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; } } }

Child Item

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

Guy:Incognito

Breezin wrote: »

Maybe because they don't actually minimise it -- see the Sweden thread. Proportionally, we are doing no better, or not much better than them, at much more cost.

So, from a personal standpoint, would you continue exactly as you were before if no restrictions had been put in place? Or would you take precautions?

wadacrack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCSXNGc7pfs

listermint

Juicee wrote: »

How many livlihoods are going down the drain over this lockdown?
How many healthy people are going to become unhealthy due to psychological distress, financial distress, depression, not having access to social activities, adequate sunlight, fresh air, nature etc.

Questions have also been raised by many, over the misrepresentation of death stats cancer/heart disease/seasonal flu/pneumonia/natural causes deaths are plummeting they say, while covid deaths are skyrocketing.

I'm assuming alot less than 125,000 which would have been he projected numbers with mortality rate and our population size or is 125,000 a nice number for libertarians among us..

is_that_so

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.

Then why are they not going straight to the SC? How is it repugnant? And how does this claim fit in with the concept of the State as guardian of the common good?

[Deleted User]

Juicee wrote: »

How many livlihoods are going down the drain over this lockdown?
How many healthy people are going to become unhealthy due to psychological distress, financial distress, depression, not having access to social activities, adequate sunlight, fresh air, nature etc.

Questions have also been raised by many, over the misrepresentation of death stats cancer/heart disease/seasonal flu/pneumonia/natural causes deaths are plummeting they say, while covid deaths are skyrocketing.

Not having adequate access to sunlight, fresh air and nature, even Gems who goes on like she lives in a tinfoil lined bunker is out and about.

She and Walters are tools, we're still stuck with him despite his promise to emigrate if the 8th was repealed.

They certainly know how to gather the low hanging fruitcakes and are a handy tool for that scrote Barrett.

is_that_so

Juicee wrote: »

How many livlihoods are going down the drain over this lockdown?
How many healthy people are going to become unhealthy due to psychological distress, financial distress, depression, not having access to social activities, adequate sunlight, fresh air, nature etc.

Questions have also been raised by many, over the misrepresentation of death stats cancer/heart disease/seasonal flu/pneumonia/natural causes deaths are plummeting they say, while covid deaths are skyrocketing.

There seem to be about 40 questions in one here. I don't think you want answers to them TBH, just a spot of venting on whatever views you hold on this. You really might want to consider some reframing on your perceptions of life.

owlbethere

wadacrack wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCSXNGc7pfs

Vitamin D, the sunshine vitamin.

Is that why Gemma is going to court over the restrictions?

Absolutely ridiculous argument. People can still go out and soak up the sun for about 10/15 minutes and that's your vitamin D. It's also available as a supplement. People can still leave their homes and go outside but there are restrictions of 2km to prevent new clusters of the disease from forming.

kenmc

Can't it just be scheduled for after the lockdown, when it's safe to congregate once more? Like 2044 or something

Palmach

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

Bravo Gemma. You are a racist conspiracy obsessed nutcase but maith an cailín for this.

jimmycrackcorm

Juicee wrote: »

Constitution mentions Emergency. Emergency is defined as war only. I understand a supreme court case in 2011 reaffirmed this

It' s notes if we didn't previously already have such emergency laws as precdent. The Emergency Powers Act, 1939 allowed for similar wide-ranging same restrictions.

Palmach

bennyl10 wrote: »

Article 24.1 allows for public emergency, not necessary for it to be war,a dn allows for bill to be passed for the preservation of public peace and security

that is actually what's happened in this case

And the powers given to the Guards are simply wide ranging to cover Covid 19. I have seen Guards stopping people from fishing even though there is no one be near them.

kenmc

Palmach wrote: »

And the powers given to the Guards are simply wide ranging to cover Covid 19. I have seen Guards stopping people from fishing even though there is no one be near them.

Fishing or trolling?

VinLieger

They are both conspiracy nutjobs, im surprised they arent dont mention 5G and microchips in their legal arguments

John Hutton

The restrictions may be necessary and worthwhile but it doesn't mean they are legal.

There are some very interesting constitutional questions at play here, will be curious to see what happens.

VinLieger

John Hutton wrote: »

The restrictions may be necessary and worthwhile but it doesn't mean they are legal.

There are some very interesting constitutional questions at play here, will be curious to see what happens.

There really isn't, do you know how I can tell? Cus of the conspiracy idiots involved.

blueythebear

Theres a report on this in the journal and they seem to be relying on technical grounds related to the manner in which the laws were enacted, i.e. not enough TDs in the chamber at the time, that the government is a caretaker government, etc.

The whole thing is a publicity stunt anyway....even if they succeed in getting leave for a full judicial review, no ultimate decision by the court will be made for months, by which time there will be a functioning government and new legislation can be passed.

I also note that they were self represented, so no solicitor wanted to act for them. I wonder why....

Breezin

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So, from a personal standpoint, would you continue exactly as you were before if no restrictions had been put in place? Or would you take precautions?

I would most certainly take precautions. Like they are in Sweden!

blueythebear

John Hutton wrote: »

The restrictions may be necessary and worthwhile but it doesn't mean they are legal.

There are some very interesting constitutional questions at play here, will be curious to see what happens.

There are no fundamental rights issues worth arguing here. They only have very technical arguments about the implementation of the legislation, which, as lay litigants, they are going to find it extremely difficult to succeed with.

carchaeologist

Pelvis Parsley wrote: »

Waters really has a thing for crazy, doesn’t he?

He threw a pup in Sinead O’Connor.
Nuff said.

[Deleted User]

Breezin wrote: »

Maybe because they don't actually minimise it -- see the Sweden thread. Proportionally, we are doing no better, or not much better than them, at much more cost.

Except there are also countries that introduced lockdowns and have a much lower death rate than Ireland or Sweden, comparable examples being Austria and Czechia

JP Liz V1

Whose paying for this?

blueythebear

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Whose paying for this?

Theyre representing themselves so their costs would be minimal. But the State has to engage barristers and will have to pay for that.

growleaves

Except there are also countries that introduced lockdowns and have a much lower death rate than Ireland or Sweden, comparable examples being Austria and Czechia

There also countries that didn't introduce lockdowns that have a much lower death rate than Ireland or Sweden, such as Taiwan and Belarus and states like Iowa.

Away With The Fairies

What lockdown though? They were only restrictions, even someone asked Leo about the lockdown on the first evening of the announcement and he didn't mention anything about a lockdown, he didn't use the word lockdown, they were restrictions. Good looney Gemma.

Harry Palmr

Ah jasus, their case is on Six-One News (for 20 seconds)

AmberGold

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Ah jasus, their case is on Six-One News (for 20 seconds)

Saw that, what a pair of total wasters.

2ndcoming

Would everyone please stop holding up Sweden as some kind of positive example.

Their case numbers are low because they have done hardly any testing... they had over four times as many deaths than us today, have three times as many deaths overall.

Compare them to their neighbours in Finland and Denmark if you want to see the evidence of whether the measures are important.

As for the pair of self-serving ghouls in the thread title, both should be ignored at all costs no matter what attention seeking stunt they come up with.

coolclogher

blueythebear wrote: »

Theyre representing themselves so their costs would be minimal. But the State has to engage barristers and will have to pay for that.

Given that they are bringing the case they should have to post a bond to cover the states legal costs ( or some portion) if the case goes against them.

southstar

Listened to ,David Quinn try an opportunist dig at WHO ,..they were slow to the game blah blah..I really don't really like Trump.RREALLY.....REALLY.....blah blah..,.time was crucial..blah blah..
.David think condoms ..and all the other lazy bull****..what were you saying then.,how many years did it all that take to address.,.David you got licked ,move on

Breezin

2ndcoming wrote: »

Would everyone please stop holding up Sweden as some kind of positive example.

Their case numbers are low because they have done hardly any testing... they had over four times as many deaths than us today, have three times as many deaths overall.

Compare them to their neighbours in Finland and Denmark if you want to see the evidence of whether the measures are important.

Did you read the reports on rte.ie and in the Guardian? Those comparisons are covered and put in context.