Buncrana pier victims family being sued

Rory28

garbo speaks wrote: »

PTSD is a load of bull**** designed to help scumbags get compo, just like saying a kid has ADHD.

I'll just assume you are kidding.

neonsofa

OutOfMyMind18 wrote: »

She put up a post on her facebook about whats going on (attachment)

.

That statement has made me judge her more than I ever would have based on the tabloids or gossip.

Basically she has tried to make herself a victim by mentioning suicide. Then says oh you can't judge me cause I didn't even think of it until I heard others were doing the same. Then I heard I could get a few bob so I spoke to my solicitor about getting a piece of it and was too concerned with the money to ask questions about how the process actually works or who exactly would pay me said money.

It doesn't read well at all. I was hoping that there was more to it than what people were saying but she has just clarified it for herself and she doesn't come out of it looking well imo.

_Dara_

SAMTALK wrote: »

Yes but it's not the council's fault she lost so much. It's because her husband make 2 awful decisions that day.

Please dont think I'm being heartless. I can't even begin to imagine what that poor woman is going through and will have to live with for the rest of her life

I think her losing so much is what makes the action somewhat understandable if not justified. It's probably part of the process of trying to make sense of it all, take back some control.

dr.fuzzenstein

Neyite wrote: »

Normally I love your rants, but this is the second time you've used the word autistic as an insult to someone. And even though I've a really dark sense of humour, I really winced at you calling someone autistic. Autism is a respectful way of describing a condition that (mostly) children and young adults with real life difficulties have. Please don't adopt it as yet another slur to aim at assholes and **** in the world.

OK, fair enough. Apologies.
It was not even meant as a joke. I am genuinely wondering if she has the capacity to understand how her actions affect others and if she is capable of understanding how much hurt and upset her actions would cause them. One aspect of autism is the inability to read emotions in other people and to understand that emotion even if someone tries to explain it to them. I know people like that.
I won't use that term again.

clairewithani

garbo speaks wrote: »

PTSD is a load of bull**** designed to help scumbags get compo, just like saying a kid has ADHD.

Now this is the one post I have to answer on this thread. Absolutely untrue and just shows you know nothing.

SAMTALK

_Dara_ wrote: »

I think her losing so much is what makes the action somewhat understandable if not justified. It's probably part of the process of trying to make sense of it all, take back some control.

But could it not be justified to some extent by the girl making the claim as well?
I can't imagine what she must have gone through as well, watching her boyfriend put himself in danger. Watching the car sinking and feeling helpless, Holding that baby and not knowing if she had survived or not.

No I'm not saying she is right to sue but then I feel neither is the mother

mordeith

garbo speaks wrote: »

PTSD is a load of bull**** designed to help scumbags get compo, just like saying a kid has ADHD.

Yeah, all those WWI soldiers returning with shell shock. What a bunch of scroungers. They really cleaned up.

Graces7

Rory28 wrote: »

This could very well be a legitimate claim. There has to be more to the story than the clickbait news headlines. I saw one from the mirror that said "Bystander sues family of pier tragedy". She was hardly a bystander. We just need to wait before we fully lynch this girl. If she is just a chancer trying to make a quick buck then by all means have it but what if she is really suffering from PTSD?

I'd hate to read later on that she killed herself because of this.

Wondering about the timeframe? The 86 year old mentioned it was the eve of the second anniversary of the tragedy?Why now?

_Dara_

SAMTALK wrote: »

But could it not be justified to some extent by the girl making the claim as well?
I can't imagine what she must have gone through as well, watching her boyfriend put himself in danger. Watching the car sinking and feeling helpless, Holding that baby and not knowing if she had survived or not.

No I'm not saying she is right to sue but then I feel neither is the mother

No, I’m sorry. She didn’t lose any loved ones. She witnessed a traumatic event (and was more removed from it than her former boyfriend who was at the coalface and really put his life on the line) and could run back into the arms of her loved ones. Counselling would be the best thing to do for someone in her position. It’s simply not comparable to the visceral pain for losing your flesh and blood. The idea of comparing them offends me to my core actually.

neonsofa

Graces7 wrote: »

Wondering about the timeframe? The 86 year old mentioned it was the eve of the second anniversary of the tragedy?Why now?

Cause she didn't know that a quick buck could be made til a while after. That's according to her statement on Facebook anyway

mikemac2

Graces7 wrote: »

Wondering about the timeframe? The 86 year old mentioned it was the eve of the second anniversary of the tragedy?Why now?

Is there some statute of limitations maybe?

Maybe a legal eagle here will know

SAMTALK

_Dara_ wrote: »

No, I’m sorry. She didn’t lose any loved ones. She witnessed a traumatic event (and was more removed from it than her former boyfriend who was at the coalface and really put his life on the line) and could run back into the arms of her loved ones. Counselling would be the best thing to do for someone in her position. It’s simply not comparable to the visceral pain for losing your flesh and blood. The idea of comparing them offends me to my core actually.

But I did say to "some extent". I am not comparing it to what the mother lost but just making the point that she did witness something very traumatic and has to be in some way life changing for anyone who went through this.
I would agree with you re counselling because no amount of money will ever erase what she witnessed that day and I cannot understand anyone even thinking of suing under these circumstances

Laneyh

SAMTALK wrote: »

But could it not be justified to some extent by the girl making the claim as well?
I can't imagine what she must have gone through as well, watching her boyfriend put himself in danger. Watching the car sinking and feeling helpless, Holding that baby and not knowing if she had survived or not.

No I'm not saying she is right to sue but then I feel neither is the mother

Where does it end? The Gardai, the paramedics, whoever towed the car out of the water, any council workers sent to clear algae, reporters all take a case?
I don't think Donegal Co.Co. are that rich to begin with.
They also were not at fault

Of course it was a traumatic experience and one that she had limited options in participating in
I would be interesting to hear Davitt's opinion on it.

It is unfortunate for her that she is now being subjected to trial by media but it was an incredibly d1ckish move.
Also, her solicitor can't be much good if they didn't advise they'd be sending a letter directly to the family

Rory28

Laneyh wrote: »

Where does it end? The Gardai, the paramedics, whoever towed the car out of the water, any council workers sent to clear algae, reporters all take a case?
I don't think Donegal Co.Co. are that rich to begin with.
They also were not at fault

Of course it was a traumatic experience and one that she had limited options in participating in
I would be interesting to hear Davitt's opinion on it.

It is unfortunate for her that she is now being subjected to trial by media but it was an incredibly d1ckish move.
Also, her solicitor can't be much good if they didn't advise they'd be sending a letter directly to the family

It will probably end here as soon as the courts throw out the case. This should never have been reported on this early.

_Dara_

SAMTALK wrote: »

But I did say to "some extent". I am not comparing it to what the mother lost but just making the point that she did witness something very traumatic and has to be in some way life changing for anyone who went through this.
I would agree with you re counselling because no amount of money will ever erase what she witnessed that day and I cannot understand anyone even thinking of suing under these circumstances

Yes, I understand. I think the mother’s action isn’t really justified but her taking the action is simply more understandable. If I had a loved one in Stephanie’s position, I’d strongly recommend counselling to them. That’s the solution, not suing.

SAMTALK

Laneyh wrote: »

Where does it end? The Gardai, the paramedics, whoever towed the car out of the water, any council workers sent to clear algae, reporters all take a case?
I don't think Donegal Co.Co. are that rich to begin with.
They also were not at fault

Of course it was a traumatic experience and one that she had limited options in participating in
I would be interesting to hear Davitt's opinion on it.

It is unfortunate for her that she is now being subjected to trial by media but it was an incredibly d1ckish move.
Also, her solicitor can't be much good if they didn't advise they'd be sending a letter directly to the family

This is exactly the point. Why the need to sue the council.
The fault was with the person who decided it was a good idea to a. drive under and influence and b. drive down the slipway whilst under the influence with his family in the car.
It looks like it will become a free for all to sue the council.

Billgirlylegs

_Dara_ wrote: »

No, I’m sorry. She didn’t lose any loved ones. She witnessed a traumatic event (and was more removed from it than her former boyfriend who was at the coalface and really put his life on the line) and could run back into the arms of her loved ones. Counselling would be the best thing to do for someone in her position. It’s simply not comparable to the visceral pain for losing your flesh and blood. The idea of comparing them offends me to my core actually.

I don't know whether she is suffering from PTSD or something similar.
If she isn't, I wonder is she sorry she submitted this claim.

Raking up old coals, and all that

seamus

lillycakes2 wrote: »

From the looks of her profile picture on facebook (which I'm surprised is still there) she doesn't look very traumatised to me

Seriously?

Read that again. And Again. And Again.

From a single photo of someone on facebook you have surmised her entire ongoing mental state over the past 12 months.

Have you any cop on?

"Sure I saw a picture of yer man, Robin Williams, the day before he died. He looked grand to me".

We wonder why people don't talk about mental health when you have people claiming that because someone "looks" OK they are OK, that PTSD isn't a real thing, and that she should be glad of having had the opportunity to hold a baby on a beach while its family drowned 10 metres away. WTF is wrong with you people.

A lot of you need to take a look in the mirror. You claim she has disgraced herself, but you've made yourselves look twice as bad.

iamwhoiam

_Dara_ wrote: »

Yes, I understand. I think the mother’s action isn’t really justified but her taking the action is simply more understandable. If I had a loved one in Stephanie’s position, I’d strongly recommend counselling to them. That’s the solution, not suing.

I think people close to her should be advising her to have counselling .In fairness nurses who are traumatised by an event are offered a debriefing session and often need it .My son witnessed a dreadful accident on a motorway .A young person jumped from a bridge and landed near his car .He was traumatised and upset but not once made it about himself .My advice to him was to talk it out with someone , had he come to me and said he was thinking of sueing I would have set the man straight and made sure he knew how this would reflect badly on him .Not that it ever crossed his mind to do that his only concern was for the girl and her family and if there was anything he could say to ease their pain

BarryD2

Deleted User wrote: »

Will it not be through insurance or something?

Probably but what's the difference? Suing the state or Donegal Co Co is not without victims either. Pay out to complainant just reduces what can be spent elsewhere. Smacks of opportunistic snowflakery.

andekwarhola

Is there no end to the restorative powers of money when it comes to 'trauma'.

Maybe non-monrtary payouts should start being the norm such as approved long term counselling for 'trauma' or physiotherapy and hospital sessions for those terrible cases of pavement trips and whiplash.

Triangle

Triangle wrote: »

^
With attitudes like this - no wonder insurance is through the roof.

If there's no claim to face they won't pay out.
Insurance is through the roof because judges don't care, the legal professionals make more in a case than many claims if contested and people claim for nothing.
I don't know this young woman. I'm not saying she should make a fraudulent claim.
As I said elsewhere in the thread a drunk driver killed 4 other people. If someone living has lost out because of the drunk driver who killed 4 people then they have every right to seek recompense from the drunk driver or his estate.

seamus

andekwarhola wrote: »

Maybe non-monrtary payouts should start being the norm such as approved long term counselling for 'trauma' or physiotherapy and hospital sessions for those terrible cases of pavement trips and whiplash.

They typically are.

All the baying mob see is "money-grabber", but many compensation payments are made on the basis of things already paid for like counselling, physio, medical care and loss of earnings from being unable to work.

Courts work slowly. Someone can't sit around waiting to be "awarded" ten trips to a counsellor. You go get counselling first and then claim the cost back later.

jon1981

Turns out the estate is being included in the proceedings, not just the insurance company

https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-36747910.html

Stephanie Knox, a cardiac physiologist, says she knew the claim would be issued against Donegal County Council and the insurance company, but didn’t realise the estate of the deceased family would be included in proceedings. She is suing for "loss of earnings and other matters".
Absolutely sickening

Her sister posted on Facebook that “a number of people” who were present on the pier on the day of the tragedy were lodging claims and her sister then sought advice from a solicitor.

what the f**K is wrong with humanity!


Also her FB page is public... doesn't look like someone who is grieving based on what looks like recent pictures of happiness.

BarryD2

BarryD2 wrote: »

Probably but what's the difference? Suing the state or Donegal Co Co is not without victims either. Pay out to complainant just reduces what can be spent elsewhere. Smacks of opportunistic snowflakery.

Took 2 years. That's a long-lasting "snowflake" who doesn't seem too quick to be "opportunistic".
If I go out now and have 3 pints and kill 4 people will I be out of pocket other than the pints?

_Dara_

seamus wrote: »

They typically are.

All the baying mob see is "money-grabber", but many compensation payments are made on the basis of things already paid for like counselling, physio, medical care and loss of earnings from being unable to work.

Courts work slowly. Someone can't sit around waiting to be "awarded" ten trips to a counsellor. You go get counselling first and then claim the cost back later.

Will you ever fuck off with this ‘baying mob’ nonsense? There’s been a lot of reasoned posts on this thread. Such a lame, transparently undermining debating tactic.

Rory28

_Dara_ wrote: »

Will you ever fuck off with this ‘baying mob’ nonsense? There’s been a lot of reasoned posts on this thread. Such a lame, transparently undermining debating tactic.

Where as telling someone so fcuk off is the pinnacle of debating tactics.

seamus

_Dara_ wrote: »

Will you ever fuck off with this ‘baying mob’ nonsense? There’s been a lot of reasoned posts on this thread.

They're few and far between. Here and on facebook.

andekwarhola

seamus wrote: »

They typically are.

All the baying mob see is "money-grabber", but many compensation payments are made on the basis of things already paid for like counselling, physio, medical care and loss of earnings from being unable to work.

Courts work slowly. Someone can't sit around waiting to be "awarded" ten trips to a counsellor. You go get counselling first and then claim the cost back later.

Aye, I've no doubt thousands of pavement trippers and whiplash victims are diligently racking up the physio sessions while waiting for their payouts.

Penny Dreadful

Rory28 wrote: »

This could very well be a legitimate claim. There has to be more to the story than the clickbait news headlines. I saw one from the mirror that said "Bystander sues family of pier tragedy". She was hardly a bystander. We just need to wait before we fully lynch this girl. If she is just a chancer trying to make a quick buck then by all means have it but what if she is really suffering from PTSD?

I'd hate to read later on that she killed herself because of this.

So getting some money will prevent her from possibly taking her own life?

She is behaving in a deplorable fashion. She knows it. Her family know it. They’re trying to justify it. When you’re explaining you’re losing.

_Dara_

Rory28 wrote: »

Where as telling someone so fcuk off is the pinnacle of debating tactics.

I’m obviously angry in the post. Sometime ‘fuck’ is the best word in the world.

seamus wrote: »

They're few and far between. Here and on facebook.

Well, you were quite happy to dismiss me as an eejit and a liar. Is that a high standard of posting?

There’s plenty of reasoned posts. You’re not the arbiter, thankfully.

Rory28

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

So getting some money will prevent her from possibly taking her own life?

She is behaving in a deplorable fashion. She knows it. Her family know it. They’re trying to justify it. When you’re explaining you’re losing.

I dont know anything about this claim. Do you know if the claim is just for a lump sum or is it to cover counselling?

Graces7

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

I don't know whether she is suffering from PTSD or something similar.
If she isn't, I wonder is she sorry she submitted this claim.

Raking up old coals, and all that

One of the reports says she had counselling?

_Dara_

Rory28 wrote: »

I dont know anything about this claim. Do you know if the claim is just for a lump sum or is it to cover counselling?

Counselling will set you back about €100 a pop. Say she has €2000 worth of counselling sessions. Worth suing over?

seamus

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, you were quite happy to dismiss me as an eejit and a liar. Is that a high standard of posting?

I never called you a liar, nor claimed to have a high standard of posting.

There are plenty of reasoned posts. They're heavily outnumbered by the nonsense and abuse though, unfortunately.

eviltwin

She does herself no favours taking action against the victims family. Maybe if she'd sued the council it would be different. A family who have lost so much already and now she wants to take more from them? It's a nasty thing to do.

Theboinkmaster

Rory28 wrote: »

And you think you have some sort of moral high ground on her?

Well um yes....I don't think I'd sue an old man who lost his entire family because I held a baby for 10mins.

Rory28

_Dara_ wrote: »

Counselling will set you back about €100 a pop. Say she has €2000 worth of counselling sessions. Worth suing over?

I'd say its worth claiming for if she has been out of work as a result. Bills dont pay for themselves. This "story" should not be in the papers. Its not news its a tragedy.

Rory28

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Well um yes....I don't think I'd sue an old man who lost his entire family because I held a baby for 10mins.

but you would righteously call for the heads of those who did. stand up guy.

SAMTALK

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Well um yes....I don't think I'd sue an old man who lost his entire family because I held a baby for 10mins.

But you don't know for sure?

andekwarhola

Rory28 wrote: »

And you think you have some sort of moral high ground on her?

(S)he that is without attempted payout from somebody who lost five members of their family, let them first cast a stone.

_Dara_

seamus wrote: »

If she has a valid claim, then why shouldn't the insurance pay out?

None of us were there that day, we don't know what she experienced. I'm certainly not going to call her a chancer because some eejit online claims to have seen her in a hotel and "sure she looked grand".

seamus wrote: »

I never called you a liar, nor claimed to have a high standard of posting.

There are plenty of reasoned posts. They're heavily outnumbered by the nonsense and abuse though, unfortunately.

In the bolded bit, you are 100% insinuating that I made it up AND downplayed what I said. I didn’t see her in passing, I shared the same facilities as her for a full weekend. My post was no more speculative than anyone else’s. In fact you are doing a lot of speculating yourself.

I deleted the post as I realised it would be further misrepresented.

So I’d suggest you don’t pontificate about the posting style of others on this thread.

Oh and calling me an eejit is blatantly attacking the poster and not the post. You’ll get away with it but I’d like it to be known so if I have to point it out myself, I will.

Theboinkmaster

SAMTALK wrote: »

But you don't know for sure?

Was in jest - of course I know for sure.

Boards.ie: Niamh

Closing this while I review the thread.

Boards.ie: Niamh

Ok, thread re-opened.
I've removed any posts that were literally just there for name-calling without adding anything to the discussion. Some other posts have been edited to remove abusive terms used. I appreciate that this a very emotive topic, however the posting guidelines in the AH charter and general boards rules still apply.

Thanks.

AudreyHepburn

How selfish can a person be? I realize she went through something traumatic but what good is taking an already suffering family to the cleaners going to do?

Money should never be your first thought after a trauma.

PowerToWait

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

How selfish can a person be? I realize she went through something traumatic but what good is taking an already suffering family to the cleaners going to do?

Money should never be your first thought after a trauma.

It's hardly her first thought. The family won't be taken to any cleaners. For all anybody actually knows this may have been organised with the willing agreement of both parties. It's an insurance payout. That's what it's for.

dr.fuzzenstein

PowerToWait wrote: »

It's hardly her first thought. The family won't be taken to any cleaners. For all anybody actually knows this may have been organised with the willing agreement of both parties. It's an insurance payout. That's what it's for.

Read the thread. It hasn't.

PowerToWait

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Read the thread. It hasn't.

I read the thread thanks. It's mostly invective peppered with hearsay and conjecture.

AudreyHepburn

PowerToWait wrote: »

It's hardly her first thought. The family won't be taken to any cleaners. For all anybody actually knows this may have been organised with the willing agreement of both parties. It's an insurance payout. That's what it's for.

It’s not remotely willingly involved on the family’s side - read the article.

And it’s unfair and uncalled for imo - the farmyard not to blame here.