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

YFlyer

Have anyone put up an Gemma O'Driscoll post online and include the initials GOD with some divinity bull?

[Deleted User]

super_furry wrote: »

Who's funding her? She doesn't work but she has a seemingly endless supply of money for court-cases, presidential campaigns, election campaigns and the rest. Would love to know who's putting up the money for all of that and what their agenda is.

12trackmind wrote: »

Good q! You have me wondering now too. Does she do that patreon thing? (Then the q becomes who funds the patrons, of course.)

Looking at her track record and fixations, you'd have to suspect U.S. far-right funding. And who funds the American far-right? Hmmm...

Good questions - it looks like her current activities are run on a shoe-string, no sign of the excesses of the US far right activists.

I guess there would also be tax issues arising from any donations, as ACI doesn't exist as a party afaik, so they can't take any actual political donations.

Balf

Deleted User wrote: »

Also I can guarantee you that there's nothing unconstitutional about the legislation.

How can you make such a guarantee? There's a world of difference between challenging a referendum result, where the Court will be very slow to ever overturn a direct vote by the people regardless of any technical flaw, and challenging a piece of legislation passed by the Oireachtas, where sometimes the Court will overturn an Act.

I know from personal experience that every Court in the land will respect a guarantee from protonmike, particularly one substantiated by a post on boards.ie. But, seriously, what makes you so sure?

Juicee

BnB wrote: »

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.

I said at the outset I wouldn't converse with abusive people and to that end I have a few poster on ignore list. There have since been a barrage of posts to read through so if you'd like to show me these outrageous lies and mistruths you claim I posted I'll respond.

Here is an outrageous lie of your own: "The only people you ever respond to are the ones who call you a loon or a nutcase because it's easier."

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

http://chng.it/JkrD7XWBcR

Show your support!

[Deleted User]

Balf wrote: »

How can you make such a guarantee? There's a world of difference between challenging a referendum result, where the Court will be very slow to ever overturn a direct vote by the people regardless of any technical flaw, and challenging a piece of legislation passed by the Oireachtas, where sometimes the Court will overturn an Act.

I know from personal experience that every Court in the land will respect a guarantee from protonmike, particularly one substantiated by a post on boards.ie. But, seriously, what makes you so sure?

Based on the common good as already mentioned. Even if it were hypothetically unconstitutional, Gemma and John are not capable of actually arguing such a case. :rolleyes:

holyhead

How in the name of all that's logical and sensible can anyone question the merit of the lockdown. I'm not familiar with O"Doherty. As for Waters he has always been anti establishment. However this is not the time to make constitutional points. People's lives are at stake. I hope this is thrown out of court for being a reckless, pointless waste of court time. It is an abuse of the right to use the courts in the pursuit of fair procedure.

Balf

Deleted User wrote: »

Based on the common good as already mentioned. Even if it were hypothetically unconstitutional, Gemma and John are not capable of actually arguing such a case. :rolleyes:

You've moved from saying there's nothing unconstitutional about the legislation, to saying that Gemma and John are unlikely to construct a convincing case.

I'd agree that Gemma and John are unlikely to construct a convincing case. On the other hand, I don't see where we can assume that a public good argument would automatically mean that a perfectly healthy person can be confined to their home, with very limited exceptions.

Long_Wave

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

#bilderberg #davos #agenda21 #soros #rothschild

holyhead wrote: »

How in the name of all that's logical and sensible can anyone question the merit of the lockdown. I'm not familiar with O"Doherty. As for Waters he has always been anti establishment. However this is not the time to make constitutional points. People's lives are at stake. I hope this is thrown out of court for being a reckless, pointless waste of court time. It is an abuse of the right to use the courts in the pursuit of fair procedure.

People aslo put their lives at stake by smoking but anyone over the age of 18 is free to walk in to any newsagents and buy as may cigarettes as they want.

Jinglejangle69

Long_Wave wrote: »

People aslo put their lives at stake by smoking but anyone over the age of 18 is free to walk in to any newsagents and buy as may cigarettes as they want.

They don't put other people's lives at risk.

Juicee

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

They don't put other people's lives at risk.

passive smoking does.

Strumms

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

You do hear my thoughs! :eek:

He doesn’t but I do, I know he doesn’t hear your thoughts because I’m hearing his thoughts too and he’s not thinking that he can hear yours.

sydthebeat

Juicee wrote: »

passive smoking does.

And we have laws to protect people against that, as we have laws to protect against covid

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

The small libertarian in me understands that they don't want government/police controlling us as they are but I think the general consensus is that Covid 19 isn't some nefarious government initiative that benefits them. It's a threat to everyone's health and I welcome a lockdown being enforced.

It's not like there's a lockdown being enforced on us as some sort of censorship or oppressing us in some way that we can't live some life. This is a health and safety issue. It's about damage limitation. If Gemma doesn't like that, why doesn't she move to Sweden :P

Or she can live in a country that doesn't take the safety seriously.

We don't like this lockdown. Nobody does. It's a big **** sandwich and we all have to take a bite.

Smegging hell

Could someone send this article to Gemma and John? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/nyregion/george-soros-foundation-coronavirus.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

YFlyer

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

http://chng.it/JkrD7XWBcR

Show your support!

Quality.

keybordWarrior

Juicee wrote: »

passive smoking does.

What's your point? People do a stupid thing, therefore they should do this other stupid thing? Stupid logic.

Long_Wave

I believe most businesses should have been free to make there own decision. If for example a hairdresser decided to remain open it should have been their prerogative to do so and let individuals decide if they want to use the service or not.

keybordWarrior

Long_Wave wrote: »

I believe most businesses should have been free to make there own decision. If for example a hairdresser decided to remain open it should have been their prerogative to do so and let individuals decide if they want to use the service or not.

Your point doesn't sound unreasonable. But I think the issue would be putting the stability of the healthcare system at the mercy of people making the right decision.

[Deleted User]

Long_Wave wrote: »

I believe most businesses should have been free to make there own decision. If for example a hairdresser decided to remain open it should have been their prerogative to do so and let individuals decide if they want to use the service or not.

That's incredibly naive, of course all would want to remain open. It's in their financial interest to do so, and individuals would only be too happy to peruse them. Thus fostering the spread of Covid-19. Are you capable of grasping the seriousness of a pandemic?

eleventh

Juicee wrote:

passive smoking does.

sydthebeat wrote:

And we have laws to protect people against that,

The laws in place are not enough. Anyone who is asthmatic or who cannot tolerate it (or who simply wants to breathe clean air) still has to walk past smokers on footpaths etc. (and I hope pubs don't open again for a long time to come, for this reason alone).

But since the government cares so much about health now, let's see if there will be a crackdown on smoking and all public pollutants and health hazards when this is over.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's incredibly naive, of course all would want to remain open. It's in their financial interest to do so, and individuals would only be too happy to peruse them. Thus fostering the spread of Covid-19. Are you capable of grasping the seriousness of a pandemic?

Ah now you know according to gems and john it's all fake, ya can't expect those who follow them to think otherwise.

jrosen

Long_Wave wrote: »

I believe most businesses should have been free to make there own decision. If for example a hairdresser decided to remain open it should have been their prerogative to do so and let individuals decide if they want to use the service or not.

I can see some merit in this with some sectors. But there are some that it is impossible to maintain social distancing. Take hair as its the example you gave. In some cases you can have a client sit with their stylist for 2 hours. In close proximity.

That and I believe you would have had kick back from staff anyway. We closed maybe a week after the schools and we had some staff already moaning that they had to work when other places were closed. It would have been a nightmare for employers.

brightspark

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?

Do you think that EIGHT people dying in just one weekend in one residential centre is in any way usual?

https://www.thejournal.ie/laois-residential-centre-5075751-Apr2020/

mossie

DubInMeath wrote: »

Ah now you know according to gems and john it's all fake, ya can't expect those who follow them to think otherwise.

I saw one supporter of Gemma on twitter insisting it's not possible to "catch a virus" you have to be injected with it! When challenged she said nobody has ever accidentally caught a virus. Don't know what that says for Flu and common cold..

Quin_Dub

tjhook wrote: »

Assuming it's not a long-term, very patient wind-up, that Twitter feed is the work of somebody with issues. That's a few minutes of my life I'll never get back. Damn you Gregor!

But I still believe it's a good thing to challenge the boundaries of these restrictions. Maybe even the threat of this challenge and the possibility of more to come will focus the minds of government, to ensure the legislation is all properly done. We can only hope. Regarding O'Doherty, even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

But - She's not challenging it to clarify the legal position or to ensure that the legislation is time limited and robust etc. - Those would be laudable and valid things to challange and test. See the recent unfettered control that the Hungarian parliament just gave to Victor Orban as an example of very very bad legislation.

She is challenging it because she does not believe it is necessary and that the Pandemic is a Hoax by some hidden cabal to control the populace.

[Deleted User]

mossie wrote: »

I saw one supporter of Gemma on twitter insisting it's not possible to "catch a virus" you have to be injected with it! When challenged she said nobody has ever accidentally caught a virus. Don't know what that says for Flu and common cold..

That's what the flu vaccine is for, along with tracking you, controlling you etc according to some of the ct posters on here.
Magic stuff to be able to do everything that they claim.

dj jarvis

Breezin wrote: »

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.

according to the stats , Ireland death per million 98, Sweden death per million 132, Ireland tests per million 18,500 , Sweden tests per million 7,300. Ireland serious cases in ICU 158, Sweden serious cases in ICU 996.

I fail to see how our response is worse than Swedens , the figures point to it being vastly better as it stands.

the Swedish true cases are much more than they are saying becasue they are not testing as much as we are.

feel free to correct me

Annasopra

paw patrol wrote: »

agreed 100%

but the level of hate expressed here is something else beyond comment

To be fair Gemmas level of hate is 1 million times worse. Hate for migrants, hate for Black People, hate for non Irish, hate for Muslims, hate for LGBT people, hate for Mainstream journalism, hate for Mainstream politicians, hate for anyone who ever questions. As I have said repeatedly here she is an extremist hate monger.

Annasopra

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Cultural marxism?

A bit of plain old fashioned marxism and some cultural marxism.