Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…457910…60

Comments

  • #182
    is_that_so
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Juicee wrote: »
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058070570

    gards want to check your shopping now. This latest disturbing development highlights the importance of this constitutional challenge.
    It's not a constitutional challenge as the HC can't hear one. It's a challenge to the alleged illegality of the enactment of the emergency legislation.


  • #183
    paw patrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭paw patrol


    I find the attitudes here bizarre. Really fcukin weird.

    It is good and proper that our laws are tested in court. This is a good thing - should be seen as such.
    Only a moron would object to that.

    Love the lockdown or loath it - your liking should be irrelevant , a proper free society should allow and delight at these challenges. It shows the system works and prevents excessive government control.

    The vitriol here is amazing , this lockdown for some on boards its like "Papal Infallibility" ,it cannot be questioned.
    This awe of our betters should have died out decades ago.

    We know governments can be correct at times, make mistakes at times or be downright nefarious at times . So why the gung-ho blind following of them?

    The lads in government and the HSE are not infallible and nor are they make from better clay than the rest of us (to misquote Frederic Bastiat) . Not to question or challenge them is moronic.


  • #184
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,144 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    So then theres even more deaths?

    obviously and worldwide


  • #185
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    plodder wrote: »
    Though it seems to me the constitution didn't really envisage this situation at all, and what we are relying on is the "unenumerated" personal rights established over the years by the courts eg "bodily integrity" and some kind of sensible interpretation of balancing that right for the majority against the right of Waters and O'Doherty to swan around as they please.
    Similarly, I'm not a lawyer. And, having watched 20 minutes of Gemma and John talking about their case last night via the interweb, I've no confidence that they'd spot a soft underbelly, if there is one.

    At the same time, the pre-existing legislation had a pretty clear and limited application. If someone was known to have an infectious disease, they could be compulsorily confined and treated (so long as treatment did not include surgery).

    So, if someone is identified with Covid, and presents an obvious immediate danger to others, then that looks reason to restrict their liberty in a drastic way. I'd say its not so clear that you can confine people who don't have anything wrong with them, as the immediate threat doesn't exist.

    Bearing in mind, its the rights of the majority that you are curtailing. And that curtailment imposing all kinds of damage on the people you are curtailing.

    But, as folk seem to be saying, that's not the basis they seem to be using. It's a technical argument, which you'd suspect won't wash. It'll just be mildly interesting to learn if the outgoing Seanad is still capable of passing legislation for as long as it exists.


  • #186
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,140 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    paw patrol wrote: »
    I find the attitudes here bizarre. Really fcukin weird.

    It is good and proper that our laws are tested in court. This is a good thing - should be seen as such.
    Only a moron would object to that.

    Aw come on. Look at the people doing it. Utter whackjobs, conspiracy theory loons. The idea that this is any kind of intelligently thought-out legal check or balance is laughable. To defend them on the vauge principle of invoking judicial oversight is to miss the practical realisation that they have a very poor track record of recognising reality or making any kind of coherent or sensible argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Juicee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 234 ✭✭Juicee


    Gregor Samsa wrote: »
    Aw come on. Look at the people doing it. Utter whackjobs, conspiracy theory loons. The idea that this is any kind of intelligently thought-out legal check or balance is laughable. To defend them on the vauge principle of invoking judicial oversight is to miss the practical realisation that they have a very poor track record of recognising reality or making any kind of coherent or sensible argument.

    This is called playing the man not the ball. THE most prevalent tactic here on this forum.


  • #188
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    Juicee wrote: »
    This is called playing the man not the ball. THE most prevalent tactic here on this forum.
    Plus, whatever might be said about Gemma and John, saying they haven't a clue about the Courts is a bit inept.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/13/gemma-odoherty-wins-another-apology-from-irish-independent

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rte-paid-out-85000-in-homophobe-row-29971734.html


  • #189
    markfinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 266 ✭✭markfinn


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Its a pity herd immunity doesn't apply to stupidity.

    Oh, but it does.
    The dedicatedly stupid surround themselves with other stupid and so avoid ever facing the risk of learning.

    We just use a different terminology for it. "Echo Chamber" would be the main equivalent.

    Sadly though it doesn't work the other way around. Intelligence, education and curiosity are dangerously intertwined.


  • #190
    Juicee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 234 ✭✭Juicee


    Balf wrote: »
    Plus, whatever might be said about Gemma and John, saying they haven't a clue about the Courts is a bit inept.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/13/gemma-odoherty-wins-another-apology-from-irish-independent

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rte-paid-out-85000-in-homophobe-row-29971734.html

    you cant be saying that its wrongspeak


  • #191
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,224 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Its a pity herd immunity doesn't apply to stupidity.

    I would welcome a virus that targeted morons.
    Sadly in human development we have long reached a point where idiots survive and reproduce.
    take everything wrote: »
    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

    You really have to be a special kind of ar**hole to start lambasting Italian doctors dealing with an unprecedented onslaught of cases in their hospitals.
    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Gemma has said the virus doesnt exist, that is a hoax designed to allow 5g camers monitor the Irish population.

    An absolute grade A fooking eejit.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Advertisement
  • #192
    plodder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,841 ✭✭✭plodder


    Balf wrote: »
    Similarly, I'm not a lawyer. And, having watched 20 minutes of Gemma and John talking about their case last night via the interweb, I've no confidence that they'd spot a soft underbelly, if there is one.
    Agreed
    At the same time, the pre-existing legislation had a pretty clear and limited application. If someone was known to have an infectious disease, they could be compulsorily confined and treated (so long as treatment did not include surgery).

    So, if someone is identified with Covid, and presents an obvious immediate danger to others, then that looks reason to restrict their liberty in a drastic way. I'd say its not so clear that you can confine people who don't have anything wrong with them, as the immediate threat doesn't exist.

    Bearing in mind, its the rights of the majority that you are curtailing. And that curtailment imposing all kinds of damage on the people you are curtailing.
    That's all true, but (a) the courts aren't going to entertain any examination of whether the current policy is right and that's the main thing these people are whining about. Nobody can know for sure if what we are doing is optimal and the courts aren't interested anyway. They only care about whether it is legal.

    (b) the nature of pandemics is such that the majority or at least an enormous number of people are affected and many will die, if some individual rights aren't curtailed for a period. That is the consensus worldwide. I think the courts will be very reluctant to go against that. They'll be looking for evidence of necessity and proportionality in the measures, which I think are there.
    But, as folk seem to be saying, that's not the basis they seem to be using. It's a technical argument, which you'd suspect won't wash. It'll just be mildly interesting to learn if the outgoing Seanad is still capable of passing legislation for as long as it exists.
    True, we might not get any clarity if they aren't putting the best arguments forward.


  • #193
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    paw patrol wrote: »
    I find the attitudes here bizarre. Really fcukin weird.
    It's the intent. The intention of this case is not to carry out a legal test in the public interest.

    The intention is to try and collapse public health measures in the middle of a pandemic based on the belief that the virus doesn't exist and that there's a cabal controlling the planet and spying on everyone.

    Your argument may be that legal tests ensure the robustness of our laws, and that's correct. But it's also correct to say that O'Doherty is a self-centered lunatic with no regard to the public interest and is only concerned with lining her own pockets.

    Waters is involved with this because he's swirling his dick in crazy and is a pathetic scumbag who will go along with anything so long as he's getting a sniff of cod.


  • #194
    micosoft
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭micosoft


    Juicee wrote: »
    This is called playing the man not the ball. THE most prevalent tactic here on this forum.

    When the "man" has a track record of acting in bad faith and using cases like this as a publicity vehicle to promulgate a racist agenda you can absolutely call that out.


  • #195
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,140 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    Balf wrote: »
    Plus, whatever might be said about Gemma and John, saying they haven't a clue about the Courts is a bit inept.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/13/gemma-odoherty-wins-another-apology-from-irish-independent

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rte-paid-out-85000-in-homophobe-row-29971734.html

    Being able to win a case under Irish defamation law is not valid evidence of legal genius. No more than winning the three-legged-race in the school sports day is any indication of athletic prowess.


  • #196
    12trackmind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭12trackmind


    Great to see The Krankies back in the news.

    Oh wait.. wrong thread










    (Or is it?)


  • #197
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,224 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Juicee wrote: »
    you cant be saying that its wrongspeak

    Wrongspeak me hole.

    Of course now you will tune out because we as they say down my way, "call a spade a spade".

    Waters is a loon, a right wing catholic one that would have us back cowering at the feet of an archbishop McQuade.

    O'Doherty is forever spewing shyte and now has clamoured onboard this and is on about 5G.

    They are attention seeking ar**holes with some rather unsavoury ideas about where Irish society should go.

    And you are parroting the drivel they come out with and then expect the rest of us to treat you with respect.

    Yes everyone has a right to an opinion, but don't expect all of us to respect it when it is bullshyte.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • #198
    Juicee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 234 ✭✭Juicee


    micosoft wrote: »
    When the "man" has a track record of acting in bad faith and using cases like this as a publicity vehicle to promulgate a racist agenda you can absolutely call that out.

    They play every "man" that even questions the lockdown, not just Gemma and John. I've been respectful in my postings and have been met with a barrage of insults and abuse by multiple posters. Ultimately its their own characters and integrity they are slurring with that carry on.


  • #199
    blueythebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    Balf wrote: »
    Plus, whatever might be said about Gemma and John, saying they haven't a clue about the Courts is a bit inept.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/13/gemma-odoherty-wins-another-apology-from-irish-independent

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rte-paid-out-85000-in-homophobe-row-29971734.html

    Well they clearly dont as they are trying to run complex high court judicial review litigation as lay litigants. In these cases they had lawyers


  • #200
    Juicee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 234 ✭✭Juicee


    seamus wrote: »
    It's the intent. The intention of this case is not to carry out a legal test in the public interest.

    The intention is to try and collapse public health measures in the middle of a pandemic based on the belief that the virus doesn't exist and that there's a cabal controlling the planet and spying on everyone.

    Your argument may be that legal tests ensure the robustness of our laws, and that's correct. But it's also correct to say that O'Doherty is a self-centered lunatic with no regard to the public interest and is only concerned with lining her own pockets.

    Waters is involved with this because he's swirling his dick in crazy and is a pathetic scumbag who will go along with anything so long as he's getting a sniff of cod.

    perfect example of the disgraceful vitriol so prevalent here. Also, how is Gemma lining her pockets here?


  • #201
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Juicee wrote: »
    perfect example of the disgraceful vitriol so prevalent here. Also, how is Gemma lining her pockets here?
    It's all about the clicks and likes for Gemmaroid, which translates into ad revenue and donations from American right-wing nutjobs.

    Don't worry, I have plenty more vitriol for this pair. They lost any right to a basic level of respect a long time ago.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    seamus wrote: »
    the belief that the virus doesn't exist

    Do they think the 444 people have been murdered?

    Or that the 4 people who died with respiratory problems in a nursing home near me just since the weekend, was all just coincidental...among many many other similar coincidences? :rolleyes:


  • #203
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,082 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    Do they think the 444 people have been murdered?

    Or that the 4 people who died with respiratory problems in a nursing home near me just since the weekend, was all just a coincidence...among many many other similar coincidences? :rolleyes:

    They don't do logic.


  • #204
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,270 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    Juicee wrote: »
    perfect example of the disgraceful vitriol so prevalent here. Also, how is Gemma lining her pockets here?

    She has a prominent 'Donate' link on her website. Her alt-right fans will be spreading that link around.

    And if you're defending Gemtrails against the "vitriol" here, you may want to look at your heroine's Twitter account for examples of real vitriol. Sauce for the goose...

    * "Psychopath Bill Gates, whose vaccines have destroyed the lives of millions..."

    * "We know Gardai are engaged in drug trafficking but are they now under the influence on duty? I have received some disturbing anecdotal information."

    * "MI5 agent Drew Harris"

    That's just last day or so, and obviously doesn't take into consideration the tweets that got her banned from Twitter, the hate speech that got her banned from facebook, or her livestreams where she attacks security guards, for example.

    ===
    boards.ie default cookie settings now include "legitimate interest" for >200 companies, unless you specifically opted out!



  • #205
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    Her allegation that the Irish government murdered Veronica Guerin was my personal favorite.

    How she still had followers after that, I don't know! But it shows, she can get away with anything with them!


  • #206
    Juicee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 234 ✭✭Juicee


    Sadly, people die of respiratory problems all the time. Heres a question for you. Can every single respiratory illness or death now be automatically attributed to covid 19? Are there no other conditions at all causing respiratory illness or death?


  • #207
    paw patrol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭paw patrol


    seamus wrote: »
    It's the intent. The intention of this case is not to carry out a legal test in the public interest.

    The intention is to try and collapse public health measures in the middle of a pandemic based on the belief that the virus doesn't exist and that there's a cabal controlling the planet and spying on everyone.

    Your argument may be that legal tests ensure the robustness of our laws, and that's correct. But it's also correct to say that O'Doherty is a self-centered lunatic with no regard to the public interest and is only concerned with lining her own pockets.

    Waters is involved with this because he's swirling his dick in crazy and is a pathetic scumbag who will go along with anything so long as he's getting a sniff of cod.

    I don't know Gemma but I have met Waters a few times in the past and he was always a gent.
    Often abused in public by a certain type of d1ckhead.

    I don't know their motivation here , nor do I care.
    The process is there and it's good to see these challenges. I wish there were more.

    After the abuse they are getting here and probably in public to their faces - its the fault of the abusers that normal people don't stand up and take these actions and it's only people like Gemma who stick their necks out.
    Ever consider that?


  • #208
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,506 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    RIP.ie notice is a standard inclusion in Funeral directors packages at this stage.

    I buried a relative 6 days ago. No notice.

    Again for I think about the 6th time, it's a crude research method and guesstimate at best.

    You are so very upset at that simple point I was making aren't you?


  • #209
    Keyzer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭Keyzer


    Juicee wrote: »
    perfect example of the disgraceful vitriol so prevalent here. Also, how is Gemma lining her pockets here?

    They deserve the abuse in my opinion - pair of unhinged nutters spewing utter nonsense.


  • #210
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,140 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    Juicee wrote: »
    Sadly, people die of respiratory problems all the time. Heres a question for you. Can every single respiratory illness or death now be automatically attributed to covid 19? Are there no other conditions at all causing respiratory illness or death?

    No one is suggesting that all respiratory related deaths are caused by Covid 19. Medical professionals are able to tell the difference.

    Here's a question for you, if Covid 19 doesn't exist or isn't dangerous, why is there a sharp and sudden rise in the numbers of deaths linked to the specific symptoms attributed to Covid 19?

    And don't say 5G.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Reganio 2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,732 ✭✭✭Reganio 2


    Juicee wrote: »
    Sadly, people die of respiratory problems all the time. Heres a question for you. Can every single respiratory illness or death now be automatically attributed to covid 19? Are there no other conditions at all causing respiratory illness or death?

    Well Gemma is the whole world in on this? All the governments got together and said, this will be a laugh?


Advertisement