Still Waters No Longer Running, Derp.

Bannasidhe

magicbastarder wrote: »

oh and i'd just like to say - if one expects people who are protesting a clear wrong to have a coherent, nuanced exit strategy, with fully balanced and costed alternative already prepared for anyone who questions their aims (the lack of which would clearly negate any criticism they have); i'm sure YFG have a slot for such a person to boost their ranks of apologists for sitting on our collective hands and doing nothing.

Ah yes - the old those who protest can only do so when they can also provide the solution. Such rubbish. It is particularly ironic when those making such claims are doing so as a defence of the f-ups made by whomever is in charge.

Well you do better they howl - while screaming that alternative plans are disasters waiting to happen even as we are in the midst of a disaster already happening. We must continue on our current disastrous trajectory they cry lest a different kind of disaster possibly happen because reasons.

Protests are a means of telling those we elect to run the country that people (rightly or wrongly) believe they are not doing so the way parts of the electorate wish them to do. It is really the only recourse people have between election cycles.
It is then up to those elected - and their cheerleaders- to justify why they are doing what they are doing - not sneering dismiss and demand solutions.

For example - govts continually failed to act on the results of the X Ref - until protests forced them.
Women got the vote because....
Workers got rights because....

robindch

Odhinn wrote: »

Can we agree that the problem is with unbridled capitalism?

Problem is with unregulated capitalism which is synonymous with gangster capitalism, or simply, a gangster state.

In an ideal democracy, the electorate elects politicians, the representatives act in the interests of their electorate, they enact legislation which is enforced by police and interpreted by the judiciary - each arm acting transparently and independently of other arms according to publicly available laws and rules. Doesn't always work out like that in practice of course for a variety of reasons, but in gangster capitalism, like in Russia, the arms might be nominally independent, but practically subservient to, or serving the interests of, other people or other organizations. Enacting all the good laws in the world doesn't matter if the police won't enforce them or the judiciary won't interpret them.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Problem is with unregulated capitalism which is synonymous with gangster capitalism, or simply, a gangster state.

In an ideal democracy, the electorate elects politicians, the representatives act in the interests of their electorate, they enact legislation which is enforced by police and interpreted by the judiciary - each arm acting transparently and independently of other arms according to publicly available laws and rules. Doesn't always work out like that in practice of course for a variety of reasons, but in gangster capitalism, like in Russia, the arms might be nominally independent, but practically subservient to, or serving the interests of, other people or other organizations. Enacting all the good laws in the world doesn't matter if the police won't enforce them or the judiciary won't interpret them.

I wouldn't say that Russia is the only example of where this model breaks down. In the US (and many other western democracies) it breaks down at the point where the elected legislators are supposed to act in the interests of the electorate; they act instead in the interests of sectional groups, most notably those with money; those who control the media; and those who are within the social/political establishment and have the power to reward or punish the behaviour of legislators. And they also tend to act in particular disregard of elements of the community who are marginalised by or alienated from the mainstream.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wouldn't say that Russia is the only example of where this model breaks down.

Indeed - and the question is not one of whether problems exist or not in all polities, as they certainly do, but in the extent and consequences of these problems. Russia's just the closest country with enormous problems in each element of the country's legal construction - a notoriously corrupt police, a judiciary which does what it's told by the state, the highest bidder or the local power brokers, a rubber-stamp legislature, and a crazy executive.

There are other non-constitutional entities with important roles - trade unions to represent workers, media outlets to inform the public, militaries and so on.

Peregrinus wrote: »

[...] they act instead in the interests of sectional groups, most notably those with money; those who control the media;

Absolutely - especially in the US where the right-wing media is little more than closed-loop propaganda feeding straight into another crazy executive. The same thing, to a lesser degree, is happening in the UK.

I suppose we should thank our lucky stars that Ireland has, to a large extent anyway, remained free of these problems over the last few years.

robindch

The transcript for Mr Waters and Ms O'Doherty's outing to the High Court last week. It's carcrash stuff:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h_ZZbyMdWiO4kNkZtT3FZC9BqnrKNtjo/view

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

The transcript for Mr Waters and Ms O'Doherty's outing to the High Court last week. It's carcrash stuff:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h_ZZbyMdWiO4kNkZtT3FZC9BqnrKNtjo/view

JUDGE: You're making a speech again, Ms O'Doherty.
MS O'DOHERTY: -- their right to assembly, I'm sorry, I -- you know, this is the
way I speak, Judge.
JUDGE: Indeed.

i love the dry sarcasm.

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i love the dry sarcasm.

Aye, the word "Indeed" is certainly doing a lot of work there.

Odhinn

The High Court has dismissed John Waters' and Gemma O'Doherty's legal challenge against laws introduced by the State due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

He said Mr Waters and Ms O'Doherty, who had no medical or scientific qualifications, maintained the numbers were overstated and the Minister for Health was following fraudulent science.
There was no factual basis or any supporting expert opinion put forward to support this.
The judge said the applicants gave unsubstantiated options, speeches, engaged in empty rhetoric and sought to draw an "absurd and Offensive" historical parallel with Nazi Germany.
Unsubstantiated opinions, speeches, rhetoric and bogus historical parallel were not substitutes for facts.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0513/1138081-gemma-odoherty-john-waters-covid19-coronavirus/


Fairly damning stuff, which will bounce off that pair like water off of a ducks arse.

smacl

Odhinn wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0513/1138081-gemma-odoherty-john-waters-covid19-coronavirus/


Fairly damning stuff, which will bounce off that pair like water off of a ducks arse.

You'd wonder who is covering the costs for this pantomime?

Odhinn

smacl wrote: »

You'd wonder who is covering the costs for this pantomime?

Well Gemma got a few bob from the Indo, and Waters had a few from RTE over Panti etc.

ohnonotgmail

smacl wrote: »

You'd wonder who is covering the costs for this pantomime?

what costs? they are respresenting themselves. hence the almighty ballsup they made of things.

Odhinn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what costs? they are respresenting themselves. hence the almighty ballsup they made of things.

The costs of the state.

The judge invited the parties to make submissions as to the orders that should follow his ruling, in particular the matter of costs.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0513/1138081-gemma-odoherty-john-waters-covid19-coronavirus/

ohnonotgmail

Odhinn wrote: »

The costs of the state.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0513/1138081-gemma-odoherty-john-waters-covid19-coronavirus/

not a hope of costs being awarded against them.

Odhinn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not a hope of costs being awarded against them.

Against Waters/Doherty? How so?

ohnonotgmail

Odhinn wrote: »

Against Waters/Doherty? How so?

on the face of it it was in the public interest to test whether the laws passed were done properly. they were passed under rather unsual circumstances. unfortunately the legal incompetence of waters/o'doherty meant that test never actually took place. it would be unusual for the judge to award costs against them if there was a hint of public interest involved.

El_Duderino 09

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

on the face of it it was in the public interest to test whether the laws passed were done properly. they were passed under rather unsual circumstances. unfortunately the legal incompetence of waters/o'doherty meant that test never actually took place. it would be unusual for the judge to award costs against them if there was a hint of public interest involved.

Yeah and as much of a waste of time as this was, I'm glad Ireland is a country where people can challenge this kind of thing. Waters is a nob, but in principle I'm happy that they're not being charged for the cost. It's a cost of living in the kind of country where a citizen can challenge the state. And the laws are pretty extraordinary so it's good that they can be challenged and judged fairly.

Of course that means some nob-head can use the system as a temporary reprieve from irrelevance. But, what can you do?

Skrynesaver

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

on the face of it it was in the public interest to test whether the laws passed were done properly. they were passed under rather unsual circumstances. unfortunately the legal incompetence of waters/o'doherty meant that test never actually took place. it would be unusual for the judge to award costs against them if there was a hint of public interest involved.

Would have thought this was a clear case of a vexatious case.

magicbastarder

one might wonder if the judge will consider their case to have been vexatious or flippant. i.e. a deterrent to anyone who wants to challenge the law but doesn't take it seriously enough - given the quality of their case, you could potentially argue they've wasted the court's time.

Odhinn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

on the face of it it was in the public interest to test whether the laws passed were done properly. they were passed under rather unsual circumstances. unfortunately the legal incompetence of waters/o'doherty meant that test never actually took place. it would be unusual for the judge to award costs against them if there was a hint of public interest involved.

Given the utterly dismissive tone of the judgement I'd be suprised if that was the case. Then again I'm no lawyer - we shall see in time.

Hotblack Desiato

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Waters is a nob, but in principle I'm happy that they're not being charged for the cost.

Can I borrow your crystal ball? Will give it back after the lotto draw. TIA.

ohnonotgmail

Odhinn wrote: »

Given the utterly dismissive tone of the judgement I'd be suprised if that was the case. Then again I'm no lawyer - we shall see in time.

I haven't had time to read the judgement, i will do tomorrow, but i would be surprised if the judge commented on merits or otherwise of the substance of the objections that waters/o'doherty have given that the judgement was merely on their right to a JR

Odhinn

From the indo an idea of how much they may get hit with

But the duo's case against the Health Minister, Ireland and the Attorney General has fallen at the first hurdle after they were refused leave to bring a judicial review of the legislation.
The decision means they could be landed with a bill for the State’s legal costs in opposing their action, estimated to be around €50,000.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/empty-rhetoric-and-bogus-historical-parallels-why-waters-and-odohertys-challenge-to-covid-19-laws-failed-39203579.html

Odhinn

Has anyone a link the full transcript of the judgement?

CramCycle

smacl wrote: »

You'd wonder who is covering the costs for this pantomime?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not a hope of costs being awarded against them.

RTE journalist said judge asked for the state to calculate costs, and that it was likely to be 50k +another 20k for states barristers (which seems to be about 10k cheaper than non state ones). Recalling this from memory on the way home from work but indication was they may find themselves paying it as the reporter said they would appeal but the cost may put them off.

Odhinn wrote: »

Has anyone a link the full transcript of the judgement?

RTE were reading it off earlier so it's available (on phone)

ohnonotgmail

Odhinn wrote: »

Has anyone a link the full transcript of the judgement?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E4PNeU7PvlBb2zdW6abQxWcLHzIdMn5B/view

Odhinn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E4PNeU7PvlBb2zdW6abQxWcLHzIdMn5B/view

Page 30 - (6) is interesting.

Odhinn

Former journalists John Waters and Gemma O’Doherty will appeal the High Court’s refusal to grant permission for them to challenge laws introduced by the State due to Covid-19.
The former journalists are to bring their case to the Court of Appeal. When making submissions on the issues of costs, both parties said they would appeal the court’s refusal to grant them leave to mount a legal challenge to the Court of Appeal.

https://www.nova.ie/waters-odoherty-bring-appeal-after-having-initial-case-rubbished-179092/?fbclid=IwAR0W-EKybKqa_JFP9e6zVkYaQfNoNawON_FdWIFSxfEAdbuVCEF-xzxMHg4


Persistent, if nothing else.

ohnonotgmail

Odhinn wrote: »

https://www.nova.ie/waters-odoherty-bring-appeal-after-having-initial-case-rubbished-179092/?fbclid=IwAR0W-EKybKqa_JFP9e6zVkYaQfNoNawON_FdWIFSxfEAdbuVCEF-xzxMHg4


Persistent, if nothing else.

i wouldn't mind but the judge told them exactly how they should have proceeded and they ignored him.

Odhinn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i wouldn't mind but the judge told them exactly how they should have proceeded and they ignored him.

Sure what would he know - hes not keyed into the truth. 5G is the virus.

Hotblack Desiato

Odhinn wrote: »

Persistent, if nothing else.

Like herpes only less fun.