Traveller Wedding - Breaking Tenancy & Covid Rules

Also, hotels were open last summer. I remember having dinner and breakfast in a hotel in Westport. A lot more than 100 in the whole room!!!

Sleeper12

bubblypop wrote:

That's inside. Outside was 100 guests.

50 was the largest allowed in the last 12 months. 50 had to include staff, DJ, photographer as well as guests

...Ghost...

bubblypop wrote: »

That's inside.
Outside was 100 guests.

A marquee is classed an inside :rolleyes::rolleyes: https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0620/1148615-coronavirus-weddings/

bubblypop wrote: »

Yes it did.
I rang my colleague 10 mins ago.
50 in the church, 100 at an outside reception

Your colleague is wrong or is lying.

...Ghost...

bubblypop wrote: »

Also, hotels were open last summer. I remember having dinner and breakfast in a hotel in Westport. A lot more than 100 in the whole room!!!

You seem to have attended a few places which flouted the rules so.

...Ghost...

...Ghost... wrote: »

You seem to have attended a few places which flouted the rules so.

No.
Hotels were open last summer. July and August

Sleeper12

No excuse for the families organising these events but the marquee owners & catering companies should be held accountable.

...Ghost...

bubblypop wrote: »

No.
Hotels were open last summer. July and August

Restrictions still applied when they were open. Same in restaurants when they were open during restrictions. Nowhere allowed well over 100 people in a room without breaking restrictions.

...Ghost...

Sleeper12 wrote: »

No excuse for the families organising these events but the marquee owners & catering companies should be held accountable.

100% agree. They knew they were complicit in the breaking of restrictions and so should be dealt with.

Ninthlife

JCJCJC wrote: »

Yeah, CAB would find a big ledger in the trailer, with dates, quotations, expenditure and receipts for Honda generators, roof repairs, antiques, rhino horns and so on.... all the invoices, vat receipts, cheque numbers...
Dead easy audit, anyone could do it.

If they cant explain or verify their sources of income based on their lifestyle/expenditure and they arent filing returns then questions would be asked and Revenue could raise an assessment , back date it the past 4 years add penalties, no doubt it would be 100% penalty as cooperation would be zero plus interest. Might be a nice hefty bill

...Ghost...

...Ghost... wrote: »

Restrictions still applied when they were open. Same in restaurants when they were open during restrictions. Nowhere allowed well over 100 people in a room without breaking restrictions.

Officially I would say yes.
There were restrictions about eating and drinking in the bar.
But there were definitely more then 100 in the dining room for breakfast.
Suppose they did the best they could

monkeybutter

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Ah now hang on here. First thing to remember is that the Gardai didn't break up anything despite securing a court order. They actually stood by & watched until guests left in the small hours of the morning

The difference in this case is that the marquee was erected on council land in full view of the public. Compare that with marquees erected on acres of private secluded land.

Plenty of posters ignoring bacic facts to push the anti travellers mantra

This is about the current story

It doesn't matter where it's erected

The truth isn't pro or anti traveller

monkeybutter

JCJCJC wrote: »

B
Wasn’t it the council secured the court order? In which case, the Gardaí attended to prevent any breach of the peace.....remote though that possibility may be of course.

If it was remote would the gardai be needed

monkeybutter

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The claim was that a whole Containment (whatever that actually means) was dispatched to break it up. Obviously this isn't a true statement. They weren't dispatched to break it up nor did they break it up. I was just pointing out that it wasn't a truthful statement

That is painfully untrue

They were dispatched because no one would dare go into a halting site on any day not to mind one that had 200 plus travellers inbound

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Here's how dim witted people can be, government announce comumion and confirmation will be forbidden last autumn to try slow down the rapidly increasing Covid-19 numbers. They give a week or so notice. What do schools & churches do? They bring forward the event so it takes place a day or two before the ban kicks in.

We are now in the fifth full month of the six-week lockdown. By the time normal social activities are permitted, we will be into the eighth month of the six-week lockdown.

The delay between outdoor dining in England opening and outdoor dining in Ireland reopening will have been half again of the promised length of the entire lockdown.

The reason people brought events forward wasn't because the are "dim witted". It was because the Government has repeatedly lied about the length and severity of its bans on economic and social activity.

People knew well that "Communions and Confirmations will be suspended for three weeks to try slow down the rapidly increasing Covid-19 numbers" was an outright lie, and that every week was likely to last at least a month.

That's why they brought these events forward. Not believing a word that comes out of the mouth of a man who lied his way into office and has spent every minute since lying isn't "dim witted", it's basic common sense.

Former Former Former

b0nk1e wrote: »

We are now in the fifth full month of the six-week lockdown. By the time normal social activities are permitted, we will be into the eighth month of the six-week lockdown.

The delay between outdoor dining in England opening and outdoor dining in Ireland reopening will have been half again of the promised length of the entire lockdown.

The reason people brought events forward wasn't because the are "dim witted". It was because the Government has repeatedly lied about the length and severity of its bans on economic and social activity.

People knew well that "Communions and Confirmations will be suspended for three weeks to try slow down the rapidly increasing Covid-19 numbers" was an outright lie, and that every week was likely to last at least a month.

That's why they brought these events forward. Not believing a word that comes out of the mouth of a man who lied his way into office and has spent every minute since lying isn't "dim witted", it's basic common sense.

Did the government lie about it?

My memory is that they said they would review the situation but never promised we would reopen at any given date. Once the scale of the problem in January became evident, with the emergence of so many problematic variants, it would have been totally reckless to reopen so early.

People hear what they want to hear I guess.

Communions and confirmations ffs. Of all the things that we shouldn't give a f**K about...

Sleeper12

b0nk1e wrote:

The delay between outdoor dining in England opening and outdoor dining in Ireland reopening will have been half again of the promised length of the entire lockdown.

b0nk1e wrote:

That's why they brought these events forward. Not believing a word that comes out of the mouth of a man who lied his way into office and has spent every minute since lying isn't "dim witted", it's basic common sense.

On no. Very dim witted. For a start the government never promised anything. NEPHET made it very clear that opening up the country was dependent on the case numbers. No one gave a definite date & no one promised a date. Some people's actions & actives in December led directly to the death of their mother, father or grandparents in January. That is something to have to live with, knowing if they followed some simple rules that their loved ones could still be alive.

Lockdowns have been very successful in Ireland and the rest of the world. Opening up again, not so successful

...Ghost...

bubblypop wrote: »

Officially I would say yes.
There were restrictions about eating and drinking in the bar.
But there were definitely more then 100 in the dining room for breakfast.
Suppose they did the best they could

If they really did the best they could do, then they should have just closed their doors to the public and do us all a favour. I stayed in a hotel last summer when it was possible. I asked in advance of booking what the restrictions were. Masks were to be worn at all times in the hotel, save for the booked room. No facilities were open. The bar was closed and breakfast was to be booked in advance with a 30 minute slot. This ensured social distancing and limited numbers in the breakfast room to way below 50. Masks were to be worn in the breakfast room until you were seated and ready to have breakfast. All items were brought to the table to stop unnecessary movement of guests. That's responsible.

...Ghost...

...Ghost... wrote: »

If they really did the best they could do, then they should have just closed their doors to the public and do us all a favour. I stayed in a hotel last summer when it was possible. I asked in advance of booking what the restrictions were. Masks were to be worn at all times in the hotel, save for the booked room. No facilities were open. The bar was closed and breakfast was to be booked in advance with a 30 minute slot. This ensured social distancing and limited numbers in the breakfast room to way below 50. Masks were to be worn in the breakfast room until you were seated and ready to have breakfast. All items were brought to the table to stop unnecessary movement of guests. That's responsible.

Yep. Same as all hotels that were open.
Bars were open though, for food.
Facilities were open but had to be booked.

byhookorbycrook

[QUOTE=Sleeper12;117144719]What do schools & churches do? They bring forward the event so it takes place a day or two before the ban kicks in.[/QUOTE] Schools don't set dates for sacraments, it comes from the parish. And neither school or church can do anything about "after sacrament parties."

Former Former Former

Former Former Former wrote: »

Did the government lie about it?

My memory is that they said they would review the situation but never promised we would reopen at any given date.

The lockdown was from Christmas Eve "until January 12th".

There was absolutely no discussion that they intended it to last longer for the simple reason that people would not have accepted it.

It wasn't until February 12th - seven weeks into the six week lockdown - that the Government admitted that the intention was to prohibit all business and social activities for the first half of the year.

They knew exactly what they were doing. It was deliberately dishonest.

That's the problem with this Government, and this Taoiseach in particular: a toxic mix of contempt for the people, and cowardice.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

On no. Very dim witted. For a start the government never promised anything. NEPHET made it very clear that opening up the country was dependent on the case numbers.

If I was charging around a discussing forum screeching about people being dim witted, I'd probably make sure I managed to spell a five-letter acronym correctly.

monkeybutter

b0nk1e wrote: »

The lockdown was from Christmas Eve "until January 12th".

There was absolutely no discussion that they intended it to last longer for the simple reason that people would not have accepted it.

It wasn't until February 12th - seven weeks into the six week lockdown - that the Government admitted that the intention was to prohibit all business and social activities for the first half of the year.

They knew exactly what they were doing. It was deliberately dishonest.

That's the problem with this Government, and this Taoiseach in particular: a toxic mix of contempt for the people, and cowardice.



If I was charging around a discussing forum screeching about people being dim witted, I'd probably make sure I managed to spell a five-letter acronym correctly.

Plans change as the situation changes, they never said restrictions would be lifted on that date, as the situation got way worse so the lockdown would need to go on longer

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

Plans change as the situation changes, they never said restrictions would be lifted on that date, as the situation got way worse so the lockdown would need to go on longer

They said the lockdown would last until January 12th.

If they had intended that it would be extended past that date, they ought to have said so.

But that would have entailed giving metrics, which would have resulted in the end of NPHET's power.

It was dishonest.

People won't forget.

beakerjoe

b0nk1e wrote: »

They said the lockdown would last until January 12th.

If they had intended that it would be extended past that date, they ought to have said so.

But that would have entailed giving metrics, which would have resulted in the end of NPHET's power.

It was dishonest.

People won't forget.

Most people are realistic to the circumstances.

They didnt intend to extend it, but the growing cases forced their hand at the time.

They havent a crystal ball to how bad the virus would spread post Christmas.

And besides..... its way off topic.

Anymore on the wedding tonight? Did anything further happen after the marque was deconstructed?

beakerjoe

beakerjoe wrote: »

Anymore on the wedding tonight? Did anything further happen after the marque was deconstructed?

Oh I'd say not, it's a work day tomorrow after all

ReefBreak

b0nk1e wrote: »

They said the lockdown would last until January 12th.

If they had intended that it would be extended past that date, they ought to have said so.

But that would have entailed giving metrics, which would have resulted in the end of NPHET's power.

It was dishonest.

People won't forget.

What an idiotic opinion to have.

So basically what you're saying is:
"It doesn't matter what the case or death numbers were, or how infectious the variants are, or what the medical experts were recommending. They promised to open on Jan 12, so they should have opened on Jan 12." (They didn't promise by the way).

And let's not forget that the HIGHEST number of new daily cases was on Jan 8, with 8227 new cases.

Seriously, what is wrong with people that they would hold a point of view like this.

arctictree

Ninthlife wrote: »

If they cant explain or verify their sources of income based on their lifestyle/expenditure and they arent filing returns then questions would be asked and Revenue could raise an assessment , back date it the past 4 years add penalties, no doubt it would be 100% penalty as cooperation would be zero plus interest. Might be a nice hefty bill

Which won't be paid....

Former Former Former

b0nk1e wrote: »

They said the lockdown would last until January 12th.

If they had intended that it would be extended past that date, they ought to have said so.

But that would have entailed giving metrics, which would have resulted in the end of NPHET's power.

It was dishonest.

People won't forget.

This didn't happen.

But here's a metric. On 12th January, the 7day average of cases was over 6,000.

And you're annoyed that you couldn't go for a pint??

People like you are the reason things got so bad in January. The government stupidly caved in and a lot of people died unnecessarily but I'm very glad they ignored you after that.

Sleeper12

b0nk1e wrote:

If I was charging around a discussing forum screeching about people being dim witted, I'd probably make sure I managed to spell a five-letter acronym correctly.

There is a difference between dim witted and being dyslexic my friend.

By the way I haven't called you dim witted in case you thought I had.

Any chance you can link where the government promised to open the lockdown on a particular date? You do realise that even now as they announced dates they stress that it depends on how the numbers are. They say if we get a crazy surge that they may lock down again.

They definitely didn't promise to reopen early January. I'm sort of stunned to see anyone thinking that they could open in January. We had the fasted growing rate in the world at the time. We were paying for the foolishness of a few in December at the time

Sleeper12

b0nk1e wrote:

They said the lockdown would last until January 12th.

And it did last until January 12th.

They never said it wouldn't last longer. Going back to last March the pattern was lock down for a few weeks and review, then stay locked down longer.

ReefBreak

ReefBreak wrote: »

What an idiotic opinion to have.

Yes, what sort of idiot believes that when the Government says "there will be a lockdown until January 12th", there would be a lockdown until January 12th. How foolish.

If they'd said "there will be a lockdown until cases get to x and ICU capacity is y", people would have been less angry.

It's the contemptuous lies that people are furious about. They had no intention - no intention whatsoever - of ending the lockdown before summer.

Former Former Former wrote: »

And you're annoyed that you couldn't go for a pint??

People like you are the reason things got so bad in January. The government stupidly caved in and a lot of people died unnecessarily but I'm very glad they ignored you after that.

Your purse-lipped superciliousness is enough for me to put you on ignore.

You are a curtain-twitching snob.

Thread banned