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

plodder

Juicee wrote: »

Raymond Crotty (RIP) might disagree

Well, my comment was about the quality of their arguments rather than the fact they are armchair lawyers. For example, that the act was passed by a Dáil with reduced numbers due to the requirement for social distancing. I'll (metaphorically) eat my hat if the courts accept that as a valid argument. Lots of agreed arrangements have been used to reduce the numbers of TDs present in the Dáil at particular times, like pairings for government ministers. These are all voluntary arrangements. If they had tried to change the standing orders to enforce it, that might be a different matter. Any TD who disagreed with the measure couldn't have been stopped from going to Leinster House and voting on it.

Iamabeliever

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

It's mad how one virus can elevate another

Breezin

dj jarvis wrote: »

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?

I wish I could share your certainty. Independent analyses elsewhere point to a much more nuanced understanding.

It isn't clear that our response is working any better.

sydthebeat

Iamabeliever wrote: »

It's mad how one virus can elevate another

Its a pity herd immunity doesn't apply to stupidity.

trashcan

Foxhound38 wrote: »

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. ?

This is it though, I'd love to know what exactly x,y and z are in the minds of theses people. What nefarious end do they think this is all in aid of ? So every Government on the planet (or just about from what we can see) wants to run their economies into the ground, to stack up huge welfare and healthcare bills ? Jesus, even Stalin or Hitler at their best (worst) would balk at this kind of thing.

Juicee

How do people feel about these lockdown restrictions being available for government to trigger on demand in the future? Happy enough to have it hanging over you that your income, livelihood and access to travel, socialise, see relatives etc can be can be put on hold and put at risk at any time in the future?

Whether you believe these restrictions are appropriate for covid 19 or not, is it not a dangerous precedent to give government this level of restrictive power?

owlbethere

Juicee wrote: »

How do people feel about these lockdown restrictions being available for government to trigger on demand in the future? Happy enough to have it hanging over you that your income, livelihood and access to travel, socialise, see relatives etc can be can be put on hold and put at risk at any time in the future?

Whether you believe these restrictions are appropriate for covid 19 or not, is it not a dangerous precedent to give government this level of restrictive power?

These restrictions have been brought in in response to the virus. The restrictions won't be forever. I have no problem with the government having these laws in the background to be used in the future if another disaster happens or another contagious disease comes about or a world war starts up. It's not like FG decided to implement these for the craic.

Juicee

owlbethere wrote: »

These restrictions have been brought in in response to the virus. The restrictions won't be forever. I have no problem with the government having these laws in the background to be used in the future if another disaster happens or another contagious disease comes about or a world war starts up. It's not like FG decided to implement these for the craic.

You'll be happy enough to have another couple of lengthy lockdowns in October and March then? work/bills/family etc all ok for you? You think that's the case for most?

endacl

Juicee wrote: »

How do people feel about these lockdown restrictions being available for government to trigger on demand in the future? Happy enough to have it hanging over you that your income, livelihood and access to travel, socialise, see relatives etc can be can be put on hold and put at risk at any time in the future?

Whether you believe these restrictions are appropriate for covid 19 or not, is it not a dangerous precedent to give government this level of restrictive power?

No.

On the other hand, I’ve run out of tinfoil.

Juicee

How about indefinite social distancing and the end of mass gatherings like sporting events, festivals etc

[Deleted User]

Juicee wrote: »

How do people feel about these lockdown restrictions being available for government to trigger on demand in the future? Happy enough to have it hanging over you that your income, livelihood and access to travel, socialise, see relatives etc can be can be put on hold and put at risk at any time in the future?

Whether you believe these restrictions are appropriate for covid 19 or not, is it not a dangerous precedent to give government this level of restrictive power?

Well given that some of her co tools think that they should install a Catholic dictatorship in the country, is she and John not being a little bit hypocritical being their lackeys?

Wildlife Actor

The claim about the number of tds sounds mad. A quorum for a Dail sitting is 20 on Monday to Thursday and (bizarrely) 10 on a Friday (it's a long way home to Kilgarvan I suppose). It's inconceivable that the parties (or any td) would have got that wrong.

Article 15.11.3 of the Constitution

"The number of members necessary to constitute a meeting of either House for the exercise of its powers shall be determined by its standing orders."

mikeym

Gemma needs to join boards.ie and give her opinion.

basill

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Nutters, wouldn't surprise if ex priestess, spiritual guru & Harikrishna activist Sinead O'Connor is also on board :cool:

Throw in Jim Corr and we have the makings of a band!

JJayoo

Attention seeking clowns

[Deleted User]

Juicee wrote: »

How about indefinite social distancing and the end of mass gatherings like sporting events, festivals etc

I'm happy to accept that new rules are going to apply for the next year or two around certain things. Preferably to my parents dying before their time or anyone else's for that matter.

pure.conya

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

The new Mick Wallace and Claire Daly?

Mick Wallace was one of a couple of Tds that the garda whistle blowers trusted with their evidence of serious wrong doing

You're being ridiculous trying to lump Mick and Clare in with GOD AND JW

[Deleted User]

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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.

You have to pay for rip.ie so it's not an accurate method.

When we take into consideration that there's no funerals and only immediate families at the grave, a notice isn't really needed.

Cilldara_2000

It’s nice to live in a society of laws where ordinary people can ask the courts to look at stuff like this.

Regrettably for these two applicants, I can’t imagine that there’s any chance that the law and orders made under it are unconstitutional. As already pointed out, “save in accordance with law” and “subject to the common good” are common phrases in the constitution. So they’re left with the chances of there being a minor technicality breached which looks unlikely based on the quorum in the standing orders.

And that there’s a caretaker government is irrelevant if the Oireachtas validly passed the law and the minister “who continues in office until his successor is appointed” signed the regulations.

Grasping at straws IMO.

Cilldara_2000

Juicee wrote: »

How do people feel about these lockdown restrictions being available for government to trigger on demand in the future? Happy enough to have it hanging over you that your income, livelihood and access to travel, socialise, see relatives etc can be can be put on hold and put at risk at any time in the future?

Whether you believe these restrictions are appropriate for covid 19 or not, is it not a dangerous precedent to give government this level of restrictive power?

It’s not unprecedented. See Emergency Powers Act 1939 and the many thousands of orders made on foot of it. So many in fact that they couldn’t count them all:

In 1946, Frank Aiken told the Dáil that a total of 7,864 orders had been made.[10][14] Of these, 522 were made directly under the EPA, and the rest were subsidiary orders made under one of the primary orders, including about 5,330 under the Wages Standstill Orders.[14][nb 1] The total excluded orders made by local authorities for compulsory purchase of land for turf production and allotments, which Aiken said would take too much effort to enumerate.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You have to pay for rip.ie so it's not an accurate method.

When we take into consideration that there's no funerals and only immediate families at the grave, a notice isn't really needed.

From my experience, pretty much every death notice you’ll hear on local radio or in the Times will also appear on rip.ie. Yes, you’ve to pay but it’s not much. Most people will pay it.

And anyway, even if there’s a percentage of people who won’t, I’d imagine that also applies to this year so it’s still a useful ballpark metric.

And you’re wrong, the few funerals of people I know the last few weeks have still had a notice because it’s not just about giving funeral arrangements.

But if what you say is right and people aren’t putting out notices, then the death rate must be a lot higher this year because the number of notices was markedly higher this year. I don’t think you’re making the point you think you are making. You’re actually backing up the point that the rate is up.

Idbatterim

the uk expects more deaths from suicides, than from the virus itself if its a long term lockdown!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8207783/150-000-Brits-die-coronavirus-pandemic-domestic-violence-suicides.html

wont suit the lockdown merchants to hear that! mass foreign travel, sporting events, concerts everything is off the card for a good while, not essential, same with pubs. But if they think this level of lockdown will be tolerated or is acceptable much longer, well... wait till you see the backlash in a few weeks / months!

"they destroyed my livelihood, business, job, finances, mental health etc. And the damage it is going to do to the states finances, those than cant see past the end of their nose now , on the cost that the current actions have, are in for a shock!"

Wildlife Actor

Idbatterim wrote: »

the uk expects more deaths from suicides, than from the virus itself if its a long term lockdown!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8207783/150-000-Brits-die-coronavirus-pandemic-domestic-violence-suicides.html

wont suit the lockdown merchants to hear that! mass foreign travel, sporting events, concerts everything is off the card for a good while, not essential, same with pubs. But if they think this level of lockdown will be tolerated or is acceptable much longer, well... wait till you see the backlash in a few weeks / months!

"they destroyed my livelihood, business, job, finances, mental health etc. And the damage it is going to do to the states finances, those than cant see past the end of their nose now , on the cost that the current actions have, are in for a shock!"

Ah yes, article written by the editor of the spectator in the daily mail. Unimpeachable. Sources? Right, not to be revealed yet. Evidence so far? One person committed suicide and one domestic violence case. And someone decided it was the lock down's fault.

Eh... OK.

martingriff

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You have to pay for rip.ie so it's not an accurate method.

When we take into consideration that there's no funerals and only immediate families at the grave, a notice isn't really needed.

Well I have just done crude maths on RIP.ie March of Last year there was 89 pages of deaths with 41 on each so multiplies both together and then took away 300 for the times a death may be on twice and got 3,349.

Did the same for 2020

This time there were 97 pages did the same but subtracted 326 just for the increase of pages and got 3,651.

I know its crude both even by the increase in the amount of pages you will see there were more this year then last year

Idbatterim

Wildlife Actor wrote: »

Ah yes, article written by the editor of the spectator in the daily mail. Unimpeachable. Sources? Right, not to be revealed yet. Evidence so far? One person committed suicide and one domestic violence case. And someone decided it was the lock down's fault.

Eh... OK.

I started hearing about an increase in domestic violence over two weeks ago here on the radio, two weeks ago, when it had only really properly started with lockdown etc! Pretend everything else is fine and dandy though, its only virus directly we have to be concerned about!

Gregor Samsa

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You have to pay for rip.ie so it's not an accurate method.

When we take into consideration that there's no funerals and only immediate families at the grave, a notice isn't really needed.

If death notices aren’t currently needed, the numbers on RIP.ie should be down then, shouldn’t they? How come they’re up?

You seem to be suggesting that more people are paying for something that they have less need for this year than last year. Which makes no sense.

take everything

I saw Waters on a podcast with another conspiracy guy recently talking about how only 12% of the recent deaths in Italy were due to the Coronavirus. He doesn't even address the cause of the outstanding 88%. He also criticised Italian doctors accusing them of basically not doing enough to save these people because of triage decisions. And the other fella ascribed the spike in Italian deaths to everything he could think of including pollution.

Pollution?
These people are scumbags

take everything

Juicee wrote: »

How about indefinite social distancing and the end of mass gatherings like sporting events, festivals etc

Yeah that's not going to happen.
If there's money in it, it won't happen.

Which makes me wonder why people think this lockdown more than anything is a conspiracy.

The last thing governments around the world want to do is kill their economies

[Deleted User]

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

From my experience, pretty much every death notice you’ll hear on local radio or in the Times will also appear on rip.ie. Yes, you’ve to pay but it’s not much. Most people will pay it.

And anyway, even if there’s a percentage of people who won’t, I’d imagine that also applies to this year so it’s still a useful ballpark metric.

And you’re wrong, the few funerals of people I know the last few weeks have still had a notice because it’s not just about giving funeral arrangements.

But if what you say is right and people aren’t putting out notices, then the death rate must be a lot higher this year because the number of notices was markedly higher this year. I don’t think you’re making the point you think you are making. You’re actually backing up the point that the rate is up.

I'm not defending any side, I'm merely pointing out that using notices is a poor methodology.

[Deleted User]

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

If death notices aren’t currently needed, the numbers on RIP.ie should be down then, shouldn’t they? How come they’re up?

You seem to be suggesting that more people are paying for something that they have less need for this year than last year. Which makes no sense.

Again, I'm not in your 'up, down' argument. I'm just suggesting it's a poor method to gauge deaths.

Notices are never needed though, it's an optional thing people do just as some people will have it announced in work or social clubs, some won't. I have never felt the need or desire to let work or my colleagues now about the funerals of my relatives but I get emails about the relatives of colleagues. It's just something some do