Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VIII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

growleaves

Graham wrote: »

You reckon the law has changed in favour of less restrictions in the intervening period?

Do you realise you must now spend years of your life saying things life 'Expanding ICU capacity is not simple, guys' - how will you stand it?

Boggles

growleaves wrote: »

That case was taken BEFORE lockdown became a multi-year phenomenon.

TBH I don't think any of the "arguments" she made have grown in stature.

Graham

growleaves wrote: »

Do you realise you must now spend years of your life saying things life 'Expanding ICU capacity is not simple, guys' - how will you stand it?

So no then, the law hasn't changed is what you're avoiding saying.

What's the ICU for years scare story again?

PTH2009

average_runner wrote: »

It wasn't good anyhow. But at least outdoor gatherings of 30-40 will allow some big bbqs

I suppose you could say better than nothing but that's nothing great

God knows what they do for Hospitality but if they allow that then no reason why places can't open

When we do reopen the government need to drop the hitns of another quick impending lockdown

PhoneMain

I just had a quick skim through this thread but there seems to be a lot who feel that the rights that are being restricted are going to be a permanent matter.

Can I just put 1 thing straight. These are temporary measures. There's a global pandemic ongoing at the moment, the worst in 60 years ( Hong Kong Flu). And this isnt the first time we've had a pandemic, nor will it be the last unfortunately. But it will pass. And life will return to normal. The basic measures to prevent transmission go back to the founder of Epidemiology Dr John Snow - tho the disease he is most famous for is a water based illness. - Sanitation, hand hygiene, social distancing, masks. These restrictions were introduced in 1918 as well and a lot more people died but it didnt take long for everything to return to normal when the flu settled down.

JRant

ecoli3136 wrote: »

That is an extraordinarily weird perspective on what was seen in that programme. Extraordinarily weird.



Hah! Not a hope. They'll just keep posting on here. If people disagree they're "servile" or something. It says a lot when even a supposed rabble can't be roused. Or could it be that in the real world, they are simply ignored.

What do you mean by weird?

What's really weird is pumping out stuff like that on a regular basis. Stick a camera in an ICU any day of the week and you'll see hard cases that would break your heart. Doesn't mean we should legislate solely on what we see in am environment that is designed to deal with the worst cases imaginable.

I thought all the staff did an amazing job. Doesn't mean we should set out an entire countries policy based on what they say. They are experts in a very narrow field, an important one, but only part of a much larger group that is contained within society as a whole.

JRant

Russman wrote: »

Wonder how it might have been by now if restrictions had remained lifted ?

You do know that's an impossible question to answer. It may have been a lot worse, it may have been the exact same.

MOH

Boggles wrote: »

No, it was far more encompassing than that.

The governments legality to impose public health restrictions.

Anyway this was the jist GemGem's case.


Sounds very familiar, I'd swear she just printed out this thread and handed it into the High Court.

Sorry BogBog, but I think you've posted this in the wrong thread? It bears very little similarity to this thread, and certainly to the issue in question.

That's a load of blah about how there isn't really a pandemic, a claim that measures such as masks, social distancing, etc have no scientific basis, and that the government has no basis on which to enforce them on people. With a bit of anti-vax thrown in for good measure.

Whereas the issue here is that the government have made absolutely zero effort, for the entire duration of the pandemic, to address the issue of inbound foreign travel and the risk of importing cases and new strains. The Tanaiste even went as far yesterday as claiming that up to last September the government were not even aware of the possibility of new Covid-19 variants. Which is either terrifying incompetence or an outright lie, either of which should be sufficient to shake the faith of any sane government bible-basher here.

And as a result of the severe public health consequences resulting from a complete lack of any proper quarantine plan, they've fallen back to what they do best, deflecting blame onto the general public and making half-assed attempts to skirt the situation, by fining people leaving the country if their trip doesn't meet some nebulous standard of "necessary".

Doing it inbound could certainly be justified on the basis of public health. But I fail to see how placing impediments in the way of a foreign national who wants to return to their home country on holiday wouldn't require a similar level of legal scrutiny as enforced hotel quarantines.

Of course, merely questioning this automatically makes me a loony, 5g obsessed, anti-vax conspiracy theorist.

Boggles

MOH wrote: »

Sorry BogBog, It bears very little similarity to this thread

Ahhhh, it does.

Her "legal argument" is mimicked on here weekly ad nauseam.

You must be thinking of another thread MohMoh.

Boggles

JRant wrote: »

I thought all the staff did an amazing job. Doesn't mean we should set out an entire countries policy based on what they say. They are experts in a very narrow field, an important one, but only part of a much larger group that is contained within society as a whole.

Who claimed we should?

JRant

Boggles wrote: »

Ahhhh, it does.

Her "legal argument" is mimicked on here weekly ad nauseam.

You must be thinking of another thread MohMoh.

She wasn't even granted a full hearing in the high court and rightly so. She provided no evidence, legal or otherwise, to how the laws introduced may be unconstitutional. She also tried to bring in arguments over how the Dail voted, which the court could never rule on anyway.

So, yes, her attempt to have the high court rule on the law was thrown out is correct. It is not correct to say a future challenge by someone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together might not get a full hearing in court and have a proper ruling made on them.

Boggles

JRant wrote: »

She wasn't even granted a full hearing in the high court and rightly so. She provided no evidence, legal or otherwise, to how the laws introduced may be unconstitutional. She also tried to bring in arguments over how the Dail voted, which the court could never rule on anyway.

I imagine anyone with "2 brain cells" would appreciate the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in and not waste the courts time.

All though I'm sure the bould Michael will try again.

Because he has our interests at heart.

francogarbanzo

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine anyone with "2 brain cells" would appreciate the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in and not waste the courts time.

All though I'm sure the bould Michael will try again.

Because he has our interests at heart.

"It's too important to ensure it's legal!"

Boggles

francogarbanzo wrote: »

"It's too important to ensure it's legal!"

Like has been said to you several times, you are more than entitled to take a case.

What you argue has to be based on facts though and not feelings, or a bolded misunderstood line from some text.

You seem super confident in your assertions and you probably won't have to pay costs if you win.

Go for it, I'll keep an eye out for the case.

FintanMcluskey

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine anyone with "2 brain cells" would appreciate the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in and not waste the courts time.
.

Some of us do appreciate the gravity of the situation

For some reason elderly health has prioritised over the economic health of the nation.

It could have been balanced and compromised

Never before have we thrown money in such fashion at prolonging the lifespan of the elderly

Tork

So why don't some of you put you money where your mouth is? Lobby your local TDs, get onto journalists, take a case etc? Debating endlessly on boards with the same few posters is not going to change one thing.

JRant

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine anyone with "2 brain cells" would appreciate the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in and not waste the courts time.

All though I'm sure the bould Michael will try again.

Because he has our interests at heart.

Someone with the time and the means may very well challenge these laws in the courts. Until that happens nobody can say with any degree of certainty whether they would stand up to scrutiny or not.

Graham

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

For some reason elderly health has prioritised over the economic health of the nation.

When you put it like that, it sounds quite reasonable.

FintanMcluskey

Graham wrote: »

When you put it like that, it sounds quite reasonable.

Well done.

Suppose you would justify the undetected cancers due to cancelled screening’s in the same way

Bizzare

Graham

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Suppose you would justify the undetected cancers due to cancelled screening’s in the same way

Gold star if you find any post where I suggested that.

FintanMcluskey

Tork wrote: »

So why don't some of you put you money where your mouth is? Lobby your local TDs, get onto journalists, take a case etc? Debating endlessly on boards with the same few posters is not going to change one thing.

You talking to Boggles?

Boggles

JRant wrote: »

Someone with the time and the means may very well challenge these laws in the courts. Until that happens nobody can say with any degree of certainty whether they would stand up to scrutiny or not.

Well that isn't strictly true, we got a snippet from the High Court ruling against Ryanair's frankly embarrassing case back against "everyone" in the Autumn.

The Judge could have knocked it out in a paragraph or two but he went way further.

The publication of travel advice and public health advice is consistent with EU law. In particular, it does not breach the right to freedom of movement provided for under Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Ryanair conceded that a Member State, such as the Irish State, is, in principle, entitled to derogate from EU law rights on the grounds of public health. This concession was sensibly made.

Insofar as the right to free movement is concerned, for example, express provision is made under the Citizenship Directive (Directive 2004/38/EC) for measures restricting freedom of movement on the grounds of public health

Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, Member States may restrict the freedom of movement and residence of Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of nationality, on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. These grounds shall not be invoked to serve economic ends.

Of course any new legislation will have be compatible with EU law, but not entirely beholding to it during a public health crisis.

Boggles

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Some of us do appreciate the gravity of the situation

I know.

Others smother themselves in denial because they can't or won't process what is happening.

Tork

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

You talking to Boggles?

No. I'm talking to all of you who have a lot to say, day in, day out about how awful the restrictions are. If they exercise people so much that they choose to post on boards non stop about them, why not do something about them?

bb1234567

Would say a poll in Ireland would surface even more extreme outlook on the issue tbh! Anything over 1 year prison sentence is very unreasonable in my opinion
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1359543750561853442

FintanMcluskey

Tork wrote: »

No. I'm talking to all of you who have a lot to say, day in, day out about how awful the restrictions are. If they exercise people so much that they choose to post on boards non stop about them, why not do something about them?

Lots of people have tried to do many things, myself included

The politicians and public servants don’t care about about the economic catastrophe, it won’t effect them.

So the emails don’t actually carry any gravity.

The journalists have the most accessible popular material that they ever required. Not one journalist will question the narrative.

RTE have discovered death sells regardless how saturated their content is with death

So boards is all that’s left

FintanMcluskey

bb1234567 wrote: »

Would say a poll in Ireland would surface even more extreme outlook on the issue tbh! Anything over 1 year prison sentence is very unreasonable in my opinion
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1359543750561853442

The only warning I will give them is that it’s very hard to get back what you give up so easily

Boggles

bb1234567 wrote: »

Would say a poll in Ireland would surface even more extreme outlook on the issue tbh! Anything over 1 year prison sentence is very unreasonable in my opinion
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1359543750561853442

TBF if recent referendum are anything to go by it's spot on.

51% of Brits don't like foreigners. :pac:

Boggles

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Lots of people have tried to do many things, myself included

Examples of such?

SnuggyBear

bb1234567 wrote: »

Would say a poll in Ireland would surface even more extreme outlook on the issue tbh! Anything over 1 year prison sentence is very unreasonable in my opinion
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1359543750561853442

Jesus christ