Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Yeah_Right · 12-06-2018 04:06PM

topper75 wrote: »

Well sort of. The women get on with THEIR lives yes.

Huh??

The guys can get on with their lives too. They generally don't concern themselves with a woman's medical problems. Maybe they'll make them a cup of tea or something and then they get on with their lives.

RobertKK · 12-06-2018 04:06PM

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/public-list-of-gps-providing-abortion-now-likely-37000509.html

A public list of GPs who are registered to provide medical abortions may be necessary to ensure women looking for a termination are not left confused about where to get the service, it emerged yesterday.
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar reiterated that while GPs can have a conscientious objection to providing medical abortions, they will be ethically obliged to refer a woman to a doctor who is participating in the scheme.
However, the National Association of General Practitioners has highlighted the objection to referring a woman on to a colleague which a minority of doctors with deeply held anti-abortion views will want to uphold.

So there may be a public list of GPs so there won't be a need for referral, which is what I have argued for.

....... · 12-06-2018 04:25PM

This post has been deleted.

Hitman3000 · 12-06-2018 04:28PM

RobertKK wrote:

So there may be a public list of GPs so there won't be a need for referral, which is what I have argued for.

No issue with a list once an exclusion area for protests is also enacted. No one should have to run the gauntlet with protesters outside a doctor's surgery.

Fighting Tao · 12-06-2018 04:31PM

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/public-list-of-gps-providing-abortion-now-likely-37000509.html

So there may be a public list of GPs so there won't be a need for referral, which is what I have argued for.

Well done on having a word in Leo’s and Simons ears. I’ll keep you in mind for assistance with the next issue I have.

end of the road · 12-06-2018 04:33PM

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No issue with a list once an exclusion area for protests is also enacted. No one should have to run the gauntlet with protesters outside a doctor's surgery.

would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO.
if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.

Fighting Tao · 12-06-2018 04:35PM

end of the road wrote: »

would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO.
if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.

Prison isn’t a waste of money for that type of person.

RobertKK · 12-06-2018 04:36PM

Leo Varadkar seems to think it will be around 60 doctors needed to provide the proposed abortion service.

Hitman3000 · 12-06-2018 04:36PM

end of the road wrote:

would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO. if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.

Personally any body willing to harass a woman outside a GP's surgery deserves a stay in the Joy. Money well spent in my opinion. Incarceration is quite effective.

Walter Bishop · 12-06-2018 04:38PM

Love a bit of the ol' drive-by posting: I'll make my point but you needn't think I'm going to listen to yours!!

ohnonotgmail · 12-06-2018 04:40PM

end of the road wrote: »

would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO.
if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.

well perhaps it wouldn;t stop them initially but a couple of weeks in the 'joy might make them think about doing it again and deter others.

....... · 12-06-2018 04:45PM

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin · 12-06-2018 04:46PM

end of the road wrote: »

would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO.
if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.

these types have been at it for years. I remember going into a IFPA clinic and being subjected to verbal abuse from some nuts across the road. The staff were in contact with gardai but they couldnt do anything. This might be a good opportunity to sort out laws relating to these kinds of protests. Patients and staff shouldn't have to put up with this kind of intimidation.

gctest50 · 12-06-2018 04:46PM

Walter Bishop wrote: »

Love a bit of the ol' drive-by posting: I'll make my point but you needn't think I'm going to listen to yours!!

Another of the many that looked at Ireland as some fantasy retirement place with leprechauns, donkeys and red haired maidens w/ dodgy healthcare

The country is finally taking off the training wheels and will be looking after the healthcare of women in Ireland, in Ireland

end of the road · 12-06-2018 04:46PM

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Personally any body willing to harass a woman outside a GP's surgery deserves a stay in the Joy. Money well spent in my opinion.

harassment is already covered by existing law. up to the authorities and the courts to enforce the laws that exist, which works if actually enforced and the resources are payed for.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Incarceration is quite effective.

very debatible tbh. how many people dispite being jailed, have continued to receive ridiculous amounts of convictions afterwords?

Hitman3000 · 12-06-2018 04:50PM

end of the road wrote:

very debatible tbh. how many people dispite being jailed, have continued to receive ridiculous amounts of convictions afterwords?

You missed my point, hard to protest from the environs of a cell in the Joy. Having said that if my partner were to be subjected to harassment from a protester , it would be more than her requiring medical attention.

Igotadose · 12-06-2018 04:54PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Leo Varadkar seems to think it will be around 60 doctors needed to provide the proposed abortion service.

As Leo Varadkar pointed out, they'll all have to provide referrals, and the 60 doctors needed quote is kind of vague.

So where the issue stands:
1. Doctors must refer - good on Leo for clarifying that
2. "Medical Resources" need to be figured out for the rest. This is gamesmanship around funding in my opinion.

Overall, I think good - Leo laid down the law about referrals. Yet another no-bot squawking point sent off.

ohnonotgmail · 12-06-2018 04:58PM

end of the road wrote: »

harassment is already covered by existing law. up to the authorities and the courts to enforce the laws that exist, which works if actually enforced and the resources are payed for.

They are nowhere near strong enough. To use the harassment laws in place the harassment has to be persistent. So a single protest outside would be within law. We need a specific offence that is easier to prosecute.

end of the road wrote: »

very debatible tbh. how many people dispite being jailed, have continued to receive ridiculous amounts of convictions afterwords?

the people doing protests of this type are not career criminals who accept jail time as an occupational hazard.

pitifulgod · 12-06-2018 05:31PM

end of the road wrote: »

harassment is already covered by existing law. up to the authorities and the courts to enforce the laws that exist, which works if actually enforced and the resources are payed for.

very debatible tbh. how many people dispite being jailed, have continued to receive ridiculous amounts of convictions afterwords?

A buffer zone has been required in other states so yep I would view it as a very much so worth considering. The government are also considering, I'm lost on why you would prefer not to prevent picketing outside of a gp's office..

ohnonotgmail · 12-06-2018 05:34PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

A buffer zone has been required in other states so yep I would view it as a very much so worth considering. The government are also considering, I'm lost on why you would prefer not to prevent picketing outside of a gp's office..

well i think we all know why.

end of the road · 12-06-2018 05:44PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well perhaps it wouldn;t stop them initially but a couple of weeks in the 'joy might make them think about doing it again and deter others.

i'd be surprised if it would tbh. i'd reccan it's more likely to spur them to continue, and play the victim as well.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the people doing protests of this type are not career criminals who accept jail time as an occupational hazard.

but would possibly be willing to accept jail time as part of fighting the cause.

pitifulgod wrote: »

The government are also considering, I'm lost on why you would prefer not to prevent picketing outside of a gp's office..

because i believe in the right to protest regardless of whether i agree with or like or not, specific protests or protesters. anything that restricts the right to protest, in my view leaves the possibility of extension to other areas and before we know it the possible erosion of our right to protest.

pitifulgod · 12-06-2018 05:50PM

end of the road wrote: »

i'd be surprised if it would tbh. i'd reccan it's more likely to spur them to continue, and play the victim as well.

but would possibly be willing to accept jail time as part of fighting the cause.

because i believe in the right to protest regardless of whether i agree with or like or not, specific protests or protesters. anything that restricts the right to protest, in my view leaves the possibility of extension to other areas and before we know it the possible erosion of our right to protest.

They can protest, just not directly outside of a doctor's office. People go to a doctor for all kinds of highly stressful reasons and a gang of protesters famed for harassment adds to it. Whatever the reason, they should not be intimidated by the likes of the ICBR.

end of the road · 12-06-2018 05:56PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

They can protest, just not directly outside of a doctor's office.

which IMO means they can't protest, because a protest will (depending on the protest) need to be held at the building or area that is the specific entity that is of issue with the protesters.

pitifulgod wrote: »

People go to a doctor for all kinds of highly stressful reasons and a gang of protesters famed for harassment adds to it. Whatever the reason, they should not be intimidated by the likes of the ICBR.

agreed but that's not the point. the point is whether we like them or not, the ICBR have a right to protest and if that is outside a gp, then whether we agree with it or not then that is their democratic right and dispite having no time for them, i will support that democratic right.

spookwoman · 12-06-2018 06:21PM

end of the road wrote: »

i'd be surprised if it would tbh. i'd reccan it's more likely to spur them to continue, and play the victim as well.

but would possibly be willing to accept jail time as part of fighting the cause.

because i believe in the right to protest regardless of whether i agree with or like or not, specific protests or protesters. anything that restricts the right to protest, in my view leaves the possibility of extension to other areas and before we know it the possible erosion of our right to protest.

If proper laws were brought in once convicted of said laws then there is civil lawsuits which could see nice payouts to women getting harassed.
So not only jail time but also hitting them in the pocket which is a very good deterrent

gctest50 · 12-06-2018 06:32PM

end of the road wrote: »

agreed but that's not the point. the point is whether we like them or not, the ICBR have a right to protest and if that is outside a gp, then whether we agree with it or not then that is their democratic right and dispite having no time for them, i will support that democratic right.

A woman in Ireland has a right to free passage down the street without being obstructed

Obstructed may include feeling fearful etc but it's a bit too vague

It needs to be set down in stone, nice and clearly so it is not open to "interpretation"

( and we all know how fond the likes of ICBR filth are of "interpretation" )

This should include people with no placards,t-shirts with messages on them etc etc handing out leaflets/info

There is a specific section to deal with someone begging and intimidating/obstructing a passerby, so it'll be no load

2.— A person who, while begging in any place—

(a) harasses, intimidates, assaults or threatens any other person or persons, or

(b) obstructs the passage of persons or vehicles,

is guilty of an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a class E fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or both

.

_Dara_ · 12-06-2018 06:33PM

end of the road wrote: »

which IMO means they can't protest, because a protest will (depending on the protest) need to be held at the building or area that is the specific entity that is of issue with the protesters.

agreed but that's not the point. the point is whether we like them or not, the ICBR have a right to protest and if that is outside a gp, then whether we agree with it or not then that is their democratic right and dispite having no time for them, i will support that democratic right.

The thoughts of walking past protesters whilst going in to get my cancer prescriptions. The horror. THE HORROR.

Achasanai · 12-06-2018 07:05PM

end of the road wrote: »

which IMO means they can't protest, because a protest will (depending on the protest) need to be held at the building or area that is the specific entity that is of issue with the protesters.

agreed but that's not the point. the point is whether we like them or not, the ICBR have a right to protest and if that is outside a gp, then whether we agree with it or not then that is their democratic right and dispite having no time for them, i will support that democratic right.

Your right to protest ends when you are harassing people accessing basic medical care.

end of the road · 12-06-2018 07:20PM

spookwoman wrote: »

If proper laws were brought in once convicted of said laws then there is civil lawsuits which could see nice payouts to women getting harassed.
So not only jail time but also hitting them in the pocket which is a very good deterrent

i can't imagine hitting these people in the pocket will be any kind of a deterrent tbh. IMO it would probably cost the tax payer also as they likely won't pay up.

gctest50 wrote: »

( and we all know how fond the likes of ICBR filth are of "interpretation" )

This should include people with no placards,t-shirts with messages on them etc etc handing out leaflets/info

would be completely ridiculous and a waste of time money and resources again IMO. people are entitled to hold placards, wear t-shirts with information, hand out leaflets (you have no obligation to take them currently) or provide information.

Overheal · 12-06-2018 07:47PM

end of the road wrote: »

would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO.
if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.

Ah sure let’s just fcuk off with all the laws that prevent electioneering near polling stations too since that type of crowd won’t obey the law anyway.

Herp derp. The right to protest is far from absolute. “Ah sure The Westboro Baptists, they need to be right in front of the coffin of the dead gay soldier to really get across the point that God hates fags.”

Your argument is pathetically unfounded.

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-06-2018 08:00PM

Overheal wrote: »

Ah sure let’s just fcuk off with all the laws that prevent electioneering near polling stations too since that type of crowd won’t obey the law anyway.

Herp derp. The right to protest is far from absolute. “Ah sure The Westboro Baptists, they need to be right in front of the coffin of the dead gay soldier to really get across the point that God hates fags.”

Your argument is pathetic.

Sounds more appropriate especially with that posters past remarks calling for gardai to baton charge men women and children if they protest against a concert.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments