Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

ohnonotgmail

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Yeah, because we all have life events that we can relate to in certain years.

1999 finished with ex
2003 emigrated
2005 came home
2007 started work in such and such a place etc etc.

In Bailey's run, I'd find it hard that she won't always relate that years run, to the "few weeks after me and the girls went to Sophie's and I tumbled off a swing like a big feckin eejit"

whether you find it hard to believe is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant, nothing else.

Auguste Comte

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

whether you find it hard to believe is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant, nothing else.

Lip service here I'm guessing. This might affect the "best of people" couldn't be having that but sure throw an oul press release out there, make it look like we give some sort of a fcuk making sure keep the swindlers on our team.

The Government is considering stricter penalties for people who lie under oath.

The Justice Minister will present his cabinet colleagues with amendments that would make perjury easier to prosecute.

Charlie Flanagan, in particular, wants to use new laws to tackle insurance fraud

BattleCorp

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Baileys affidavit wouldn’t have ‘mistaken’ content though. It’s likely it contains provable and intentional lies.

And how do you prove that then? Are you a mind reader?

Stop moaning ffs

BattleCorp wrote: »

And how do you prove that then? Are you a mind reader?

Ehh we just did this

BattleCorp

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Ehh we just did this

I am in work so I dropped out of the thread for a short while. I took up where I had stopped reading and answered the next post without reading the thread to the end. My bad.

McMurphy

BattleCorp wrote: »

And how do you prove that then? Are you a mind reader?

I'm not arguing with you, I'm really not, but if this were to be applicable to every single incident in history ever, how then can anyone ever be a proven liar?

Just pull out the mistaken/memory lapse card everytime.

In Bailey's case, I think it's pretty much cast iron that she lied.

Stop moaning ffs

Have to agree.
We all wouldn’t be here still talking about it if it wasn’t so easikyand publicly known via her own tweets that she lied.

That nothing is being done about it is the real sickener

CrankyHaus

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm not arguing with you, I'm really not, but if this were to be applicable to every single incident in history ever, how then can anyone ever be a proven liar?

You can't, without mind reading technology. It's a bogus standard that operates as a fraudsters' charter. That's the point I've been trying to make.

There's nothing wrong with making presumptions of dishonesty on foot of a false statement that the person making the false statement must then refute. Similar reasoning is employed at various instances in law.

Auguste Comte

BattleCorp wrote: »

And how do you prove that then? Are you a mind reader?

Im not having a go here but do you not put your signature on the bottom of whatever paperwork you lodge stating that the above is a true and honest....... Etc

Just like an insurance proposal where "mistakes" are not tolerated.

Anything else just seems to me like a free pass to the legal profession to bring any sort of spurious case regardless of merit in the hope, just like the Bailey case looks, that you lodge a whole lot of makey up stuff that you know to be false in an attempt to get your victim or their insurers to give you a quick payout.

Actually the Allan Farrell case for the damage to his car that could not be seen would fit into this category. Someone claims for damage to something with no evidence that any damage actually occurred.


A chancers charter if you like.

BattleCorp

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Im not having a go here but do you not put your signature on the bottom of whatever paperwork you lodge stating that the above is a true and honest....... Etc

Just like an insurance proposal where "mistakes" are not tolerated.

That's the magic word, mistake. Mistakes do happen. Courts can and do often acknowledge this and make changes accordingly.

If you personally were driving your car and I drove into the back of your car which resulted in you being paralised from the waist down as a result of that accident, do you think you should be penalised/have your claim thrown out because you said the incident happened on the 25th instead of the 26th? There is plenty of scope to rectify mistakes in court.

Anything else just seems to me like a free pass to the legal profession to bring any sort of spurious case regardless of merit in the hope, just like the Bailey case looks, that you lodge a whole lot of makey up stuff that you know to be false in an attempt to get your victim or their insurers to give you a quick payout.

You are correct. Plenty of spurious cases are put forward and many spurious cases actually win, either in court or in a settlement.

Actually the Allan Farrell case for the damage to his car that could not be seen would fit into this category. Someone claims for damage to something with no evidence that any damage actually occurred.

Agreed.

A chancers charter if you like.

That's the system that we have.

James Brown

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I challenged wheeliebin on some shocking homeless comments in another thread and he seems to have run away.

What’ll we do now for spin?

If I may, *cough* ahem...

There was no swing. It's all made up by the swing industry and people pretending they've no swing so they can get a forever swing.

James Brown

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

whether you find it hard to believe is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant, nothing else.

We can prove she ran a race during a period she said she was still in recovery/injured.

ohnonotgmail

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We can prove she ran a race during a period she said she was still in recovery/injured.

and that doesnt prove she intentionally lied.

Plumbthedepths

ohnonotgmail wrote:

and that doesnt prove she intentionally lied.

She claimed on SOR all she wanted was her medical costs covered circa 7k eventhough she had medical insurance, the writ was also moved to the circuit court which can award up to 60k. If you believe MB is not a liar fair enough you would be in the minority certainly on this site and I suspect off line aswell.

ohnonotgmail

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

She claimed on SOR all she wanted was her medical costs covered circa 7k eventhough she had medical insurance, the writ was also moved to the circuit court which can award up to 60k. If you believe MB is not a liar fair enough you would be in the minority certainly on this site and I suspect off line aswell.

I've already said i think she is a liar. I've also said that proving that in a court of law is very difficult. I'm pretty sure te SOR show does not count as a court of law and she was therefore not speaking on that show under oath.

BattleCorp

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

She claimed on SOR all she wanted was her medical costs covered circa 7k eventhough she had medical insurance, the writ was also moved to the circuit court which can award up to 60k. If you believe MB is not a liar fair enough you would be in the minority certainly on this site and I suspect off line aswell.

Not a sinner believes that she only wanted her medical expenses covered. I certainly don't.

But that doesn't mean/prove that she purposely lied on her Affidavit. She can claim it was a mistake and that's something that will never be proven one way or another.

McMurphy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and that doesnt prove she intentionally lied.

It proves that she's unsuitable for govt, if something so absolutely memorable could just slip her mind.

ohnonotgmail

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It proves that she's unsuitable for govt, if something so absolutely memorable could just slip her mind.

well i'm sure it proves many things about her but not what we were actually discussing.

McMurphy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well i'm sure it proves many things about her but not what we were actually discussing.

Hang on, the thread is centered on her making a more than questionable insurance claim, possibly aided and abetted byv another senior member of the same party.

How you think it's not what we're discussing is beyond me, her (and if Madigan is eventually revealed to be up to her neck in it also) suitability for govt is certainly partly what we're discussing, if get leader stands idly by her, it also questions him and his partys suitability too.


I also note you're using the term "it proves many things about her" yet you keep insisting that because she told a blatant lie, didn't prove that what she told was a lie.

Bit of a contradiction there and no mistake - on several points

marieholmfan

She is a liar but apparently has not committed perjury.

givyjoe

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and that doesnt prove she intentionally lied.

Did it not say on the documents submitted that was unable unable to train or exercise, or something to that effect? If she did, then ipso fatso it's quite clearly a lie.

JeffKenna

marieholmfan wrote: »

She is a liar but apparently has not committed perjury.

This is obviously the loop hole that one can lie on an affidavit but it is not consider perjury.

JeffKenna

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and that doesnt prove she intentionally lied.

But surely all the coincidences add up to provide beyond a reasonable doubt that she did?

McMurphy

marieholmfan wrote: »

She is a liar but apparently has not committed perjury.

My understanding of the law is, You only commit perjury when you're convicted of the same.

Maria however did tell a lie.

There's no way on this earth she made a mistake.

Cienciano

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Im not having a go here but do you not put your signature on the bottom of whatever paperwork you lodge stating that the above is a true and honest....... Etc

Just like an insurance proposal where "mistakes" are not tolerated.

Anything else just seems to me like a free pass to the legal profession to bring any sort of spurious case regardless of merit in the hope, just like the Bailey case looks, that you lodge a whole lot of makey up stuff that you know to be false in an attempt to get your victim or their insurers to give you a quick payout.

Actually the Allan Farrell case for the damage to his car that could not be seen would fit into this category. Someone claims for damage to something with no evidence that any damage actually occurred.


A chancers charter if you like.

Hold on, that's wrong. Mistakes aren't tolerated if it's a pleb like you or me. If you have the letters "TD" after your name or earn a lot of money, you simply say it was a mistake/you misspoke/hacked/clerical error and it's perfectly fine.

BattleCorp

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

My understanding of the law is, You only commit perjury when you're convicted of the same.

Maria however did tell a lie.

There's no way on this earth she made a mistake.

You commit perjury if you tell lies in court. Her case wasn't heard in court so therefore it's not perjury.

It might be a lie, but it isn't perjury.

JeffKenna

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

My understanding of the law is, You only commit perjury when you're convicted of the same.

Maria however did tell a lie.

There's no way on this earth she made a mistake.

I took this from an American site so the legal people might correct if I'm on the wrong track:

In an affidavit, you swear under penalty of perjury that the facts you set out in the document are true to the best of your knowledge. Lying in an affidavit is the same as lying in court testimony, and it constitutes a crime called perjury.

So the issue is to prove whether Maria lied or whether she made a mistake. I presume all the evidence that points to her lying as opposed to making a mistake would be collated and a criminal charge would be made based on that?

Has a case like this been brought to the courts?

BattleCorp

JeffKenna wrote: »

I took this from an American site so the legal people might correct if I'm on the wrong track:

In an affidavit, you swear under penalty of perjury that the facts you set out in the document are true to the best of your knowledge. Lying in an affidavit is the same as lying in court testimony, and it constitutes a crime called perjury.

Not the same in Ireland as I've witnessed with my own two eyes Affidavits being corrected during evidence in court. That 'best of your knowledge' thing is important. There is the possibility that mistakes can be made and genuine errors can happen. Do I think Bailey made a genuine error - I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that it's a possibility.

So the issue is to prove whether Maria lied or whether she made a mistake. I presume all the evidence that points to her lying as opposed to making a mistake would be collated and a criminal charge would be made based on that?

Has a case like this been brought to the courts?

And proving whether Bailey told a lie or made a mistake is something that will not be proven. You can't prove something like that. Especially since the case is no longer proceeding to court. If it went to court, the Judge could make a ruling as to whether she lied or not, but we'll never know the answer to that now.

If you are suggesting that Bailey can be brought before the courts for this, you are away with the fairies.

James Brown

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and that doesnt prove she intentionally lied.

It does. She can say she erred I suppose or retract the lie.

McMurphy

BattleCorp wrote: »

You commit perjury if you tell lies in court. Her case wasn't heard in court so therefore it's not perjury.

It might be a lie, but it isn't perjury.

Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said, word for word