General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are reading what others have posted into my comments.
I think if a department has information on a subject of national importance and sends correspondence of behalf of the health minister, the minister should know what's in the letter and why, especially if it's only one letter. Less time. Also do these people not talk to each other during the work day? I can't see how it wouldn't come up in conversation even. 'Y'know that thing people were calling for your resignation over? Turns out this woman has a delay due to some mystery issue. Also FYI thousands of women were given out of date tests". That's my take. Therefore I find it hard to believe anything Simon says.

As I have pointed out to you already, that mystery issue could have been her address and contact details being wrong due to an administrative error such as mistyping, a small thing that takes very little to correct and not worthy of telling a Minister. As soon as they became aware that it was a big thing and that it wasn't a simple error, they told the Minister.

We have the same thing with Frances Fitzgerald and the whole Garda Commissioner thing. You and others went on for weeks and weeks about how the Minister should have known this, should have done that, incredible that she didn't remember the details of one of the 500 calls a day she gets etc. The Tribunal found she acted appropriately at all times.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/frances-fitzgerald-very-happy-tribunal-found-she-acted-appropriately-1.3660660

Yet, it seems that you have learned nothing. Back again, a different Minister, same expectation that they should know every single tiny issue that happens in their Department the minute it actually happens. The level of ignorance of how a large organisation such as a government department works is astounding.

McMurphy

I see Leo totally dropped the ball ref Maria Bailey, in one breath he said she made serious errors of judgement, and the next breath said she did nothing wrong, hence what amounts to zero sanctions for trying to play the compensations system.

All announced on the same day as Boris was making headlines, the cynics amongst us might guess he was trying to bury bad news.

Spectacular own goal, apparently there's a split within FG at how he mishandled the whole fiasco

Rather than bury the news, it's headlines in almost all the media sources today, trending on Twitter and other social media outlets

Some reporting that Madigan has more skin in this game than we're being told about.

A FG TD and a minister uncovered involved in a dodgy insurance claim, over a swing that they said should have been supervised, and have signage instructions for.

You can't make stuff like this up, it's the story that just keeps giving.

Hotblack Desiato

Silly season is here alright.

It's a complete non-issue.

Hotblack Desiato

Politically it's a non-issue (outside of her own slim re-election prospects) but the media are still harping on about it - silly season at its finest

She's a nobody backbencher, there are much worse than her on the back benches.

She's made an idiot of herself and probably finished her political career, but that's up to the infinite wisdom of the electorate to decide (hello Michael Lowry...)

Do you have any evidence that Madigan did anything wrong? By all accounts she was not involved in the legal case.

McMurphy

Leo made some mess of his statement concerning Maria's personal injury claim.

In one breath, he said no fraud was committed.

Leo wrote:

While Ms Bailey’s claim “was not fraudulent”,

and in the next breath said this.

Leo wrote:

she “overstated the impact of her injuries” in an affidavit;

Overstate = to describe or explain something in a way that makes it seem more important or serious than it really is:


source

The law, the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, under sections 14 and 25, makes that a criminal offence?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/31/enacted/en/html

It's actually unbelievable the way they're trying to whitewash this one away.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Leo made some mess of his statement concerning Maria's personal injury claim.

In one breath, he said no fraud was committed.



and in the next breath said this.


Overstate = to describe or explain something in a way that makes it seem more important or serious than it really is:


source

The law, the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, under sections 14 and 25, makes that a criminal offence?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/31/enacted/en/html

It's actually unbelievable the way they're trying to whitewash this one away.

Glad you added the question mark there to show you weren't making a statement and didn't really know.

To answer the question, no, overstatement is not necessarily equal to fraud.

Overstatement can be due to estimation issues, memory issues etc. and in the vast majority of situations is not deliberate fraud. The accusations of fraud etc. in this case have as normal among the permanently outraged been greatly exaggerated.

So nothing wrong with that particular language use that you highlighted, though I don't follow Varadkar's utterings with the same keen eye as you to be sure he hasn't said something else that is wrong.

McMurphy

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that Madigan did anything wrong? By all accounts she was not involved in the legal case.

No, as Leo decided that the report he established shouldn't be made public.

We only have Maria's personal account that she took legal advice, and was told that she had a clear cut case, then the claim itself in which it was alleged that the hotel was negligent due to an unsupervised swing, and no signs were displayed instructing patrons how to safely use it (by a solicitor from Madigan)

Then we have this:

Green leader Eamon Ryan questioned Ms Madigan’s judgement after it emerged her law firm advised her Fine Gael pal to sue the Dean Hotel for falling off a swing on the premises.

And this:

Mr Varadkar said the report found the Minister “gave initial legal advice” to Ms Bailey and “assisted her with her personal injuries assessment board application” as part of a “preliminary step”.

Followed by this.

Eamon Ryan wrote:

“My understanding anytime I asked was ‘oh no Minister Madigan was nowhere near this, never gave any advise’.

“Now we find that she did actually, she gave the first key bit of advice which was ‘yes we have a case go for it’. I think that is a real question of her judgement.”

Maybe you have seen the report though, anything you'd like to share from it?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Glad you added the question mark there to show you weren't making a statement and didn't really know.

To answer the question, no, overstatement is not necessarily equal to fraud.

Overstatement can be due to estimation issues, memory issues etc. and in the vast majority of situations is not deliberate fraud. The accusations of fraud etc. in this case have as normal among the permanently outraged been greatly exaggerated.

So nothing wrong with that particular language use that you highlighted, though I don't follow Varadkar's utterings with the same keen eye as you to be sure he hasn't said something else that is wrong.

Overstate is a synonym of exaggerate.

I'm happy enough with my assertion thanks.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Overstate is a synonym of exaggerate.

I'm happy enough with my assertion thanks.

You need more than that to equate it to fraud.

Synonyms don't make a legal case.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

You need more than that to equate it to fraud.

Synonyms don't make a legal case.

Can you explain the difference in a fraudulent claim, and an exaggerated claim to me please.

Hotblack Desiato

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No

Well at least you admit you're making accusations on the basis of nothing.

McMurphy

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well at least you admit you're making accusations on the basis of nothing.

Not on the basis of nothing, on the basis of what's out there on public record to form a personal opinion on.

If only Leo would release the report.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Not on the basis of nothing, on the basis of what's out there on public record to form a personal opinion on.

If only Leo would release the report.

Are you sure Madigan is still a practising member of that firm even?

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Are you sure Madigan is still a practising member of that firm even?

She's left the practice, Brian Hayes tried to go down this avenue on Wednesday night with Ivan Yates and got torn a new one.

It's irrelevant, whether she's still a practising lawyer within the firm, the journalists and opposition seem to think it's relevant what her role was when she was practising in the firm in remain to this case, what advise she gave, and when she became aware of Maria's fall from the swing.

The last one seems to be what's on everyone's lips at the moment.

Ms Madigan, he insisted, was bound by solicitor-client confidentiality just as he was and continues to be bound by doctor-patient confidentiality from his time in the health service. Therefore, according to the Taoiseach, Ms Madigan cannot discuss when she became aware of Ms Bailey's now infamous swing-fall in The Dean Hotel, what advice she gave her then backbench colleague or answer other pertinent questions that several party leaders are asking.

Was Josepha with Maria on the night in question for example?

I'm wondering is this where this story is ultimately headed?

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

She's left the practice, Brian Hayes tried to go down this avenue on Wednesday night with Ivan Yates and got torn a new one.

I looked into it and I can't see whether she was or was not. She certainly filed the PAIB form, but it's unclear whether she had left the firm by the time the proceedings were initiated.

It's irrelevant, whether she's still a practising lawyer within the firm, the journalists and opposition seem to think it's relevant what her role was when she was practising in the firm in remain to this case, what advise she gave, and when she became aware of Maria's fall from the swing.

It's entirely relevant as it goes entirely to the decision on quantum of damages. If lawyer A files the PIAB assessment and lawyer B initiates the proceedings, it's the action/advice of lawyer B that is relevant here.

Was Josepha with Maria on the night in question for example?

I'm wondering is this where this story is ultimately headed?

I'm not sure why that would matter?

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I looked into it and I can't see whether she was or was not. She certainly filed the PAIB form, but it's unclear whether she had left the firm by the time the proceedings were initiated.


It's entirely relevant as it goes entirely to the decision on quantum of damages. If lawyer A files the PIAB assessment and lawyer B initiates the proceedings, it's the action/advice of lawyer B that is relevant here.


I'm not sure why that would matter?

If she was simultaneously a witness to how Bailey fell from the swing, (who self admitted she had something in both her hands at the time) and also issued legal advice that Maria had a clear cut case, in that the hotel was negligent, I think it would matter a lot.

Gravity doesn't care who you are, or what political party you bat for, if you're using a swing with something in both hands you'll probably succumb to its laws.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

If she was simultaneously a witness to how Bailey fell from the swing, (who self admitted she had something in both her hands at the time) and also issued legal advice that Maria had a clear cut case, in that the hotel was negligent, I think it would matter a lot.

Ok - care to explain why it would matter in the slightest?

Gravity doesn't care who you are, or what political party you bat for, if you're using a swing with something in both hands you'll probably succumb to its laws.

Again, ignorance of the law and case law in the area is dangerous when you proffer your biased opinion as a statement of fact.

The existence or level of contributory negligence and how that would impact damages which may be awarded is a matter for the courts; there is absolutely no obligation on a plaintiff to undermine their own case - they are allowed to put their best foot forward an let the defendant plead contributory negligence.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Temporarily locking this thread. We were waiting for some clarification on some reported posts, but since the issue has now spilled into the thread itself, I think it's best to lock it up until we can make an informed decision.

Thank you.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Reopening the thread now. We've deleted one post and a number of other posts discussing that post. No sanctions are being issued since I don't think there was any malicious intention involved.

Just a couple of notes for going forward in order to avoid this happening again.

1. Please be careful in your choice of words. For example, saying or even suggesting someone has done something illegal when that hasn't been established can land you and Boards in hot water.

2. If you think a post is defamatory, please report the post and leave it at that. Raising it on thread just compounds the problem and is pretty much back seat moderation. Just because a report doesn't result in immediate action doesn't mean it isn't being looked into.

Thank you.

James Brown

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Silly season is here alright.

It's a complete non-issue.

How many months long is it now?

I know voters who would beg to differ. This 'non-issue' exemplifies the arrogance and entitlement culture of the party.

I see more corrections needed over in Harris' department, or whomever actually knows what's going on in it, which doesn't seem to be Simon, unless of course he's been talking out the side of his mouth.

The Department of Health was informed on 25 June that the CervicalCheck IT problem at a laboratory affected more than one woman and that others were being written to, new documents obtained by RTÉ News have revealed...

The significance of the new HSE correspondence to the department is that it showed that more than one woman was affected by the IT problem, which delayed test results being issued.

The department has said it was only made aware of the full scale of the problem in a full HSE report supplied to it on 10 July.

That same day, Minister for Health Simon Harris has said he was briefed on the issue for the first time.
https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2019/0728/1065674-cervicalcheck/

VinLieger

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure why that would matter?

If she advised her to go ahead with the case, which it seriously looked like she did, after having witnessed the actual event then she joins Bailey as the solicitor example for everything wrong with the claims culture in Ireland.


Im a constituent of Josepha and have voted FG the last couple of times but this farce coupled with a few other things I have problems with will make for some very difficult questions when Josepha comes around to my doostep.

FreudianSlippers

VinLieger wrote: »

If she advised her to go ahead with the case, which it seriously looked like she did, after having witnessed the actual event then she joins Bailey as the solicitor example for everything wrong with the claims culture in Ireland.

This is getting silly now.

There is no question that the event occurred.
Neither a plaintiff (nor their solicitor) are obliged to present the defendant's case (i.e. contributory negligence) - they are entitled to put their best foot forward.
Being present when the event occurred has no impact on the level of damages which may have arisen - why would a solicitor be obliged to investigate the veracity of the information their client provides?

McMurphy

Didn't Maria say she was only looking to recoup expenses she occurred that she already had absorbed?

SOR: That may well be the case, but the question also has to be asked was this a deliberate attempt on your part to get money to which the validity of the claim was dubious ...

MB: There are legitimate expenses that are verified, you’re only talking, €6,000 - €7,000 here. I’ve absorbed those costs already.

Just like the running thing probably slipped her mind, this little nugget of info probably did too.

Maria Bailey initially asked hotel for €20,000 to cover her swing fall expenses claim

Reports at the weekend said when Ms Bailey fell from a swing at the Dean Hotel in 2015, she wrote to the hotel seeking €20,000 to compensate her for a number of injuries and other costs related to what happened.

The figure in the 2015 letter contradicts Ms Bailey’s public claim in late May on RTÉ Radio’s Today With Sean O’Rourke programme, that she had asked for €7,000 from the hotel to cover medical costs

.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Didn't Maria say she was only looking to recoup expenses she occurred that she already had absorbed?



Just like the running thing probably slipped her mind, this little nugget of info probably did too.

Maria Bailey initially asked hotel for €20,000 to cover her swing fall expenses claim


.

There's no doubt in my mind that she's full of it. If what they are reporting is correct (and I have no reason to believe otherwise on its face) then she was clearly looking for substantial general damages. I stand by my statement that if she stuck to District Court jurisdiction, she'd have €15k in per pocket and we'd never have heard about all of this.

FreudianSlippers

She's going to deflect from her statement on SOR by saying that she did only look for €7k to pay for bills (special damages) but was entitled to allow the court to assess her general damages.

It'd be a completely disingenuous statement to make, but I wouldn't at all be surprised.

walshb

I think she will be gone soon.

This has not gone away. She has been found out here. What she did was wrong. Nothing to do with the law, or semantics, or clear cut this or that; she has been shown here to be deceitful. End of.....has to go.

walshb

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There's no doubt in my mind that she's full of it. If what they are reporting is correct (and I have no reason to believe otherwise on its face) then she was clearly looking for substantial general damages. I stand by my statement that if she stuck to District Court jurisdiction, she'd have €15k in per pocket and we'd never have heard about all of this.

We may still have heard of it...

walshb

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Being present when the event occurred has no impact on the level of damages which may have arisen - why would a solicitor be obliged to investigate the veracity of the information their client provides?

Common decency and professionalism, and maybe a sense of what is right and wrong?

Just accepting things and seeing dollar signs is what is wrong here....

Not an ounce of scruples...

is_that_so

walshb wrote: »

Common decency and professionalism, and maybe a sense of what is right and wrong?

Just accepting things and seeing dollar signs is what is wrong here....

Not an ounce of scruples...

More of a sense of righteous indignation. There's a lot of that about.

walshb

is_that_so wrote: »

More of a sense of righteous indignation. There's a lot of that about.

Exactly.....it's the whole take take take attitude.

That woman screwed up. Fell due to her own doing. And couldn't take that. Had to try and gain from it financially, at the expense of innocents. Greed really is the root of all.........