Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Rows Grower

WishUWereHere wrote: »

Rows Grower wrote: »

What a load of waffle.

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

The point was to express total disagreement with what was posted.
The insurance hierarchy were (like Bailey) lying through their teeth and Pearse Doherty caught them by the balls.
Calm down lad and if you don’t like a post don’t let it upset you. This forum is for discussion not problem solving.

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

The election rules for locals and Euros requires that candidates provide a list of alternates.

We get it's legit. I accept how and why it happens. It's the height of cronyism under the guise of democracy nonetheless.

On fraud, the insurers are using it as an excuse, so how ever false it may be it is great that they've been called out on it. Every fraudulent case supports the insurers claim. Every high profile case all the more so, a politician, like bailey, makes it more acceptable and looks like the governing party, Fine Gael, are cool with that kind of behaviour.
We whinge about forever homes and lifers/chancers, look at our government ffs... lead by example.

is_that_so

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We get it's legit. I accept how and why it happens. It's the height of cronyism under the guise of democracy nonetheless.

Instead of ranting on the internet why aren't you lobbying to have the law changed?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

On fraud, the insurers are using it as an excuse, so how ever false it may be it is great that they've been called out on it. Every fraudulent case supports the insurers claim. Every high profile case all the more so, a politician, like bailey, makes it more acceptable and looks like the governing party, Fine Gael, are cool with that kind of behaviour.
We whinge about forever homes and lifers/chancers, look at our government ffs... lead by example.

There is absolutely no point dragging these cases into criminal courts and losing, that's just harassment. The next best thing is what is happening now -i.e. judges making calls on cases. That too needs changes in terms of awards and legal costs. Incidentally the people who are currently most aggressively challenging claims are the insurers themselves.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote:

Instead of ranting on the internet why aren't you lobbying to have the law changed?

How do you know he's not?

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

How do you know he's not?

Seeing as I had to explain to him how it works I'm pretty sure he's not, at present!

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote:

Seeing as I had to explain to him how it works I'm pretty sure he's not, at present!

You're pretty sure, in other words you are guessing. The arrogance from some here is amusing.

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

Instead of ranting on the internet why aren't you lobbying to have the law changed?

It was asked did it happen. It was answered. You keep banging on about it.

is_that_so wrote: »

Seeing as I had to explain to him how it works I'm pretty sure he's not, at present!

Very Fine Gael of you.
Nobody asked you or anyone else. You've said the same thing three times now.
Let it go, you're flogging a long dead horse nobody wanted to ride.

is_that_so wrote: »

There is absolutely no point dragging these cases into criminal courts and losing, that's just harassment. The next best thing is what is happening now -i.e. judges making calls on cases. That too needs changes in terms of awards and legal costs. Incidentally the people who are currently most aggressively challenging claims are the insurers themselves.

It stands that the governing party, Fine gael, are cool with such behaviour in their party. That's this issue here. Nobody expects Bailey to get done. We know now Leo and FG are cula bula with chancers in their midst. It's up to the electorate now, Leo missed his chance to act decisively.

ohnonotgmail

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You're pretty sure, in other words you are guessing. The arrogance from some here is amusing.

If you have to explain to somebody how something works it is reasonable to assume that they are not actively campaigning on the matter.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You're pretty sure, in other words you are guessing. The arrogance from some here is amusing.

In my view it's a logical conclusion. I can't help what you think. Maye he can put both of us out of our misery? :)b

mike_cork

https://twitter.com/ShaneBeattyNews/status/1148946316225105921

Plumbthedepths

ohnonotgmail wrote:

If you have to explain to somebody how something works it is reasonable to assume that they are not actively campaigning on the matter.

I was always taught never assume as it makes an "ass of "u" & "me".

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote:

In my view it's a logical conclusion. I can't help what you think. Maye he can put both of us out of our misery? :)b

You might direct your question to the poster you are making assumptions about, that would seem logical to me.

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

In my view it's a logical conclusion. I can't help what you think. Maye he can put both of us out of our misery? :)b

Nobody asked you how it worked. I posted on it and what I thought of the practice and you start piping up about how it works.

It's like me saying Maria Bailey fell off a swing and you explaining oscillation. Pointless but makes for nice distraction though.

ohnonotgmail

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I was always taught never assume as it makes an "ass of "u" & "me".

if were never to make reasonable assumptions then no progress would ever be made. and frankly if a 10 year said that to me in reply i would be disappointed in them.

The Bishop Basher

Minister Madigan also says that as a former partner of Madigan law, “solicitor-client confidentiality” prevents her from commenting on whether she gave advice to Deputy Bailey #MariaBailey

So Madigan was definitely involved then..

mike_cork

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

So Madigan was definitely involved then..

My thoughts exactly

is_that_so

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It was asked did it happen. It was answered. You keep banging on about it.



Very Fine Gael of you.
Nobody asked you or anyone else. You've said the same thing three times now.
Let it go, you're flogging a long dead horse nobody wanted to ride.

You were just making up clueless falsehoods and I was doing a public service. I had to intervene for the sake of the internet!:D

It stands that the governing party, Fine gael, are cool with such behaviour in their party. That's this issue here. Nobody expects Bailey to get done. We know now Leo and FG are cula bula with chancers in their midst. It's up to the electorate now, Leo missed his chance to act decisively.

It's their party, their choice. Voters will decide in the election what they think of them. One final thing, don't assume that the echo chamber of Boards resembles anything like RL. Most of the time it doesn't. In an election this low level political event may have little to no influence on voters.

Plumbthedepths

ohnonotgmail wrote:

if were never to make reasonable assumptions then no progress would ever be made. and frankly if a 10 year said that to me in reply i would be disappointed in them.

What disappoints you is frankly no interest of mine, did you think it was a clever insult?

ohnonotgmail

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

What disappoints you is frankly no interest of mine, did you think it was a clever insult?

perhaps find somebody else to annoy?

Plumbthedepths

ohnonotgmail wrote:

perhaps find somebody else to annoy?

Funny I was responding to a comment you directed at me, even a ten year old could see that.

is_that_so

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nobody asked you how it worked. I posted on it and what I thought of the practice and you start piping up about how it works.

It's like me saying Maria Bailey fell off a swing and you explaining oscillation. Pointless but makes for nice distraction though.

Always good to know how things work. Stops people making false assertions.

ohnonotgmail

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Funny I was responding to a comment you directed at me, even a ten year old could see that.

I replied to you in a reasonable manner but for perhaps reasons of ego you decided to reply the way you did. Best to leave it there.

Plumbthedepths

ohnonotgmail wrote:

I replied to you in a reasonable manner but for perhaps reasons of ego you decided to reply the way you did. Best to leave it there.

If you don't think your reply was anything other than a veiled insult probably best you leave it there.

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

Always good to know how things work. Stops people making false assertions.

Like the one about how I never asked you how it worked?

is_that_so wrote: »

You were just making up clueless falsehoods and I was doing a public service. I had to intervene for the sake of the internet!:D

Like what?

is_that_so wrote: »

It's their party, their choice. Voters will decide in the election what they think of them. One final thing, don't assume that the echo chamber of Boards resembles anything like RL. Most of the time it doesn't. In an election this low level political event may have little to no influence on voters.

Me: FG are okay with chancers in their midsts
You: It's their party, their choice

Me: It's up to the electorate now.
You: Voters will decide in the election

You seem intent on sidelining peoples opinions with your christmas cracker content. It's unfortunate the name 'captain obvious' has been taken.

Leo missed an opportunity to at least make FG look like 'the law and order party'.

Auguste Comte

is_that_so wrote: »

In an election this low level political event may have little to no influence on voters.

This is the biggest misjudgement that the FG'rs are making. Their arrogance has blinded them to the reality that a huge amount of people are hopping mad about these two chancers getting away with their scams.

This is not some grubby deal over some planning issue or getting caught knobbing the nanny that affects a tiny amount of people. Insurance hikes affect everyone and Leo is happy to stick two fingers up to all the people by keeping these two gougers on his team.
How many other scammers does he have on the fine gale team ready to take whatever money they can at every body else's expense.

Corruption could well explain the children's hospital fiasco. Etc etc.

Plumbthedepths

During the local elections FG said Maria Bailey was coming up on the doorsteps and they believe it cost them votes. One failed FG candidate Blaine Gaffney in Sligo claims he lost on a seat because of Bailey. Funny if this is an echo chamber why is some so insistent on commenting here telling us the opinions of those here are not reflected in the real world.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Yet several FG candidates were getting a negative reaction on the doorsteps during the locals over this issue. Even one went as far as claiming it cost him a seat. Blane Gaffney ( no loss tbh) in Sligo. Yet here you are banging the drum in the echo chamber that no-one cares about. ;-)

Ah guesswork on the outcome of a few candidates in the locals, nice one! Yes it's an echo chamber but really don't recall saying suggesting or inferring the rest of that. Sounds very made up to me!

Meanwhile this is good reading!

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0710/1061285-courts-compensation/

is_that_so

Auguste Comte wrote: »

This is the biggest misjudgement that the FG'rs are making. Their arrogance has blinded them to the reality that a huge amount of people are hopping mad about these two chancers getting away with their scams.

This is not some grubby deal over some planning issue or getting caught knobbing the nanny that affects a tiny amount of people. Insurance hikes affect everyone and Leo is happy to stick two fingers up to all the people by keeping these two gougers on his team.
How many other scammers does he have on the fine gale team ready to take whatever money they can at every body else's expense.

Corruption could well explain the children's hospital fiasco. Etc etc.

Well it's them or FF! Hospital thing didn't really outrage too many and it subsided quickly enough. Most of us accept it needs to be built and as long as it doesn't absolutely spiral it's a cost we can live with. Housing, health and taxes are always the biggies in a GE. Insurance might be but there seems to be legislation on that way.

JeffKenna

is_that_so wrote: »

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Yet several FG candidates were getting a negative reaction on the doorsteps during the locals over this issue. Even one went as far as claiming it cost him a seat. Blane Gaffney ( no loss tbh) in Sligo. Yet here you are banging the drum in the echo chamber that no-one cares about. ;-)

Ah guesswork on the outcome of a few candidates in the locals, nice one! Yes it's an echo chamber but really don't recall saying suggesting or inferring the rest of that. Sounds very made up to me!

Meanwhile this is good reading!

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0710/1061285-courts-compensation/

Paschal Donohoe said FG estimated that it cost them 150 - 200 votes in each local election constituency. From memory Maria did the SO'R interview on the Monday after the locals and it only blew up since then so it would have to be a lot more now.

Stop moaning ffs

is_that_so wrote: »

Well it's them or FF! Hospital thing didn't really outrage too many and it subsided quickly enough. Most of us accept it needs to be built and as long as it doesn't absolutely spiral it's a cost we can live with. Housing, health and taxes are always the biggies in a GE. Insurance might be but there seems to be legislation on that way.

Ok I’m now convinced you’re in the FG spin team

The hospital thing was everywhere. The only remarkable thing about it was no heads rolled-no surprises there-and the whole thing wasn’t dropped and started over-again. No surprises there. Jobs for the lads and vast amounts of money for the buddies in the building of it who get to make up a number and double it unchallenged.

Ireland. It was ever thus.

This too will be a massive issue facing FG next election.