Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Stop moaning ffs

I’d say it’s more likely that bailey or Madigan aren’t easily pushed around. Madigan in particular is probably a sharp operator and has some sort of leverage she brought to bear and thus the whole thing is being hushed up and Leo in a bind unable to just either of them or even reprimand them.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I’d say it’s more likely that bailey or Madigan aren’t easily pushed around. Madigan in particular is probably a sharp operator and has some sort of leverage she brought to bear and thus the whole thing is being hushed up and Leo in a bind unable to just either of them or even reprimand them.

I'd say its more a case that Leo is a weak and pathetic leader with absolutely zero backbone or willingness to make changes.

The Indo should run the story every day until the next election to keep it in peoples minds when these arrogant fools are hoping to be re-elected. Their contempt for the electorate and business is staggering.

Kivaro

Leo and Fine Gael will be decimated in the next General Election if the attempted fraudulent activities of his TD's are not dealt with appropriately.
And when Fine Gael does an analysis after the election on why the party did so badly, the electorate's reaction to Leo's inaction will be prominent.

Arrogance notwithstanding, I am surprised that Fine Gael are allowing this to fester way beyond a boil.

Stop moaning ffs

Without a doubt they will look back on this and regret not sorting it. And it’ll lie full square on Leo’s shoulders.

Running around hushing things up and putting out fires after the fact is in no way leadership.

There is no small element of contempt for the public and electorate in the current manner they’re dealing with this and treating us.

Shemale

Leo is a stonewall cert to be re-elected, FF and FG are always elected due to the age of the electorate who always voted for one or the other.

Snow Garden

Shemale wrote: »

Leo is a stonewall cert to be re-elected, FF and FG are always elected due to the age of the electorate who always voted for one or the other.

Lest we forget - In 2016 election Fine Gael lost 16 seats. FF somehow gained 23 seats. Labour lost 26 seats (because of one hospital pass from FG - Irish Water superquango)

Fine Gael will have a lot of explaining to do at the doorsteps in the next General Election - Children Hospital disaster, Broadband overspend, Insurance Fraud, Garda mismanagement, Corruption, Housing Crisis, Brexit negotiations.

Do you think they will gain or lose seats considering above?

JeffKenna

Shemale wrote: »

Leo is a stonewall cert to be re-elected, FF and FG are always elected due to the age of the electorate who always voted for one or the other.

Off with you to Paddy Power if he's a stonewall cert...

Plumbthedepths

Shemale wrote: »

Leo is a stonewall cert to be re-elected, FF and FG are always elected due to the age of the electorate who always voted for one or the other.

In his constituency more than likely, back again as Taoiseach? No hope.

mikeymouse

Shemale wrote: »

Leo is a stonewall cert to be re-elected, FF and FG are always elected due to the age of the electorate who always voted for one or the other.

Since the story broke FG odds drifted from 1/2 to 10/11 ,that's an 14 point drift.
FF odds shortened from 6/4 to 4/5 ,that's a 15 point diff.
FF are now bookies favourite, the bookies rarely get it wrong!

Auguste Comte

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The public who are faced with rising insurance premiums each and every day will be reminded why their costs are in part rising (compo culture) and how the government thinks it's not one iota of their business that one of their own is engaging in it - Leo thinks it's none of their concern, but will then ask for a nod come election time.

If it was just one that would be bad enough, but it's not. Bailey was stopped in her tracks when the details of her ridiculous claim became public.

Farrell went all the way to court where the judge ridiculed his personal injury claim and then he was forced to withdraw the claim for damage to his car when photographs of the car showed no damage at all.

Clames like this are the absolute horrors for ordinary people. Some young lad makes a tiny mistake and taps the back of someone who goes full scam artist and claims for his sore arse, elbow and non existent damage to his car, possibly putting the lad off the road because of an unaffordable insurance renual and then his job is gone.

Or the small business person has some gobsh1t trip over their own laces and head to the circuit court looking for money because the only thing greater than their clumsiness is their greed, leading to another small business going to the wall taking a few jobs with it.


These are just the two that we know about so far, I wonder are there claims managers out there trying to find ways to get details of other "claims" by politicians that were settle for nuisance money before court proceedings started to the Indo, or maybe they all ready have them and are waiting for the appropriate time to put them out there.

Either way, anyone who pays insurance needs to keep this in mind come the next GE, Leo is happy to have these people on his team and your vote is the only real way to express your disapproval.

Suckit

Added some missing text.

Auguste Comte wrote: »

If it was just one that would be bad enough, but it's not. Bailey was stopped in her tracks when the details of her ridiculous claim became public.

Farrell went all the way to court where the judge ridiculed his personal injury claim and then he was forced to withdraw the claim for damage to his car when photographs of the car showed some damage, but the other driver had photographs from the day showing no damage. Under questioning the mechanic acknowledged that the damage in the photographs that he had, were from another accident possibly months after the incident that they were in court for.

JeffKenna

Where did you see that Suckit? I haven't seen that about the mechanic online?


https://www.thesun.ie/news/2854734/photographs-presented-in-alan-farrells-injuries-compo-case/

Actually found a link!

Suckit

JeffKenna wrote: »

Where did you see that Suckit? I haven't seen that about the mechanic online?
https://www.thesun.ie/news/2854734/photographs-presented-in-alan-farrells-injuries-compo-case/

Actually found a link!

Unusually for that paper, that version is quite lenient compared to the version I read. I think it was the Independent or Irish Times.

They had left enough room for the reader to think that Farrell only told his engineer that the damage was done in another accident, after he found out that the other driver had photographs (the link above just says "It was evidence that the case defendants declared as only just coming to light.")
This is comical

the court also heard of a mix-up in Farrell’s medical records which Hertz had obtained a discovery order for. In the records read in court, there was a reference to a consultation in July 2012 — three years before the Hertz prang — for pain in the lower back, with restricted lumbar movement in lower back muscles. But Farrell claimed there had been an error, and that the July 2012 consultation had been for his wife.
He said: “It’s actually not myself, it is my wife. We share the same GP.”

McMurphy

Suckit wrote: »

Unusually for that paper, that version is quite lenient compared to the version I read. I think it was the Independent or Irish Times.

They had left enough room for the reader to think that Farrell only told his engineer that the damage was done in another accident, after he found out that the other driver had photographs (the link above just says "It was evidence that the case defendants declared as only just coming to light.")
This is comical

Doesn't Farrells wife go by her Maiden name Doyle?

Easy mistake to make I suppose, give a medical report belonging to a female with a different name, from 3 years before your own mishap.....

Shocking thing is, the likelihood of that being an oversight is more plausible than Bailey forgetting that she took part in a run she takes in every year, a few weeks after a rather unfortunate incident, in which she claimed she couldn't run at all.



Seriously.

Jupiter Mulligan

I've just seen on Sky News that a by-election will be held to replace disgraced Tory MP Chris Davis who was "recalled" by his constituency, i.e. thrown out for falsifying his expenses claims. Pity her constituents can't use the same process to get rid of Bailey (and Farrell - although I really shouldn't be mentioning him in this thread! )

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/uk-conservative-mp-chris-davies-ousted-constituents-190621114720837.html

We need to have a similar process in Ireland - if any Soc Dems are reading this, then what are you waiting for - promise to do it and you'll get my no. 1!


EDIT: this is the UK legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_of_MPs_Act_2015

Cal4567

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

I've just seen on Sky News that a by-election will be held to replace disgraced Tory MP Chris Davis who was "recalled" by his constituency, i.e. thrown out for falsifying his expenses claims. Pity her constituents can't use the same process to get rid of Bailey (and Farrell - although I really shouldn't be mentioning him in this thread! )

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/uk-conservative-mp-chris-davies-ousted-constituents-190621114720837.html

We need to have a similar process in Ireland - if any Soc Dems are reading this, then what are you waiting for - promise to do it and you'll get my no. 1!


EDIT: this is the UK legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_of_MPs_Act_2015

Slightly off topic. One of the big surprises for me about a decade ago when the UK MP's expenses scandal hit hard, was how easy our lot got off. Little media attention on them and the story just drifted away.

That UK idea. Good idea. We always adopt UK ideas sooner rather than later.

Auguste Comte

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

I've just seen on Sky News that a by-election will be held to replace disgraced Tory MP Chris Davis who was "recalled" by his constituency, i.e. thrown out for falsifying his expenses claims. Pity her constituents can't use the same process to get rid of Bailey (and Farrell - although I really shouldn't be mentioning him in this thread! )

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/uk-conservative-mp-chris-davies-ousted-constituents-190621114720837.html

We need to have a similar process in Ireland - if any Soc Dems are reading this, then what are you waiting for - promise to do it and you'll get my no. 1!


EDIT: this is the UK legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_of_MPs_Act_2015

In the absence of such legislation you would hope that Leo Vradkar and the others at the Fine Gael top table would show some leadership and deal with them but instead the whistleblower will be hounded and job done for Leo.

I hope the insurance paying public remember this come the next general election and vote ABFG.

Snow Garden

Lads, I need your advice.

I just ate a grape and I hurt my tooth/mouth/jaw. Shockingly it wasn't a seedless grape and it wasn't supervised. Humanity was crossed.

Do I have a 'clear cut case'? How should I proceed? Could I have whiplash?

Jupiter Mulligan

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I hope the insurance paying public remember this come the next general election and vote ABFG.

Given that the two FG candidates on offer in that constituency are likely to be token female MMOC and token female MB (token male SB is retiring) I hope that they'll both lose their seats.

Jupiter Mulligan

Snow Garden wrote: »

Lads, I need your advice.

I just ate a grape and I hurt my tooth/mouth/jaw. Shockingly it wasn't a seedless grape and it wasn't supervised. Humanity was crossed.

Do I have a 'clear cut case'? How should I proceed? Could I have whiplash?

Boardsies aren't allowed to give legal advice, so why not contact Madigans solicitors where you'll get the very best of advice.

https://www.madigans.ie/expertise/category.html?id=6

James Brown

Snow Garden wrote: »

Lads, I need your advice.

I just ate a grape and I hurt my tooth/mouth/jaw. Shockingly it wasn't a seedless grape and it wasn't supervised. Humanity was crossed.

Do I have a 'clear cut case'? How should I proceed? Could I have whiplash?

Were you hitting your head with a hammer to try crush the grape whilst high on glue? If so, you've a clear cut case.

Auguste Comte

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Were you hitting your head with a hammer to try crush the grape whilst high on glue? If so, you've a clear cut case.

I'd say the ordinary decent FG members feel like hitting themselves in the head with hammers at the way this is being dealt with.

BattleCorp

Snow Garden wrote: »

Lads, I need your advice.

I just ate a grape and I hurt my tooth/mouth/jaw. Shockingly it wasn't a seedless grape and it wasn't supervised. Humanity was crossed.

Do I have a 'clear cut case'? How should I proceed? Could I have whiplash?

I sh1t you not but one guy put in a claim against us for allegedly biting into a biscuit and chipping his tooth. He didn't tell us at the time, told us about four months later. So lads, if you chip your tooth in a fight or a footie match, blame someone who sold you a biscuit four months ago.

Another person bought a ready-to-cook meal, brought it home, cooked it three weeks later, got the scutters and decided to claim off us. Turns out he stored a frozen meal in a cupboard, not in a freezer and then reckons it's our fault he got the scutters. FFS

You might think both of those cases are laughable but you still have to serve your defence and fight like fcuk, and all of that costs money. Those two cnuts probably cost us over €15k even though they both got nothing.

McMurphy

The above sound like very good reasons to introduce mandatory payment of all associated legal costs to be borne by the claimant if they are later exposed as spoofing and drop their cases on the back of that.

That would soon sort the wheat from the chaff.

Farrell still got a token payment, even though he was clearly spoofing in front of a judge.

Bailey only dropped her case because she was exposed as a gouging chancer.

Still hard to fathom Leo is trying to sweep this one.

Shefwedfan

Shemale wrote: »

Leo is a stonewall cert to be re-elected, FF and FG are always elected due to the age of the electorate who always voted for one or the other.

Leo is a disaster, last time they voted in Enda.

Leo hasn’t faced a proper vote bar the local elections and got his ass kicked in those

He has the look of a man who knows the gig is up and FG are just using him as the scape goat, hush up the report Leo because if you don’t it won’t just bring you down it will bring the whole thing down

Children hospital -disaster
Broadband - disaster, Eir coming out and saying they can do for 1 billion after he gave them back hand earlier in negotiations is another knife in back
Insurance - disaster, his RTÉ film by prime time is seen as just waffle....he has long enough now to fix it

At this stage he just looks like an incompetent fool, even the Healy-Raes look better than him, and they are criminals at this stage if they ever reviewed the carry on with those two

odyssey06

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I'd say the ordinary decent FG members feel like hitting themselves in the head with hammers at the way this is being dealt with.

Exactly. FG used to stand for something. A sense of integrity and responsibility.
No idea what their core principles are now.

Auguste Comte

odyssey06 wrote: »

Exactly. FG used to stand for something. A sense of integrity and responsibility.
No idea what their core principles are now.

It seems to be the Boris Johnson, Tatcher principle that greed is good.

_Kaiser_

odyssey06 wrote: »

Exactly. FG used to stand for something. A sense of integrity and responsibility.
No idea what their core principles are now.

When did they stand for that? I'm being serious.. That may be how they market themselves to attract disaffected FF voters, but when they're actually in power they turn out to be as bad or worse. Same waste, corruption, scandals, dodgy dealings - just with added arrogance.

Their entire reason for being seems to be as a protest vote when FF lose the run of themselves. They're certainly no "better" - we just don't see as much of the antics as they're never voted in on their own merits and only until FF are sufficiently rehabilitated as a result that they resume control.

odyssey06

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

When did they stand for that? I'm being serious.. That may be how they market themselves to attract disaffected FF voters, but when they're actually in power they turn out to be as bad or worse. Same waste, corruption, scandals, dodgy dealings - just with added arrogance.
Their entire reason for being seems to be as a protest vote when FF lose the run of themselves. They're certainly no "better" - we just don't see as much of the antics as they're never voted in on their own merits and only until FF are sufficiently rehabilitated as a result that they resume control.

In the 1980s v Haughey?

Odyssey 2005

BattleCorp wrote: »

I sh1t you not but one guy put in a claim against us for allegedly biting into a biscuit and chipping his tooth. He didn't tell us at the time, told us about four months later. So lads, if you chip your tooth in a fight or a footie match, blame someone who sold you a biscuit four months ago.

Another person bought a ready-to-cook meal, brought it home, cooked it three weeks later, got the scutters and decided to claim off us. Turns out he stored a frozen meal in a cupboard, not in a freezer and then reckons it's our fault he got the scutters. FFS

You might think both of those cases are laughable but you still have to serve your defence and fight like fcuk, and all of that costs money. Those two cnuts probably cost us over €15k even though they both got nothing.

This should be sent into veruka!. Wonder how much bailey the buffer has cost the Dean !