It isn't very often that you get gifted with an interview of a politician burying their own career live on air.

That interview was almost more cringe worthy than the claim itself.

I particularly liked it when O'Rourke hit her fair and square between the eyes with the troubles facing small and medium businesses with insurance premiums due to compo claims......

Her response?

Yeah, bit they're fake claims, mine was legitimate.

Absolutely shocking stuff from a public representative.

James Brown · 27-05-2019 2:18pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It isn't very often that you get gifted with an interview of a politician burying their own career live on air.

That interview was almost more cringe worthy than the claim itself.

I particularly liked it when O'Rourke hit her fair and square between the eyes with the troubles facing small and medium businesses with insurance premiums due to compo claims......

Her response?

Yeah, bit they're fake claims, mine was legitimate.

Absolutely shocking stuff from a public representative.

That's the attitude though. She said she only wanted medical expenses covered and that the hotel were happy to pay them, so why the claim?

LuckyLloyd · 27-05-2019 2:21pm

Surely FG will expel her from the party?

McMurphy · 27-05-2019 2:22pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's the attitude though. She said she only wanted medical expenses covered and that the hotel were happy to pay them, so why the claim?

She also said that she already had paid the 7k from her own pocket, and had absorbed that cost - from one side of her mouth.

Then, when questioned, told us that she had already been reimbursed by her private health insurance from the other side of her mouth.

She's a disgrace.

Muahahaha · 27-05-2019 3:21pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It isn't very often that you get gifted with an interview of a politician burying their own career live on air.

Oh that car crash interview was definitely one for the ages, it is up there with P.Flynn and the three houses. The arrogance and smack of entitlement off her almost knocked me out. It was Fine Gael-ness at its very purest.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Surely FG will expel her from the party?

Paddy Power odds

Yes 1/2
No 6/4

Spotlight is on Leo now, if he doesnt act quickly his position will be weakened. Good chance of a general election this year and if Bailey is on the FG ticket they will be an even bigger laughing stock. Its bad enough they put faith in this type of person in the first place but if they double down and back her then they can expect a serious backlash.

Mr.Nice Guy · 27-05-2019 3:23pm

Just listened to the Maria Bailey interview. Absolute car crash. The sense of entitlement staggering, not to mention the fact she believe she is the victim. Even threw in the gender card at the end in desperation.

Hilarious that FG style themselves as the party of hard workers, "those who get up early in the morning". We'll find out how committed they really are to tackling those who abuse the system. Over to you, Taoiseach.

McMurphy · 27-05-2019 10:10pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Just listened to the Maria Bailey interview. Absolute car crash. The sense of entitlement staggering, not to mention the fact she believe she is the victim. Even threw in the gender card at the end in desperation.

Hilarious that FG style themselves as the party of hard workers, "those who get up early in the morning". We'll find out how committed they really are to tackling those who abuse the system. Over to you, Taoiseach.

One of my favourite pieces from the interview.....

SOR: Just clarify one thing. Did you have something in each hand when this happened?

MB: That would have been a matter for the judge to adjudicate on and I'm not opening a trial here.

Wait a minute, is this person, someone the public have entrusted with legislating, seriously suggesting that a judge would need to adjudicate on a very binary question, that surely no-one would be better qualified to answer than herself?

Did you have something in each hand Maria? Yes/No are the only two answers needed to a very simple question

She should've just went the full hog with Sean and replied that "it was an ecumenical matter" for Christ sake.

I'd pay good money to see Leo's reaction to that absolute dogs dinner of an interview this morning, there must surely have been steam coming from each ear hole. :pac:

blackwhite · 27-05-2019 11:59pm

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/a-closer-look-at-maria-bailey-who-is-the-controversial-swing-case-td-927018.html

If ever an article read like “party sources are briefing against....”

Seems fairly clear Ms Bailey is for the chop - if not now, then in selection for next election

Paddy The Pirate · 28-05-2019 12:02am

The minute DeValera died this country was doomed. In the past few decades our only true moral compass has been degraded again and again and again. Atheism is rampant, corruption, bribery, sexual deviancy, it's all on the rise, and anyone who says it has nothing to do with our having forsaken God is deluded.

28-05-2019 12:05am

Paddy The Pirate wrote: »

The minute DeValera died this country was doomed. In the past few decades our only true moral compass has been degraded again and again and again. Atheism is rampant, corruption, bribery, sexual deviancy, it's all on the rise, and anyone who says it has nothing to do with our having forsaken God is deluded.

A thoughtful and balanced critique.

namloc1980 · 28-05-2019 7:59am

That interview was something. Sean O'Rourke was really enjoying himself also. Some savage lines thrown in "...and three weeks after you ran a 10k, and a very good time too!" :pac:

walshb · 28-05-2019 8:44am

That SOR interview stank of a real arrogance for me.

Clinging on for dear life to the "I got legal advice" angle, as if that is some bastion of good; but not clinging to the common decency and moral rightness angle...

I am reading in the papers day in and day out of these vexatious and fraudulent claims relating to the staging of car accidents etc....From what I know on this case, I can't distinguish it.

FreudianSlippers · 28-05-2019 8:45am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Maria's interview with Sean O'Rourke is car crash material.

I would say she's finished, and possibly Josepha Madigan will join her.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1132950765033725953?s=19

Finally got around to listening to it last night and I don't see how MB will make it to the end of the week, but not sure what JM has to do with any of this? I know MB slightly dodged the question as to whether she consulted JM in relation to the claim, but it would seem to be a stretch to blame JM for this?

FreudianSlippers · 28-05-2019 8:49am

walshb wrote: »

That SOR interview stank of a real arrogance for me.

Clinging on for dear life to the "I got legal advice" angle, as if that is some bastion of good; but not clinging to the common decency and moral rightness angle...

I am reading in the papers day in and day out of these vexatious and fraudulent claims relating to the staging of car accidents etc....From what I know on this case, I can't distinguish it.

That was nothing more than throwing her legal team under the bus to claim plausible deniability. The fact of the matter is that her saying her legal team "filled in" her affidavit is B.S. - an affidavit is a sworn statement by her, it should be written from facts that she provides and swears are true and at the very least it should be read in its entirety by the deponent before they sign their name to the document by oath.

Likewise with the Statement of Claim - admittedly it can be remedied and amended, but the point isn't that you just slap down any old junk on the page and turn it in to the Courts. It should be a clear summary of the facts supporting your claim that you intend to prove to be factual. It's very unlikely that her legal team went on a solo-run here and just drafted any old ****e without her approval/review.

FreudianSlippers · 28-05-2019 8:55am

Muahahaha wrote: »

FG, the party of fraudulent insurance claims, you couldnt make it up

Just to clarify, I don't believe it's correct to say that her claim was fraudulent - on the facts, she was on the swing, she fell off the swing and she incurred medical expenses and pain as a result of the fall.

The question here is, really, to what extent was the fall due to the negligence of the hotel or her own contributory negligence? That leads to a secondary question which is, in my view, more of a general question about the level of compensation claims in Ireland about whether a soft-tissue injury with no long-term effects attracts general damages of the level which can/should be granted by the Circuit Court.

MB was correctly worried at the negative PR of what sounds like significant contributory negligence in the fall from what was described on the radio interview as well as the general view of her claiming Circuit Court general damages when she falsely claimed on numerous occasions that she was only seeking her medical expenses.

EDIT: To clarify, MB was doing nothing that hundreds of other people are doing at the moment as well in seeking damages for soft-tissue injury which is not commensurate to the injury - there's a serious problem there in terms of Court awards which has hopefully been fixed by the updated book of quantum.

walshb · 28-05-2019 9:05am

Going by all the info in the public domain it seems to me that this accident was pretty much her fault.....

I have read nothing mentioning a defective swing or any defective surroundings that caused the accident. She fell off a swing. It's life. And likely the alcohol on board and her not having a proper grip was the absolute cause....

In this instance she is no different than so many in society today. Always looking to blame someone else...

I have no issue with claiming when you need to claim.....I can't see it here.

And her dodging and deflecting and evasiveness in the interview cements my view.

She strikes me as someone who would trip over and fall whilst out running due to her laces not being tied, and then looking hard to find someone to blame and claim.

walshb · 28-05-2019 9:12am

BTW, she mentions that all she wanted was her 7 k medical bills paid...

The hotel's fighting this caused the claim to then become a damages claim, for 60 k?

VinLieger · 28-05-2019 9:18am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just to clarify, I don't believe it's correct to say that her claim was fraudulent - on the facts, she was on the swing, she fell off the swing and she incurred medical expenses and pain as a result of the fall.

Her affadavit had blatant lies in it, she claimed she wasn't able to run for 3 months but was actually out doing a 10k marathon 3 weeks later that she completed only 8 seconds slower than the previous year.

There is no way she was not out running for those 3 weeks to get that time.

walshb · 28-05-2019 9:22am

As SOR rightly pointed out, nobody is disputing that she did not fall and did not get hurt. The issue is why she decided to seek damages/payment from the hotel for this? Why she may have felt them responsible.

FreudianSlippers · 28-05-2019 9:22am

The Occupiers' Liability Act is clear on this - the occupier of a property is responsible for visitors thereupon, they owe them a duty of care to ensure that the visitor doesn't suffer any damage or injury from a danger on the land. It's pretty obvious, I'd suggest, that a wooden swing in a bar is an inherent danger (I've been to that bar many times mind you and I've seen some very drunk people manage to not fall off it). They key issue in law is that the breach of duty of care is both subjective and objective - so the defendant may know that the swing is potentially dangerous in its location/design/etc. or it should be in the view of the reasonable person potentially dangerous. I'd say it's objectively difficult to not believe a swing in that location in a bar is not dangerous potentially.

Once this is proven, the special damages should be paid by the defendant... in this case MB claims something like €6,000-7,000 worth of medical expenses IIRC; even if she had some general damages arising from the fall (which doesn't seem to be true based on the fact she ran a marathon the next week or so after the fall) she would have been advised that the District Court jurisdiction was €15k and more than enough to make her whole.

I think if she sued in the District Court this would have been settled and we'd never have heard about it. It's the fact that this was brought in the Circuit Court for a much larger general damages award which makes it particularly bad.

FreudianSlippers · 28-05-2019 9:24am

VinLieger wrote: »

Her affadavit had blatant lies in it, she claimed she wasn't able to run for 3 months but was actually out doing a 10k marathon 3 weeks later that she completed only 8 seconds slower than the previous year.

There is no way she was not out running for those 3 weeks to get that time.

I made that point as well, so I don't disagree that her claim appears to have been exaggerated and that it's nonsense that her affidavit was just "filled in" by her lawyers (whatever that means?) but it doesn't make her underlying claim "fraudulent".

VinLieger · 28-05-2019 9:31am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I made that point as well, so I don't disagree that her claim appears to have been exaggerated and that it's nonsense that her affidavit was just "filled in" by her lawyers (whatever that means?) but it doesn't make her underlying claim "fraudulent".

Her underlying claim may not be fraudulent, but the fact is the case that was filed deffinitely was.

Not to mention she went to the circuit court where the maximum payout can be as high as 60k instead of the district court where its only 15k. There's only one reason you do that.

Chips Lovell · 28-05-2019 9:52am

She's managed to destroy her political career in the space of a few days. There's no way she's gong to be selected for the next general election. And Fine Gael has nothing to lose by deselecting her, since they currently have three TDs in Dun Laoghaire because Sean Barrett was automatically reelected. They'd have little or no chance of winning three in other circumstances.

What amazes me is that she's managed to survive in politics for fifteen years with so little judgement, and so much entitlement.

VinLieger · 28-05-2019 10:03am

Chips Lovell wrote: »

What amazes me is that she's managed to survive in politics for fifteen years with so little judgement, and so much entitlement.

Daddy covering for her methinks which would also explain the entitlement

McMurphy · 28-05-2019 10:05am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Finally got around to listening to it last night and I don't see how MB will make it to the end of the week, but not sure what JM has to do with any of this? I know MB slightly dodged the question as to whether she consulted JM in relation to the claim, but it would seem to be a stretch to blame JM for this?

Bailey said the she was advised by her legal team that the case was clear cut, someone then decided that they went to the court they chose to take it to.

SOR: Of course, tell me this much Maria Bailey, in what way do you believe the hotel was negligent in this?

MB: Sean, that would have been for a judge to adjudicate, that is not for you or me, that would have been ...

SOR: I want you to explain to me ...

MB: Sean I’m not a legal person, I took legal advice on this and I put every faith into that legal system and I was told I had a clear cut case.

Granted, this could be lies from Bailey as to what her legal team actually advised her.

Also equally plausible that the legal team gave any advice based on the information provided to them by Bailey - obviously in good faith.

But either way, as Josepha Madigan was practising in the firm when Bailey contacted them, and for two years afterwards, I don't think it's plausible at all that she wasn't fully aware of this case, and like it or not, bailey has embroiled her in the controversy.

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments