Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

Suckit

markodaly wrote: »

Well, one was caught drink driving an actual crime.... but go on, I guess what Maria Bailey did was worse.

All three are actually believed to be victims of alcohol induced craziness. However, when the alcohol subsided, only one tried to profit from it at the expense of others (and then blame others).

Then a few months later tried to gain sympathy instead of accepting it.

markodaly

Suckit wrote: »

All three are actually believed to be victims of alcohol induced craziness. However, when the alcohol subsided, only one tried to profit from it at the expense of others (and then blame others).

Then a few months later tried to gain sympathy instead of accepting it.

What are you on about?

Phil Hogan wasn't drunk at Golfgate.....
Your logic is off the wall.

beakerjoe

All 3 are of dubious character.

But Maria is in the news because..... well she put herself in the news in the last week or so. She popped her head back into the spotlight and here we are discussing it.

I feel its the defenders of Bailey keeping this alive.

markodaly

beakerjoe wrote: »

All 3 are of dubious character.

But Maria is in the news because..... well she put herself in the news in the last week or so. She popped her head back into the spotlight and here we are discussing it.

I feel its the defenders of Bailey keeping this alive.

Yet, when Barry Cowen and Phill Hogan did similar interviews, the good posters of CA didn't feel the need to have their say, but in Maria Baileys case they did.

Odd, don't you think?

Suckit

markodaly wrote: »

What are you on about?

Phil Hogan wasn't drunk at Golfgate.....
Your logic is off the wall.

Ahh... ..
Did it matter?



But Maria was. That does matter. Glad we have that out there in the open on the Maria thread.

(she was the one who tried to profit and blame others etc. too)

beakerjoe

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, when Barry Cowen and Phill Hogan did similar interviews, the good posters of CA didn't feel the need to have their say, but in Maria Baileys case they did.

Odd, don't you think?

No its not odd.

People are free to comment on what they wish.

Im personally angry at her because I pay high premiums thanks to people like her.

Suckit

They are non comparable, but if the sexist and/or racist comments start early enough, then when they are repeated in years to come, people might believe they hold weight. :rolleyes:

Also doesn't look great to trying to compare who is less culpable of those three. But if there are straws, may as well grab them.

Pintman Paddy Losty

markodaly wrote: »

Yet two minutes ago...



Of course, they did interviews recently, but its really about her actions... eh... not her gender.

There is of course deep hypocrisy here, that deserves to be called out and some people are very uneasy about that.

Thank you for calling it out. While a lot here will deny it to the ground and argue the sky is green it's good to hold a mirror up to this ugliness when we see it.

Dav010

I could care less about a bunch of politicians playing golf, and at this stage everyone is fed up with restrictions on movement, to the point where many are ignoring it. I do however care that I just renewed my car and business insurance, which have risen significantly in recent years. Cowen and Hogan are a couple of idiots who should have known better, they lost their jobs, rightly so. Bailey on the other hand was stupid enough to fall off a swing while under the influence, fraudulently claimed injury for gain, then, knowing how emotive an issue insurance/excessive payouts/fraudulent claims are, she gave not one, but two interviews looking for the public’s understanding and support.

The difference in other words, what Cowen/Hogan did was stupid, what Bailey did was both stupid and illicited huge pubic anger because her actions were seen as a factor in higher insurance costs for us all.

And again, the reason this subject is now topical, is Maria Bailey’s own stupidity. She is repeating her mistake, that in itself shows incredibly poor judgement.

Penn

One of the things annoying me most about Bailey is using Caroline Flack as an example of media pressure and abuse etc, and how Flack committed suicide over it.

Caroline Flack was facing domestic abuse charges. She would have had to go through the trial and aftermath under intense media pressure (as if the trial itself wouldn't have been stressful enough).

Maria Bailey was told she wasn't electable enough any more and was deselected by the party. She then very easily faded from the limelight and after the election there has been no interest whatsoever in what happened to her. Funnily enough, everyone moved on very quickly due to everything else that's going on.

Now she's trying to worm her way back into the spotlight, comparing herself to Caroline Flack?

Get ta f*ck! I don't for a second dispute she received a lot of abuse. I don't dispute it wouldn't have had an effect on her mentally. I don't. We can say that that's part of politics or mostly her own fault, but it doesn't change the effect it might have had on her.

But to compare her media attention and social media abuse to that of Caroline Flack with no due regard for the other significant factors in the events of Caroline Flack's suicide and scale of the issues Flack was facing is truly abhorrent, while capping it off by playing coy about whether she'd re-enter politics again. It really is disgusting.

I genuinely wouldn't have remembered Maria Bailey's name if not for the recent interviews. The event passed, everyone moved on, no-one really gave a f*ck any more.

JeffKenna

markodaly wrote: »

Yet two minutes ago...



Of course, they did interviews recently, but its really about her actions... eh... not her gender.

There is of course deep hypocrisy here, that deserves to be called out and some people are very uneasy about that.

I do agree there is an element of sexism in the FG party at play. What Alan Farrell did was probably worse than Maria as he actually had false photos of a crash yet wasn't deselected. I would also be very uneasy about that.

ButtersSuki

JeffKenna wrote: »

I do agree there is an element of sexism in the FG party at play. What Alan Farrell did was probably worse than Maria as he actually had false photos of a crash yet wasn't deselected. I would also be very uneasy about that.

I disagree Jeff. Timing is everything. If the Farrell case were to happen today I think he’d get roasted royally. Bailey assumed she’d get away with it, but the public had had enough by that stage. Her case was the straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak. There was also the additional element of Madigan’s involvement which added another layer to this and attracted additional (rightly IMO) media scrutiny. You’re not comparing like with like. Farrell also had the cop on not to revisit it (though I’d welcome it if the edits would). Bailey gave it further legs. That Farrell got off relatively lightly by comparison does not exonerate Bailey for her actions.

BattleCorp

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, when Barry Cowen and Phill Hogan did similar interviews, the good posters of CA didn't feel the need to have their say, but in Maria Baileys case they did.

Odd, don't you think?

Maybe the public are more aggrieved with insurance fraud than those who attend a golf dinner?

Former Former Former

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, when Barry Cowen and Phill Hogan did similar interviews, the good posters of CA didn't feel the need to have their say, but in Maria Baileys case they did.

Odd, don't you think?

These posts are gas. Invent a fact and use it to back up your position. Bullet proof.

There were reams of pages about Cowen. I didn't bother my arse with the Hogan story but I'll bet it got a good airing too.

beakerjoe

Former Former Former wrote: »

These posts are gas. Invent a fact and use it to back up your position. Bullet proof.

There were reams of pages about Cowen. I didn't bother my arse with the Hogan story but I'll bet it got a good airing too.

For me I dont think anyone , or at least many posters would defend Cowan or Hogan. Maybe those threads werent as popular as there was less debate.

Here we have enough people defending Bailey, which spawns debate hence why the thread continues.

beakerjoe

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Thank you for calling it out. While a lot here will deny it to the ground and argue the sky is green it's good to hold a mirror up to this ugliness when we see it.

Paddy, whats your opinion on Maria Baileys insurance claim exploits?

Im curious

givyjoe

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, when Barry Cowen and Phill Hogan did similar interviews, the good posters of CA didn't feel the need to have their say, but in Maria Baileys case they did.

Odd, don't you think?

Did they? Where.. when? Did they paint themselves as victims (twice) following a car crash interview? The media absolutely hounded Phil Hogan, Bailey only got in the neck because of her own abject stupidity (i.e. the incident itself and her media performances after). Bizarre to continually claim otherwise and to whine about threads still going, when you're largely the reason this one still is!

McMurphy

BattleCorp wrote: »

Maybe the public are more aggrieved with insurance fraud than those who attend a golf dinner?

This is it in a nutshell really.

None of us are likely to be comparing ourselves with Barry Cowens ordeal, or Phil feckin Hogan driving through Ireland and lying about it FFS.

Every year most of us will have to renew an insurance policy of one type or another, motor, home, health, home, personal liability etc etc.

And from my own experience, seldom are they reducing in price despite no claims being made on them.

Insurance fraud costs us all.

mickdw

JeffKenna wrote: »

I do agree there is an element of sexism in the FG party at play. What Alan Farrell did was probably worse than Maria as he actually had false photos of a crash yet wasn't deselected. I would also be very uneasy about that.

Farrell won his case and is therefore untouchable in that regard. He knows he can brazen it out whenever the media quiz him on it - if they go too far he will sue claiming the court agreed with him.

jmreire

McMurphy wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell really.

None of us are likely to be comparing ourselves with Barry Cowens ordeal, or Phil feckin Hogan driving through Ireland and lying about it FFS.

Every year most of us will have to renew an insurance policy of one type or another, motor, home, health, home, personal liability etc etc.

And from my own experience, seldom are they reducing in price despite no claims being made on them.

Insurance fraud costs us all.

If all insurance premiums arrived in the same fortnight here in Ireland, I can guarantee you there would be maybe even more people on the streets marching than there was duruing the water protests.I bought a 2nd hand car to use as a run around back in 2015. I have at least 35 years no claim bonus, and I got the insurance for the 2nd car for €350. Roll on 2016, renewal came in .....€1175. When I recovered from the shock, and contacted the broker, he told me that no,it was not a missprint or an error. But because I had only 1 years experience driving this car....conveniently forgetting the previous 35 NCB years. Legalised banditry. And people on here wonder about the anger directed at MB,,We ( the captive payee's) are seldom given a chance to express our anger, but when the oppurtunity presents itself then a backlash is inevitable. Sorry, but I've no sympathy for her, and maybe, just maybe, it will make any other public figures think twice before pulling a similar stunt.

blanch152

markodaly wrote: »

Really?

Barry Cowen did an interview with the Sunday Indo on the 3rd of January this year, sticking the knife into MM, the man who sacked him, yet not a peep about it here in CA.

https://www.boards.ie/mobile/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058096175&page=201
Last post, 23rd of August 2020

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/the-barry-cowen-interview-micheal-martin-should-go-before-next-election-39924822.html



Phil Hogan did an interview with the Sunday Indo on the 26th of December, bemoaning the lack of due process, into his own sacking, yet not a peep about it here in CA

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058106429&page=111
Last post, November 2020

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/the-big-interview-it-would-have-been-nice-if-i-had-got-some-kind-of-due-process-phil-hogan-breaks-silence-on-golfgate-39900487.html

Maria Bailey does an interview with the Indo on the 22nd of Feb, yet here we are talking about her again, as if the previous 10,000 posts didn't cover everything.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/maria-bailey-opens-up-about-abuse-she-received-after-swing-gate-and-said-she-is-still-seriously-injured-from-the-fall-40120910.html

I am sorry, but the evidence does not support your statement, at all!!






I guarantee that you are wrong and very wrong at that.....
Care to retract that 'guarantee'?




FG don't do accountability, yet she was thrown off the ticket.... hmmm.






See my first post.
They both did what you claimed they didn't. Yet, they were men, and she was a woman. I guess you put her on a different pedestal than these two men. Perhaps the problem is your own way of looking at the issue. Ignoring one set of facts, while exaggerating another, for effect like!



My statement stands. To state that there is zero mysogieny at play here, you just brush it off, as 'see above' is dishonest and disingenuous. It is self-evident that there is, the only debate is how much.




I think you are showing your political bias now. You post that on the very weekend we have this.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2021/0305/1201294-personal-injury-cases/

Now if you think they are not doing enough, then that is fair enough, but to say that they refuse to do 'anything' is just patently not correct factually.




Ok, so you agree that women have a much harder time of it than men in the public eye, yet this case is 'exempt'! Wow... just wow!!

This after Maria Bailey explained how she got hate mail in her postbox and people asking her to go commit suicide.
Oh, I get it, she 'deserves' it, I guess. She should have just 'shut her mouth' like you said earlier... never to darken a journalists door again. Just slink off and be invisible......

Honestly, you should really read back over some of the stuff you write and think to yourself, 'Am I really going to try and con people into this way of thinking?'







Curious to know why you think Frances Fitzgerald is a disgrace when she was exonerated by the independent disclosures tribunal, but anyway a good reference point is an announcement by Helen McEntee that she was pregnant. That thread here was a good one alright, the usual suspect giving their opinion, with some underhanded sexism at play, with many deleted posts....

She is due to go on maternity leave soon and I'll bet you anything the usual crowd on social media will give it a go as well, saying how it's a disgrace she is going on six months leave with pay and all that.....
Then we wonder why more women won't get into politics!



Find me an equivalent thread on boards about them, that goes on over 10,000 posts and the topic is kept alive after 2 years. Go on, it should be easy, right?
Apart from Donald Trump or perhaps Boris or some other party leader, I cant think of anyone else who attracted the same level of continuous attention.



See, I don't necessarily disagree.
She became a lightning rod for a time because of the injury claim.
It was stupid and self-defeating not helped by her interview with SOR.
I don't necessarily disagree that she has very bad judgement.
I don't necessarily disagree that she lacked a bit of common sense and seemed aloof.

However....that doesn't explain why we are still talking about her in such a manner almost two years later. It doesn't explain away the level of abuse she got, It doesn't exonerate those who sent her hate mail or told her to go kill herself. It doesn't exonerate or excuse those who harbour overt or unconscious sexism and find it 'a laugh' to post in a continuous manner about her in such a way, one can easily think that there is something else going on.

It doesn't explain why the mod in the original thread had to close it or delete posts from it. Just have a quick gander. There was an almost exuberant voyeuristic glee from a few posters, who were taking 'bets' about when the CCTV of the incident would be released to the public. Really shameful stuff to be honest. Vultures picking the bones.

That is an excellent post, deconstructing the arguments made in defence of misogyny and abuse.

ohnonotgmail

blanch152 wrote: »

That is an excellent post, deconstructing the arguments made in defence of misogyny and abuse.

LOL. I'm sure you can point out the posts that defended misogyny and abuse. given that there hasn't been any on this thread you will have your work cut out for you. you really are doing your best to get this thread shut down.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

That is an excellent post, deconstructing the arguments made in defence of misogyny and abuse.

It’s an attempt to deflect.

I’ve no idea who is advising y’all FG types or if it is sheer instinctive tribalism but the defense of Bailey doesn’t play well. Hiding behind “she’s a woman” isn’t going to help the cause.

By the way the thread is continuing, in part, because the defenders. It would have probably died away by now, and in fact did die down, but markdaly and yourself keep ressurecting the thread to defend Bailey and to argue that the thread that you are causing to continue is by the fact that it has continued, proof of misogyny.

It’s a fairly weak argument anyway, if there were actual proof of misogynistic posts they could be called out rather than the length of the thread itself.

markodaly

BattleCorp wrote: »

Maybe the public are more aggrieved with insurance fraud than those who attend a golf dinner?

Or ministers who are caught drink driving, an actual crime.
Or maybe they don't like 'uppity' women?

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s an attempt to deflect.

I’ve no idea who is advising y’all FG types or if it is sheer instinctive tribalism but the defense of Bailey doesn’t play well. Hiding behind “she’s a woman” isn’t going to help the cause.

By the way the thread is continuing, in part, because the defenders. It would have probably died away by now, and in fact did die down, but markdaly and yourself keep ressurecting the thread to defend Bailey and to argue that the thread that you are causing to continue is by the fact that it has continued, proof of misogyny.

It’s a fairly weak argument anyway, if there were actual proof of misogynistic posts they could be called out rather than the length of the thread itself.

Stop posting lies. The first post in months was this one.

mikhail wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/maria-bailey-opens-up-about-abuse-she-received-after-swing-gate-and-said-she-is-still-seriously-injured-from-the-fall-40120910.html
Good to see she's learned something.

Oh no, the other thing.

ohnonotgmail

blanch152 wrote: »

Stop posting lies. The first post in months was this one.

So it was maria herself that caused the thread to be resurrected. but you and the other FG supporters keep coming on here repeating the same nonsense so it is the maria supporters that are keeping it going.

blanch152

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So it was maria herself that caused the thread to be resurrected. but you and the other FG supporters keep coming on here repeating the same nonsense so it is the maria supporters that are keeping it going.

Let us be clear, I do not support Maria Bailey, I oppose the misogynistic abuse given to her. There were clear examples on the last thread on this. It is a consistent problem with this forum.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Stop posting lies. The first post in months was this one.

You are either going to have to get smarter or I am going to put you on ignore. I had previously said the thread was resurrected because of that interview where she played the victim. Is it proof of misogyny that a new report in a paper where Bailey is unapologetic is discussed? No. Clearly not.

Markodaly is however making the claim that both the continuation of the thread after that interview and its length is particular proof of misogyny, when he and you are major contributors to its continuation. In fact without the posts about whether this thread is misogynistic or not it and the responses to that (including this one) the discussion almost certainly would have died a while back. Weeks perhaps.

ohnonotgmail

blanch152 wrote: »

Let us be clear, I do not support Maria Bailey, I oppose the misogynistic abuse given to her. There were clear examples on the last thread on this. It is a consistent problem with this forum.

there has been no misogynistic abuse. criticism of someone who happens to be a woman is not misogynistic. People are sick and tired of people with brass necks making fraudulent insurance claims and then crying that they are the victims.

blanch152

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there has been no misogynistic abuse. criticism of someone who happens to be a woman is not misogynistic. People are sick and tired of people with brass necks making fraudulent insurance claims and then crying that they are the victims.

There were quite a number of abusive posts on this thread and the last one, some of which were actioned by mods, and are still there for all to see.