Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

James Brown

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

You haven’t been coming across all that well in this thread for the past few pages to be honest, dude. Lots of gloating about a closed account, and an almost obsessional need to keep this thread going. Especially when you closed an account yourself in a huff once upon a time.

Dude, there's threads of fast food, your favourite song and other trivia, why do you feel the need to come on here to knock this particular thread, not even started by the object of your desires, young Johnny?

It's relevant. It's interesting. Good enough?

pinkyeye

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

It's very very often proven in a court of law that someone lied because at the end of the day it comes down to whether a judge or jury believe you made a "mistake" so to say it's very difficult is a nonsense.

How do all those people who claim to be "not guilty" get found guilty??

McMurphy

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

You haven’t been coming across all that well in this thread for the past few pages to be honest, dude. Lots of gloating about a closed account, and an almost obsessional need to keep this thread going. Especially when you closed an account yourself in a huff once upon a time.

Farts like a baby seal in a dirty jack's.

Am I doing this right?

McMurphy

Allinall wrote: »

But it’s not new. It was 15 years ago,

And ms Bailey doesn’t have a claim, fraudulent or otherwise.

It's a new article to me, and plenty more besides I imagine.

JeffKenna

pinkyeye wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

It's very very often proven in a court of law that someone lied because at the end of the day it comes down to whether a judge or jury believe you made a "mistake" so to say it's very difficult is a nonsense.

How do all those people who claim to be "not guilty" get found guilty??

It must be more difficult to prove perjury though. Take Alan Farrell for example, the judge more or less said he made up the injurys yet he still gave him €2,500. It's really the judges that play a major part in this.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

You've obviously been the recipient of an irony bypass.

Arrogance and stupidity - especially from a poster who boasts about being paid by FG to post online about them, and then goes on to say that he breaks the law by committing electoral fraud by voting for them in several polling booths on the one day - takes a break from literally posting shyte, to try and take some high moral ground.

Whether their boasts are in jest or not, you tend to just really take them as parody when they are dopey enough to take a brief respite from toilet talk to make observations on people posting about the knock on results of insurance chancers.

He lost any high moral ground years ago, but losty will be along to back him up shortly, so I'll take cover until then..

pinkyeye

Tbf just because someone had an insurance claim we can't automatically assume that it was fraudulent?

Not talking about Bailey now because we know that was fraudulent but to start dragging up every claim anyone ever made and assuming it's fraudulent is going too far.

McMurphy

pinkyeye wrote: »

Tbf just because someone had an insurance claim we can't automatically assume that it was fraudulent?

Not talking about Bailey now because we know that was fraudulent but to start dragging up every claim anyone ever made and assuming it's fraudulent is going too far.

No one said she made a fraudulent claim.

Though it has been noted by the article in question.

Ms McGuinness had claimed she suffered severe injury to her neck and back as a result of the accident, according to court reports at the time.

In the civil bill, she said her injuries were severe and debilitating and “interfered with her enjoyment of life and all routine and other activities”.

the bolded part is fairly specific

"Interfered with her enjoyment of life and all routine and activities"

The following was also noted.

At the same time as she initiated the compensation claim, she was actively knocking doors on the campaign trail, fighting it out for a seat representing the North Midlands.

It also notes.

Ms McGuinness claimed in her affidavit that neck pain resulting from the accident had caused restriction in her professional and personal life.

I wouldn't call it a fraudulent claim, nor would I say she's a liar.

Careless with the truth perhaps, but none of them other things.

Potential-Monke

I think any claim made by an elected official should be investigated to ensure they're not fraudulent. Elected officials should be held to a higher standard than everyone else.

Stop moaning ffs

So I take it the report hasnt been published yet.

Stop moaning ffs

Proposed changes could see a ten-year sentence and €100,000 fine for committing perjury. It's expected the changes will help deal with cases of insurance fraud | bit.ly/2KZkbxd

golfball37

Disappointed with Mairead McGuinnes who I had down as different to the usual leeches who infest the political class. If she was genuinely injured no problem or issues with her claiming but to stonewall an answer the way she did shows she’s cut from the same cloth sadly. If she has nothing to hide and her whiplash was genuine all she had to do was say so.

Shefwedfan

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

So I take it the report hasnt been published yet.

Just about to ask the same, delayed?

McMurphy

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Just about to ask the same, delayed?

It's currently gathering dust beneath the report from the Moriarty tribunal.

Rows Grower

Anyone got a contact email that a concerned citizen could write to in an effort to find try and find out when we will know the conclusion of this report?

Auguste Comte

Rows Grower wrote: »

Anyone got a contact email that a concerned citizen could write to in an effort to find try and find out when we will know the conclusion of this report?

nothingtodowithuslookoverthere@fg.ie

Rows Grower

Just sent an email off to finegael@finegael.ie

That's the email address given for party headquarters on the home site.

InTheShadows

Rows Grower wrote: »

Just sent an email off to finegael@finegael.ie

That's the email address given for party headquarters on the home site.

Thanks going to send one now.

I can see Varadkar hoping the situation in Iran is notched up a level or two so they can release the report whilst people are distracted.

Suckit

They are sounding more and more like the keystone cops. They should try to fill out a car like them.
McGuinness driving, Farrell in the passenger seat, Madigan hanging out the window and Bailey on a swing in the back. Might as well add Deirdre Conroy being pulled along on Skis from the back of the car.

F**king clowns.

golfball37

Suckit wrote: »

They are sounding more and more like the keystone cops. They should try to fill out a car like them.
McGuinness driving, Farrell in the passenger seat, Madigan hanging out the window and Bailey on a swing in the back. Might as well add Deirdre Conroy being pulled along on Skis from the back of the car.

F**king clowns.

And then run over Mary Hanafin escorting her mother across the road

James Brown

Ten Pin wrote: »

Here's a more appropriate address...
noreply@finegael.ie

samereply@....

McMurphy

Broadsheet picked up on the McGuinness claim I see

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/06/20/severe-and-debilitating/

Old Cellar

Brexit like a walk in the park, pick pocketing carbon tax like a picnic, back stage with Kyle like a soft day, dealing with the female cultists like pissing rusty acid coated razor blades.

Kivaro

Today is the longest day of the year.
So I am very optimistic that the report will be produced to us today .... you know ... because it is a very looooong day.

Or maybe, they think that the population of the country is very stupid.
If Fine Gael does not respond adequately to their corrupt colleagues' actions; not only will you be decimated in the next election, you will be relegated to third party status.

STB.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Broadsheet picked up on the McGuinness claim I see

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/06/20/severe-and-debilitating/

I see the Broadsheet article has a picture of McGuinness canvassing during the European Elections on May 25, 2014 with Avril Doyle and then Taoiseach Enda Kenny a week after winning her claim against a car hire firm for an incident that left her with ‘severe and debilitating’ injuries


Am I missing something here ? The accident was in 2003 and was settled in 2005. I do not see the relevance of the picture out canvassing 10 years later. Or is captioned wrong ? 2004 rather than 2014.

This would have been of more relevance to their story,

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/goreyguardian/lifestyle/when-avril-and-mairead-fought-tooth-and-nail--28977984.html

Shefwedfan

STB. wrote: »

I see the Broadsheet article has a picture of McGuinness canvassing during the European Elections on May 25, 2014 with Avril Doyle and then Taoiseach Enda Kenny a week after winning her claim against a car hire firm for an incident that left her with ‘severe and debilitating’ injuries


Am I missing something here ? The accident was in 2003 and was settled in 2005. I do not see the relevance of the picture out canvassing 10 years later. Or is captioned wrong ? 2004 rather than 2014.

This would have been of more relevance to their story,

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/goreyguardian/lifestyle/when-avril-and-mairead-fought-tooth-and-nail--28977984.html

Was just thinking that, stupid article

McMurphy

STB. wrote: »

I see the Broadsheet article has a picture of McGuinness canvassing during the European Elections on May 25, 2014 with Avril Doyle and then Taoiseach Enda Kenny a week after winning her claim against a car hire firm for an incident that left her with ‘severe and debilitating’ injuries


Am I missing something here ? The accident was in 2003 and was settled in 2005. I do not see the relevance of the picture out canvassing 10 years later. Or is captioned wrong ? 2004 rather than 2014.

This would have been of more relevance to their story,

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/goreyguardian/lifestyle/when-avril-and-mairead-fought-tooth-and-nail--28977984.html

Obviously a typo, I know Enda is fond of a splash of the old Grecian 2000, but even that couldn't turn back the clock so much - obvious the photos are 15 years old, not 5.

I see that FG and the Independents in govt voted against the "tip theft bill" yesterday evening.

I seen a couple of photos of the names members of the Dail who voted against it on various social media platforms.

Unfortunately for Maria, the names are in Alphabetical order. "Maria Bailey" being the very first name most people will see when they read it.

Will she change the surname to her married one I wonder? Otherwise, the plebs will see her name first and foremost on every other controversial bill that's reported on, and be reminded that an ambulance chaser is sitting in the Dail, and that Leos internal report was smoke/mirrors and nothing else.

smurgen

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Obviously a typo, I know Enda is fond of a splash of the old Grecian 2000, but even that couldn't turn back the clock so much - obvious the photos are 15 years old, not 5.

I see that FG and the Independents in govt voted against the "tip theft bill" yesterday evening.

I seen a couple of photos of the names members of the Dail who voted against it on various social media platforms.

Unfortunately for Maria, the names are in Alphabetical order. "Maria Bailey" being the very first name most people will see when they read it.

Will she change the surname to her married one I wonder? Otherwise, the plebs will see her name first and foremost on every other controversial bill that's reported on, and be reminded that an ambulance chaser is sitting in the Dail, and that Leos internal report was smoke/mirrors and nothing else.

I absolutely cannot see why anyone would vote against that bill.

Shefwedfan

smurgen wrote: »

I absolutely cannot see why anyone would vote against that bill.

FG would position themselves as the party for the small business....looking after small business....allowing them to screw over staff is part of that


Hence why the Maria Bailey case is disaster because those small businesses are shutting down because of insurance due to claims like hers.....


This was never going to get through because FG are trying to win back some favour with small business's.....f**k the staff


I hope both the small business owners and the workers in those companies remember these people when itcomes to voting......

givyjoe

smurgen wrote: »

I absolutely cannot see why anyone would vote against that bill.

Pretty scummy voting to be honest.