Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

People are perfectly free to criticise her but after a while, if that criticism is daily, week after week, month after month, are you telling me that that is coming from a genuine place of civic duty holding politicians to account or something deeper, more sinister and unconscious? That is where it turns into abuse.

The thread restarted when she was reported as declaring herself “seriously injured”.

There’s a deliberate attempt to put what is normal political criticism in the same category as the abuse. It’s a generalised ad hominem.

Don’t see the point of it myself. It’s going to fool nobody but partisans.

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

Oh course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but there is plenty of studies that show, that the majority of abuse meted out online is from men

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-men-are-more-likely-to-be-internet-trolls-than-women-according-to-a-new-study-2017-9

Again, I am not defending her actions here, in fact, I never have, a part of this she brought on herself but I am drawing a line on the abuse she gets and still gets. It appears the level of abuse is up for debate apparently, where people think she deserves everything she gets including hatemail sent in the post....

Now if people want to defend that, then work away.

a part of this she brought on herself? only a part? was it her that made a claim for falsified injuries? was it her that went on the SOR show and embarrassed herself? was it her that brought this all back up again with another nonsense interview where she whinged that people had been mean to her?

markodaly

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So what say you to the Phil Hogan comparison? Or Barrey Cowen? These are examples from just the last year. Memed and roasted to oblivion, and rightly so.

Are we still talking about Barry Cowen in CA?
Are we still talking about Phil Hogan in CA?

No, yet here we are still talking about Maria Bailey. The original thread on her went to almost 10,000 posts over a 5 month period and was eventually closed by a mod, yet here we are with a new thread as if we need to rehash the same story from 2 years ago. Are you saying that her indiscretion warranted that level of attention over all these years?

To compare, this is the thread about Barry Cowen, who was an actual government minister and who got convicted of an actual crime, drink driving.
https://www.boards.ie/mobile/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058096175
A little over 3000 posts and the thread just died.

This is the one about Phil Hogan.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058106429
About 4400 posts and then it died.
Remember Phil Hogan was arguably Ireland's most important public official at time.

So we have two examples of a Senior Cabinet Minister and our EU Commisioner losing jobs because of a scandal, yet backbench nobody TD extracts way more than posts combined with the original thread shut by a mod, and you are telling me there is ZERO misogyny or sexism at play?
Come off it!

Just have a look at the regular posters, who were giving it their all, with an almost daily uptake and opining about this or that, for 5 months?

It is hard to quantity misogyny, granted but the abuse she got was just over the top and still people today want to have their say on it.

It is clear to me that women in the public service and eye have to put up with a lot more crap then the usual stuff was thrown about the place in politics.

It is self-evident, and the Maria Bailey thread is an example of that. Often the same posters giving it their all in that thread are often the same ones throwing in their voices to any thread to do with other women in politics, from Frances Fitzgerald to Helen McEntee, it is genuinely hard to think what their true motivation is here. They will of course deny it as much good as that is.

markodaly

beakerjoe wrote: »

Whos abused here? Ive seen nothing but fair criticism on here.

It goes like this..

"I am just criticising here (which is fair).."

But if that is day after day, week after week, month after month about the same person and the same topic, then is abuse. It is that simple.

Are you telling us that it is warranted to criticise her almost daily, weekly for 5 months, about the same thing?

salmocab

markodaly wrote: »

It goes like this..

"I am just criticising here (which is fair).."

But if that is day after day, week after week, month after month about the same person and the same topic, then is abuse. It is that simple.

Are you telling us that it is warranted to criticise her almost daily, weekly for 5 months, about the same thing?

Almost daily? This thread had all but died until she once again tried to play the victim last week. Even then if the likes of yourself didn’t come on calling people misogynists it would have once again fizzled out. The last few pages were nearly all about your claim.

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Are we still talking about Barry Cowen in CA?
Are we still talking about Phil Hogan in CA?

No, yet here we are still talking about Maria Bailey. The original thread on her went to almost 10,000 posts over a 5 month period and was eventually closed by a mod, yet here we are with a new thread as if we need to rehash the same story from 2 years ago. Are you saying that her indiscretion warranted that level of attention over all these years?

To compare, this is the thread about Barry Cowen, who was an actual government minister and who got convicted of an actual crime, drink driving.
https://www.boards.ie/mobile/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058096175
A little over 3000 posts and the thread just died.

This is the one about Phil Hogan.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058106429
About 4400 posts and then it died.
Remember Phil Hogan was arguably Ireland's most important public official at time.

So we have two examples of a Senior Cabinet Minister and our EU Commisioner losing jobs because of a scandal, yet backbench nobody TD extracts way more than posts combined with the original thread shut by a mod, and you are telling me there is ZERO misogyny or sexism at play?
Come off it!

Just have a look at the regular posters, who were giving it their all, with an almost daily uptake and opining about this or that, for 5 months?

It is hard to quantity misogyny, granted but the abuse she got was just over the top and still people today want to have their say on it.

It is clear to me that women in the public service and eye have to put up with a lot more crap then the usual stuff was thrown about the place in politics.

It is self-evident, and the Maria Bailey thread is an example of that. Often the same posters giving it their all in that thread are often the same ones throwing in their voices to any thread to do with other women in politics, from Frances Fitzgerald to Helen McEntee, it is genuinely hard to think what their true motivation is here. They will of course deny it as much good as that is.

Get off it, she was forgotten about until she climbed out from the rock of shame she's been hiding behind for a full year hoping people just forget about her brazen attempt at insurance fraud!

punisher5112

I'm looking forward to her disappearance just like I hope the greens will......

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

It goes like this..

"I am just criticising here (which is fair).."

But if that is day after day, week after week, month after month about the same person and the same topic, then is abuse. It is that simple.

Are you telling us that it is warranted to criticise her almost daily, weekly for 5 months, about the same thing?

Mark you're clearly talking through your hat.

"Month after month, day after day" is unsubstantiated nonsense, and it's not like it can't be piss easily proved your talking through your hat either.



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=116373508

More than eight months of absolutely nothing about Maria Bailey, until Maria Bailey decided she wanted some more of the limelight and dipped her toe in the water to test if she might be able to return to fleecing the tax payer.

People then started discussing her reappearance in the current affairs forum again based on her reappearance, shock horror!

No-one is forcing you to contribute or even read the thread about FG insurance claims, no matter if they're questionable, and no matter if a FG minister was involved too.

It really is that simple.

smurgen

Muahahaha wrote: »

Im beginning to wonder if within the Fine Gael Manual for Online Debating (FGMOD) does there exist a rule that says 'When you are not able to debate the topic at hand then just tell everyone else that they are really misogynists/racists/homophobes and that they are really the problem'

Isnt this phenomena of FG posters throwing out the misogyny/racism/homophonbic accusations when they are unable to debate the topic at hand really just what the Americans call gaslighting and a recognised technique in psychological abuse?

Here is a definition of political gaslighting from the Medical News




I think the gaslighting on this thread is clear and obvious and it needs to be called out. How are we supposed to have a civil discussion on the matter when several Fine Gael posters in a row now are using gaslighting techniques to tell us all that we're wrong because we're really just angry white men who all hate women?

Fantastic post. It's a serious allegation in my opinion to call someone misogyny/racism/homophonbic. If someone was accusing me of such things in the real life I'd get legal advice. How it's tolerated so casually in here I've no idea.

Curse These Metal Hands

smurgen wrote: »

Fantastic post. It's a serious allegation in my opinion to call someone misogyny/racism/homophonbic. If someone was accusing me of such things in the real life I'd get legal advice. How it's tolerated so casually in here I've no idea.

It's either that or label someone as being a Shinner for expressing even mild disagreement with a member of FG.

zerosugarbuzz

markodaly wrote: »

It goes like this..

"I am just criticising here (which is fair).."

But if that is day after day, week after week, month after month about the same person and the same topic, then is abuse. It is that simple.

Are you telling us that it is warranted to criticise her almost daily, weekly for 5 months, about the same thing?

She is the one who keeps bringing it back up in the media. I actually think if a man had done the same thing he would have been given a harder time.!

Floppybits

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

It's either that or label someone as being a Shinner for expressing even mild disagreement with a member of FG.

Seems to be no middle ground anymore, it's either you are with us or against us. I don't know if this is a good tactic, maybe it was at the start of the decade when FF crashed the country but now this attitude is driving more people away from them than to them.

ArrBee

markodaly wrote: »

It goes like this..

"I am just criticising here (which is fair).."

But if that is day after day, week after week, month after month about the same person and the same topic, then is abuse. It is that simple.

Are you telling us that it is warranted to criticise her almost daily, weekly for 5 months, about the same thing?

You're certainly doing an excellent job of not letting it go away!

Is it party of your job to contribute to this thread?

banie01

McMurphy wrote: »

Mark you're clearly talking through your hat.

"Month after month, day after day" is unsubstantiated nonsense, and it's not like it can't be piss easily proved your talking through your hat either.



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=116373508

Almost eight months of nothing about Maria Bailey, until Maria Bailey decided she wanted some more of the limelight and dipped her toe in the water to test if she might be able to return to fleecing the tax payer.

No-one is forcing you to contribute or even read the thread about FG issuance claims, no matter if they're questionable, and no matter if a FG minister was involved too.

It really is that simple.

I had planned on posting similar after reading Mark's absolute bollox regarding the constant harassment of Maria...

But you beat me to it.
A fantastic post, and one that illustrates the absolute gaslighting nonsense being spewed by some on here.

From whataboutery to outright lying, some posters on here be they Fine Gael supporters or White knights are doing their argument zero benefit by relying on lies.

markodaly

salmocab wrote: »

Almost daily? This thread had all but died until she once again tried to play the victim last week.

And the other thread that was closed by a mod I guess was all above board too?

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

Mark you're clearly talking through your hat.

"Month after month, day after day" is unsubstantiated nonsense, and it's not like it can't be piss easily proved your talking through your hat either.

I'm talking about that other thread that was closed. There was no big gap in that thread.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

I'm talking about that other thread that was closed. There was no big gap in that thread.

That's because it was a constant talking point from when the story broke to her "being deleted" by fine gael on a Halloween evening, and on again until the general election, which was largely due to her not being willing to back Harris in a confidence motion.

This is all basic stuff mark.

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

That's because it was a constant talking point from when the story broke to her "being deleted" by fine gael on a Halloween evening, and on again until the general election, which was largely due to her not being willing to back Harris in a confidence motion.

This is all basic stuff mark.

So her story was worth more debate than the Phill Hogan and Barry Cowen scandal combined.

I do not think so. There was a reason why that original thread was closed by a mod, as the same stuff was just being rehashed again and again.

Edit: Also, that original thread was closed before Halloween and the election, so not sure what you are on about.

Dav010

markodaly wrote: »

So her story was worth more debate than the Phill Hogan and Barry Cowen scandal combined.

I do not think so. There was a reason why that original thread was closed by a mod, as the same stuff was just being rehashed again and again.

Edit: Also, that original thread was closed before Halloween and the election, so not sure what you are on about.

To be fair, if Phil Hogan started doing interviews saying the public misinterpreted the situation, don’t understand how wronged he was and that he didn’t deserve what he got, there would be quite a few posts on here that are less than complimentary.

There is only one person responsible for this story being resurrected, Ms Bailey.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

So her story was worth more debate than the Phill Hogan and Barry Cowen scandal combined.

I do not think so. There was a reason why that original thread was closed by a mod, as the same stuff was just being rehashed again and again.

Edit: Also, that original thread was closed before Halloween and the election, so not sure what you are on about.

Did Phil Hogan and Barry Cowen take part in symbolic radio and newspaper interviews claiming that they were in fact the victims in their own misfortunes?

Did either have a prominent govt minister responsible for giving them legal advice?

Did they go on for months digging their heels in insisting they did nothing wrong?

Did the Taoiseach of the country initiate a sham internal report on their actions that he claimed exonerated them and everyone else's role in their sagas, yet would not let anyone see it?

Did Hogan or Cowen eventually have to be "deleted" from standing for an election because their local branch insisted that they be deselected because of the negative publicity they were bringing on their party's?

I've lots more questions, but there's a couple to get you off your starting blocks.

Do you think mark it might be time to give it up, quit the virtue signalling, the faux misogynistic accusations, and just admit Bailey found herself in the shît because of Bailey's actions, and Leo's handling (or lack of) of her actions?

Sultan of Bling

Dav010 wrote:

To be fair, if Phil Hogan started doing interviews saying the public misinterpreted the situation, don’t understand how wronged he was and that he didn’t deserve what he got, there would be quite a few posts on here that are less than complimentary.

Don't forget bringing up Caroline Flack!!

beakerjoe

Dav010 wrote: »

To be fair, if Phil Hogan started doing interviews saying the public misinterpreted the situation, don’t understand how wronged he was and that he didn’t deserve what he got, there would be quite a few posts on here that are less than complimentary.

There is only one person responsible for this story being resurrected, Ms Bailey.

And her interviews are very recent. All fair game for discussion now.

The critisism is deserved. She stepped into the spotlight and doubled down on her claims.

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

Did Phil Hogan and Barry Cowen take part in symbolic radio and newspaper interviews claiming that they were in fact the victims in their own misfortunes?

Did either have a prominent govt minister responsible for giving them legal advice?

Did they go on for months digging their heels in insisting they did nothing wrong?

Did the Taoiseach of the country initiate a sham internal report on their actions that he claimed exonerated them and everyone else's role in their sagas, yet would not let anyone see it?

Did Hogan or Cowen eventually have to be "deleted" from standing for an election because their local branch insisted that they be deselected because of the negative publicity they were bringing on their party's?

I've lots more questions, but there's a couple there to get you off your starting blocks.

Alot of whataboutery there and double standards.

Barry Cowen and Phil Hogan have both given interviews after their respective scandals and we don't go on about them too much do we. Indeed Barry Cowen is still doing his work as a TD and you always hear him on the radio.

Maria Bailey does, two interviews, a year after the last election that primarily goes on about the hate mail she received in the post, including comments to go kill herself, yet she by your accounts, deserved that treatment and its her fault that she is being talked about again.

Tell us, if a public figure is getting online abuse and hate mail, should they just suck it up, or go public about it?
Would you say, James McClean deserve the abuse he gets or is it wrong, or perhaps he should just suck it up?

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

It goes like this..

"I am just criticising here (which is fair).."

But if that is day after day, week after week, month after month about the same person and the same topic, then is abuse. It is that simple.

Are you telling us that it is warranted to criticise her almost daily, weekly for 5 months, about the same thing?

As I said the thread resurrected when she re-appeared, of her own volition, on media, claiming victimhood again. And there are plenty of ongoing threads, there’s one dedicated to what Sinn Fein did today.

Trying to wrap a a right wing shyster politician in political correct armour is fooling nobody. It’s probably even antagonising FG supporters. I mean the core support of FG, the ones who wouldn’t vote any other way, is probably < 10%. I’ve voted FG with little enthusiasm and this nonsense boils my piss.

Y’all FG supporters, members or co- travellers would be far better off letting this die. But one of the reasons the thread continues is the increasingly deranged and pseudo political correct defense.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

Alot of whataboutery there and double standards.

Barry Cowen and Phil Hogan have both given interviews after their respective scandals and we don't go on about them too much do we. Indeed Barry Cowen is still doing his work as a TD and you always hear him on the radio.

Maria Bailey does, two interviews, a year after the last election that primarily goes on about the hate mail she received in the post, including comments to go kill herself, yet she by your accounts, deserved that treatment and its her fault that she is being talked about again.

Tell us, if a public figure is getting online abuse and hate mail, should they just suck it up, or go public about it?
Would you say, James McClean deserve the abuse he gets or is it wrong, or perhaps he should just suck it up?

Whataboutery?

You brought feckin Cowen and Hogan into the party marko, you did.

Jesus Christ of latter-day saints I'm cracking up here.

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Alot of whataboutery there and double standards.

Barry Cowen and Phil Hogan have both given interviews after their respective scandals and we don't go on about them too much do we. Indeed Barry Cowen is still doing his work as a TD and you always hear him on the radio.

Maria Bailey does, two interviews, a year after the last election that primarily goes on about the hate mail she received in the post, including comments to go kill herself, yet she by your accounts, deserved that treatment and its her fault that she is being talked about again.

You’ve accused the poster of supporting the hate mail? Where did he do that?

Tell us, if a public figure is getting online abuse and hate mail, should they just suck it up, or go public about it?
Would you say, James McClean deserve the abuse he gets or is it wrong, or perhaps he should just suck it up?

Nobody is arguing that she deserved the hate mail. You are engaging in straw man arguments and ad hominems.

In fact all of your arguments are logical fallacies, including the argument that you accuse others of : whataboutary. It was you who brought Cowen and Hogan into this thread after all.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

You’ve accused the poster of supporting the hate mail? Where did he do that?



Nobody is arguing that she deserved the hate mail. You are engaging in straw man arguments and ad hominems.

In fact all of your arguments are logical fallacies, including the argument that you accuse others of : whataboutary. It was you who brought Cowen and Hogan into this thread after all.

I stopped reading after the "whataboutery" card was played.

But pretty much spot on - strawmanning at it's finest, barrell scraping and straw clutching too.

Couldn't be made up. It really couldn't.

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

Whataboutery?

You brought feckin Cowen and Hogan into the party marko, you did.

Jesus Christ of latter-day saints I'm cracking up here.

And you didn't answer one of my questions....

*It was actually Hatrickpatrick who brought up Hogan and Cowen, if you bother to check the thread.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

You’ve accused the poster of supporting the hate mail? Where did he do that?



Nobody is arguing that she deserved the hate mail. You are engaging in straw man arguments and ad hominems.

In fact all of your arguments are logical fallacies, including the argument that you accuse others of : whataboutary. It was you who brought Cowen and Hogan into this thread after all.

Seeing as this was mentioned twice...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116485445&postcount=1684

So what say you to the Phil Hogan comparison? Or Barrey Cowen?

I responded to this poster and people ran with it, falsely may I add.

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

And you didn't answer one of my questions....

There was only the one question mark. One. See below in bold.

markodaly wrote: »

So her story was worth more debate than the Phill Hogan and Barry Cowen scandal combined.

I do not think so. There was a reason why that original thread was closed by a mod, as the same stuff was just being rehashed again and again.

Edit: Also, that original thread was closed before Halloween and the election, so not sure what you are on about.

*It was actually Hatrickpatrick who brought up Hogan and Cowen, if you bother to check the thread.

Mark, you asked me a question about Hogan and Cowen, and attempted to make some kind of comparison with Bailey.

When I answered your question, you tried to claim it was "whataboutery", and then insinuated I was ok with something I clearly was not.

Have some cop on please.