Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Fighting Tao · 20-06-2018 07:25AM

So does Charles Byrne’s intend on calling to every address to see who lives there, check their iD for date of birth, and then look for proof of emigration etc.

He really needs to get the registeratiln forms from the councils if he is heading down that route. However, many of them include PPSN too.

He will get nowhere with his appeal.

Btw, #homeToVoteNo was a campaign too.

_Dara_ · 20-06-2018 07:32AM

I’m sure others experienced this but we had to take our polling cards with us when we were done for data protection purposes. In light of that, how will yer man be entitled to pour over the electoral register?

erica74 · 20-06-2018 08:09AM

Just on the GP referral system and switching GPs etc - if you have a medical card, your medical card is registered to your GP, or, at least, to the most senior GP in the Practice you attend, so you can't just tip over to another GP willy nilly - how's that going to work?

I think all GPs should have to provide abortion services, a refer onwards system will be too time costly when you're dealing with such a restrictive time limit.

ELM327 · 20-06-2018 08:21AM

erica74 wrote: »

Just on the GP referral system and switching GPs etc - if you have a medical card, your medical card is registered to your GP, or, at least, to the most senior GP in the Practice you attend, so you can't just tip over to another GP willy nilly - how's that going to work?

I think all GPs should have to provide abortion services, a refer onwards system will be too time costly when you're dealing with such a restrictive time limit.

Yeah it doesn't work

Free. Safe. Legal.

All GPs should be forced to provide the full spectrum of care, or be forced off the register.

_Dara_ · 20-06-2018 09:18PM

LOL. I thought she had evidence? The photos are all one tweet/retweet.

Overheal · 21-06-2018 07:12AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

LOL. I thought she had evidence? The photos are all one tweet/retweet.

That's sure to win over the court. :pac:

ELM327 · 21-06-2018 07:52AM

That's laughable.
As was the whole idea of a challenge at all given the wide margin of victory.

....... · 21-06-2018 09:19AM

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali · 21-06-2018 10:04AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In fairness, no-one can say for certain they are foolish until a judge takes a look, and everyone has a right to seek justice through the courts.

There is a thing called an Isaac Wunder order which blocks named people who are prone to bringing nonsense actions to court, but the Pro-life crew would just send another stooge.

seamus · 21-06-2018 10:15AM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So does Charles Byrne’s intend on calling to every address to see who lives there, check their iD for date of birth, and then look for proof of emigration etc.

He really needs to get the registeratiln forms from the councils if he is heading down that route. However, many of them include PPSN too.

He will get nowhere with his appeal.

This. What use is any register without something to cross-reference it against? How is he going to prove that Paudi O'Shea in Limerick on one register is the same Paudi O'Shea from a townland 5 miles away? He can't.

GDPR aside, there's also a massive issue in terms of the secret ballot - he's not just looking for the register, he's looking for the marked registers, i.e. a list of every voter in the country and whether they cast a vote or not.

That is a MASSIVE ask, it compromises the secrecy of the ballot, and you would need an extraordinary book of evidence to justify such a request.

....... wrote: »

She is basically a puppet for some well funded prolife group. She certainly isnt paying for these challenges herself. Last time her costs were in the millions and she lives in an old and council looking estate in Glenageary.

My understanding is that she's representing herself; i.e. she couldn't find an ambulance chaser desperate enough to take her case on.
So she's probably a zealot who's not in her full faculties and feels some duty to challenge these things. The twitter thing is probably an email address for Ms. Jordan herself or non-legal people who are helping her.

Zero chance that her case will get more than an hour in court before being dismissed.

ohnonotgmail · 21-06-2018 10:29AM

seamus wrote: »

This. What use is any register without something to cross-reference it against? How is he going to prove that Paudi O'Shea in Limerick on one register is the same Paudi O'Shea from a townland 5 miles away? He can't.

GDPR aside, there's also a massive issue in terms of the secret ballot - he's not just looking for the register, he's looking for the marked registers, i.e. a list of every voter in the country and whether they cast a vote or not.

That is a MASSIVE ask, it compromises the secrecy of the ballot, and you would need an extraordinary book of evidence to justify such a request.

My understanding is that she's representing herself; i.e. she couldn't find an ambulance chaser desperate enough to take her case on.
So she's probably a zealot who's not in her full faculties and feels some duty to challenge these things. The twitter thing is probably an email address for Ms. Jordan herself or non-legal people who are helping her.

Zero chance that her case will get more than an hour in court before being dismissed.

No she does seem to have a solicitor.

seamus · 21-06-2018 10:34AM

That's a new development so. Initially she was representing herself. I guess there's no legal impediment to US money funding Irish solicitors.

Ineedaname · 21-06-2018 10:57AM

seamus wrote: »

That's a new development so. Initially she was representing herself. I guess there's no legal impediment to US money funding Irish solicitors.

I thought there were laws in Ireland against third parties funding cases? Wasn't there a case against DOB thrown out because of it?

ohnonotgmail · 21-06-2018 11:05AM

Ineedaname wrote: »

I thought there were laws in Ireland against third parties funding cases? Wasn't there a case against DOB thrown out because of it?

There are laws against maintenance and champerty though in this instance champerty wouldn't really apply. Not sure about the DOB case you refer to.

ohnonotgmail · 21-06-2018 11:06AM

seamus wrote: »

That's a new development so. Initially she was representing herself. I guess there's no legal impediment to US money funding Irish solicitors.

there is a definite legal impediment to third parties funding legislation.

dudara · 21-06-2018 11:09AM

We all know the register of electors is a bit of a mess. And the process where by people get removed without being notified is not fair IMO.

But even if the electoral register is wonky, all that that tells us is that the register is wonky. It doesn’t tell us how people actually voted in the booths and if their “wonky” votes went to Yes or No. we can never know that.

uptherebels · 21-06-2018 07:24PM

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-refused-access-to-registers-of-voters-in-challenge-to-abortion-referendum-result-850351.html

At least it looks like the nonsense challenges are beginning to fall apart

ohnonotgmail · 21-06-2018 08:08PM

uptherebels wrote: »

https://www.examiner.com/breakingnews//man-refused-access-to-registers-of-voters-in-challenge-to-abortion-referendum-result-850351.html

At least it looks like the nonsense challenges are beginning to fall apart

He also awarded costs against Mr Byrne of the discovery application.

lol

_Dara_ · 21-06-2018 08:13PM

uptherebels wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-refused-access-to-registers-of-voters-in-challenge-to-abortion-referendum-result-850351.html

At least it looks like the nonsense challenges are beginning to fall apart

That’s two down so. It’s all down to the bould Joanna!

ELM327 · 22-06-2018 08:20AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

lol

He awarded costs against him

So he has to pay the costs? How much is that likely to be for one hearing?

Zubeneschamali · 22-06-2018 08:57AM

ELM327 wrote: »

So he has to pay the costs? How much is that likely to be for one hearing?

A day in the High court, Senior Counsel on both sides, I'd say no change out of €50K.

ELM327 · 22-06-2018 08:58AM

Delighted for him so. Serves him right.
Hopefully theres no legal aid in it.

Zubeneschamali · 22-06-2018 09:02AM

ELM327 wrote: »

Delighted for him so. Serves him right.
Hopefully theres no legal aid in it.

I'm sure the American pro-lifers will give him a digout.

ohnonotgmail · 22-06-2018 09:48AM

ELM327 wrote: »

He awarded costs against him

So he has to pay the costs? How much is that likely to be for one hearing?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A day in the High court, Senior Counsel on both sides, I'd say no change out of €50K.

that probably isnt far off. I remember my one day in the high court was £10K+ and that was 20 years ago. For just my side, and in pounds as well.

fxotoole · 22-06-2018 02:01PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

lol

Proper bloody order. Let him take on the cost of wasting the court's time. Hopefully it will also act as a financial deterrent to any other bonkers spurious challenges.

end of the road · 22-06-2018 02:36PM

fxotoole wrote: »

Proper bloody order. Let him take on the cost of wasting the court's time.

he is taking on the costs of taking his case, which i believe is how it works where a case is dismissed or the person loses the case?
so i'm afraid not proper bloody order and not let him take on the cost of wasting the court's time as that isn't what his costs will be going toards, given a person is entitled to take a case to the courts and have a judge decide on the outcome.

fxotoole wrote: »

Hopefully it will also act as a financial deterrent to any other bonkers spurious challenges.

it likely won't thankfully. and nor should it. people are entitled to take a case to the courts. if they don't have a case, it will be thrown out. works perfectly well. stupid cases will get nowhere and cases that may on the outset sound stupid may be something that forces a change in our society for the good, in relation to something we did not know was an issue.

ohnonotgmail · 22-06-2018 02:41PM

end of the road wrote: »

he is taking on the costs of taking his case, which i believe is how it works where a case is dismissed or the person loses the case?
so i'm afraid not proper bloody order and not let him take on the cost of wasting the court's time as that isn't what his costs will be going toards, given a person is entitled to take a case to the courts and have a judge decide on the outcome.

it likely won't thankfully. and nor should it. people are entitled to take a case to the courts. if they don't have a case, it will be thrown out. works perfectly well. stupid cases will get nowhere and cases that may on the outset sound stupid may be something that forces a change in our society for the good, in relation to something we did not know was an issue.

you're right, he wont be taking on the costs of wasting the courts time. He will be taking on the costs on wasting the defences time with his fishing expedition disguised as a motion for discovery. And quite a handsome cost it will be.

....... · 22-06-2018 02:53PM

This post has been deleted.

fxotoole · 22-06-2018 02:57PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you're right, he wont be taking on the costs of wasting the courts time. He will be taking on the costs on wasting the defences time with his fishing expedition disguised as a motion for discovery. And quite a handsome cost it will be.

My bad. Either way a financial penalty is in order for such nonsense.

end of the road · 22-06-2018 03:03PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

agreed.

fxotoole wrote: »

My bad. Either way a financial penalty is in order for such nonsense.

it's not in order at all, especially because one takes a case that one doesn't agree with. access to fair justice regardless of outcome is vital in a democracy and that is what happened here. there was no case so it was dismissed. as was obviously going to happen.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments