Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

cj maxx

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You might be giddy, but the image in your mind is a fiction. And this is the problem here with fact and fabrication being freely mixed - she was NOT drunk. She had one glass of wine earlier, and had not drunk anything in The Dean. But dont let that get in the way of a good laugh if you dont care about being fair.

Don’t worry I won’t !

mikemac2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

If she was in Kerry, Tipperary, etc, she'd top the poll at the next election. Dublin media out to get us and all that nonsense. There's no such thing as bad publicity in places like that and she'd be a legend down there by now.

Unlucky for her, she's in Dun Laoghaire!

Liam Lawlor? Ray Burke? GV Wright was drink driving and knocked down a pedestrian and remained a TD for 4 years until he retired.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh claimed €50,000 for printer cartridges and was re-elected by the good people of Dublin South Central.

Everyone of them did far worse than Maria Bailey ^^^

But sure Tipperary and Kerry voters are yahoos

Tom1991

Tom1991 wrote: »

Short memories people have.After what the father got away with for years you would think she’d have no chance getting in the first place.same for the other disgraced family names. Unfortunately this is just how the game works and will never change.
People play to their audience and as soon as they are elected it’s poof see you next term.

But now the woman isn’t plausible at all, nor has she charm like some of the cute hoors beloved of the Irish electorate. They gave a “south Dubliner” a chance; familiar name but different person, am attractive woman typical of their own well-groomed selves. They didn’t really know that much about her or how her mind works, or how utterly egotistical she is to the exclusion of good sense.

Snow Garden

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You might be giddy, but the image in your mind is a fiction. And this is the problem here with fact and fabrication being freely mixed - she was NOT drunk. She had one glass of wine earlier, and had not drunk anything in The Dean. But dont let that get in the way of a good laugh if you dont care about being fair.

Yeah yeah she claimed she wasn't able to run for 3 months either.

She claimed to have had trouble moving and sitting after the 'accident' and yet went to a festival within a week.

She sued for medical costs plus personal injury, loss, damage and inconvenience, potentially netting up to €60,000.

The claim omitted mention of her holding bottles while on the swing.

She complained that the swing was 'unsupervised'.

She declined to explain why the hotel was at fault. “I’m not a legal person.”

She is not trustworthy. In fact she is a liar.

InTheShadows

This is all people are talking about in my workplace. Think this has really hit a nerve and has the potential to bring the government down.

dublin99

BENDYBINN wrote: »

And if that wasn’t bad enough,a govt minister advising her on how to get 60 grand for her trouble!!

Don't forget the minister's family law firm representing her (where she practised before her elevation and where her brother is the partner) will also get a decent whack of money as insurers normally pay the plaintiff's legal fees as well as part of the settlement....

Sometimes the legal fees can stack up if case is drawn out and on occasions can even be higher than the award!

ArrBee

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You might be giddy, but the image in your mind is a fiction. And this is the problem here with fact and fabrication being freely mixed - she was NOT drunk. She had one glass of wine earlier, and had not drunk anything in The Dean. But dont let that get in the way of a good laugh if you dont care about being fair.

Didn't realise you were there with her.
What else can you tell us about that night?

The Rape of Lucretia

Snow Garden wrote: »

She complained that complained that the swing was 'unsupervised'.

Have you information or evidence to the contrary ? I dont think The Dean makes any claim that it is supervised.

Stop moaning ffs

Jaysis the FG spinbots aren’t half obvious on boards are they?

Idbatterim

Fcuking laughable. Mb takes the piss with a fraudulent claim , everyone loses their minds. Varadkar presides over multiple scandals , and all is fine and dandy. That rat and his party, will cost myself and my mates , a hell of a lot more than the sixty thousand each , in rip off rents and house prices !

Roger Hassenforder

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Ps does anyone know if the story about her suing Aer Lingus for €160k is actually true?

Ive heard it from a few different sources.

storker

According to herself in that interview, MB is so concerned with being fair, dealing straight and being honest that it's a wonder Sean O'Rourke retinas weren't damaged by the shine from her halo. Unfortunately, it came across like a used car salesman who goes on and on about how honest he is...

ohnonotgmail

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Have you information or evidence to the contrary ? I dont think The Dean makes any claim that it is supervised.

It doesn't because there should be no requirement for an adult to be supervised on a swing. Your FG friend thinks otherwise and made that part of the basis for her claim.

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You might be giddy, but the image in your mind is a fiction. And this is the problem here with fact and fabrication being freely mixed - she was NOT drunk. She had one glass of wine earlier, and had not drunk anything in The Dean. But dont let that get in the way of a good laugh if you dont care about being fair.

She had not drunk anything in the Dean, for sure?? she had a bottle of Wine or Beer, which is as yet uncertain as to the grain or grape issue!! and you're 100% sure beyond reasonable doubt, she drank nothing??

By deed poll you need to change your name to Derek Acorah, some shyte you're peddling for the sake of peddling shyte!

on supervision, anyone can fall of a toilet pot, but we trust that their capable after potty training don't we. If as you say, she wasn't drunk, then chances are she'd have a follow up suit for not being supervised to go POTTY!!! something a child can do after a few years

DelaneyIn

daithi7 wrote: »

This is an unholy can of worms for fg :

IF Josepha Madigan was the other person at the hotel on that fateful Friday night, as seems likely,

AND IF, Josepha Madigan was Bailey's lawyer in this attempted fraud, then she played an active part in attempted fraud, and she should be in deep do do
...

The fact that she is now a government minister will effectively mean that this could become an existential issue for this government....

Why does it seem likely that Josepha Madigan was with her in the hotel? Didn’t hear anything about that.

They’re both goosed if that comes out!

Wheeliebin30

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’ve got a creeping feeling it could possibly bring the government down and result in a general election, with the other major party grabbing hold along with Greens and others.

Oh yes, FF with the greens, what could possibly go wrong ay:)

Stop moaning ffs

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Oh yes, FF with the greens, what could possibly go wrong ay:)

A break from FG and their corporate overlords would be nice though

listermint

Idbatterim wrote: »

Fcuking laughable. Mb takes the piss with a fraudulent claim , everyone loses their minds. Varadkar presides over multiple scandals , and all is fine and dandy. That rat and his party, will cost myself and my mates , a hell of a lot more than the sixty thousand each , in rip off rents and house prices !

Ive no love for FG, never had. I used to constantly give out about Enda.

But calling people 'Rats' does nothing for your case. By all means slate people on their results and their form in politics.

But you constantly role out that term and everytime i see it, i think less of your point. Its idiotic.

weldoninhio

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You might be giddy, but the image in your mind is a fiction. And this is the problem here with fact and fabrication being freely mixed - she was NOT drunk. She had one glass of wine earlier, and had not drunk anything in The Dean. But dont let that get in the way of a good laugh if you dont care about being fair.

Yes, and she couldn't run for three months or stand or sit for long periods. :rolleyes:

McMurphy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You might be giddy, but the image in your mind is a fiction. And this is the problem here with fact and fabrication being freely mixed - she was NOT drunk. She had one glass of wine earlier, and had not drunk anything in The Dean. But dont let that get in the way of a good laugh if you dont care about being fair.

How do you know this to be true ?

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Have you information or evidence to the contrary ? I dont think The Dean makes any claim that it is supervised.

TROL, one of the contentions made by Bailey and her Lawyer was that the swing SHOULD have been supervised (presumably so that the staff member present could have told her not to sit on it without two free hands).

The_Kew_Tour

Feel sorry for her.

For years she been thinking that there is a Offside rule in GAA.

Someone needs to tell her.

joeysoap

Josepha Madigan would say Mass.

BattleCorp

DelaneyIn wrote: »

Why does it seem likely that Josepha Madigan was with her in the hotel? Didn’t hear anything about that.

They’re both goosed if that comes out!

No fan of FG or of Josepha Madigan or that Bailey wan but why would she be goosed if she was with Bailey at the hotel? What's wrong with that?

JeffKenna

BattleCorp wrote: »

No fan of FG or of Josepha Madigan or that Bailey wan but why would she be goosed if she was with Bailey at the hotel? What's wrong with that?

Because she was a witness to the fall and subsequently advised her to lie about it...

ToBeFrank123

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Feel sorry for her.

For years she been thinking that there is a Offside rule in GAA.

Someone needs to tell her.

Yeh, she should have said "I'd never be in the square before the ball" or something like that.

Suckit

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You might be giddy, but the image in your mind is a fiction. And this is the problem here with fact and fabrication being freely mixed - she was NOT drunk. She had one glass of wine earlier, and had not drunk anything in The Dean. But dont let that get in the way of a good laugh if you dont care about being fair.

Allegedly.


It's worth pointing out that she also said she couldn't run for 3 months...

McMurphy

InTheShadows wrote: »

This is all people are talking about in my workplace. Think this has really hit a nerve and has the potential to bring the government down.

You wouldn't happen to work in Barrack Obama Plaza by any chance?

True story, i stopped there to put diesel in the car, and coffee in the belly earlier, a member of the cleaning staff was mopping the floor in the corridors leading to the toilets.

I tiptoes in my hobnails towards the men's, made s remark about not wanting to ruin her good work, or worse than that - slip.

She answered me with "you're grand luv, the swings are out in the soft play area".

banie01

BattleCorp wrote: »

No fan of FG or of Josepha Madigan or that Bailey wan but why would she be goosed if she was with Bailey at the hotel? What's wrong with that?

If Madigan was present during the "accident" and advised Bailey she had a winnable case...
It is surely obvious that she would have known both the circumstances of the accident, and as they were socialising together and work together, the actual impact of any injury and resulting limitations on Ms Bailey, would have been 1st hand knowledge to Ms Madigan and distinctly at odds with the affidavit submitted as part of the claim.

Ms Bailey has claimed the claim was made reliant upon legal advice.
If that legal advice was offered by a current minister who was present at the scene.
It leads to serious and valid concerns regarding credibility and trustworthiness.
It's bad enough that her firm took the instruction IMO with no regard for the actual optics of the situation.

BattleCorp

JeffKenna wrote: »

Because she was a witness to the fall and subsequently advised her to lie about it...

That's a bit presumptuous. How do you know she witnessed it, even if she was there? She could have been in the jacks/looking the other way etc. How do you know she advised her to lie about it?

You can't do 'guilt by association' just because Madigan was there.