Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

ILoveYourVibes

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

She has withdrawn her claim. She was entitled to make it. She was entitled to withdraw it. The law is the same for everyone. If it has weaknesses, legislation should rectify it. The were some inadvertent errors in her submission - that happens at times, even with the best care and will in the world. Don't read too much into that.
The press hounding and jump to conclusions was very stressful - and people should consider how they have contributed to someone having to reverse on their legal rights as a result.
As Maria says, the matter is now closed. No further comment will be made.

She said she wasn't able to run at all for three months with the crippling pain. She ran 10K three weeks later.

She said she wasn't able to stand for long periods of time. There are videos on youtube of her standing for order of business or questions in the Dail long enough and with seemingly no pain.

Point is she lied.............badly.


I mean you don't even have to stand if you are disabled or need to sit for health reasons. You can ask to sit. She never did. I am sure plenty of people in the dail have had to sit at some point. She was happy to stand and she certainly looks happy and able to turn around etc in all the videos on youtube!

everlast75

Delighted she did not succeed in her claim.

Separate and equally valid is the point that McDowell should have known better than to stand up and make comments on an ongoing case. For a former Minister for Justice and current SC, it's an appalling lack of judgement

ILoveYourVibes

everlast75 wrote: »

Delighted she did not succeed in her claim.

Separate and equally valid is the point that McDowell should have known better than to stand up and make comments on an ongoing case. For a former Minister for Justice and current SC, it's an appalling lack of judgement

Maybe he already knew it was going to be withdrawn.

mikemac2

Such a rookie TD

If she wanted 60k just rent a house in West Cork, declare it as your residence as claim mileage to and from Leinster House

Been done before

everlast75

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Maybe he already knew it was going to be withdrawn.

Doesn't matter.

For a person such as himself to comment on an ongoing case gives her the option of backing out, claiming that she could not get a fair trial (regardless of how valid or otherwise such an excuse is).

Not McDowell's first massive lapse in judgement I'll grant you but baffling nevertheless

everlast75

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

In an interview in the Sunday Independent, the politician says she now wants to "draw a line in the sand" on the issue and concentrate on representing her constituency in the Dail.

"As far as I am concerned this matter is now closed," she said.

I can’t get over the neck on her. The matter is far from closed, she lodged a fraudulent claim for compensation and questions have to be answered. I hope there are a few dogged journalists who pursue this case.

I would be delighted if the judge refused to allow her to withdraw the case and made her appear in court and explain the lies she told.

She deserves to be sacked immediately!

You are now required by law to swear to the truth of any Court pleading.

The implications for lying under oath therefore are quite serious.

Your claim can be dismissed and you could be prosecuted. The latter is rarely enforced so it's unlikely here.

I'd say her legal team were blindsided by the revelations of her running etc and advised her to drop the case.

The liability for the Defendants costs are her's to pay.

Her own solicitor and experts will probably want paying too.

Good enough for her.

dubrov

McDowell has seen fit that she won't pay a penny to cover legal costs. The taxpayer will take care of that.

golfball37

dubrov wrote: »

McDowell has seen fit that she won't pay a penny to cover legal costs. The taxpayer will take care of that.

His intervention was before the lies came out in fairness to him.

abff

JPCN1 wrote: »

Nah, Leo it's not a private matter. Very weak effort 1/10.

He has just lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. How can he complain about the threat posed to small businesses by fraudulent insurance claims and then turn a blind eye to a prime example of exactly what he was talking about? Pathetic!

uck51js9zml2yt

everlast75 wrote: »

You are now required by law to swear to the truth of any Court pleading.
.

You don't!!

You can affirm.

Eggs For Dinner

Edgware wrote: »

Hopefully the hotel will stick her for a good few thousand in legal costs

Their insurers would have borne all the legal costs from the moment it was reported to them. The option to recover costs is theirs to take should they decide to

abff

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

She has withdrawn her claim. She was entitled to make it. She was entitled to withdraw it. The law is the same for everyone. If it has weaknesses, legislation should rectify it. The were some inadvertent errors in her submission - that happens at times, even with the best care and will in the world. Don't read too much into that.
The press hounding and jump to conclusions was very stressful - and people should consider how they have contributed to someone having to reverse on their legal rights as a result.
As Maria says, the matter is now closed. No further comment will be made.

Are you for real? As a holder of public office, she should be held to a higher standard of behaviour than members of the general public.

Instead she exaggerated the extent of her injuries and told outright lies about not being able to run for three months, clearly forgetting that there was clear public evidence that this was untrue. How could an error of this magnitude be "inadvertent"?

And I'm sorry, but publishing a photo that demonstrates that her affidavit was untrue does not constitute "press hounding". Nor does someone deciding to withdraw a case that has been proved beyond doubt to be, at the very least, exaggerated to a ridiculous extent constitute having to "reverse on their legal rights".

Eggs For Dinner

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

As Maria says, the matter is now closed. No further comment will be made.

Ah, it's Maria now is it? Explains a lot

McMurphy

everlast75 wrote: »

Separate and equally valid is the point that McDowell should have known better than to stand up and make comments on an ongoing case. For a former Minister for Justice and current SC, it's an appalling lack of judgement

Someone was drip feeding the indo (a fcuking rag btw, but I do admire the hard on they appear to have for insurance fraudsters) so don't be surprised if McDowell knew the craic.

Calling it out for what it was, no complaints from this poster.


Insurance fraud affects us all.

boombang

The Rape of Lucretia's comments on this are as deluded as Maria Bailey's sense of entitlement or Leo's lack of judgement to make her walk the plank.

Shefwedfan

Hopefully the hotel can get every penny of the 20k plus more out of her

It has to stop with dodgy claims and then pack up and head off if they don’t get paid....make it too high risk for the dodgy ones

Clean her out

Happy4all

She only wanted the hotel to pay her €7k medical bill!!

She still doesn't get it. Wanted someone else to pay for her own negligence on a swing.

blinding

abff wrote: »

He has just lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. How can he complain about the threat posed to small businesses by fraudulent insurance claims and then turn a blind eye to a prime example of exactly what he was talking about? Pathetic!

Leo is a Show pony .

All style and No substance .

Blinkers Off folks !

boombang

dubrov wrote: »

McDowell has seen fit that she won't pay a penny to cover legal costs. The taxpayer will take care of that.

Are you saying because McDowell made prejudicial (though totally will founded) comments that Maria Bailey will be able to get her legal costs paid by the public? If this is true how does this work?

Happy4all

abff wrote: »

He has just lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. How can he complain about the threat posed to small businesses by fraudulent insurance claims and then turn a blind eye to a prime example of exactly what he was talking about? Pathetic!

Maybe it sounds small minded, but I was so annoyed with the lack if any condemnation from FG on this matter and the blasé response to the children's hospital cost overspend, that I blanked them on the ballot papers. Maybe time for Leo to spend less time in the gym preening himself and actually show some leadership.

suicide_circus

i would encourage everyone to stick with this case (its too important to be allowed fizzle out) but also to moderate your tone and play the ball not the man otherwise as sure as eggs is eggs she will be in the paper crying about internet trolls

smurgen

She's on the front of the Sunday indo claiming she just wanted her 7k medical bills paid,yet her claim was for 53000 more.she's lying again.

angel eyes 2012

abff wrote: »

Are you for real? As a holder of public office, she should be held to a higher standard of behaviour than members of the general public.

Instead she exaggerated the extent of her injuries and told outright lies about not being able to run for three months, clearly forgetting that there was clear public evidence that this was untrue. How could an error of this magnitude be "inadvertent"?

And I'm sorry, but publishing a photo that demonstrates that her affidavit was untrue does not constitute "press hounding". Nor does someone deciding to withdraw a case that has been proved beyond doubt to be, at the very least, exaggerated to a ridiculous extent constitute having to "reverse on their legal rights".

I am totally in agreement and fair play to the Indo for publishing the story, which was entirely in the public interest. If there are any other TDs with existing claims they should be making a quiet phone call to their solictor in the morning instructing them to withdraw the claim.

I still can't get over how brazen or at best, completely deluded this woman was. Just because there is an "entitlement" to something, doesn't mean that you have to draw down that entitlement. Ms. Bailey saw this opportunity as an easy payday and demonstrated extremely poor judgement for a sitting TD. The revelations from yesterday that she returned to running a number of weeks after the incident shows her complete lack of integrity and only proves why so many people are disillusioned with the calibre of public representatives that we have.

Shefwedfan

Happy4all wrote: »

Maybe it sounds small minded, but I was so annoyed with the lack if any condemnation from FG on this matter and the blasé response to the children's hospital cost overspend, that I blanked them on the ballot papers. Maybe time for Leo to spend less time in the gym preening himself and actually show some leadership.

At the rate Leo is going he will end up been one of the worst Taoiseach Ireland ever had

He has achieved nothing so far, his big plays, children hospital and broadband, are a disaster. FG have done nothing since they got into power

Even the green agenda he is supposed to have he chickened out of at last budget when he had the chance to make a statement. He has been absolutely useless.

They have failed to fix homeles crisis and businesses are going bust everyday because of insurance he promised to fix

blinding

smurgen wrote: »

She's on the front of the Sunday indo claiming she just wanted her 7k medical bills paid,yet her claim was for 53000 more.she's lying again.

Yer wan and the Truth would be Strangers and very unlikely ever to meet .

suicide_circus

Leo's only wins have been no brainer social referenda that would have passed no matter what

FFred

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

What was that one for?

You know the big inflatable emergency slide on the plane? She fell off that because there were no instructions on how to use it.

CiarraiAbu2

smurgen wrote: »

She's on the front of the Sunday indo claiming she just wanted her 7k medical bills paid,yet her claim was for 53000 more.she's lying again.

Wouldn't her insurance have covered her medical bills, any balance she could off her taxes at 20%. I wonder how much her legal fees were?

Tell me how

suicide_circus wrote: »

i would encourage everyone to stick with this case (its too important to be allowed fizzle out) but also to moderate your tone and play the ball not the man otherwise as sure as eggs is eggs she will be in the paper crying about internet trolls

Is it really? It was a chancer with zero morals who has gotten found out but in the greater scheme of things, what do you think will happen? Rule changes? Eviction from the party?
RTE did a program on 3 councillors who were offering their services for money and all 3 look set to be returned...

People should be focusing on the likes of that or any of the national topics which deserve serious attention rather than getting invested in something like this.

Shefwedfan

The only reason she had 7k medical bills was because she thought she would end up with 60k....

Any of the “specialist” will write a nice story while getting paid a good fee....if she wasn’t sueing I’m sure the medical fee would be nowhere near 7k

As I said I hope the hotel clears her out now