Granny jailed for refusing to wear a face mask

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There is no law that's the point, he could have asked her for a foot massage and jailed her for not complying going by the same logic.

No because there's sensible limits

Guy:Incognito

Does a granny in her 30's get the same protection from having to follow rules and /or laws as a 66 year old granny?

drunkmonkey

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No because there's sensible limits

I'm not seeing how the judge is correct here legally, he made up the rule and jailed her on the back of it. Was she socially distanced at the time, either or is good enough.

GT89

There are exemptions to wearing masks. It seems certain businesses and members of An Garda Siochana won't recognise this. Refusing someone for not wearing a mask is like refusing someone with a guide dog. It is discrimination.

Guy:Incognito

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm not seeing how the judge is correct here legally, he made up the rule and jailed her on the back of it. Was she socially distanced at the time, either or is good enough.

You not seeing doesn't change it. If you think you know more about the law than the judge, let them know or cite the relevant points of law here that she should be released under if you like.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm not seeing how the judge is correct here legally, he made up the rule and jailed her on the back of it. Was she socially distanced at the time, either or is good enough.

What part of 'contempt of court' are you struggling with?

It's not a law he made up. The president of the courts made it up over a year ago. As is his right under the court regulations.

There's no judicial review, there's no habeas corpus application. Her solicitors are satisfied that the judge was within his legal power.

Guy:Incognito

GT89 wrote: »

There are exemptions to wearing masks. It seems certain businesses and members of An Garda Siochana won't recognise this.

It seems that the cranks rowed back on their "everyone can make their own choices" when the choice being made by business owners that they wanted people to wear masks when entering their premises didnt suit them.

Guy:Incognito

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

. Her solicitors are satisfied that the judge was within his legal power.

Yeah, but what about what drunkmonkey "thinks". Why does the court not consider that?

drunkmonkey

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It's not a law he made up. The president of the courts made it up over a year ago. As is his right under the court regulations.

I didn't know that, I can see here it says you should https://courts.ie/news/courts-users-are-reminded-continue-adhere-covid-19-protocols-restrictions-ease
I can't see where it says you must, surely the lady is only bound by the laws of the land.

Topgear on Dave

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What do they do with her when she continually refuses to follow the rules, just send her on her way and say they don't apply to her? Is there a separate set for people in their 20's and those in their 60's?

I have little sympathy for her. But is she all that big a criminal?

She fully deserved to get thrown out of the shops.

She was verbally abusive to the staff, would not put on a mask in court and she fully deserves a large fine? If she does not pay the fine then lock her up.


But does the state have to bear the cost and is it the best use of the justice system to throw her in jail for a few days to massage the judges ego here? There are lads getting suspended sentences every day of the week for serious offences.

Guy:Incognito

drunkmonkey wrote: »

, surely the lady is only bound by the laws of the land.

Well if she was the type of person that did that she wouldn't have been in court in the first place.........

Guy:Incognito

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I have little sympathy for her. But is she all that big a criminal?

She fully deserved to get thrown out of the shops.

She was verbally abusive to the staff, would not put on a mask in court and she fully deserves a large fine? If she does not pay the fine then lock her up.


But does the state have to bear the cost and is it the best use of the justice system to throw her in jail for a few days to massage the judges ego here? There are lads getting suspended sentences every day of the week for serious offences.

She's in jail because of her contempt of court, should she just be allowed to be continually in contempt of court and the judge should have to just accept it and continue with the case? Can then do whatever I like in court and a judge has to just accept it because the punishment would cost the state money? If custodial sentences were done on a cost basis no one would ever go to jail.

drunkmonkey

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well if she was the type of person that did that she wouldn't have been in court in the first place.........

If they distress her it's a reasonable excuse so she shouldn't have been in court in the first place. Surprised at Dunnes for reporting her and the manager challenging her it's not really the norm.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

NaFirinne wrote: »

And many people disagree with being legally forced into wearing a Mask and as such will use civil disobiedience as a protest.


However we don't know this womens personal life, we don't know if she has some sort of medical condition such as being bi-polar which may prevent her having rational decisions at times.


Lockdowns can have detrimental effects on a lot of peoples mental health at any age.



People are so quick to judge others, like a mob with pitchforks.



Oh look someone isn't following the new facist laws - quickly burn them at the stake.


Listen to yourselves, what kind of people are you becoming, cold hearted, incompassionate zombies.

Perhaps she had a troubled childhood, your honor.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I didn't know that, I can see here it says you should https://courts.ie/news/courts-users-are-reminded-continue-adhere-covid-19-protocols-restrictions-ease
I can't see where it says you must, surely the lady is only bound by the laws of the land.

I can't really help you further with this. I have told you twice now exactly how this happened and under what. 'contempt of court'.

If you don't understand the legal system. So be it but again, her legal team have no such misunderstanding

HBC08

Just as easily could have read "c unt refuses to wear mask)

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If they distress her it's a reasonable excuse so she shouldn't have been in court in the first place. Surprised at Dunnes for reporting her and the manager challenging her it's not really the norm.

They don't though. That's just a bull**** excuse bring thrown out now.

She had ample opportunities to raise this excuse as did her legal team. No person did so

Guy:Incognito

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If they distress her it's a reasonable excuse so she shouldn't have been in court in the first place. Surprised at Dunnes for reporting her and the manager challenging her it's not really the norm.

She shouldn't go in to shops that require her to wear something that distresses her then. Private businesses should be able to set their own rules. Youd think you "freedom of choice " lads would be sticking up for dunnes to be able to set their own rules on their propertyh ere,

We all know its bull**** that they distress her anyway, just like all the other idiots that pretend they can't wear them for "medical reasons". I bet if they go skiing and its freezing cold, suddenly masks aren't an issue.

drunkmonkey

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I can't really help you further with this. I have told you twice now exactly how this happened and under what. 'contempt of court'.

If you don't understand the legal system. So be it but again, her legal team have no such misunderstanding

I know you have I just can't find any evidence to support that not wearing a mask is a contempt of court, it seems to be advisory. Granted you probably know what your taking about though. Spotted this a minute ago, maybe if she agrees to a jab instead.

drunkmonkey

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

She shouldn't go in to shops that require her to wear something that distresses her then. Private businesses should be able to set their own rules. Youd think you "freedom of choice " lads would be sticking up for dunnes to be able to set their own rules on their propertyh ere,

She's not required to wear them if it distresses her, businesses set their own rules on reporting or even asking people, I have my doubts it's dunnes policy to report non face cover wearing, the others don't actively do it.

Guy:Incognito

drunkmonkey wrote: »

She's not required to wear them if it distresses her, .

And surely you should be supporting the businesses right to refuse entry to her without a mask if it distresses their staff/owners/other customers?

drunkmonkey

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And surely you should be supporting the businesses right to refuse entry to her without a mask if it distresses their staff/owners/other customers?

No, not when it comes to face coverings, if your afraid of someone keep your distance she's entitled to go into shops with a reasonable excuse.

I witnessed a mentally disabled girl freaking out in a shop the other day as she said she couldn't breathe in the mask, her minder kept forcing it back on her, felt really sorry for her, she was sitting down on a seat inside the shop as I was leaving crying her eyes out.
They're not worth it in my opinion due to the negative effects on society, if you want to wear one off you go but nobody should be forced.

Guy:Incognito

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No, not when it comes to face coverings, if your afraid of someone keep your distance she's entitled to go into shops with a reasonable excuse.

Ah, so you pick and choose who gets freedom of choice based on your beliefs about covid, gotcha.
How do staff keep a distance all day every day in a small shop ? Or do they not matter, because the customer should be able to do whatever they want and **** the staff?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I witnessed a mentally disabled girl freaking out in a shop the other day as she said she couldn't breathe in the mask, her minder kept forcing it back on her, felt really sorry for her, she was sitting down on a seat inside the shop as I was leaving crying her eyes out.
They're not worth it in my opinion due to the negative effects on society, if you want to wear one off you go but nobody should be forced.

Having to wear a mask for a few minutes in a shop doesn't have negative effects on society, stop talking nonsense. Its an absolute minor issue that a certain cohort are trying to make in to a major one.

Your anecdotal evidence of what I'd see as an carer issue doesn't prove anything. Over a year in to this, I doubt that was the girls first interaction with a mask. The career clearly wasn't doing their job right, if its such an issue for a person, they shouldn't have been brought somewhere like that.

joeguevara

HBC08 wrote: »

Just as easily could have read "c unt refuses to wear mask)

Or ‘verbally abusive cretin was punished for failing to follow court orders’

Grab All Association

UDAWINNER wrote: »

Deserves everything she gets especially as a lot of these restrictions were designed to protect the elderly.

Ah the elderly that wholly voted Fianna Fáil all their lives who closed hospitals, amalgamation of the health boards and created the HSE who hired fake doctors who think elbows are ankles.

The world doesn’t owe you an existence. If you are at risk of severe illness from covid 19 then stay at home.

Im not bereft of compassion, but you get what you pay for. We lost so many district hospitals and young people hrough immigration because the gubbermint gave a £10 increase to the state pension or sent Mary a Christmas card.

Lewis_Benson

NaFirinne wrote: »

The times we are living in - Granny Jailed for refusing too wear a Mask....people jeering that she gets what she deserves - how could she be so irresponsible.


Wow - people just love using fear to indimidate others and to force them to comply with pure evil tryanny.

I pray for God to give this women strenght and courage and help through any mental health issues that she may have.

Tyranny?
Where do you think we are, nazi Germany?

paul71

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I didn't know that, I can see here it says you should https://courts.ie/news/courts-users-are-reminded-continue-adhere-covid-19-protocols-restrictions-ease
I can't see where it says you must, surely the lady is only bound by the laws of the land.

Our courts are not "the law of the land"? Who is? What is "the law of the land" if not the judgements of our constitionally empowered courts?

I would have thought a judge, and her own solicitors would know that better than us.

zerosugarbuzz

The mask wearing thing should be a choice now with so many people vaccinated. What is the point in vaccinations unless the restrictions are lifted on masks, travel etc.

Scot_in_Dublin

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They seem to be catching about 500 pro facers a day, can't be many of us left now.

From someone who has lost a few folks due to this over the past year and a bit, please, feel free to keep going with that. Be a ruddy shame when it hits you or someone close to you...

Scot_in_Dublin

Lewis_Benson wrote: »

Tyranny?
Where do you think we are, nazi Germany?

It's a weird flex from them. They are all about closing borders, no social welfare, etc. But as soon as it comes to them, hell no. You are infringing on my human rights strongly suggesting i wear a piece of cloth on my face.