Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

is_that_so

Muahahaha wrote: »

Is Leo running scared on telling us that he is going to do bugger all to discipline Maria Bailey? His two week inquiry has now turned into six and he said he would make a statement this week but he still hasnt. Maybe he'll drop it at 5.30pm on Friday in the hope of doing a runner on it before the weekend.

They are due to meet this week with the expectation that she'll be removed from her committee chair.

Auguste Comte

is_that_so wrote: »

They are due to meet this week with the expectation that she'll be removed from her committee chair.

It's a wonder she managed not to fall off it.

Suckit

Auguste Comte wrote: »

It's a wonder she managed not to fall off it.

Lucky for them that she didn't.

Rows Grower

Imagine if she was in the bar for this.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/scurrying-rat-forces-politicians-to-evacuate-dil-bar-38296548.html

Suckit

Rows Grower wrote: »

Imagine if she was in the bar for this.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/scurrying-rat-forces-politicians-to-evacuate-dil-bar-38296548.html

How did they know which rat was the one that wasn't supposed to be there?

Auguste Comte

Suckit wrote: »

How did they know which rat was the one that wasn't supposed to be there?

It knew how to use the furniture without getting instructions.

McMurphy

is_that_so wrote: »

They are due to meet this week with the expectation that she'll be removed from her committee chair.

So that's pretty much home and dry unsanctioned?

Simple yes or no answer here to you, (or any of the FG flag waving zealots amongst us)... Do you think leaving Bailey (and Farrell) in situ will be good for the party and it's grandstanding as a "law and order party" so long as they're there, either in the long or short term?

Simple yes or no will do mind.

mickdw

The law and order party........
They won't have the neck to put that on the posters.

seligehgit

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Apologies if this has been posted but this is what we need. Hard questions of the industry and their enablers both. I’m no shinner but more of this across the board please. Cos if FG leave this rigouros type of questioning to the likes of SF people will raise their ears and start looking at their choices next election

https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/1147182930848038912?s=21

As anti Sinn Fein as they come but I've always admired Pearse Doherty as a politician.TBH he's miles ahead of Mary Lou.

I take my hat off to him for that interrogation.

_blaaz

lola85 wrote: »

Pearse Doherty exposes fraudulent claims AREN'T to blame for businesses closing or high premiums.

Where do we go from here?

Wtf.....i know several business which have downsized/closed sections over insurance costs

Auguste Comte

lola85 wrote: »

So fraudulent claims aren’t the reason for high premiums..

Which goes against this whole thread.

The thread is about crooked politicians making fraudulent claims and their acceptance in the governing party.

Auguste Comte

lola85 wrote: »

Yet every post is people claiming busines are closing and premiums going up because of fraud claims.

It took SF to expose the lies of the companies.

Leo wouldn’t have the IQ to do it.

Fraud is not the only cause but it it is a contributory factor.

These gougers acceptance in the fine gale parliamentary party is a bigger issue imo. If they will lie and cheat to get a few quid from an insurance company they wouldn't think twice about shafting Joe taxpayer for a few quid either and leo is happy to have them on his team.

ChikiChiki

Muahahaha wrote: »

Is Leo running scared on telling us that he is going to do bugger all to discipline Maria Bailey? His two week inquiry has now turned into six and he said he would make a statement this week but he still hasnt. Maybe he'll drop it at 5.30pm on Friday in the hope of doing a runner on it before the weekend.

Not a chance in hell there will be a statement dropped for at least 2 weeks out of respect. Probably after the summer recess which means never in reality.

Auguste Comte

lola85 wrote: »

So can we accept rising premiums for business isn’t to do with fraud claims?

Which has been the idea since this tred opened

No, fraud is contributing to rising premiums, along with other factors.

mickdw

PD was good in interviewing the insurance people but I believe his main point was flawed and he only succeeded due to catching them off guard with the line of questioning.
If given opportunity, those people could have come up with very sensible answers.
The fact of the matter is that there are a high percentage of fraudulent claims. The majority of those will end up being paid out on as there will be little evidence to prove the fraud or the cost of fighting a case may be higher than paying out.
The insurers also said that only a small portion of all cases reported to gardai were found to be fraudulent so in reality, the insurers would seem to have set their fraud checks about right.
If they were being too lax and only reporting the outrageous cases to gardai, well you would imagine 100 percent of reported cases prosecuted.
If they were reporting cases where there was even a sniff of fraud, well you would imagine maybe only 1% would be prosecuted.
As it stands, they seemed to be getting about 20 percent prosecutions from reported cases so imo they would appear to be reporting at a suitable level of suspicion.
While I'd agree that fraudulent claims are not making up 20 percent of all claims, the true fraud percentage is always going to be much higher than the percentage reported to gardai for the reasons given above.
Pierse basically set out his whole argument around all cases of fraud being reported or reportable.

pablo128

lola85 wrote: »

That’s not what the reports say and PD.

The thread is about Maria Bailey trying to rip off a business with a dodgy personal injury claim and getting rightly exposed for it.

Auguste Comte

lola85 wrote: »

That’s not what the reports say and PD.

The report that is relevant to this thread is the one that leo is hiding.

ChikiChiki

Suckit wrote: »

Why? Was it known her father was that ill? The local elections were only 6 weeks ago, so (I am guessing) he must have seemed healthy-ish. At last healthy enough to do some small canvassing and run for the seat.

He was very sick during canvassing and upon election. Not healthy at all. It would have been known.

ChikiChiki

lola85 wrote: »

Well tell that to the posters here who have come on saying fraud cheats businesses every day and gets 20 likes.

Can we get them to admit they were wrong?

Fraud does cheat businesses and is being used as a convenient excuse to hike up premiums by insurance companies. The result is many small businesses bring forced to close.

Auguste Comte

lola85 wrote: »

Well tell that to the posters here who have come on saying fraud cheats businesses every day and gets 20 likes.

Can we get them to admit they were wrong?

Hertz had a 5 figure legal bill to cover after Allan Farrell FG TD's dodgy claim and the Dean Hotel are attempting to recover its legal expenses after Maria Bailey FG TD's dodgy attempt at a claim.

There's two real world examples of how dodgy claims hurt business.

Suckit

ChikiChiki wrote: »

He was very sick during canvassing and upon election. Not healthy at all. It would have been known.

Why did he run then? He sounds like he would have been in no fit state to have sorted anything, should the request have come..

lola85 wrote: »

Well tell that to the posters here who have come on saying fraud cheats businesses every day and gets 20 likes.

Can we get them to admit they were wrong?

Do you think because it is not believed to be the main contributer to rising costs, that fraud doesn't cheat busineses every day?
It was mentioned very early on in this thread that the Insurance companies were milking it, but it still does not excuse gougers.

Who should admit they were wrong?

McMurphy

lola85 wrote: »

Well tell that to the posters here who have come on saying fraud cheats businesses every day and gets 20 likes.

Can we get them to admit they were wrong?

Jesus Christ, have you been following the thread at all

Insurance fraud does hurt businesses, and ordinary people every day.

The insurance companies claiming the level of fraud taking place to try and justify their exorbitant premiums is a separate issue.

The two things are separate issues, how (this isn't the first time you've said this) aren't you grasping the fact?

Let me simplify it, the insurance companies premiums have skyrocketed for most people (businesses and private individuals alike) as too have their (insurance companies) profit margins.

When tackled on this, the insurance companies are claiming that fraud is the biggest factor in contributing to the premiums rising in price.

When drilled down into - this doesn't stack up, suspected fraud reported to the Guards = <1% of the numbers they claim to be fraudulent claims lodged annually.

There's no doubt insurance fraud takes place, its just
A: nowhere near the level the insurance companies claim it is to justify their price hikes.

B: Questionable if they're actually even bothered on tackling it, it's a handy cop out for them to use as an excuse for the price hikes, and not much of a track record reporting it so far.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Insurance fraud does go on, it's committed all the time by unscrupulous people.

Fine Gael have come out in the past and said they want to tackle the insurance industries and their rising insurance premiums, like wise fraud, Alan Farrell actually was at the forefront of one of these campaigns.

Then it emerges Alan Farrell took a spurious claim to court trying to get easy money from a car hire company, and whatever knock on effect that would have on the private individuals future insurance costs who was driving the car.

Ditto Maria Bailey, and the whole reason this thread exists.

Farrel and Bailey are a part of the problem the insurance companies are complaining about, and their govt is claiming to tackle.

Unbelievable that nearly 8 full weeks later - anyone would confuse the issues highlighted.

is_that_so

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

So that's pretty much home and dry unsanctioned?

Simple yes or no answer here to you, (or any of the FG flag waving zealots amongst us)... Do you think leaving Bailey (and Farrell) in situ will be good for the party and it's grandstanding as a "law and order party" so long as they're there, either in the long or short term?

Simple yes or no will do mind.

No is the answer you want to hear but it really is not that simple. They cannot remove them from the Dail, they can only resign themselves. The only sanction they can use is to remove the whip or expel them from the party. That would leave them with a different problem , two TDs who could potentially vote against them. Given that both have now dropped their cases that would be quite severe.

The last option they might consider is at the end of this Dail with a new election and that is deselection. In both cases that's something I think they may well consider. Farrell may be OK in the sense that the judge did agree that an injury had occurred but headed off the whiplash. Bailey may find herself out in a new election. If they do run her and she gets elected, questionable in the context of everything that has happened, she'll be a permanent bench warmer.

Rows Grower

mickdw wrote: »

PD was good in interviewing the insurance people but I believe his main point was flawed and he only succeeded due to catching them off guard with the line of questioning.
If given opportunity, those people could have come up with very sensible answers.
The fact of the matter is that there are a high percentage of fraudulent claims. The majority of those will end up being paid out on as there will be little evidence to prove the fraud or the cost of fighting a case may be higher than paying out.
The insurers also said that only a small portion of all cases reported to gardai were found to be fraudulent so in reality, the insurers would seem to have set their fraud checks about right.
If they were being too lax and only reporting the outrageous cases to gardai, well you would imagine 100 percent of reported cases prosecuted.
If they were reporting cases where there was even a sniff of fraud, well you would imagine maybe only 1% would be prosecuted.
As it stands, they seemed to be getting about 20 percent prosecutions from reported cases so imo they would appear to be reporting at a suitable level of suspicion.
While I'd agree that fraudulent claims are not making up 20 percent of all claims, the true fraud percentage is always going to be much higher than the percentage reported to gardai for the reasons given above.
Pierse basically set out his whole argument around all cases of fraud being reported or reportable.

What a load of waffle.

storker

Auguste Comte wrote: »

No, fraud is contributing to rising premiums,

...and being used as an excuse to raise premiums even further.

WishUWereHere

Rows Grower wrote: »

What a load of waffle.

Bloody hell, what’s the point in making this crap statement & not offer an alternative suggestion??

is_that_so

WishUWereHere wrote: »

Bloody hell, what’s the point in making this crap statement & not offer an alternative suggestion??

This is Boards and some people see one-liners as a superior form of debate!

mickdw

Rows Grower wrote: »

What a load of waffle.

Im not supporting the insurance industry in any way. They are gangsters, no doubt. Im just making the point that Doherty over simplified the entire issue and the insurance people should have been able to come up with answers. They were completely caught out but Id expect a statement making some coherent argument shortly.

Auguste Comte

is_that_so wrote: »

No is the answer you want to hear but it really is not that simple. They cannot remove them from the Dail, they can only resign themselves. The only sanction they can use is to remove the whip or expel them from the party. That would leave them with a different problem , two TDs who could potentially vote against them. Given that both have now dropped their cases that would be quite severe.

The last option they might consider is at the end of this Dail with a new election and that is deselection. In both cases that's something I think they may well consider. Farrell may be OK in the sense that the judge did agree that an injury had occurred but headed off the whiplash. Bailey may find herself out in a new election. If they do run her and she gets elected, questionable in the context of everything that has happened, she'll be a permanent bench warmer.

In other words Leo won't do the right thing for the people because it is no good for fine gale and they are left in place to take back handers and do corrupt deals to the detriment of the general public.

A simple statement that he has no confidence in his two deputies would probably cover it.

Charlie Haughey wouldn't have had that neck.

Boggles

mickdw wrote: »

Im not supporting the insurance industry in any way. They are gangsters, no doubt. Im just making the point that Doherty over simplified the entire issue and the insurance people should have been able to come up with answers. They were completely caught out but Id expect a statement making some coherent argument shortly.

But that's not always a bad thing.

He calmly and meticulously blew the door off the rouse using their figures.

He even gave them a generous decrease when rounding down.