nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

John Waters & Gemma O'Doherty to challenge lockdown in the high Court

Long_Wave

Now I know they are going to get a lot of ridicule for this but the lockdown is almost certainly unconstitutional so I wish them luck. https://mobile.twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1250421661062459399

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Plumbthedepths

Interesting to see what a judges take will be.

Quantum Erasure

The new Mick Wallace and Claire Daly?

Glebee

Just back from a next door neighbours funeral who pasted away from complication due to Covid 19. Fcuk off Gemma you absolute mongloid.

[Deleted User]

It worries me that so many people support her. If the government done nothing and people she knew were dying she'd give out about that too. Dope

CtevenSrowder

Ah can we not have another thread about these melts.

Tokyo

Mod: @Quantum Erasure - threadbanned.

The_Kew_Tour

It would do everyone great favour if everyone just ignored both of them

eviltwin

Who's bankrolling this pair of muppets?

Ash.J.Williams

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

The new Mick Wallace and Claire Daly?

they're elected

BanditLuke

Convinced one of them posts here in the restrictions thread.

Guy:Incognito

Long_Wave wrote: »

so I wish them luck.

Why, so people can "stick it to the man" , spread the virus around and kill some people?

Yeah, thatd be super awesome.

Pinkpotato

If ever there was a case for Internment it's these two. Hopefully they both catch it and can't speak for a few weeks. Not die or need hospital, just can't get out of bed for a while...

maestroamado

"they say give them enough rope and they hang themselves"

Whatever credibility they have (if any) be gone.

Seth Brundle

Any idea what the pair are trying to achieve from this malarkey?

Plumbthedepths

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Any idea what the pair are trying to achieve from this malarkey?

The lifting of restrictions I assume if the lockdown is found to be unconstitutional. Although if the state loses there will most likely be an appeal. By then the present restrictions should be eased

[Deleted User]

Long_Wave wrote: »

Now I know they are going to get a lot of ridicule for this but the lockdown is almost certainly unconstitutional so I wish them luck. https://mobile.twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1250421661062459399

On what basis is the lockdown "almost certainly unconstitutional" in your opinion?

listermint

Suspicious im sure a go fund me will be involved......

Seth Brundle

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The lifting of restrictions I assume if the lockdown is found to be unconstitutional. Although if the state loses there will most likely be an appeal. By then the present restrictions should be eased

But apart from attention seeking, what benefit is it to them? Businesses are closing their doors (and had been doing so before the lockdown) because of the obvious benefits to their customers, their workforce and so on.
Why would anyone with an ounce of cop-on want to remove the procedures that minimise the spread of a deadly virus?

Plumbthedepths

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

On what basis is the lockdown "almost certainly unconstitutional" in your opinion?

The right to assemble as an example is protected by the constitution yet outlawed at the moment. So the poster may well be right. Maybe a legal mind could give a better answer.

Juicee

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

On what basis is the lockdown "almost certainly unconstitutional" in your opinion?

Article 40 (which protects personal freedom) and article 15 (which prevents legislation which is quote "repugnant" to the constitution)

As an aside, I find it amazing the amount of personal abuse that is allowed on this forum, absolutely no need for it.

Juicee

btw No I'm not Gemma but I know she has flagged these 2 articles in relation to the lockdown so I'd say those 2 articles are central to the case

Be right back

I wonder who is paying for this? What do they reckon the alternative should be?

suicide_circus

Glebee wrote: »

Fcuk off Gemma you absolute mongloid.

I was not aware she has Mongolian ancestry

Guy:Incognito

Unconstitutional or not, what are people that support this action actually looking for from it? Do you think the whole thing isnt real and that theres no risk to anyone? That no one is dying?

jrosen

Is this not just an utter waste of time? We have these measures to try and slow the spread for the greater good of everyone on this island.

listermint

Anyone that can't see a publicity ruse and crowd funding in the heart of this isn't really looking close enough.

suicide_circus

In a way its a ridiculous publicity stunt.

And in another way, its important to ensure the government isnt exceeding its remit

Pinkpotato

The constitution actually allows for this during outbreaks of infectious disease. Which is why legaslation only had to be built on for the new laws and not a full referendum

meeeeh

Now that's a dream couple....

I know lock down is a serious issue but all I can think about is that they are made for each other.

bennyl10

Juicee wrote: »

Article 40 (which protects personal freedom) and article 15 (which prevents legislation which is quote "repugnant" to the constitution)

As an aside, I find it amazing the amount of personal abuse that is allowed on this forum, absolutely no need for it.

She keeps going on about article 40, which yes protects personal freedom, but the common good is at the heart of the entire constitution and overrules it all.

Common good, a la, not being able to kill everyone by being a dumbass and going outside, is protected by this lockdown.

No part of the lockdown is repugnant to the constitution