Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Do solicitors on plaintiff side not cop on that practically every premises open to public has CCTV these days?

In Bailey’s case we are presuming Madigan was present and witnessed the whole thing, and that she should have known it would be captured on CCTV. Is she a little hard of thinking too never imagining the defense might use the footage as evidence against?

eagle eye

tigger123 wrote:

A sitting TD trying to shake down a business with a suspicious injury claim, then getting caught doing it, then making a public spectacle of themselves on the RTE 1 will always be newsworthy. Doesn't matter what party it is, or what the circumstances are.

I'm not disagreeing with that but it's getting way more coverage than it should be imo.
It's just not that important in the grand scheme of things.

JeffKenna

eagle eye wrote: »

tigger123 wrote:

A sitting TD trying to shake down a business with a suspicious injury claim, then getting caught doing it, then making a public spectacle of themselves on the RTE 1 will always be newsworthy. Doesn't matter what party it is, or what the circumstances are.

I'm not disagreeing with that but it's getting way more coverage than it should be imo.
It's just not that important in the grand scheme of things.

It's the small things that act as a lighting rod sometimes. Tax on children's shoes springs to mind as well.

pablo128

JeffKenna wrote: »

It's the small things that act as a lighting rod sometimes. Tax on children's shoes springs to mind as well.

Agreed. A tipping point. Ask the business owners and their staff who now have no jobs as a direct result of dodgy claims and sky high insurance if it's not a big deal.

The high horse brigade

The high horse brigade wrote: »

It doesn't work like that. You burn copies to hand over to Gardai or whoever. Security staff or the equipment installers with PSA affiliations verify the time and date stamp on the footage and sign and seal them with a date. You do not give anyone access to the original, this will be on archive storage.

It all depends on how well the system is maintained and staff instructed etc. I worked for a local authority and premises had a system that only kept a couple of days before overwriting, and the date did not change with clocks going forward or backward, and manager was unable to understand the system at all as they were totally inept with technology of any kind.

smurgen

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with that but it's getting way more coverage than it should be imo.
It's just not that important in the grand scheme of things.

It's gross hypocrisy and little things like this can lead to massive tipping points in public perception.

Auguste Comte

Deleted User wrote: »

Do solicitors on plaintiff side not cop on that practically every premises open to public has CCTV these days?

In Bailey’s case we are presuming Madigan was present and witnessed the whole thing, and that she should have known it would be captured on CCTV. Is she a little hard of thinking too never imagining the defense might use the footage as evidence against?

The hope and expectations of these chancers is that the insurance company will settle rather than take the chance in court. Even if they win the case they can be well out of pocket for the defence which is often more expensive than the amount being claimed.

Jupiter Mulligan

Auguste Comte wrote: »

That's what the FG spin machine want people to think anyway.

Actually I don't believe that it is. I certainly haven't heard or read any such spinning in the media. So if FG is trying to use that spin, then it sure as heck isn't working!

My belief would be that the "FG spin machine" wants "people" to stop thinking about the NCH altogether!

Stop moaning ffs

pablo128 wrote: »

Agreed. A tipping point. Ask the business owners and their staff who now have no jobs as a direct result of dodgy claims and sky high insurance if it's not a big deal.

Agreed. How anyone can say it’s not a big deal when businesses are closing every day and staff getting laid off as a direct result of insurance is ridiculous.

I really hope this is the tipping point. And it isn’t forgotten.
It’s affecting people directly and she can’t be allowed walk away from it. Nor FG

banie01

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do solicitors on plaintiff side not cop on that practically every premises open to public has CCTV these days?

Standard practice for CCTV retention is 30days.
Where an incident occurs that management are made aware of via a report.
Good practice would be to ensure that CCTV of the incident is quarantined and retained and that an incident report and witness list are compiled.

CCTV retention becomes a little bit of a legal minefield if kept past 30days without good cause.
Under GDPR, the retention by a company, agent or person of any data that is personally identifiable without good reason is prohibited.
So best practice usually dictates a monthly turnover of CCTV storage. With a particular caveat of no reported incident, no footage retained.

Couple that with storage costs which whilst massively cheaper than a few years ago would still quite rapidly become unaffordable if one was archiving multiplexed CCTV rather than reusing it.

Ideally in the event of an accident, if the steps above are followed there is footage available for review if/when it comes to court.
Luckily for The Dean, they seem to have a good control and retention process in place for this type of incident and it has stood them in great stead.

Now if there is no incident report made at the time of the accident or flagged to the premises within 4 weeks of the incident it would be very likely that no CCTV would still be available.
If one has an accident, and then attends a solicitor a few months afterwards.
For perfectly acceptable and legitimate reasons it would be likely that there would be no CCTV available.

GDPR places onerous standards of both compliance and responsibility on the Data Controller.
Lots of people use it as a catch all replacement for health and safety in terms of it being an excuse.

It does however mean that were footage containing personally identifiable information of a person be released without their explicit consent or in relation to a criminal investigation that sanctions via the ODPC would apply.
Even if someone took a video of the CCTV on a phone and released it via an unidentified account.
The actual owner of the CCTV would be liable for any ODPC enforcement as the data controller.

It is in place over a year, and even with all the notification of GDPR coming down the road...
Many many people, solicitors and organisations still have no coherent understanding of what obligations GDPR places on them.

Auguste Comte

Would the possibility of having to defend a spurious pi. claim not be a legitimate business reason to retain video recordings until the statute of limitations, 2 years I think, for the day in question has passed?

banie01

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Would the possibility of having to defend a spurious pi. claim not be a legitimate business reason to retain video recordings until the statute of limitations, 2 years I think, for the day in question has passed?

The ODPC would very likely rule no, it's not as to retain 2 yrs data you would also need to retain every frame of video that does not result in a claim.

The argument could be made however that as mobile and telecoms providers are required to store 2yrs of user metadata at present that the same could be afforded to small business owners.

However the means by which the metadata is stored and aggregated by the Telco's means that the data itself is not personally identifiable until it is attributed via a specific search.
Whereas an argument can be made that storage of a person's image is by definition personally identifiable and as such subject to GDPR retention rules.

And as a small business, secure and compliant off-site storage for 2yrs worth of CCTV, which would need to be GDPR compliant and liable to requests from any person who feels they are on the system which would need fulfilling at no admin cost to the requester.

You would likely need to hire at the very least a consultant to ensure a compliant retention policy would likely cost more than the insurance

eagle eye

smurgen wrote:

It's gross hypocrisy and little things like this can lead to massive tipping points in public perception.

This isn't what's happening here though. This is clearly agenda driven by somebody. That somebody has the press being really nasty.

JeffKenna

eagle eye wrote: »

smurgen wrote:

It's gross hypocrisy and little things like this can lead to massive tipping points in public perception.

This isn't what's happening here though. This is clearly agenda driven by somebody. That somebody has the press being really nasty.

You're very out of touch with reality if you think people aren't annoyed by this.

Ave Sodalis

eagle eye wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with that but it's getting way more coverage than it should be imo. It's just not that important in the grand scheme of things.

It's massively important though. The suing culture was getting way out of hand. You could no longer enjoy things for the fear of getting sued. Risk sports were being destroyed. Businesses shutting down. People with genuine cases are finding it difficult to be taken seriously because other people are so used to silly claims. Events, including charity events, are not happening as they can't get insurance. It's having a huge impact on Irish life (and global). I was interested in a certain career path and was warned off it because insurance was sky high. If I lived a few miles over (across the border), it would only cost a fraction of the price.

Auguste Comte

eagle wrote:

This isn't what's happening here though. This is clearly agenda driven by somebody. That somebody has the press being really nasty.

Probably someone with a bee in their bonnet about insurance claim scammers. Maybe someone who lost a business because of increased insurance premium.

NIMAN

I read a few pages back to see if it was mentioned, but can't see it.

Indo has a story of a woman dropping a claim against supermacs after she found a tack in her chips. Said she was suffering from PTSD ffs! And couldn't eat in restaurants after the ordeal!!

Yet they got cctv of her stuffing her face at a carvery which showed her affidavit was lies.

The more of these the better.

James Brown

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Of course "people" are - and the "people" who are probably most annoyed about it are the FG TDs and Ministers who have to carry the political can for the insanely low cost estimates that they were given by the so-called 'experts' on the project team.

But it's just plain silly to think that the hospital would have cost less if another party had been in charge of the project. Even the opposition parties know that.

I'm no builder of hospitals but a competent person, say minister of finance or maybe minister of health should be aware of what money is being spent and where, let alone when it gets into the millions, never mind the law and order party of fiscal conservatism. Two off them left holding their lads giving it the whole, 'we didn't know know't about it, terrible so it 'tis' is disgraceful carry on.
Filtering it down to, 'could you have gotten a better deal' is dismissive FG protectionist sh*te IMO.

James Brown

eagle eye wrote: »

This isn't what's happening here though. This is clearly agenda driven by somebody. That somebody has the press being really nasty.

I think I know who....



Or is this different because 'forever homes' or something?

Shefwedfan

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Of course "people" are - and the "people" who are probably most annoyed about it are the FG TDs and Ministers who have to carry the political can for the insanely low cost estimates that they were given by the so-called 'experts' on the project team.

But it's just plain silly to think that the hospital would have cost less if another party had been in charge of the project. Even the opposition parties know that.

Every single person in Ireland with any building experience knew the children hospital would be a money pit. Not because it was a hospital but because of the location. Every single person with no building experience knew also it was a money pit. Also because of the location

To build something, you need to bring in large quantities of building materials. St James is a absolute disaster to get access in and out of even if just driving a car. That should have rang alarm bells even without quotes.


They also had a huge site available. One that a certain taoisach might know a little about, seeing as he grew up in the area. It was the perfect site. Great access in and out. Right beside M50 so everyone from the country could get into it. Loads of spots for parking.



The only reason it wasn't picked was because the land was bought for the bertie bowl which never happened of course. Leo hadn't even the cop on to realize most people wouldn't care about Bertie at all if he could bring home a hospital on price. Instead they made stupid decision after stupid decision and have a complete balls of it.



All it shows is a complete lack of leadership from Leo and also his party as some of them should of had the cop on.

Auguste Comte

Matt Barrett wrote: »

eagle eye wrote: »

This isn't what's happening here though. This is clearly agenda driven by somebody. That somebody has the press being really nasty.

I think I know who....



Or is this different because 'forever homes' or something?

I can just imagine the histrionics from the blueshirt brigade if it was Margaret Cash trying to pull this stroke, but as its one of their own it's let's draw a line in the sand and move on.

Shefwedfan

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I can just imagine the histrionics from the blueshirt brigade if it was Margaret Cash trying to pull this stroke, but as its one of their own it's let's draw a line in the sand and move on.

Do we need a reference to Cash in every single thread?

angel eyes 2012

banie01 wrote: »

The ODPC would very likely rule no, it's not as to retain 2 yrs data you would also need to retain every frame of video that does not result in a claim.

The argument could be made however that as mobile and telecoms providers are required to store 2yrs of user metadata at present that the same could be afforded to small business owners.

However the means by which the metadata is stored and aggregated by the Telco's means that the data itself is not personally identifiable until it is attributed via a specific search.
Whereas an argument can be made that storage of a person's image is by definition personally identifiable and as such subject to GDPR retention rules.

And as a small business, secure and compliant off-site storage for 2yrs worth of CCTV, which would need to be GDPR compliant and liable to requests from any person who feels they are on the system which would need fulfilling at no admin cost to the requester.

You would likely need to hire at the very least a consultant to ensure a compliant retention policy would likely cost more than the insurance

The effect of the GDPR is restricted in relation to legal claims or prospective legal claims. Section 60 and 158 of the Data Protection Act 2018 apply. The two years retention period would apply and longer if necessary - to take account of possible appeals. The ODPC remit would not apply in the event of court proceedings.

banie01

angel eyes 2012 wrote: »

The effect of the GDPR is restricted in relation to legal claims or prospective legal claims. Section 60 and 158 of the Data Protection Act 2018 apply. The two years retention period would apply and longer if necessary - to take account of possible appeals. The ODPC remit would not apply in the event of court proceedings.

The retention of data to defend/assist in claims or litigation is of course allowed.

The salient point regarding this however, is that retention for such use can only commence upon being notified of a potential action.

This is why from a business perspective it is crucially important that all business owners/managers ensure they have a very strong reporting procedure for any incidents or accidents on site.
Ensuring a reporting log, allows details to be taken at the time of an incident, witnesses and relevant circumstance to be noted aswell as providing a lawful basis for the retention of the data pertaining to any reported incident.

Where companies can come a cropper with this, is when a solicitor approaches months later.
Claiming their client was injured on a premises with no incident report or report made to management at the time.
With no reported incident, most businesses will follow their usual 30/31 day CCTV retention cycle.

Currently retaining all CCTV footage for prolonged periods with no specific purpose is at odds with the regulation.
I don't think that has yet been tested in court.

However as I said in an earlier post, even if it became allowable.
The costs associated with ensuring GDPR compliant storage of such data, along with allowing for the access of such data via GDPR request process would cost the majority of business far more than insurance rates at present.

smurgen

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Every single person in Ireland with any building experience knew the children hospital would be a money pit. Not because it was a hospital but because of the location. Every single person with no building experience knew also it was a money pit. Also because of the location

To build something, you need to bring in large quantities of building materials. St James is a absolute disaster to get access in and out of even if just driving a car. That should have rang alarm bells even without quotes.


They also had a huge site available. One that a certain taoisach might know a little about, seeing as he grew up in the area. It was the perfect site. Great access in and out. Right beside M50 so everyone from the country could get into it. Loads of spots for parking.



The only reason it wasn't picked was because the land was bought for the bertie bowl which never happened of course. Leo hadn't even the cop on to realize most people wouldn't care about Bertie at all if he could bring home a hospital on price. Instead they made stupid decision after stupid decision and have a complete balls of it.



All it shows is a complete lack of leadership from Leo and also his party as some of them should of had the cop on.

He can't handle a insurance chancer in his own party.the consultants and builders working on the hospital would run rings around them.

PCeeeee

The idea of a 'compensation culture' is not at all helpful. It isn't a 'culture'.

It is rational actors responding to economic stimuli. The sooner we recognise that fact then the sooner we can remove the stimuli and solve the problem.

In my view the culture idea is mostly propagated by politicians and vested interests who can bleat on about some nebulous culture that needs to change but really will do little bar talk about it. Far easier to point a finger elsewhere.

People react in fairly rational ways, there is easy money to be got for little effort and low risk. That is the issue and changes need to be made to the system so that the conditions that cause people to take to the courts for every little thing are removed.

blinding

smurgen wrote: »

He can't handle a insurance chancer in his own party.the consultants and builders working on the hospital would run rings around them.

They already have .

eagle eye

GDPR is so serious now that even a District Court judge cannot request the previous criminal history of a convicted offender. It can be given to the judge by another party but not be sought by the judge.

blinding

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think I know who....



Or is this different because 'forever homes' or something?

Leo is All Photo Front

With a Bare Backyard .

The Swing is Swinging but the Swinger is in the Dirt !

Dav13579

I heard they are taking that swing down now. And will have a ceremony to put it back up just before the next election.