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

jos28

The restrictions were put in place to protect each and everyone of us.
There would have been no need to implement legislation if gobshi*** didn't try to ignore the restrictions.
People should morally and socially respect the restrictions but there will always be idiots who think they know better.

[Deleted User]

growleaves wrote: »

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.

You'd rather compare Taiwan and Belarus to Ireland than Austria or Czechia?

blueythebear

coolclogher wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately, security for costs is very difficult to obtain and is likely to bd impossible for the state to obtain. The reason its so difficult is to ensure everyones right of access to justice is upheld, even these two characters

trashcan

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.

Well, the losing party in a judicial review would normally have costs awarded against them by the Courts, which would mean they would be on the hook for the States costs, as well as their own. Of course the Judge has discretion to do whatever what he (or she) wants as regards costs.

blueythebear

trashcan wrote: »

Well, the losing party in a judicial review would normally have costs awarded against them by the Courts, which would mean they would be on the hook for the States costs, as well as their own. Of course the Judge has discretion to do whatever what he (or she) wants as regards costs.

Yes, and in this case, whether they raise an issue of public importance is particularly relevant also but irrespective of that, i dont believe i have ever heard of the state pursuing costs in a judicial review...

[Deleted User]

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.

'save in accordance with law'. People always forget that part.

Legislation had existed since 1939 impeding the personal right to personal freedom. There's been multiple acts since then that have restricted your personal freedom. In fact most acts restrict your personal freedom in some manner. It's not an absolute right and it's not claimed to be.

satguy

John Waters & Gemma O'Dorherty,, two fine upstanding individuals.

Right up there with other great leaders of people such as Chairman Mao and Pol Pot,, take a bow guys..

Foxhound38

Their kind of idiocy is actually dangerous. I say that as somebody who stupidly downplayed the seriousness of this thing until it became clear (for slow learners such as myself) that this catastrophe is as serious as it gets (before the lockdown for the record).

I have a conspiracy-minded uncle with too much time on his hands constantly sending me whatsapps about how this whole thing is a hoax and the restrictions are just a reason for the government to do x,y and z. I have to beg him to take this seriously, for fear that he will actually flout the restrictions, get infected and get seriously ill. The videos he sends me are Gemma O'Doherty's.

Pure bloody insanity - has she no family or friends that could have a chat with her about this behaviour?

[Deleted User]

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

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.

As above, save in accordance with law and many laws infringe upon that right.

The courts have found many times that your individual rights cannot be at the expense of the rights of others.

[Deleted User]

coolclogher wrote: »

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.

While that would prevent loony cases, it's important that the average person can challenge the law in court. I would have to see us go down the road of the courts only being accessible to the rich

[Deleted User]

blueythebear wrote: »

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....

yet they'll gladly step up for a couple of cuntz mutilating a 17 year old girl, or any number of fake sham insurances fraud case etc...it says feck all about legal integrity so don't fool yourself... I'm no fan of waters in particular but so what if they want to take a case as to the manner in which this was enacted. Remember if you try take guns off the yanks in a similar manner they lose the plot, some people take their constitutional rights to the extreme no matter how dire the situation seems.

blueythebear

rusty cole wrote: »

yet they'll gladly step up for a couple of cuntz mutilating a 17 year old girl, or any number of fake sham insurances fraud case etc...it says feck all about legal integrity so don't fool yourself... I'm no fan of waters in particular but so what if they want to take a case as to the manner in which this was enacted. Remember if you try take guns off the yanks in a similar manner they lose the plot, some people take their constitutional rights to the extreme no matter how dire the situation seems.

Im not talking about legal integrity, but more like the chances of winning. If any solicitor felt they could win and get paid for the success, they would take it.

They have a right to challenge the legislation and how its been enacted. It does not mean i have to agree with it. I think its a total publicity stunt and is intended for self promotion of both of these people, who absolutely are hardcore religious fanatics and tinfoil hat merchants.

growleaves

You'd rather compare Taiwan and Belarus to Ireland than Austria or Czechia?

I want countries that didn't lock down to be included in discussions of the alleged efficacy of lockdowns when we're comparing one country to another.

owlbethere

I understand the importance of the restrictions and come May the 5th, hopefully we will have turned a corner with the virus and some restrictions will be lifted. I do think we will be carrying some restrictions and social distancing measures with us for a few more months.

What happens if Gemma and John are successful with this? Will the restrictions have to be lifted?

If they have to be lifted, wouldn't that be considered dangerous and cause more people to catch this virus and overwhelm the health service?

tonysopprano

When is a lockdown not a lockdown?

When we are forced to stay in our homes while 150 members of a certain ethnic minority can travel from London to Offaly for a funeral because our airports and ferryports are still wide open

is_that_so

owlbethere wrote: »

I understand the importance of the restrictions and come May the 5th, hopefully we will have turned a corner with the virus and some restrictions will be lifted. I do think we will be carrying some restrictions and social distancing measures with us for a few more months.

What happens if Gemma and John are successful with this? Will the restrictions have to be lifted?

If they have to be lifted, wouldn't that be considered dangerous and cause more people to catch this virus and overwhelm the health service?

The restrictions are not governed by the law, it's the new enforcement that is. There's fairly little likelihood they will succeed but we'd probably need a new government and redrafting of the law. The majority of us have enough common sense to stay home so should have no real impact even if they won.

SeaFields

It is worth bearing in mind it is a judicial review and interested posters who are not familiar with this mechanism could look up on wiki or something.

Essentially it is a means by which the court can review the manner in which a public body reached a decision rather than the decision itself.

The first hurdle that must be overcome is being granted leave by the high court to bring the judicial review - the decision making body generally doesn't know that leave of the court has been sought. Then the substantive matter can be judicially reviewed if leave is granted. The court cannot overturn the decision but direct the public body to look at the decision again.

I'd imagine the restrictions will be a long time over by the time all the above happens.

Juicee

plodder wrote: »

Not a lawyer, but many rights are subject to limits based on some notion of the common good, and even when they aren't, rights like free movement are clearly impinging on other rights like bodily integrity and health, which are threatened by the virus in this case. So, it doesn't take a legal genius to accept that some restrictions would be accepted by the courts. I think they bent over backwards to keep these restrictions as limited as possible and explaining the rationale for them.

The truth is that no matter how water tight the law is, people can still challenge it in the High Court and go on to appeal it then further. At least here, as another poster points out, the worst of the restrictions will be long over before the courts come out with a decision.

RTE report here

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0415/1130727-covid-19-restrictions-challenged-in-high-court/

Judging by the arguments outlined there, there is little to be worrying about ... It's very unlikely that that pair of armchair lawyers will find a flaw in the laws or regulations imo.

Raymond Crotty (RIP) might disagree

Sawduck

They need to be locked up in a cell

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Juicee wrote: »

Gemma posted a stat on her twitter showing the deaths are down about 1000 versus at this stage in 2017 / 2018 / 2019. She also posted a US gov stat showing seasonal flu deaths plummeted vs same stage in previous years.
I haven't verified this myself personally. I'm sure it could be proven (or disproven if untrue) easily enough

Somebody posted the number of death notices on rip.ie since the start of March to around now for this year, last year and the year before. This year had something like 12% more notices than either of the other years. It's just one metric but as pretty much everyone in Ireland gets a death notice when they die, it's likely not far off.

storker

Juicee wrote: »

Don't know the guy myself so I wouldn't know. Have listened to him speak a few times, he doesn't seem to have the same penchant for levelling personal abuse at others, as do so many on boards unfortunately. Shame really. In my opinion once you go there, you immediately disqualify yourself from any further reasonable discussion.

So...if point contains an abusive term, that invalidates the point?

dj jarvis

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.

back it up with facts or its the ranting of another internet know it all tin foil hat general.

Only fact in town is people are getting killed becasue of the virus ALONG with other illnesses.
Wonder how much of a muppet you would be about it if it was someone close to you.

remember , key word is FACTS back up with STATS - off you go now lad.

blueythebear

SeaFields wrote: »

It is worth bearing in mind it is a judicial review and interested posters who are not familiar with this mechanism could look up on wiki or something.

Essentially it is a means by which the court can review the manner in which a public body reached a decision rather than the decision itself.

The first hurdle that must be overcome is being granted leave by the high court to bring the judicial review - the decision making body generally doesn't know that leave of the court has been sought. Then the substantive matter can be judicially reviewed if leave is granted. The court cannot overturn the decision but direct the public body to look at the decision again.

I'd imagine the restrictions will be a long time over by the time all the above happens.

In this case, the state has been put on notice of the leave application and so the leave application will be opposed.

In terms of what the court can do, it can grant certiorari which effectively torpedoes the act immediately so the lockdown restrictions cease to have effect of law. Pointless given the fact that lockdown is back to being voluntary since the 12th.

Totally agree with you that the restrictions will be done by the time the case is resolved, unless the court dismisses the leave applicarion next week in short order, which is likely.

dj jarvis

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Theres a fairly simple way to look at it. How many more people are dead, month on month , compared to previous years?

If theres no issue, numbers should be largely the same, no?

Numbers is the UK are DOUBLE compared to normal at this time of year,
So i would imagine here wont be to far from that.

Such callous bull**** being pursued here on this thread, shameful stuff .

nacho libre

Waters is an absolute attention seeking clown, so it does not surprise me he is involved in this. He showed how much of an intellectual he really is when he had a childish hissy fit on the radio during the abortion referendum.

dj jarvis

Juicee wrote: »

Gemma posted a stat on her twitter showing the deaths are down about 1000 versus at this stage in 2017 / 2018 / 2019. She also posted a US gov stat showing seasonal flu deaths plummeted vs same stage in previous years.
I haven't verified this myself personally. I'm sure it could be proven (or disproven if untrue) easily enough

J H C !!

Seasonal flu has dropped world wide becasue everyone is social distancing FFS,
everyone who is going out is washing hands and keeping apart
you know? the best way not to transmit virus!!

Sorry, but are you ok, like do you need help ?

Juicee

storker wrote: »

So...if point contains an abusive term, that invalidates the point?

What I am saying is if you are throwing insults and abuse at people it just makes it not worthwhile having a discussion with you. Unfortunately its rife here on boards and on twitter etc. Points are much better made without all the gutter sniping. I have no time for that ****e myself.

nacho libre

growleaves wrote: »

I want countries that didn't lock down to be included in discussions of the alleged efficacy of lockdowns when we're comparing one country to another.

I guess we can't really establish this until we compare the 2020 death rate for each country with their mortality rate for previous years, if your contention is incorrect then countries that implemented lockdowns promptly should have considerably lower death rates than countries that didn't.

owlbethere

blueythebear wrote: »

In this case, the state has been put on notice of the leave application and so the leave application will be opposed.

In terms of what the court can do, it can grant certiorari which effectively torpedoes the act immediately so the lockdown restrictions cease to have effect of law. Pointless given the fact that lockdown is back to being voluntary since the 12th.

Totally agree with you that the restrictions will be done by the time the case is resolved, unless the court dismisses the leave applicarion next week in short order, which is likely.

I think we will have to live with some restrictions going forward and after may the 5th. Hope the case will be slow to get through the court system.

I would be disappointed to see if all the restrictions are forced to be lifted too soon like from early May. I will continue to do my bit and avoid crowds etc, and I will be doing my bit but I can't control what happens oits8my home with this and what other people do. I think if the restrictions are lifted, there might be potential where the virus will run through the population and that's going to be disasterous for us/for Ireland.

dj jarvis

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.

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.

this, Sweden has tested 3 less than Ireland, so will have a far smaller infection rate simply because they are not testing, and the death rate proves this.
As for Finland, they have practicing social distancing for hundreds of years, this is normal for them :-)

Holding Sweden up as the way to go proves you dont understand the figures.

It;s all down to whos testing rates you believe and death rates , i for one dont believe a word that Belarus, Russia, India or China are saying. Funny, all the countrys with robust reporting have the highest death rate no?