Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

KaneToad · 27-02-2021 1:11pm

walshb wrote: »

I don’t disagree here

Bit like a lot of things in society. Just because you can sue doesn’t mean you always should. I think this view is what is being seen here.

All the facts? Well, what we have read it seems the woman was mostly responsible for her falling.

Not just her. Everywhere in society there seems to be this greedy what can I get and who can I hang and who can I screw mentality..

Greed and lack of moral decency is rife in society.

But this is my point exactly. I'd rather get the facts through due process rather than the pages of the Sunday Independent.

I do agree though that just because you can sue, you should sue. But I would also hold that just because you don't have to sue doesn't mean you shouldn't.

Let her sue. Let the full facts emerge. Let the electorate/future business partners etc. decide what they think of her.

It was a bad move by FG to pressurise her into her actions of dropping claim.

JustAThought · 27-02-2021 1:13pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

LOL

You're shameless in your trolling of this issue.

She tried to pull an insurance scam and was caught. She deserves absolutely no sympathy.

Wasn’t she the politician drunk on a swimg in a nightclub with a bottle of beer in each hand while ‘swinging’ who claimed the company was negligent? beggars belief.

I think it was the same time small businesses catering for children were being crucified and put out of business because of fake insurance claims they hd to fight anyway and huge court costs and insurance premiums - even if you’d never hd a claim - into hundreds of thousands before the creches and childrens playgroups and sports clubs even opened their doors.

I see ff/FG have now allowed the insurance companies and law industry to force people away from the PIAB and back into the high court to fight claims because the government (still) won’t regulate or control them either. 45k for a case in court versus e90 with the PIAB - all about to be shut down down for any injury other than a leg or arm break of death because the same crowd have no balls and let the vested interests of laywers and insurance walk all over them.

The neck on Bailey beggars belief. No hands swinging while pissed - thank God for CCTV and other peoples videos. I think she was also holding her stilettos in her hand while pissed and swinging if memory serves me right.

And was a e100k salary and e65k annual no questioned asked expenses cheque not enough for her?

This is why childrens facilities and businesses are being shut down by owners all over the country. Try telling her soppy weepy sob story to the family businesses ruined and people put out of work.

salmocab · 27-02-2021 1:14pm

KaneToad wrote: »

This isn't a pro- Bailey stance. Its an anti 'trial by public opinion' stance.

She was a politician, everything a politician does is trial by public opinion.

Sultan of Bling · 27-02-2021 1:14pm

KaneToad wrote:

She was put under pressure to drop it. Due to the belief that it might save her FG gig. It didn't.

KaneToad wrote:

The claim was progressing until the pile on against her started. I would have much preferred to see it continue. Then we would have something concrete to debate - now all we have is our opinions.

KaneToad wrote:

This isn't a pro- Bailey stance. Its an anti 'trial by public opinion' stance.

I understand it's not a pro bailey stance. I would have preferred it to go to court myself.

The only thing we do know is that she lied about the extent of her injuries. I'm sorry but i just don't believe this was a clerical error.

That is the main problem around claims. It's not the amount of fraudulent claims made, its the amount of claims where people have been genuinely injured but exaggerate their injuries.

KaneToad · 27-02-2021 1:17pm

beakerjoe wrote: »

She had the Dublin Race series and her 'medical treatment for her severe injuries'. Hard to fit a court sitting on that busy schedule.

Absolute chancer

Again, based on our limited knowledge of the facts.

Maybe she had cortisol injections. Maybe she had a titanium rod clamped to her spine. Maybe she was incapacitated for days afterwards. Maybe she was hypnotised. Most of which are unlikely but not impossible.

I really don't see why we shouldn't have let her alone to have her day in court. That would be the best place to expose the truth.

Now all we have is our opinions...

KaneToad · 27-02-2021 1:21pm

salmocab wrote: »

She was a politician, everything a politician does is trial by public opinion.

True. But she still should not have been dissuaded from her court appearance. It would allow the public get a more accurate opinion of her.

beakerjoe · 27-02-2021 1:21pm

KaneToad wrote: »

Again, based on our limited knowledge of the facts.

Maybe she had cortisol injections. Maybe she had a titanium rod clamped to her spine. Maybe she was incapacitated for days afterwards. Maybe she was hypnotised. Most of which are unlikely but not impossible.

I really don't see why we shouldn't have let her alone to have her day in court. That would be the best place to expose the truth.

Now all we have is our opinions...

Im content with my opinion of her.

Caught out chancer. Nothings changing that opinion.

Sultan of Bling · 27-02-2021 1:22pm

KaneToad wrote:

Maybe she had cortisol injections. Maybe she had a titanium rod clamped to her spine. Maybe she was incapacitated for days afterwards. Maybe she was hypnotised. Most of which are unlikely but not impossible.

Didnt she say she couldnt race for months because of her injuries and then a photo emerged of her a couple of weeks after the accident having run a 10k?

JustAThought · 27-02-2021 1:22pm

Sultan of Bling wrote: »

I understand it's not a pro bailey stance. I would have preferred it to go to court myself.

The only thing we do know is that she lied about the extent of her injuries. I'm sorry but i just don't believe this was a clerical error.

That is the main problem around claims. It's not the amount of fraudulent claims made, its the amount of claims where people have been genuinely injured but exaggerate their injuries.

The days of ‘oh my neck hurt’ are long over - MRI’s and Cat scans can measure soft tissue and internal swelling and injuries and date them to within the range of the accident - there is cctv everywhere - as Bailey discovered. And ways to track and prove that people are lying / ablebodied.
The industry of unlimited free legal aid for certain sections of ‘society’ facilitates the legal industry and fraudelent claimers - for whom even if costs are awarded against ‘them’ there is no consequence - the taxpayer or someone else pays anyway. I feel the same as with people who cry rape when there was none - they should be prosecuted and do jail time - there are no victimless crimes and many invisible victims.

beakerjoe · 27-02-2021 1:24pm

Sultan of Bling wrote: »

Didnt she say she couldnt race for months because of her injuries and then a photo emerged of her a couple of weeks after the accident having run a 10k?

She said 3 months yet raced approx 2 and a half weeks after her drunken fall.

You dont have to be an expert to see her injuries were not severe.

If you have serious injuries, you dont do a 10k.

beakerjoe · 27-02-2021 1:25pm

JustAThought wrote: »

The days of ‘oh my neck hurt’ are long over - MRI’s and Cat scans can measure soft tissue and internal swelling and injuries and date them to within the range of the accident - there is cctv everywhere - as Bailey discovered. And ways to track and prove that people are lying / ablebodied.
The industry of unlimited free legal aid for certain sections of ‘society’ facilitates the legal industry and fraudelent claimers - for whom even if costs are awarded against ‘them’ there is no consequence - the taxpayer or someone else pays anyway. I feel the same as with people who cry rape when there was none - they should be prosecuted and do jail time - there are no victimless crimes and many invisible victims.

Like Sil Fox's accuser. Should be jailed.

walshb · 27-02-2021 1:26pm

KaneToad wrote: »

Again, based on our limited knowledge of the facts.

Maybe she had cortisol injections. Maybe she had a titanium rod clamped to her spine. Maybe she was incapacitated for days afterwards. Maybe she was hypnotised. Most of which are unlikely but not impossible.

I really don't see why we shouldn't have let her alone to have her day in court. That would be the best place to expose the truth.

Now all we have is our opinions...

What truth?

There is no clear truth here.

She had a fall and tried to sue a premises for this fall.

She absolutely has to bear most responsibility for the fall, and if so, she should have done the decent thing and left alone this suing nonsense..

She was chancing her arm through greed. It backfired!

gmisk · 27-02-2021 1:26pm

froog wrote: »

she's been on for 20 minutes now and hasn't once expressed regret for what she did.

She has had coming up on two years to do that...she isn't going to do it now!

KaneToad · 27-02-2021 1:29pm

Sultan of Bling wrote: »

I understand it's not a pro bailey stance. I would have preferred it to go to court myself.

The only thing we do know is that she lied about the extent of her injuries. I'm sorry but i just don't believe this was a clerical error.

That is the main problem around claims. It's not the amount of fraudulent claims made, its the amount of claims where people have been genuinely injured but exaggerate their injuries.

Again, I think this is thin ice. Your belief, or my belief isn't what is important.

I'm trying to be objective...it's not outrageous for me to claim the opposite - that I 100% believe it was a clerical error (I'm not saying that I do). I've made umpteen clerical errors in the past - it's not an impossibility. I really wish this claim was allowed to proceed unmolested.

On the value of claims ( which is a separate issue), our book of quantum would appear to be very out of line with other jurisdictions.

27-02-2021 1:31pm

KaneToad wrote: »

But this is my point exactly. I'd rather get the facts through due process rather than the pages of the Sunday Independent.

I do agree though that just because you can sue, you should sue. But I would also hold that just because you don't have to sue doesn't mean you shouldn't.

Let her sue. Let the full facts emerge. Let the electorate/future business partners etc. decide what they think of her.

It was a bad move by FG to pressurise her into her actions of dropping claim.

We know how it'd go, she would have gotten money out of it and felt justified,

KaneToad wrote: »

Again, based on our limited knowledge of the facts.

Maybe she had cortisol injections. Maybe she had a titanium rod clamped to her spine. Maybe she was incapacitated for days afterwards. Maybe she was hypnotised. Most of which are unlikely but not impossible.

I really don't see why we shouldn't have let her alone to have her day in court. That would be the best place to expose the truth.

Now all we have is our opinions...

Cmon, expose the fact that the current system is ridiculous

KaneToad wrote: »

True. But she still should not have been dissuaded from her court appearance. It would allow the public get a more accurate opinion of her.

I think an accurate opinion can be formed better in plain view, she helped us all in that

gmisk · 27-02-2021 1:31pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

LOL

You're shameless in your trolling of this issue.

She tried to pull an insurance scam and was caught. She deserves absolutely no sympathy.

Hey it worked for her with Aer Lingus so she probably thought she would chance her arm again!
She deserves everything that she is getting imo, she is delusional if she think interviews like this will rehab her political career

I do find it odd how Alan Farrell got away with his seriously dodgy claim though...the fact he didn't give a disastrous interview probably helped

beakerjoe · 27-02-2021 1:33pm

KaneToad wrote: »

Again, I think this is thin ice. Your belief, or my belief isn't what is important.

I'm trying to be objective...it's not outrageous for me to claim the opposite - that I 100% believe it was a clerical error (I'm not saying that I do). I've made umpteen clerical errors in the past - it's not an impossibility. I really wish this claim was allowed to proceed unmolested.

On the value of claims ( which is a separate issue), our book of quantum would appear to be very out of line with other jurisdictions.

Not one person from her side suggested a clerical error. No evidence available to support that theory.

There is evidence to suggest she wasnt injured at all. Her own social media posts suggesting she took part in a race and seemingly enjoyed it despite her crippling server injuries.

Shes painted her own picture her. Dug her own hole.

golondrinas · 27-02-2021 1:34pm

walshb wrote: »

I don’t disagree here

Bit like a lot of things in society. Just because you can sue doesn’t mean you always should. I think this view is what is being seen here.

All the facts? Well, what we have read it seems the woman was mostly responsible for her falling.

Not just her. Everywhere in society there seems to be this greedy what can I get and who can I hang and who can I screw mentality..

Greed and lack of moral decency is rife in society.

And the wan who tried to say mass was 4 square behind her.

KaneToad · 27-02-2021 1:34pm

walshb wrote: »

What truth?

There is no clear truth here.

She had a fall and tried to sue a premises for this fall.

She absolutely has to bear most responsibility for the fall, and if so, she should have done the decent thing and left alone this suing nonsense..

She was chancing her arm through greed. It backfired!

No clear truth. Yet you seem to know definitively that she was at fault.

I don't know the full story. I think the court would have been the best place to get it. Now we'll never know. Both sides can claim to be 100% in the right. Both have the validity to do so. I'd rather we had a court outcome so we could all see exactly who was to blame.

JustAThought · 27-02-2021 1:35pm

gmisk wrote: »

Hey it worked for her with Aer Lingus so she probably thought she would chance her arm again!
She deserves everything that she is getting imo, she is delusional if she think interviews like this will rehab her political career

I do find it odd how Alan Farrell got away with his seriously dodgy claim though...the fact he didn't give a disastrous interview probably helped

Is this Alan Farrell who claimed he had injured his back and could barely walk but was photographed at the same time up a ladder laughing and hanging his election posters on a lamppost?

beakerjoe · 27-02-2021 1:35pm

KaneToad wrote: »

No clear truth. Yet you seem to know definitively that she was at fault.

I don't know the full story. I think the court would have been the best place to get it. Now we'll never know. Both sides can claim to be 100% in the right. Both have the validity to do so. I'd rather we had a court outcome so we could all see exactly who was to blame.

Shes an adult.... she got herself drunk.... she got an a swing when drunk and didnt protect herself.

Its her fault.

gmisk · 27-02-2021 1:37pm

beakerjoe wrote: »

Shes an adult.... she got herself drunk.... she got an a swing when drunk and didnt protect herself.

Its her fault.

Sean Sean Sean...that's up to a judge to decide...

Lol

I totally agree

KaneToad · 27-02-2021 1:42pm

gmisk wrote: »

Hey it worked for her with Aer Lingus so she probably thought she would chance her arm again!
She deserves everything that she is getting imo, she is delusional if she think interviews like this will rehab her political career

I do find it odd how Alan Farrell got away with his seriously dodgy claim though...the fact he didn't give a disastrous interview probably helped

I suppose this is what really irks me.

Bailey, to me, came across very badly. She seemed, based on my limited knowledge of her from the SOR interview, as a person that would be hard to like.

Public opinion decides that she is wrong/lying/chancer/not a nice person.

If someone more likeable... Katie Taylor (?), Michael D (?)...was in the same scenario, would the reaction be different? Maybe not.

All we have now is our opinions on what 'probably' happened, what 'likely' happened etc... This allows both parties to claim that right is on their side. I am disappointed that this is the case. I'd rather a court appearance proved who was really telling the truth.

TheDavester · 27-02-2021 1:43pm

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Hopefully she doesnt read media or social media any more - this interview is just begging for more abuse, memes, and general hilarity at her. She clearly didnt learn that lesson.

On twitter theyre crapping on her in the same way as here bar one or two sjw's going down the "be kind" route....and its done in a critical way and not abusive, which she will try to spin

Your an idiot if you vote this twit in, but probably she's pushing for an unelectable seanad seat

KaneToad · 27-02-2021 1:44pm

beakerjoe wrote: »

Shes an adult.... she got herself drunk.... she got an a swing when drunk and didnt protect herself.

Its her fault.

Again, while you may be 100% correct, you are making statements that are not proven.

The only proven fact in your statement is that she is an adult.

27-02-2021 1:48pm

golondrinas wrote: »

And the wan who tried to say mass was 4 square behind her.

Was this a friend of hers, what happened her, I'd like to hear/see that, she disappeared?

MB went on about the online stuff, I didnt look, but I didnt see anything nasty, I think it was linked to here, the goat jumping on some kind of swinging chair? and the guy who got dressed up for halloween? both were hilarious.
She claims she isnt familiar with social media, and then has pictures of herself walking a dog in the snow/ice, the comments were expected, but not nasty, funny imo.

golondrinas · 27-02-2021 1:51pm

JustAThought wrote: »

Is this Alan Farrell who claimed he had injured his back and could barely walk but was photographed at the same time up a ladder laughing and hanging his election posters on a lamppost?

Finish it , and got re-elected. There is part of her problem . What about me look at him.

McMurphy · 27-02-2021 1:59pm

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Have to say I'm not the soft type but that interview really hit me. It's clear that she has been through the absolute ringer. Can't help but have sympathy for her as a human. This thread delivering scorn as usual, but you can be dead sure that interview will have struck a chord with the nation.

BOC did well there, was compassionate but still asked the right questions.

Acts well stale at this stage paddy.

beakerjoe · 27-02-2021 2:01pm

gmisk wrote: »

Sean Sean Sean...that's up to a judge to decide...

Lol

I totally agree

Ive fallen when drunk when I did stupid things. Its my fault. If Im drunk and on a swing then I fall off..... its my fault.

Fact is it was her fault.

Then shes clearly not seriously injured when she goes for a run.

27-02-2021 2:03pm

TheDavester wrote: »

On twitter theyre crapping on her in the same way as here bar one or two sjw's going down the "be kind" route....and its done in a critical way and not abusive, which she will try to spin

Your an idiot if you vote this twit in, but probably she's pushing for an unelectable seanad seat

On what platform?
Stopping frapes? frightening stuff

Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

Comments