Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Loafing Oaf

BaZmO* wrote: »

Carol Nolan, Peter Fitzpatrick, Denis Naughten and Peadar Tóibín. 3 of those were to do with the Eight Ammendment.

I'm not sure any of these have actually resigned their Dail seats. Quit or been expelled from their respective parliamentary parties I think.

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Madigan steered bailey towards the PIAB. Madigan submitted the claim to the PIAB.

And MB did have a case but not one to the extent she eventually pitched for. The PIAB form is online and is really not that complicated to fill out.

is_that_so

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I'm not sure any of these have actually resigned their Dail seats. Quit or been expelled from their respective parliamentary parties I think.

Lost the whip initially and quit in some cases.

Suckit

is_that_so wrote: »

And she did have a case but not the one to the extent she eventually pitched for.

If she had a case, why exaggerate her injuries in the claim?

Loafing Oaf

is_that_so wrote: »

Lost the whip initially and quit in some cases.

But all are currently serving TDs no?

ohnonotgmail

is_that_so wrote: »

And MB did have a case but not one to the extent she eventually pitched for. The PIAB form is online and is really not that complicated to fill out.

Madigan submitted the claim for her. we know that already. and that claim included exaggerations. we know that as well. so either madigan knew about the lies or she didn't. we need to know.

Plumbthedepths

Suckit wrote:

If she had a case, why exaggerate her injuries in the claim?

It's fairly obvious, greed. Would be interesting to know who advised Bailey to write the letter demanding 20k from the Dean.

is_that_so

boombang wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that in the UK even if the individual lacks the honour to do the right thing the system will usually deal with them appropriately. In Ireland, we have a public (and private) individuals who act without responsibility and system that is inept to correct them.

Bertie, Lowry, many bankers, corrupt planning officials, that idiot Pat Hickey from the Olympic Committee that somehow never went back to Brazil... the list goes on and on.

It's called due process. Knowing something is up and proving it in a court of law are entirely different things. Ray Burke was one who was caught. There have also been one or two councillors and Liam Lawlor had he been alive would have faced courts.

is_that_so

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But all are currently serving TDs no?

Yeah. By quit I mean leave the party not the Dail.

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Madigan submitted the claim for her. we know that already. and that claim included exaggerations. we know that as well. so either madigan knew about the lies or she didn't. we need to know.

If I filled a form out for a friend based on their information does that make me culpable if they are later found to be spoofers? Madigan was not involved in her court case. I was under the impression the exaggerations came later in court submissions.

ohnonotgmail

is_that_so wrote: »

If I filled a form out for a friend based on their information does that make me culpable if they are later found to be spoofers? Madigan was not involved in her court case. I was under the impression the exaggerations came later in court submissions.

if you knew they were lying then you would be culpable. so we need to know what madigan knew at the time she submitted the claim. this also goes towards her standing as a solicitor. Submitting a claim that she knew contained lies would be a disciplinary matter for the Law Society.

boombang

is_that_so wrote: »

It's called due process. Knowing something is up and proving it in a court of law are entirely different things. Ray Burke was one who was caught. There have also been one or two councillors and Liam Lawlor had he been alive would have faced courts.

Due process is important. I just get the impression the public prosecutors don't seem to be that dogged in this country. However, the law seems to be pretty good at running very expensive tribunals that don't put people in jail, which is convenient.

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if you knew they were lying then you would be culpable. so we need to know what madigan knew at the time she submitted the claim. this also goes towards her standing as a solicitor. Submitting a claim that she knew contained lies would be a disciplinary matter for the Law Society.

It eventually bypassed the PIAB and MB went for court so the Madigan involvement is moot and there's a lot more than just submitting a claim form, based on these forms.

https://www.piab.ie/eng/forms-guidelines/

is_that_so

boombang wrote: »

Due process is important. I just get the impression the public prosecutors don't seem to be that dogged in this country. However, the law seems to be pretty good at running very expensive tribunals that don't put people in jail, which is convenient.

Tribunals are not allowed to put people in jail. They only make findings. DOB has been to court more than a few times over findings. To prosecute evidence needs to found that does not appear in a tribunal.

ohnonotgmail

is_that_so wrote: »

It eventually bypassed the PIAB and MB went for court so the Madigan involvement is moot and there's a lot more than just submitting a claim form, based on these forms.

https://www.piab.ie/eng/forms-guidelines/

if madigan knew that the claim contained lies then her involvement is not moot at all. and i'm glad we agree that submitting a claim to the piab is a bit more involved than just filling in a form.

ohnonotgmail

is_that_so wrote: »

Tribunals are not allowed to put people in jail. They only make findings. DOB has been to court more than a few times over findings. To prosecute evidence needs to found that does not appear in a tribunal.

that is the issue isn't it. we prefer to start expensive tribunals rather than let the garda investigate.

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if madigan knew that the claim contained lies then her involvement is not moot at all. and i'm glad we agree that submitting a claim to the piab is a bit more involved than just filling in a form.

Well some of that is medical which she'd have had no input into. There is an initial form to start a claim, which I think is the top one on that link. Pretty much unprovable about Madigan and the court proceedings take PIAB (and Madigan) out of the picture.

ohnonotgmail

is_that_so wrote: »

Well some of that is medical which she'd have had no input into. There is an initial form to start a claim, which I think is the top one on that link. Pretty much unprovable about Madigan and the court proceedings take PIAB (and Madigan) out of the picture.

Well it is certainly is unprovable when the question isn't even put to her

Plumbthedepths

ohnonotgmail wrote:

Well it is certainly is unprovable when the question isn't even put to her

Madigan going to ground throughout this is very telling. Her involvement will come out at the opportune time. The Indo is not finished yet, neither is Press Up.

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is the issue isn't it. we prefer to start expensive tribunals rather than let the garda investigate.

A lot of the expense is the entitlement of everyone to legal counsel. If they address the issue they were set up to address then they are deemed successful. As regards evidence tribunal information cannot be used and it's often suited witnesses to reveal what they know, safe in the knowledge that they can't be prosecuted for it.

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well it is certainly is unprovable when the question isn't even put to her

With the investigation and report completed there's no real reason to look at that. MB didn't proceed with the PIAB so anything in court is of her own making.

ohnonotgmail

is_that_so wrote: »

With the investigation and report completed there's no real reason to look at that. MB didn't proceed with the PIAB so anything in court is of her own making.

You have absolutely no idea what she was asked. unless you have seen the report of course. so until the question is asked and answered publicly there is every reason to keep looking at it.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote:

With the investigation and report completed there's no real reason to look at that. MB didn't proceed with the PIAB so anything in court is of her own making.

The Dean refused to allow PIAB make a determination not MB. The Dean stated they had CCTV footage and intended to fight. I would imagine others present would not be too happy to have their involvement in the accident confirmed.

banie01

is_that_so wrote: »

You'd be hard pushed to find an SD candidate in the majority of constituencies, never mind an electable one. Gary Gannon and Dublin Central looks like their only realistic hope to move up from 2.

Very true unfortunately.
The majority of their candidates down the country would make a champagne socialist look preferable.

Very much a party of opinions and those being fashionable ones rather than actual policies and competency.

They are a party that would on the face of things draw my vote, but whenever I've reviewed my local candidates...
A morass of stupidity IMO.

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea what she was asked. unless you have seen the report of course. so until the question is asked and answered publicly there is every reason to keep looking at it.

She had a connection to the PIAB element, MB went for court so IMO it really doesn't matter what came before that but I know it does to some people and the Indo.

ohnonotgmail

is_that_so wrote: »

She had a connection to the PIAB element, MB went for court so IMO it really doesn't matter what came before that but I know it does to some people and the Indo.

well of course it matters despite you continuing to trot out the party line. we have to know if she was aware that the claim she submitted contained lies. All she has to say is that she was not aware.

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well of course it matters despite you continuing to trot out the party line. we have to know if she was aware that the claim she submitted contained lies. All she has to say is that she was not aware.

The old party line nonsense, huh? I say logic. Court case is all MB. Court case trumps PIAB.

ohnonotgmail

is_that_so wrote: »

The old party line nonsense, huh? I say logic. Court case is all MB. Court case trumps PIAB.

a lie is a lie no matter at what stage it is told.

Auguste Comte

is_that_so wrote: »

Court case trumps PIAB.

FG party interests trump ethics as well.

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a lie is a lie no matter at what stage it is told.

Sure but you're fully confident it was a lie all the way from the start. Even if some comment emerged from Madigan you'd still disbelieve her.