Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

JeffKenna

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Let's see how deep this goes... This could cause the government to implode...

This is truly laughable stuff. Yah.. In the midst of brexit the government will implode as a result of a forgotten issue. You lads are hilarious.

Not trying to defend Bailey. I certainly wouldn't have put in a claim but it's worth noting that the Dean put in that high friction sandpaper strips on the seat AFTER this incident. Probably realised having drunk biddys full of wine swinging on a polished seat was a bad idea.

Same as the Drew Harris incident, Paddy. An incident that rocked the foundation of the State to the core. Or the gombeen 'one term' up in Longford or Cavan who glassed a fúcker in a pub. You'd think Enda was about to rock up to the Arás after that one.



You'd imagine lads would be better off finding work, or actually doing their work, rather than hitting refresh on this thread so they can try and get a like or two from the 'Davycc' contingent. A bad use of their time.



:rolleyes:

I was actually up at 5:30 this morning for work. I'm one of the ones Leo is batting for. What time were you up at!

JeffKenna

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Let's see how deep this goes... This could cause the government to implode...

This is truly laughable stuff. Yah.. In the midst of brexit the government will implode as a result of a forgotten issue. You lads are hilarious.

Not trying to defend Bailey. I certainly wouldn't have put in a claim but it's worth noting that the Dean put in that high friction sandpaper strips on the seat AFTER this incident. Probably realised having drunk biddys full of wine swinging on a polished seat was a bad idea.

Same as the Drew Harris incident, Paddy. An incident that rocked the foundation of the State to the core. Or the gombeen 'one term' up in Longford or Cavan who glassed a fúcker in a pub. You'd think Enda was about to rock up to the Arás after that one.



You'd imagine lads would be better off finding work, or actually doing their work, rather than hitting refresh on this thread so they can try and get a like or two from the 'Davycc' contingent. A bad use of their time.



:rolleyes:

I was actually up at 5:30 this morning for work. I'm one of the ones Leo is batting for. What time were you up at?

The Bishop Basher

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Indeed it is. But if you put on your reading glasses, you'll note that the poster to whom I was responding had raised the Alan Farrell compensation case which took place last year and isn't related to the Bailey nonsense.

Only it is related because it’s yet another spurious claim by a member of a government party who claim to be whiter then white while lecturing us on these matters.

They are public representatives and should lead by example.

You can stick your head in the sand all you like but anyone with half an ounce of cop on knows what’s happening here.

Farrell’s claim was every bit as dodgy as Baileys.

cameramonkey

BattleCorp wrote: »

Bailey only admitted to holding the beer etc. on the radio interview which was years after Madigan's firm began to represent Bailey in this case. .

How do you know that "Bailey only admitted to holding the beer etc. on the radio interview"?



Do you know this as a fact or did you just make it up?

BattleCorp

cameramonkey wrote: »

She claimed that she could not run for many weeks after the indecent, this claim was proven to be untrue. This makes it look like she told a lie about her injuries. It leads to people believing that maybe some other parts of her story may not be true. The fact that she lied and was caught out means that most likely none of her rather outlandish and incredible tale would not be believed. I think that is the reason she withdrew her claim.

Facts (as we know them).

And if she couldn't run for three weeks after the incident, some might call that many weeks. I wouldn't, but hey.

What proof have you got that Bailey lied? She said in the Affidavit that she couldn't run for three months but that isn't proof of a lie. That could possibly have been chalked down as an error.

What lie did she tell about her injuries? Again, medical reports etc. etc. The fact that she ran 3 weeks later and not 3 months later could have been put down to a lapse in memory, a slip of the tongue, a typing error etc. If this case had of made it into court, she may have corrected the Affidavit in evidence. Yes, we can suspect she was lying, it might look like she was lying but nobody can say that for sure.

I think the only reason she withdrew her claim is because of all the public attention. Do I think her claim might have succeeded, I think it might. But the bad publicity killed the claim dead.

James Brown

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

That isn't leadership, it's following the mob. Furthermore, it's gutless.

Generally speaking, the mob is made up largely of cretins; and leaders who pander to the wishes of cretins don't generally last long.

Are you talking about the electorate? That would be a very FG attitude indeed.

James Brown

BattleCorp wrote: »

That doesn't do too much harm to her claim. It might reduce the amount of the payout, but it doesn't lessen her chance of succeeding.

She could also claim that she thought that the run might do her good, but the injury became worse following the run. That might bump up her claim.

The most important function of the court is to determine who is liable for the incident. That's their first concern. The second concern is the level of compensation, if any.

Again, not before the court. It's what the voter thinks that counts.

James Brown

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Let's see how deep this goes... This could cause the government to implode...

This is truly laughable stuff. Yah.. In the midst of brexit the government will implode as a result of a forgotten issue. You lads are hilarious.

Not trying to defend Bailey. I certainly wouldn't have put in a claim but it's worth noting that the Dean put in that high friction sandpaper strips on the seat AFTER this incident. Probably realised having drunk biddys full of wine swinging on a polished seat was a bad idea.

Of course not, perish the thought. Distract from the whole story, sure. Do you have a male relative called two pints by any chance?

BattleCorp

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Proof enough for voters to make up their mind. It's not in the courts.

Hopefully the good folks whom she represents will give her a roasting in the ballot box at the next elections.

Woke Hogan

JeffKenna wrote: »

I was actually up at 5:30 this morning for work. I'm one of the ones Leo is batting for. What time were you up at!

I'm sure he was still up at 05:30.

The Bishop Basher

BattleCorp wrote: »

What lie did she tell about her injuries? Again, medical reports etc. etc. The fact that she ran 3 weeks later and not 3 months later could have been put down to a lapse in memory, a slip of the tongue, a typing error etc

Of course it could but it’s pretty difficult to see how she went from badly injured and unable to run for 3 months to running a 10km 3 weeks after the injury.

There’s only one way to size that up and it’s that she was lying to make a few quid.

Just like she lied in the interview about not seeking damages, just medical expenses. Bollix.

Anyway, thankfully the electorate don’t need proof to punish her for her actions.

Auguste Comte

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Indeed it is. But if you put on your reading glasses, you'll note that the poster to whom I was responding had raised the Alan Farrell compensation case which took place last year and isn't related to the Bailey nonsense.

Farrell took a case for compo. A learned judge (and here we must all genuflect, for judges swear a solemn oath to uphold the Laws of Ireland and must therefore be regarded as superior beings) decided that he was entitled to some compo for his incurable hard neck - a verdict that meant that the other party had to pick up his legal costs. Unsavoury, I grant you, but at least his case went to court - AND HE WON.

It's not quit that clear cut now is it.

Fine Gael TD Alan Farrell alleged he would have to have more than €880 worth of repairs done to his car following a minor collision - but later dropped a claim for material damage after photos of the vehicle were shown in court

smurgen

Woke Hogan wrote: »

I'm sure he was still up at 05:30.

Do the communcations unit have a late night/early morning shift?

Jupiter Mulligan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are you talking about the electorate? That would be a very FG attitude indeed.

The vast majority of "the electorate" are about as interested in this shabby little storm in a teacup as I am in who wins the women's world cup.

So I'm referring to the insignificant subset of the electorate who are venting their spleen on this thread, aka "the mob".

Incidentally your incessant need to categorise posters into either FG or non-FG is childish, tiresome and simplistic. Would you mind asking a grown up to change the record for you, as it is pretty clear that you are wholly incapable of doing it yourself.

smurgen

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Same as the Drew Harris incident, Paddy. An incident that rocked the foundation of the State to the core. Or the gombeen 'one term' up in Longford or Cavan who glassed a fúcker in a pub. You'd think Enda was about to rock up to the Arás after that one.



You'd imagine lads would be better off finding work, or actually doing their work, rather than hitting refresh on this thread so they can try and get a like or two from the 'Davycc' contingent. A bad use of their time.



:rolleyes:

The unfounded sense of entitlement and perceived superiority eluding from FG and their followers is something to behold.

The Bishop Basher

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

The vast majority of "the electorate" are about as interested in this shabby little storm in a teacup as I am in who wins the women's world cup.

So I'm referring to the insignificant subset of the electorate who are venting their spleen on this thread, aka "the mob".

Incidentally your incessant need to categorise posters into either FG or non-FG is childish, tiresome and simplistic. Would you mind asking a grown up to change the record for you, as it is pretty clear that you are wholly incapable of doing it yourself.

First humanity was crossed..

Now nerves have been touched..

What’s next ?

smurgen

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

The vast majority of "the electorate" are about as interested in this shabby little storm in a teacup as I am in who wins the women's world cup.

So I'm referring to the insignificant subset of the electorate who are venting their spleen on this thread, aka "the mob".

Incidentally your incessant need to categorise posters into either FG or non-FG is childish, tiresome and simplistic. Would you mind asking a grown up to change the record for you, as it is pretty clear that you are wholly incapable of doing it yourself.

If people are so uninterested why are you posting here so much?

cameramonkey

BattleCorp wrote: »

Facts (as we know them).

And if she couldn't run for three weeks after the incident, some might call that many weeks. I wouldn't, but hey.

What proof have you got that Bailey lied? She said in the Affidavit that she couldn't run for three months but that isn't proof of a lie. That could possibly have been chalked down as an error.

What lie did she tell about her injuries? Again, medical reports etc. etc. The fact that she ran 3 weeks later and not 3 months later could have been put down to a lapse in memory, a slip of the tongue, a typing error etc. If this case had of made it into court, she may have corrected the Affidavit in evidence. Yes, we can suspect she was lying, it might look like she was lying but nobody can say that for sure.

I think the only reason she withdrew her claim is because of all the public attention. Do I think her claim might have succeeded, I think it might. But the bad publicity killed the claim dead.

I think anyone would remember if they were a runner that an injury had kept her out of running for weeks, its the sort of thing you remember if you are into sport. I think she arranged "the facts" to line up with what she thought would be in the best interests of her claim. So she claimed she had a debilitating injury when she none, i think that would have put a large hole in her case below the waterline.
I think the fact that she was taking on Paddy Mckillian should not be forgotten. She is not taking on a little guy here. His court room victims have included NAMA and the Barclay brothers. You can see what happened before the case even started, she would have been taken apart in court, blood on the ceiling job for her.

Jupiter Mulligan

JeffKenna wrote: »

But she told Sean that she only wanted her medical bills paid for...am I missing something?

No, you're spot on! There is a vast logical lacuna between what she said to SO'R and the actions that she instructed her lawyers to take.

BattleCorp

cameramonkey wrote: »

How do you know that "Bailey only admitted to holding the beer etc. on the radio interview"?

Do you know this as a fact or did you just make it up?

You are correct. I don't know it as a fact. But seeing as there is a thing such as client confidentiality, we'll never know if Bailey told her solicitor about the beer. And if we have no proof that she told her solicitor, then legally she didn't tell her.

So no, not fact, just a reasonable assumption.

Jupiter Mulligan

smurgen wrote: »

If people are so uninterested why are you posting here so much?

That, my old segotia, is a complete non sequitur! :P

pablo128

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Let's see how deep this goes... This could cause the government to implode...

This is truly laughable stuff. Yah.. In the midst of brexit the government will implode as a result of a forgotten issue. You lads are hilarious.

Not trying to defend Bailey. I certainly wouldn't have put in a claim but it's worth noting that the Dean put in that high friction sandpaper strips on the seat AFTER this incident. Probably realised having drunk biddys full of wine swinging on a polished seat was a bad idea.

Except she claims to have had just A glass of wine before she went out on her snot.

McMurphy

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are correct. I don't know it as a fact. But seeing as there is a thing such as client confidentiality, we'll never know if Bailey told her solicitor about the beer. And if we have no proof that she told her solicitor, then legally she didn't tell her.

So no, not fact, just a reasonable assumption.

What's to stop Madigan just saying that Bailey wasn't her client, and she had no role in her case, if indeed she wasn't/didn't?

Spotlight off Madigan, Bailey out on a solo one?

cameramonkey

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are correct. I don't know it as a fact. But seeing as there is a thing such as client confidentiality, we'll never know if Bailey told her solicitor about the beer. And if we have no proof that she told her solicitor, then legally she didn't tell her.

I would leave it at " I don't know it as a fact."

BattleCorp wrote: »

So no, not fact, just a reasonable assumption.

I would think that it an assumption but not that reasonable.

BattleCorp

cameramonkey wrote: »

I think anyone would remember if they were a runner that an injury had kept her out of running for weeks, its the sort of thing you remember if you are into sport. I think she arranged "the facts" to line up with what she thought would be in the best interests of her claim. So she claimed she had a debilitating injury when she she none, i think that would have put a large hole in her case below the waterline.
I think the fact that she was taking on Paddy Mckillian should not be forgotten. She is not taking on a little guy here. His court room victims have included NAMA and the Barclay brothers. You can see what happened before the case even started, she would have been taken apart in court, blood on the ceiling job for her.

I suppose the CCTV would have told the tale.

cameramonkey

BattleCorp wrote: »

I suppose the CCTV would have told the tale.

Maybe she will ask for the footage to be released to show the world the truth of her claim.

BattleCorp

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What's to stop Madigan just saying that Bailey wasn't her client, and she had no role in her case, if indeed she wasn't/didn't?

Spotlight off Madigan, Bailey out on a solo one?

If Madigan is a solicitor in the firm that represents Bailey, she couldn't rat out Bailey. Still client confidentiality. A solicitor is under no obligation to reveal to the public who they act for.

BattleCorp

cameramonkey wrote: »

Maybe she will ask for the footage to be released to show the world the truth of her claim.

Ha ha, good one.

JeffKenna

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are you talking about the electorate? That would be a very FG attitude indeed.

The vast majority of "the electorate" are about as interested in this shabby little storm in a teacup as I am in who wins the women's world cup.

So I'm referring to the insignificant subset of the electorate who are venting their spleen on this thread, aka "the mob".

Incidentally your incessant need to categorise posters into either FG or non-FG is childish, tiresome and simplistic. Would you mind asking a grown up to change the record for you, as it is pretty clear that you are wholly incapable of doing it yourself.

The insignificant subset are those FG voters who like myself have voted FG all their lives and more than likely their family before them. While Leo has been running around chasing the left vote he's completely alienated the core FG vote. Good luck staying in power.

Pintman Paddy Losty

JeffKenna wrote: »

The insignificant subset are those FG voters who like myself have voted FG all their lives and more than likely their family before them. While Leo has been running around chasing the left vote he's completely alienated the core FG vote. Good luck staying in power.

Who are you going to vote for now?