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

seamus

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 coincidental...among many many other similar coincidences? :rolleyes:

Initially the narrative was that it didn't exist at all. That it was all invented, "Does anyone even know anybody who's been diagnosed with this thing?".

Then people around them started being diagnosed and the narrative changed to, "it's not actually that bad at all".

The party line now is that there has no been change in the actual death rates and it's all manufactured hysteria.

Lots of Brits for example pipe up asking whether people are dying "with" or "from" Covid, their belief being that's it's rife in the population and it's not killing anyone, but the authorities are attributing all deaths of Coivd-positive people as covid deaths in order to keep up the pretence that there's a pandemic.

Ultimately at the root of this is a belief that there's a secret global conspiracy to confine people to their homes for some unknown reason relating to surveillance and control.

Naturally when you get to that level, all coherence breaks down because they cannot explain, who this global cabal is or why they would be doing this.

is_that_so

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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?

Sorry for your loss. I was under the impression the only reason it went up there is proof for papers to take your death notice.

Annasopra

Juicee wrote: »

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

But its true; Gemma promotes conspiracies aboutchemyrails and covid not existing and vaccines and 5g and Christchurch murders

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

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

Allowing people to die, by not protecting them from a deadly virus... would that not be unconstitutional too?

Doesn't the state have a duty of care over its citizens?

This Gemma O'Doherty lass... Is she suffering from some sort of mental illness or something?

She seems to find controversy and outrage around every corner she looks... I've nothing against people standing up against injustices, but this lady just seems a bit mentally unstable and one of those looney SJW types!

(She also likes to throw in a nice big dollop of religion/conspiracy theory BS just to put a little cherry on top of her fruitcake - always does wonders for your all-round credibility that)

seamus

paw patrol wrote: »

I don't know Gemma but I have met Waters a few times in the past and he was always a gent.

Most people are perfectly nice and dignified one-on-one.

That doesn't mean it's appropriate to separate the individual from the things that they have said in public.

Arguably that's worse - if someone is a decent person in private and a complete scumbag in public, then it says that they understand how to be decent, but choose not to be when broadcasting to the public.

If someone was always nice to me but said horrible, hateful, dangerous things in public, then my opinion of them would be as low as it can be.

I'd have more respect for someone who's a complete asshole 100% of the time.

Annasopra

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Allowing people to die, by not protecting them from a deadly virus... would that not be unconstitutional too?

Doesn't the state have a duty of care over its citizens?

This Gemma O'Doherty lass... Is she suffering from some sort of mental illness or something?

She seems to find controversy and outrage around every corner she looks... I've nothing against people standing up against injustices, but this lady just seems a bit mentally unstable and one of those looney SJW types!

(She also likes to throw in a nice big dollop of religion/conspiracy theory BS just to put a little cherry on top of her fruitcake - always does wonders for your all-round credibility that)

Gemma is a bullying hatemonger promoting all sorts of crazy conspiracies.

owlbethere

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.

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.

LOL. You'd swear FG decided to wake up one morning as a caretaking government and decided to turn themselves in as a dictatorship and fcuk over Ireland, its people and its economy.

There's a contagious viral disease sweeping across the world. They are trying to control the spread of the disease and slow it down.

paw patrol

owlbethere wrote: »

LOL. You'd swear FG decided to wake up one morning as a caretaking government and decided to turn themselves in as a dictatorship and fcuk over Ireland, its people and its economy.

There's a contagious viral disease sweeping across the world. They are trying to control the spread of the disease and slow it down.

Read exactly what I wrote and the context please.

The government may be trying things. The question is do they have the right to confine us etc....
That (and many other laws) should be challenged. Their motivation of the state is irrelevant if it's illegal.

Every despot always dreams up draconian measure not for their benefit but for "your safety" that's how it works. That's why there are controls there to stop that in a free society.

lawrencesummers

It’s sad that these people names are getting so much traction in the media and on social media. I sincerely hope they lose the case and get costs awarded against them, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the government has made a mess of the legislation and the constitution doesn’t allow for it.

These two self indulgent narcissists shouldn’t be getting any attention.
We should be talking about the nurses and doctors that are sick and have unfortunately passed away instead of these two individuals who are detached from reality in such a way that If they were a member of my family I would be urging them to seek professional psychiatric help.

owlbethere

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.

I saw the video from Gemma from about two weeks ago or thereabouts. It was of a garda car and garda checking the licence plates of a line of parked cars. Probably just checking on the system to see if the cars registered to an owner nearby and ensuring the 2km distance is maintained (this is needed to prevent new clusters of the virus). Anyways gemma caught him in the act of doing his job and started shouting at him telling him he's intimating people. There was no intimation from the garda. The only intimation I saw was from her to him. Shes a nutjob.

the purple tin

There won't be any courts in session until after the lockdown finishes so a court case against it can't affect it anyway.

Gregor Samsa

the purple tin wrote: »

There won't be any courts in session until after the lockdown finishes so a court case against it can't affect it anyway.

That's just more proof of the tactics the Lizard people are using to enslave us in our homes so that we have unwanted babies that we are then forced to abort via 5G (after vaccination, of course) so they can feast on them. Do you realise that "courts in session" is an anagram of "SOS neurotics sin"? How can the warning be more clear? Wake up, sheeple!

owlbethere

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

That's just more proof of the tactics the Lizard people are using to enslave us in our homes so that we have unwanted babies that we are then forced to abort via 5G (after vaccination, of course) so they can feast on them. Do you realise that "courts in session" is an anagram of "SOS neurotics sin"? How can the warning be more clear? Wake up, sheeple!

😂😂😂😂😂

eleventh

seamus wrote:

Arguably that's worse - if someone is a decent person in private and a complete scumbag in public, then it says that they understand how to be decent, but choose not to be when broadcasting to the public.

Arguably it's the opposite.
Someone who is 'decent' for the public image but horrible in person - that's not someone I'd trust.
Someone who's decent in private and saves their anger/indignation for public discourse - that's someone who's real and genuine (Whether you agree with them or not is beside the point).

the purple tin

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

That's just more proof of the tactics the Lizard people are using to enslave us in our homes so that we have unwanted babies that we are then forced to abort via 5G (after vaccination, of course) so they can feast on them. Do you realise that "courts in session" is an anagram of "SOS neurotics sin"? How can the warning be more clear? Wake up, sheeple!

U ok hun?

TaurenDruid

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?

Yes, there are. Those deaths aren't counted as Covid-19 deaths.

Oh, wait - are you alleging the figures are being artificially inflated, in some sort of conspiracy?

Gregor Samsa

the purple tin wrote: »

U ok hun?

I'm confused now. Do you realise I was being outlandishly sarcastic, and are playing along? Or did you believe I was being serious and are having a dig at me? Or did you hear me cough though the implant the Lizard people put in my arm when I was vaccinated, and are genuinely concerned for my wellbeing?

take everything

Interesting fact from Wikipedia about Gemma O' Doherty.
She has a masters in Equality Studies (whatever that is).

Ulysses Gaze

Reganio 2 wrote: »

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

#bilderberg #davos #agenda21 #soros #rothschild

Strumms

People might not like whats going on... but its been proven as necessary , in fact a crictital necessity to maintaining a health and wellbeing of our population a healthy and functioning country. Not proven by FF/FG or any political grouping but by the health experts worldwide..

Mrs Shuttleworth

I can well understand anyone thinking on the face of it given their track record that they're loons for taking this action however if you read the legislation in fine print there's some really sinister material in there that the MSM has conveniently kept quiet about.

For example, an "officer of health" or "authorised person" can direct a member of An Garda Siochana to break into your home, remove you and detain you indefinitely until the "officer of health" decides you're no longer a "public health risk" and here's the clincher you only have to be a "potential source of infection" not actually have the virus or be in contact with anyone who has it. The law also says the "officer of health" doesn't have to test you on making the order for up to 14 days! And furthermore the appeal process to the Minister for Health under the 1947 Act is abolished.

The legislation also provides for the reduction of the Mental Health Tribunal under the Mental Health Commission from a committee of three - being a solicitor, layperson and psychiatrist - down to a committee of one, who must be a solicitor or barrister of 7 years standing. So effectively one person being a solicitor would decide whether you're a person suffering from mental health issues warranting incarceration or not.

I would imagine the plaintiffs in this case will be challenging these kinds of provisions.

Annasopra

eleventh wrote: »

Arguably it's the opposite.
Someone who is 'decent' for the public image but horrible in person - that's not someone I'd trust.
Someone who's decent in private and saves their anger/indignation for public discourse - that's someone who's real and genuine (Whether you agree with them or not is beside the point).

Jaysus no - saving their anger/indignation for public discourse is really all about them narcissistically looking for media headlines. There is no realness or genuineness there at all.

Annasopra

take everything wrote: »

Interesting fact from Wikipedia about Gemma O' Doherty.
She has a masters in Equality Studies (whatever that is).

It's basically marxism :pac:

12trackmind

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

however if you read the legislation in fine print there's some really sinister material in there that the MSM has conveniently kept quiet about.

Taking the truth of your post at face value those are certainly sinister.

Are bodies like the Irish Council for Civil Liberties for example commenting on the legislation? (Ande if not, why not?)

Surely, they would be taken more seriously than the permanently outraged Waters and O'Doherty?

Annasopra

12trackmind wrote: »

Taking the truth of your post at face value those are certainly sinister.

Are bodies like the Irish Council for Civil Liberties for example commenting on the legislation? (Ande if not, why not?)

Surely, they would be taken more seriously than the permanently outraged Waters and O'Doherty?

Yes and they were relatively ok with it because of the sunset clause

https://www.iccl.ie/human-rights/covid-19-emergency-legislation-everything-you-need-to-know/

[Deleted User]

is_that_so wrote: »

Sorry for your loss. I was under the impression the only reason it went up there is proof for papers to take your death notice.

He had a good run but thank you.

I honestly don't know about the numbers being up or down overall. Rip.ie is a private profit making business. Shouldn't be relied upon in any research was my only point

BnB

Juicee wrote: »

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.

Listen - All you're doing here is the same that you always do and the same as Gemma and all her gang.

You post wild outrageous lies and mis-truths.

Then, whenever anyone replies with simple facts exposing your lies and BS, you just ignore them completely and move onto your next bit of BS.

The only people you ever respond to are the ones who call you a loon or a nutcase because it's easier.

Like Gemma did with Dublin Airport - When they pulled her up on her BS with clear facts and pictures, what did we hear back from Gemma.... Sweet FA.... Not a word. Instead, she just went on overdrive on all other subjects and completely ignored it.

Why don't you try ignoring the posters who tell you are a loon, and try replying to the many many posts that have exposed you BS.

Balf

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

.... So effectively one person being a solicitor would decide whether you're a person suffering from mental health issues warranting incarceration or not.

I would imagine the plaintiffs in this case will be challenging these kinds of provisions.

I'm not sure they actually will be challenging those substantive issues.

But you are right that it would be hard to see how the provisions could be justified, if challenged.

If there's a learning, its that this kind of legislation is unnecessary and impossible to apply in practice. Compliance with the measures has to be voluntary, because there's no defensible way of making them compulsory.

12trackmind

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes and they were relatively ok with it because of the sunset clause

https://www.iccl.ie/human-rights/covid-19-emergency-legislation-everything-you-need-to-know/

Thanks for that. Also 'sunset clause' was the phrase I couldn't find.. thanks.

9 November 2020 seems like a long time. I would rather it were tied to lockdown 'levels' in some way, but can see how that would add an extra layer of complication.

Or, to read it another way.. can we now safely assume that our current level of lockdown will last until November? (I've suspected a timeframe like that anyway, but it's sobering.)

Gregor Samsa

12trackmind wrote: »

Or, to read it another way.. can we now safely assume that our current level of lockdown will last until November? (I've suspected a timeframe like that anyway, but it's sobering.)

I don't think that's safe to assume at all, certainly not based on the date in the sunset clause. There may still be some restrictions in November, or if things go badly wrong, the current levels of restrictions may be back by November, but all indications are that the current levels of restrictions will be relaxed long before then. To what level is the big question. A sunset clause date is usually set so that it's far enough away that it doesn't have to be constantly re-enacted, but not so far that it appears permanent.

November 9th is the maximimum amount of time the regulations can be in effect witout being passed by the Oireachtas again, not necessiarly a target.