Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

RustyNut

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It’s the Strategic Communications Unit here in FG HQ, Paddy. It’s an important unit where we reply to gombeens on places like boards and the journal. Cliona is working the night shift on twitter and Facebook. Got a nespresso machine during the week so things are looking up.

Didn't Micheál make ye get rid of that.

March 5 2018 11:41 AM


Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has called on Taoiseach Leo Varadkar to disband the government’s Strategic Communications Unit because of concerns about the politicisation of the civil service

.

06/03/2018 - 07:24:00


Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has all but confirmed the demise of his much-feted Strategic Communications Unit (SCU), saying it is “distracting” from the work of Government.

JohnnyFlash

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I don't anyone really believes you're a hired shill by FG, settle petal.

Yeah, fair enough they might have people within their ranks, absolutely dumb enough to basically admit insurance fraud, live on air.

But surely even they'd stop short at letting someone who claimed repeatedly to have committed electoral fraud to their benefit post "on their behalf" - and for anyone anywhere to give that same "paid shill" an ounce of creedance on the same site whatsoever.

Na "dude", just a stale act is all I'll chalk it down to. Get some rest son, tomorrow's another day.

Brevity. What’s the point you are trying to make?In general. What’s ‘grawing’ at you?

McMurphy

AngryHippie

FG are re-branding it from SCU to SVU.
like the tv show, only more Sesame Street and less sex crime



If someone has drawn a wage for how this fcuking circus has unfolded, they should well and truly be out of a job.

Snow Garden

mrpdap wrote: »

Hopefully

Bailey will most certainly lose her seat. Guaranteed. The election is too close for her to have any hope of the electorate forgetting. Besides this story will run and run even if FG extend the review to the Dail summer recess.

This story and the other Farrell story will be remembered every time a voter is paying through the nose for car or house or business insurance. Fine Gael is taking money from peoples pockets by not addressing insurance fraud and corruption. It's hugely damaging no matter how they deal with it.

Auguste Comte

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

What's SCU?

Shady claims unit??

mickdw

There must be a whole mountain of sh1t just under the surface waiting to bust out. Leo is just about holding it all back by keeping all sides on board. There is no other answer to why the party would take such a load of crap over something like this.
Unfortunately for Leo and FG, people outside of their control have the dirt on this case and it will surface just when it will do the real damage - during General Election campaign.
If they are silly enough to go into an election with this unresolved and with Bailey on the ballot, they really are pretty stupid.

holyhead

I imagine Bailey is on borrowed time as a T.D. Not down to Leo mind only that the next GE will see her unseated. The fact that FG are concerned about leaks to the media about this case says a lot. Bailey in taking this case, now dropped, is the author of her own misfortune compounded by a truly disastrous self serving radio interview with SOR. FG would be better served tackling in a fundamental way the rising costs of insurance and the compensation culture which is sadly all too pervasive nowadays. Of course this will not happen!

Tokyo

Moved from AH > CA

AngryHippie

Nice one.

Where the thread belongs.

particularly now people are trying to kill it by assertion.


WHERES THE REPORT LEO?

Shemale

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know this goes against the majority but they don't have enough evidence to get rid of the two of them.

Yes, Bailey's claim is questionable, but that isn't evidence. An inaccuracy in an affidavit, while problematic, isn't evidence of wrongdoing as it didn't get to court. Madigan providing advice and representing her client again isn't evidence and to be honest, I can't see what wrongdoing Madigan could have done. Solicitors advise clients all the time, it's their job.

People seem to be losing sight of the fact that it is without question that Bailey fell off the swing. Now if it was Bailey's fault or the hotel's fault, we can't say for certain. Only a court would have been able to rule on that. The fact that she fell meant that she had grounds to claim. Would she have won, I don't know. I have my doubts but weaker cases have succeeded in court before.

While none of us are happy with the claim etc., but there is no proof of wrongdoing. We all suspect there may be wrongdoing, but I don't think it's enough for FG to go after both of them, even if they had the will to do so.

Thats fair enough in isolation, however its more than that:
1) The dropping of the claim when it got publicised, particularly as CCTV was going to be used in defendants case
2) Her refusal of the offer of €600 for medical expenses
3) Her insistence on SOR she was only after medical expenses
4) She lodged her claim in circuit court with ceiling of €60,000
5) Her running of the 10k race 3 weeks after in a good time
6) Her claim on SOR she was claiming for €6,000 medical, how do you spend 6k on medical in 3 weeks
7) Return the €600 The Dean sent her, guilt perhaps
8) She said on SOR she had a bottle of beer in one hand, then let slip she had wine in the other
9) Is an adult that cant use a swing fit to be a TD

Large bottle small glass

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.

Farrell's case was an assessment, you can't really lose.

The limit of district court is €15k, he was awarded €2.5k and got costs against him for the motion in relation to discovery which would have ate up much of the award.

As wins go it was pretty crap result.

On Bailey and allegations of "fraud", people aren't familiar of how unbelievably difficult it is to get a fraud finding in an Irish court. If a Defendant alleges fraud they are open to paying double if they can't prove it; once for the injury and once for the "false" allegation/defamation.

Barristers are afraid of their life in the main to plead it. Gardaí have no interest whatsoever in prosecuting it. For cnuts in society who have no reachable assets they can keep pulling the false/exaggerated claim handle with no meaningful punishment. GDPR laws make it even easier for such people.

When you hear after a civil case that papers/file will be forwarded to DPP that never really means anything there is no follow up criminal case in the vast majority of such cases.

We need reform around fraud, we need (like the UK) a specialist police unit for RTA fraud/staged accidents.

McMurphy

AngryHippie wrote: »

Nice one.

Where the thread belongs.

particularly now people are trying to kill it by assertion.


WHERES THE REPORT LEO?

Not far away apparently....

For a story the public have no interest in, it's still getting it's fair share of coverage.

New article this am. FG's probe into Bailey swing claim nears end - and includes dossier of coverage by media

The "dossier of coverage by media" tacked on at the end there, lest FGers mistakenly forget they've royally pissed off someone in the industry.

Ms Bailey is understood to have been given a draft of the facts uncovered by the inquiry last week and drafts have been exchanged with the Dún Laoghaire TD.

A Fine Gael source with knowledge of the matter said yesterday: "Our work is more or less done."

Mr Kennedy is also understood to have spoken to Culture Minister Josepha Madigan as part of his probe.

She has refused to tell this newspaper what involvement, if any, she had in advising Ms Bailey to take a case against the Dean Hotel for the swing fall in 2015.

Ms Bailey was represented in the now dropped case by Madigans Solicitors, a firm that Ms Madigan left in 2017.

Ms Madigan has again refused to answer questions about the case. She walked away from the Irish Independent when asked about it at an event in the National Museum in Dublin yesterday.

Opposition lads throwing their oar in.

The inquiry's decision to try to find out how the information leaked to the media has been criticised by Fianna F and the National Union of Journalists, while Labour leader Brendan Howlin said yesterday it was "an extraordinary development".

He added: "I don't know whether that's Fine Gael or if it's the barrister acting on his own behalf but the notion that you try to cauterise the wound by finding the source is a very, very odd move... Fine Gael should answer the question - who exactly initiated that odd request?"

Odd request to accompany an odd claim Brendan.

But let's not forget the real point of why the report (FG love the old reports) was initially set up:

Fine Gael is now facing political calls for the internal inquiry to refocus on the legitimacy of Ms Bailey's claim.

As the party refuses to say whether or not the report will be published when it is finalised, Mr Howlin said Mr Kennedy's report should "of course" be published.

"It's a matter of public controversy and we need to know exactly what they've found out about it," he said.

Large bottle small glass

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Not far away apparently....

For a story the public have no interest in, it's still getting it's fair share of coverage.

New article this am. FG's probe into Bailey swing claim nears end - and includes dossier of coverage by media

The "dossier of coverage by media" tacked on at the end there, lest FGers mistakenly forget they've royally pissed off someone in the industry.



Opposition lads throwing their oar in.



Odd request to accompany an odd claim Brendan.

But let's not forget the real point of why the report (FG love the old reports) was initially set up:

I'm not sure where the "media leak" angle is coming from.

It looks very like an old Insurance company trick, you read out a whole load of pleadings in open court when there for a motion hearing. Nobody really listens to it but there is a reporter in the room. Its now reported on in the public domain.

The problem in Bailey putting it on paper not it being read out.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Timing works out not too bad. Presume the report will be relatively bland. Won't be earth shattering. Will recommend that elected members disclose any planned proceedings to party HQ in advance.

Report will be released mid July. Just before the summer recess. It'll all be long long forgotten about come September when brexit is back on the news.

BattleCorp

Shemale wrote: »

Thats fair enough in isolation, however its more than that:
1) The dropping of the claim when it got publicised, particularly as CCTV was going to be used in defendants case
2) Her refusal of the offer of €600 for medical expenses
3) Her insistence on SOR she was only after medical expenses
4) She lodged her claim in circuit court with ceiling of €60,000
5) Her running of the 10k race 3 weeks after in a good time
6) Her claim on SOR she was claiming for €6,000 medical, how do you spend 6k on medical in 3 weeks
7) Return the €600 The Dean sent her, guilt perhaps
8) She said on SOR she had a bottle of beer in one hand, then let slip she had wine in the other
9) Is an adult that cant use a swing fit to be a TD

I'm not a fan of Bailey and I hope she loses her seat but in answer to your points above:

1. We don't know what was on the CCTV. It may have shown wrongdoing by Bailey but if the hotel also did something wrong, Bailey would probably win her case but lose some of her compensation due to contributory negligence. The bar is set much higher for the hotel than it is for a customer so the hotel would be punished more than Bailey. Dropping the claim due to negative publicity also isn't proof that her claim was fraudulent.

2. Legally speaking, Bailey was in no way obligated to accept medical expenses. The law allows for her to also seek compensation so again, she did nothing wrong there.

3. Nobody believes that she only wanted her medical expenses covered. I don't believe she only wanted her medical expenses covered.

4. I don't know the nature of the injuries alleged in her medical reports but I'd guess the Circuit court was the correct place to lodge the claim. Just because she lodged the claim in the Circuit court in no way guarantees that she'd get anywhere near €60k.

5. Again that is only proof that she had somewhat recovered in three weeks. And she could say that she was still sore after the race. It's not a personal injury case-killer. There's still the three week period where she could claim that she couldn't run.

6. You don't have to spend the €6k medical expenses in the three weeks. Doctors often give a long term prognosis of maybe 6 to 9 months to a full recovery. That could mean 6 - 9 months of doctors visits, physio etc.

And here's another point. Just because you can do a 10k run doesn't mean that you are fully recovered. Maybe her injury only plays up when she is at rest and running actually relieves the symptoms. I've seen that kind of thing argued in court. Of course this is all speculation. I'm only talking about the types of things that are argued in claims against us.

7. When did she return the €600? I doubt it's guilt. Not many TD's suffer from that complex.

8. Yep, she made a boo-boo. But like I said in point 1, even if she did wrongdoing, maybe the hotel did too.

9. I 100% agree with you on this one, but the laws surrounding health and safety don't make sense to the average joe soap.

smurgen

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Bailey and I hope she loses her seat but in answer to your points above:

1. We don't know what was on the CCTV. It may have shown wrongdoing by Bailey but if the hotel also did something wrong, Bailey would probably win her case but lose some of her compensation due to contributory negligence. The bar is set much higher for the hotel than it is for a customer so the hotel would be punished more than Bailey. Dropping the claim due to negative publicity also isn't proof that her claim was fraudulent.

2. Legally speaking, Bailey was in no way obligated to accept medical expenses. The law allows for her to also seek compensation so again, she did nothing wrong there.

3. Nobody believes that she only wanted her medical expenses covered. I don't believe she only wanted her medical expenses covered.

4. I don't know the nature of the injuries alleged in her medical reports but I'd guess the Circuit court was the correct place to lodge the claim. Just because she lodged the claim in the Circuit court in no way guarantees that she'd get anywhere near €60k.

5. Again that is only proof that she had somewhat recovered in three weeks. And she could say that she was still sore after the race. It's not a personal injury case-killer. There's still the three week period where she could claim that she couldn't run.

6. You don't have to spend the €6k medical expenses in the three weeks. Doctors often give a long term prognosis of maybe 6 to 9 months to a full recovery. That could mean 6 - 9 months of doctors visits, physio etc.

And here's another point. Just because you can do a 10k run doesn't mean that you are fully recovered. Maybe her injury only plays up when she is at rest and running actually relieves the symptoms. I've seen that kind of thing argued in court. Of course this is all speculation. I'm only talking about the types of things that are argued in claims against us.

7. When did she return the €600? I doubt it's guilt. Not many TD's suffer from that complex.

8. Yep, she made a boo-boo. But like I said in point 1, even if she did wrongdoing, maybe the hotel did too.

9. I 100% agree with you on this one, but the laws surrounding health and safety don't make sense to the average joe soap.

Jesus that's alot of slack you're cutting her. If this was any other party and one of their memebers i wonder would such downplaying and benifit of doubt be extended by FG supporters?

McMurphy

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Timing works out not too bad. Presume the report will be relatively bland. Won't be earth shattering. Will recommend that elected members disclose any planned proceedings to party HQ in advance.

Report will be released mid July. Just before the summer recess. It'll all be long long forgotten about come September when brexit is back on the news.

>Insert comical Ali meme here<

ohnonotgmail

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Timing works out not too bad. Presume the report will be relatively bland. Won't be earth shattering. Will recommend that elected members disclose any planned proceedings to party HQ in advance.

Report will be released mid July. Just before the summer recess. It'll all be long long forgotten about come September when brexit is back on the news.

Another classic post. Leo said the cheque will be in the post.

Jupiter Mulligan

JeffKenna wrote: »

Without seeing the ballot paper I find it hard to see how you've decided that the FG candidate will be the best of a bad bunch?

Your point is valid. What I should have written is that, on the basis of previous GE results in my non-volatile rural constituency and given the present seat-holders, it appears likely that the FG candidate will be the most appealing on offer with a realistic chance of being elected. That said, my proviso regarding a possible SD candidate remains in play.

BattleCorp

smurgen wrote: »

Jesus that's alot of slack you're cutting her. If this was any other party and one of their memebers i wonder would such downplaying and benifit of doubt be extended by FG supporters?

I couldn't give a flying fcuk about Bailey or FG. I've already condemned FG in this thread for acting the b0llix with the Country's finances. I'm not political other than having a fear of SF and crackpots like Claire Daly and the rest of the free everything brigade. I've no allegiance to any political party.

I'm just saying that the courts wouldn't be as condemning of Bailey's actions as many people on here think.

A good barrister combined with medical reports would most likely be able to argue away all the points made against Bailey in this thread.

golfball37

She told SOR she was covered by medical insurance too. What medical expenses did she need to recoup if it didn’t cost her anything?

Jupiter Mulligan

InTheShadows wrote: »

Literally anyone is better than FG at this stage.

Fair enough, so Mick Lowry gets my no.1!

And my number 2 will go to Mattie McGrath.

Happy now?

Jupiter Mulligan

BattleCorp wrote: »

I couldn't give a flying fcuk about Bailey or FG. I've already condemned FG in this thread for acting the b0llix with the Country's finances. I'm not political other than having a fear of SF and crackpots like Claire Daly and the rest of the free everything brigade. I've no allegiance to any political party.

I'm just saying that the courts wouldn't be as condemning of Bailey's actions as many people on here think.

A good barrister combined with medical reports would most likely be able to argue away all the points made against Bailey in this thread.

Agreed.

Which (for me) makes her gutless decision to withdraw her claim the most contemptible thing about the stupid woman!

She had a choice of letting a judge decide on whether or not she was entitled to comp0, or letting the mob decide, and she opted for mob law!

What a moron!

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

I couldn't give a flying fcuk about Bailey or FG. I've already condemned FG in this thread for acting the b0llix with the Country's finances. I'm not political other than having a fear of SF and crackpots like Claire Daly and the rest of the free everything brigade. I've no allegiance to any political party.

I'm just saying that the courts wouldn't be as condemning of Bailey's actions as many people on here think.

A good barrister combined with medical reports would most likely be able to argue away all the points made against Bailey in this thread.

what do the courts have to do with what happens from here on in? the court case is gone.

odyssey06

golfball37 wrote: »

She told SOR she was covered by medical insurance too. What medical expenses did she need to recoup if it didn’t cost her anything?

It's unlikely medical insurance covered everything, depends on what plan you have. There could be co-payments \ excesses \ cap on number of physio visits per year.

But €7000 seems like a very high amount if that is referring to her 'net' expenses after insurance refunds are factored in.

Floppybits

Doesn't matter now, Leo the Liar has just said that the report is unlikely to be published and that he didn't instigate the witch hunt for the whistleblower.

Jupiter Mulligan

golfball37 wrote: »

She told SOR she was covered by medical insurance too. What medical expenses did she need to recoup if it didn’t cost her anything?

PHI doesn't cover drugs and some policies don't cover GP or the full costs of physio treatment. But it seems clear that the hotel's offer to pay her medical expenses would have covered those costs.

I suspect that she'd have been looking for compo. for pain and suffering in court - and not for her medical expenses.

Fact is that she dug an gigantic hole for herself on the SOR show and has no-one to blame but herself. I wonder what she'll do after she loses her seat. Join the circus and become a trapeze artiste perhaps.

Auguste Comte

[quote="Jupiter
She had a choice of letting a judge decide on whether or not she was entitled to comp0, or letting the mob decide, and she opted for mob law!

What a moron!

[/QUOTE]

There was no "mob" involved when Farrell withdrew his claim for damage to his car. I'm of the opinion that both cases were withdrawn because they couldn't be supported by evidence.

But yea blame the mob, the press, the whistleblower or anyone except the people involved.

smurgen

Auguste Comte wrote: »

There was no "mob" involved when Farrell withdrew his claim for damage to his car. I'm of the opinion that both cases were withdrawn because they couldn't be supported by evidence.

But yea blame the mob, the press, the whistleblower or anyone except the people involved.

I wonder do FG supporters here describe revenue as a mob when they're pursuing people for welfare fraud?