Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

Fann Linn

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Lisa is another female politician that has received torrents of abuse from online e-gurriers, mostly related to her gender and the fact that she was pregnant. So it's not surprising that she has sympathy with Maria.

Was that the wan who was voting while her mates weren't even in the Dail?

You keep backing losers Paddy. Do you want to buy a tower in Paris btw?

ohnonotgmail

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Lisa is another female politician that has received torrents of abuse from online e-gurriers, mostly related to her gender and the fact that she was pregnant. So it's not surprising that she has sympathy with Maria.

any abuse bailey has received is because she is an arm-chancing ghoul with a brass neck.

McMurphy

I for one am glad I've never dished out criticism to a male politician, therefore really compounding the misogynistic accusations levelled in here.

Guilty as charged here.

Curse These Metal Hands

Her attempt on Twitter at being a spokesperson for online abuse is particularly vomit inducing.

gmisk

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Lisa is another female politician that has received torrents of abuse from online e-gurriers, mostly related to her gender and the fact that she was pregnant. So it's not surprising that she has sympathy with Maria.

I have not seen any abuse related to the fact she is a woman or that she was pregnant.
I have seen some related to the below
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fine-gael-complains-over-voting-by-fianna-f%C3%A1il-s-lisa-chambers-1.4117271

Seems entirely deserved imo

gmisk

Fann Linn wrote: »

Was that the wan who was voting while her mates weren't even in the Dail?

You keep backing losers Paddy. Do you want to buy a tower in Paris btw?

Yep...on multiple occasions as well

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fine-gael-complains-over-voting-by-fianna-f%C3%A1il-s-lisa-chambers-1.4117271

No again Danni

Whatever about her or what she did, what she's saying here is that the online and media abuse she received was too much for her. She's comparing herself to Caroline Flack.

This isn't a new thing and it's not just celebrities effected either.

You see it all the time online, facebook, boards, twitter. People are just desperate for gossip, scandal, scape goats - just to have something to talk about or argue about online.

Some of the vitriol online is disgraceful and something needs to be done about it.

McFly85

Was actually shocked that she did the article in the indo. Still playing the victim and saying she dropped the case due to online abuse.

There were very simple questions about her case that she refused, and still refuses to answer, in particular: can she explain how the dean hotel was negligent?

I would imagine she wants to get back into politics and frame herself as some sort of champion for fighting against online abuse. She should never be allowed forget that she brought the end of her career completely on herself.

A despicable woman using the fallout from her own attempt at fraud as a vehicle to relaunch her career. It’s shameless.

beakerjoe

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Lisa is another female politician that has received torrents of abuse from online e-gurriers, mostly related to her gender and the fact that she was pregnant. So it's not surprising that she has sympathy with Maria.

Can I ask, whats your opinion on the claim she made against the hotel?

Do you believe she was right to sue the hotel?

Life in general is full of a$$holes, does she (and every public figure) get undeserved abuse? Yes, its a sad part of the internet.

No one in here is giving her abuse, and no one on here is giving her abuse based on her being a woman.

Whats happening here is, and rightly so, she is being judged on her impeccably bad choices she has made.

1. Trying to sue a hotel for damages that were caused solely by her own bad judgment.

2. Hopelessly trying to justify her reasons for taking legal action.

3. Comparing herself to Caroline Flack in a vain attempt to attract sympathy.

Shes not a nice human and she is rightly being lambasted for her actions.

You reap what you sow.

But not one person in her is jumping on her because of her gender.

Montage of Feck

The well troden road to "celebraty" leads to a cookbook and/or mental health advocate after the initial 15 minutes are up.

beakerjoe

No again Danni wrote: »

You see it all the time online, facebook, boards, twitter. People are just desperate for gossip, scandal, scape goats - just to have something to talk about or argue about online.

I have not seen anything unfair in this thread.

Men and women both calling her on her actions, not her gender.

She made horrible choices, trying to pull a fast one and has been rightly called on it.

No abuse on boards that I can see.

Rothko

beakerjoe wrote: »

Can I ask, whats your opinion on the claim she made against the hotel?

Do you believe she was right to sue the hotel?

Life in general is full of a$$holes, does she (and every public figure) get undeserved abuse? Yes, its a sad part of the internet.

No one in here is giving her abuse, and no one on here is giving her abuse based on her being a woman.

Whats happening here is, and rightly so, she is being judged on her impeccably bad choices she has made.

1. Trying to sue a hotel for damages that were caused solely by her own bad judgment.

2. Hopelessly trying to justify her reasons for taking legal action.

3. Comparing herself to Caroline Flack in a vain attempt to attract sympathy.

Shes not a nice human and she is rightly being lambasted for her actions.

You reap what you sow.

But not one person in her is jumping on her because of her gender.

You won't get an answer

McCrack

I listened again to that car crash interview with Sean O'Rourke.

She said she only wanted her medical expenses paid and at the same time she said the hotel offered to reimburse her them. She also admitted to having private health insurance which would cover most if not all her medical expenses.

Clearly she took a circuit court case for general damages (compensation) plus whatever medical expenses she had - I mean to say otherwise is clearly lying.

But what caught her out was the exaggeration of the injuries and its effects and that her social media account tripped her up with the 10k race she ran three weeks after the fall off the swing.

The fact she dropped the case speaks volumes really

jmreire

No again Danni wrote: »

Whatever about her or what she did, what she's saying here is that the online and media abuse she received was too much for her. She's comparing herself to Caroline Flack.

This isn't a new thing and it's not just celebrities effected either.

You see it all the time online, facebook, boards, twitter. People are just desperate for gossip, scandal, scape goats - just to have something to talk about or argue about online.

Some of the vitriol online is disgraceful and something needs to be done about it.

And something needs to be done about insurance scammers shutting down businesses and people losing their jobs as a result. Now that's something that is really discracefull,,,I know where my sympathy lies.

McFly85

No again Danni wrote: »

Whatever about her or what she did, what she's saying here is that the online and media abuse she received was too much for her. She's comparing herself to Caroline Flack.

This isn't a new thing and it's not just celebrities effected either.

You see it all the time online, facebook, boards, twitter. People are just desperate for gossip, scandal, scape goats - just to have something to talk about or argue about online.

Some of the vitriol online is disgraceful and something needs to be done about it.

Some of the abuse she gets is definitely over the top - but I think she is complaining that there are any opinions or comments about her that could be perceived as negative.

She specifically mentions "there were Halloween costumes". So what? There's nothing abusive about someone dressing up as her with a swing. She's certainly being ridiculed alright but she's a public figure, and she should know that if the public think anything she does is ridiculous then she will probably be ridiculed.

For someone from a family in politics, she seems remarkably thin-skinned.

happyoutscan

Her neck is too thick to be bothered about anything being said.

It's all about ego. Absolutely nothing more.

Penn

happyoutscan wrote: »

Her neck is too thick to be bothered about anything being said.

It's all about ego. Absolutely nothing more.

The last line of her interview says it all. That she wouldn't rule out a return to politics in the future.

That's ultimately what it's all about. Like many others whose parents were politicians, they see these seats as their birthright. They're entitled to them.

beakerjoe

Penn wrote: »

The last line of her interview says it all. That she wouldn't rule out a return to politics in the future.

That's ultimately what it's all about. Like many others whose parents were politicians, they see these seats as their birthright. They're entitled to them.

Ill gladly put up posters reminding the public of her swing-gate shenanigans if she ever attempts to run for government again.

Ireland needs less of people like her running the country

James Brown

No again Danni wrote: »

Whatever about her or what she did, what she's saying here is that the online and media abuse she received was too much for her. She's comparing herself to Caroline Flack.

This isn't a new thing and it's not just celebrities effected either.

You see it all the time online, facebook, boards, twitter. People are just desperate for gossip, scandal, scape goats - just to have something to talk about or argue about online.

Some of the vitriol online is disgraceful and something needs to be done about it.

She is from a party blamed the public making frivolous claims for rising insurance prices, rather than reel in the insurance companies. Then she attempted to carry out a fraud. Then she doubled down in a car crash interview, not an Alan Farrell car crash, a real bruiser. Then she, in FG fashion, used a dead woman to try put herself in a sympathetic light.
I believe she deserves some scorn.

No again Danni

James Brown wrote: »

She is from a party blamed the public making frivolous claims for rising insurance prices, rather than reel in the insurance companies. Then she attempted to carry out a fraud. Then she doubled down in a car crash interview, not an Alan Farrell car crash, a real bruiser. Then she, in FG fashion, used a dead woman to try put herself in a sympathetic light.
I believe she deserves some scorn.

I don't agree with her politics or her actions.

I am saying that when I read comments about her online here, on facebook, twitter etc when it happened that I even said to myself - these things are going too far.

She lost her job over it. She was made an example of. This idea of deserving 'scorn' and that meaning every Tom, Dick and Harry weighing in online with their morally righteous opinion to the extent of obsession and harassment towards her is extreme.

Before the media would inform the public and there would be a backlash but now you're talking about thousands of angry and abusive and sometimes seemingly obsessive opinions being communicated to a person. No paper or media outlet would tell someone directly that they should go 'jump off a cliff'.

Whatever her intentions are for bringing this up, she is justified in saying that the abuse she received over this was too much because it was.

James Brown

No again Danni wrote: »

I don't agree with her politics or her actions.

I am saying that when I read comments about her online here, on facebook, twitter etc when it happened that I even said to myself - these things are going too far.

She lost her job over it. She was made an example of. This idea of deserving 'scorn' and that meaning every Tom, Dick and Harry weighing in online with their morally righteous opinion to the extent of obsession and harassment towards her is extreme.

Before the media would inform the public and there would be a backlash but now you're talking about thousands of angry and abusive and sometimes seemingly obsessive opinions being communicated to a person. No paper or media outlet would tell someone directly that they should go 'jump off a cliff'.

Whatever her intentions are for bringing this up, she is justified in saying that the abuse she received over this was too much because it was.

How's she's taking it is personal and can't nor shouldn't be argued against. Only a complete scumbag would pretend and use such an issue for personal gain. I would give her the benefit of the doubt that she is genuine on this. However, using a dead woman to try garner sympathy is not acceptable IMO.
People always spoke as they do today, it's just in more public/online arenas.

Odyssey 2005

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

For old times sake
https://youtu.be/4uGBRN5bUkU

Sean. Sean. Sean. That is for a judge to adjudicate.

Never gets old.

beakerjoe

James Brown wrote: »

How's she's taking it is personal and can't nor shouldn't be argued against. Only a complete scumbag would pretend and use such an issue for personal gain. I would give her the benefit of the doubt that she is genuine on this. However, using a dead woman to try garner sympathy is not acceptable IMO.
People always spoke as they do today, it's just in more public/online arenas.

Twitter/Reddit/Facebook is the worst. Is it right that morons get to have free reign what what they say? No of course not.

She still gets zero sympathy from me, mainly whether its right or wrong, its all her own doing. Drawing comparisons with herself and Flack is shameful.

And I hardly believe she got the same level of abuse Flack got.

BENDYBINN

If she had drink taken and was holding more drink in her hand as she fell off the swing then why did she try to sue the pub?

McFly85

No again Danni wrote: »

I don't agree with her politics or her actions.

I am saying that when I read comments about her online here, on facebook, twitter etc when it happened that I even said to myself - these things are going too far.

She lost her job over it. She was made an example of. This idea of deserving 'scorn' and that meaning every Tom, Dick and Harry weighing in online with their morally righteous opinion to the extent of obsession and harassment towards her is extreme.

Before the media would inform the public and there would be a backlash but now you're talking about thousands of angry and abusive and sometimes seemingly obsessive opinions being communicated to a person. No paper or media outlet would tell someone directly that they should go 'jump off a cliff'.

Whatever her intentions are for bringing this up, she is justified in saying that the abuse she received over this was too much because it was.

I think most people agree that it was correct that she lost her job considering she couldn't reasonably explain the case to people(I would imagine going against the party by going on radio didn't help though). I suspect however she thinks it's unfair as she doesn't rule out a return to politics.

Also, between the radio interview back then and the Daily Star interview now, she's basically trying to use the media to control the narrative. She wants people to talk about her, but on her terms only. Social media is the enemy, I am a victim etc. If she genuinely wants to move on, she is going to have to answer questions she doesn't want to answer.

Penn

No again Danni wrote: »

I don't agree with her politics or her actions.

I am saying that when I read comments about her online here, on facebook, twitter etc when it happened that I even said to myself - these things are going too far.

She lost her job over it. She was made an example of. This idea of deserving 'scorn' and that meaning every Tom, Dick and Harry weighing in online with their morally righteous opinion to the extent of obsession and harassment towards her is extreme.

Before the media would inform the public and there would be a backlash but now you're talking about thousands of angry and abusive and sometimes seemingly obsessive opinions being communicated to a person. No paper or media outlet would tell someone directly that they should go 'jump off a cliff'.

Whatever her intentions are for bringing this up, she is justified in saying that the abuse she received over this was too much because it was.

The issue is conflating abuse with criticism/mockery. I would fully agree that she probably did receive a lot of abuse that went above and beyond what should be acceptable, and that shouldn't be tolerated.

But as is often the case, people try to use the most extreme examples of such abuse and throwing all criticism/mockery/jokes under that umbrella. Someone telling her to her face to jump off a cliff is not acceptable. Someone making her the subject of a Halloween costume (not to her face), I'd say that's entirely fair game.

Even here, none of us are emailing what we're saying here to her, or printing out our posts and shoving them through her letterbox. I wouldnt call her names in the street to her face. But I'll call her a deceptive, lying scumbag here no problem, because that's my opinion of her based on her actions.

Ultimately, there's a difference between a victim, and someone playing the victim. She's using the more extreme examples of abuse to play the victim, but she was not the victim in what happened. The hotel was nearly the victim by having to pay the medical bills of someone who fell off a swing because she'd had a drink and was holding bottles in both hands, and whose court submission contained falsehoods regarding the extent of her injuries.

No again Danni

James Brown wrote: »

How's she's taking it is personal and can't nor shouldn't be argued against. Only a complete scumbag would pretend and use such an issue for personal gain. I would give her the benefit of the doubt that she is genuine on this. However, using a dead woman to try garner sympathy is not acceptable IMO.
People always spoke as they do today, it's just in more public/online arenas.

It's completely public these days. Years ago you'd read the news and maybe make a comment to your family, friends etc about it. I have no doubt people would say the things they said online about her but in privacy. She wouldn't hear or read that and wouldn't hear it repetitively for months on end thousands of times from different individuals. Also she said she was contacted directly!!

These things online encourage hateful obsessive over the top behaviors where people get locked into a debate/argument that realistically they wouldn't have been that passionate about otherwise or if they were that interested, they would have taken more constructive actions about it like using their vote better etc.

Caroline Flack was arrested for assault which was part of the knock on effect that led to her tragic circumstances. She lost her job temporarily and was saying that she couldn't handle the constant public scrutiny. I can see why she'd make that comparison.

Maria Bailey is justified in saying that she felt abused and fearful by the reactions she was getting. I would imagine that she did.

No again Danni

McFly85 wrote: »

I think most people agree that it was correct that she lost her job considering she couldn't reasonably explain the case to people(I would imagine going against the party by going on radio didn't help though). I suspect however she thinks it's unfair as she doesn't rule out a return to politics.

Also, between the radio interview back then and the Daily Star interview now, she's basically trying to use the media to control the narrative. She wants people to talk about her, but on her terms only. Social media is the enemy, I am a victim etc. If she genuinely wants to move on, she is going to have to answer questions she doesn't want to answer.

I agree, she deserved to lose her job.

The thing is, you can be guilty of one thing and also be a victim of another thing.

BENDYBINN

No again Danni wrote: »

I agree, she deserved to lose her job.

The thing is, you can be guilty of one thing and also be a victim of another thing.

It’s called..........backfired!

ohnonotgmail

No again Danni wrote: »

It's completely public these days. Years ago you'd read the news and maybe make a comment to your family, friends etc about it. I have no doubt people would say the things they said online about her but in privacy. She wouldn't hear or read that and wouldn't hear it repetitively for months on end thousands of times from different individuals. Also she said she was contacted directly!!

These things online encourage hateful obsessive over the top behaviors where people get locked into a debate/argument that realistically they wouldn't have been that passionate about otherwise or if they were that interested, they would have taken more constructive actions about it like using their vote better etc.

Caroline Flack was arrested for assault which was part of the knock on effect that led to her tragic circumstances. She lost her job temporarily and was saying that she couldn't handle the constant public scrutiny. I can see why she'd make that comparison.

Maria Bailey is justified in saying that she felt abused and fearful by the reactions she was getting. I would imagine that she did.

she received a lot of criticism, all of it justified. She mad a fool of herself and then doubled down with her interview with SOR. some people went as far as personal abuse online but that is part of politics. grow a thicker skin. though having said that the skin on her neck is as thick as the proverbial jockeys balls. the comparison with flack is nonsense. she didn't anything on that level. not even close. and now she decides to drag it all up again. she thinks she is deserving of sympathy. she isn't.