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

Kermit.de.frog

Deleted User wrote: »

Her buffoons have arrived at the Four Courts and have utterly no idea of how idiotic they are being. Also managed to interfere with a legal application for a special needs child.

https://twitter.com/riadach/status/1252545465805148160?s=19

https://twitter.com/GarNob/status/1252555016394735617?s=19

There is a serious crisis with mental health in this country and i'm sure i'm not the only one who finds the numbers being sucked in by her bull**** worrying.

Widdensushi

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Great to see the team getting all nice and close together for the family photo.

https://twitter.com/MaryCarolanIT/status/1252619283689062406?s=19

Hope they didn't catch anything from the 5g mast though

how could that gathering be legal

Mrs Shuttleworth

Widdensushi wrote: »

how could that gathering be legal

The Courts are open to the public. It's not the convening of a party or concert. Strictly speaking everyone entering there does so of their own volition. Despite what RTE would tell you, the new laws have no reference to social distancing or any such powers to Gardai. They're public health guidelines only.

threeball

Widdensushi wrote: »

how could that gathering be legal

Doubt theres too many within an ass's roar of home either. Time to start lashing out a few €600 fines.

dhaughton99

threeball wrote: »

Doubt theres too many within an ass's roar of home either. Time to start lashing out a few €600 fines.

My money is on Galway.

BarryD2

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Great to see the team getting all nice and close together for the family photo.

https://twitter.com/MaryCarolanIT/status/1252619283689062406?s=19

Hope they didn't catch anything from the 5g mast though

Bunch of dickheads. As for Waters & O'Doherty, can't see anyone shedding tears if poetic justice is served upon them. Vainglorious attention seeking fools.

[Deleted User]

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The Courts are open to the public. It's not the convening of a party or concert. Strictly speaking everyone entering there does so of their own volition. Despite what RTE would tell you, the new laws have no reference to social distancing or any such powers to Gardai. They're public health guidelines only.

The new laws are more than just public health guidelines. They have explicit requirements on travel for essential services only and exercising within 2km.

I don't think that waving a tricolour is one of the essential journeys listed.

[Deleted User]

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The Courts are open to the public. It's not the convening of a party or concert. Strictly speaking everyone entering there does so of their own volition. Despite what RTE would tell you, the new laws have no reference to social distancing or any such powers to Gardai. They're public health guidelines only.

A protest by Debenhams workers was broken up by the Gardaí today so nope, public health makes the convening rather illegal. Anyway, the idiots have put themselves and their loved ones at far greater risk of catching covid-19.

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyway, the idiots have put themselves and their loved ones at far greater risk of catching covid-19.

Gemma should be grand, none of her family talk to her do they?

Annasopra

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The Courts are open to the public. It's not the convening of a party or concert. Strictly speaking everyone entering there does so of their own volition. Despite what RTE would tell you, the new laws have no reference to social distancing or any such powers to Gardai. They're public health guidelines only.

What now? What are you on about?

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/covid19/public_health_measures_for_covid19.html#l902c9

Balf

Widdensushi wrote: »

how could that gathering be legal

I suppose that's what the case is about.

They're politically marginal, for sure. At the same time, I'm actually more struck by how many seem to think Government can make anything illegal if they so decide. The past few hundred years of human development just seemed to pass them by.

Mrs Shuttleworth

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A protest by Debenhams workers was broken up by the Gardaí today so nope, public health makes the convening rather illegal. Anyway, the idiots have put themselves and their loved ones at far greater risk of catching covid-19.

I actually know this legislation very well as a consequence of work.

The Debenhams protest could be broken up by Gardai on the grounds that it was a convened event. Convened events even of two people not of the same household (even a hook up) are prohibited under the new laws.

The attendees at Gemma's case may well not have been essential travel in their own individual way but it is a sitting of the Court to which the public still has access under the Constitution and that is superior to statute law. So Gardai would be on much dodgier ground trying to police persons circulating within the Four Courts attempting to view a case in session. It appears they were not permitted access on public health grounds but not harassed nor ejected from the building.

In a sense the Waters / O'Doherty case is highlighting all these issues and it's disgraceful Debenhams staff were not permitted to protest. This is what cynical critics of the legislation sadly anticipated.

dan1895

If anyone is wondering what type of people these are that were in the four courts yesterday, check out the salute the woman with the crutch is doing.

bloopy

dan1895 wrote: »

If anyone is wondering what type of people these are that were in the four courts yesterday, check out the salute the woman with the crutch is doing.

Looks like she is pointing at something.

Hrududu

dan1895 wrote: »

If anyone is wondering what type of people these are that were in the four courts yesterday, check out the salute the woman with the crutch is doing.

Ah thats reaching. It looks to me like she's pointing.

Shefwedfan

dan1895 wrote: »

If anyone is wondering what type of people these are that were in the four courts yesterday, check out the salute the woman with the crutch is doing.

Bit of a stretch...not sure she is pointing either

I think that looney was been shared around Facebook becaus she found a mobile antenna or something in a building, pure nut job

Be right back

dan1895 wrote: »

If anyone is wondering what type of people these are that were in the four courts yesterday, check out the salute the woman with the crutch is doing.

To me, it's like she's showing the woman in the wine hoody something. Still don't agree that the group were allowed to congregate like that when Debenhams staff had to break up their strike.

[Deleted User]

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I actually know this legislation very well as a consequence of work.

The Debenhams protest could be broken up by Gardai on the grounds that it was a convened event. Convened events even of two people not of the same household (even a hook up) are prohibited under the new laws.

The attendees at Gemma's case may well not have been essential travel in their own individual way but it is a sitting of the Court to which the public still has access under the Constitution and that is superior to statute law. So Gardai would be on much dodgier ground trying to police persons circulating within the Four Courts attempting to view a case in session. It appears they were not permitted access on public health grounds but not harassed nor ejected from the building.

In a sense the Waters / O'Doherty case is highlighting all these issues and it's disgraceful Debenhams staff were not permitted to protest. This is what cynical critics of the legislation sadly anticipated.

They arrived with Irish flags so ya they were convening and anyone with any sense know they were. They also actively flouted any form of distancing which is so incredibly irresponsible at the moment and they actively made it more difficult for people to do their jobs.

The entire reason for all this behaviour is not constitutional concern, it's conspiracies. They believe that 5g is causing this.. I think most people already know that this case will have zero success.

threeball

Deleted User wrote: »

They arrived with Irish flags so ya they were convening and anyone with any sense know they were. They also actively flouted any form of distancing which is so incredibly irresponsible at the moment and they actively made it more difficult for people to do their jobs.

The entire reason for all this behaviour is not constitutional concern, it's conspiracies. They believe that 5g is causing this.. I think most people already know that this case will have zero success.

Who pays for this case. Not these two loopers anyway and who picks up costs when they're not successful?

[Deleted User]

dan1895 wrote: »

If anyone is wondering what type of people these are that were in the four courts yesterday, check out the salute the woman with the crutch is doing.

What's the group noun - a gob****e of loons?

kowloon

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Great to see the team getting all nice and close together for the family photo.

https://twitter.com/MaryCarolanIT/status/1252619283689062406?s=19

Hope they didn't catch anything from the 5g mast though

This seems relevant here as well.

Shefwedfan

When they next time in court?

Must buy myself a couple of cheap Irish flags and stand outside selling them, make a fortune I would

Balf

threeball wrote: »

Who pays for this case. Not these two loopers anyway and who picks up costs when they're not successful?

The Courts decide that at the end of the process..

As the applicants are representing themselves, I take it they have no substantial costs.

The Stats does have a legal team, which will entail cost. Usually, if the Courts recognise a public interest in the matter being raised, they award costs against the State, even if the case is lost.

And their is a principle here, about the limits of State authority. Does the State have the right to prohibit perfectly healthy people from doing stuff together that presents no immediate risk? I'm not aware of the Courts ever saying 'there is a public interest at stake in this case, but you are loopers so screw you'.

But who knows.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Balf wrote: »

The Courts decide that at the end of the process..

As the applicants are representing themselves, I take it they have no substantial costs.

The Stats does have a legal team, which will entail cost. Usually, if the Courts recognise a public interest in the matter being raised, they award costs against the State, even if the case is lost.

And their is a principle here, about the limits of State authority. Does the State have the right to prohibit perfectly healthy people from doing stuff together that presents no immediate risk? I'm not aware of the Courts ever saying 'there is a public interest at stake in this case, but you are loopers so screw you'.

But who knows.

That's true re costs and not only that, the Court has the power to award costs even if an applicant loses a JR case if the case is deemed sufficiently public interest. I think the Debenhams debacle proves that it is.

If anyone's actually bothered to read the detailed Court report from yesterday as opposed to just shouting "fruit loops" (yawn) the Judge acknowledged the applicants have raised issues on aspects of the legislation that will require serious examination.

plodder

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I actually know this legislation very well as a consequence of work.

The Debenhams protest could be broken up by Gardai on the grounds that it was a convened event. Convened events even of two people not of the same household (even a hook up) are prohibited under the new laws.

The attendees at Gemma's case may well not have been essential travel in their own individual way but it is a sitting of the Court to which the public still has access under the Constitution and that is superior to statute law. So Gardai would be on much dodgier ground trying to police persons circulating within the Four Courts attempting to view a case in session. It appears they were not permitted access on public health grounds but not harassed nor ejected from the building.

I doubt this is true. The judge didn't let any of these people into the court room. So much for their "constitutional roights" being superior to statute law. Which isn't surprising as lots of cases are in-camera with nobody from the public allowed in.

blueythebear

plodder wrote: »

I doubt this is true. The judge didn't let any of these people into the court room. So much for their "constitutional roights" being superior to statute law. Which isn't surprising as lots of cases are in-camera with nobody from the public allowed in.

You dont have a personal right to go into any courtroom and view the proceedings. The constitution says thatbjustice will be carried out in public. The judge excluded supporters due to the need to socially distance in the courtroom. The fact that journalists were present ensured that justice was carried out in public.

Shefwedfan

The media and us create people like this. Gemma is an attention seeker. She is one of those "look at me look at me" types.

It is fairly simple, tell the main news/media etc to ignore her. The government should step in and say to media, right ust ignore her. Free speech and all that but in reality it is hate speech. So any of you post an article in the press/website etc you have to give 10k to a charity.

Simple as that.

Once she hasnt the media running after her it will soon get boring, especially when she has to mix with the great unwashed.

She had a meeting recently and at most 50 people showed up and you could see the disdain she had for these people in the photo. Same against yesterday, it was like someone went into the biggest sh*thole in Dublin, threw everyone a tenner and asked them if they would stand around the courts. Even in the pictures you can see she doesnt want to get too close to them.

She is not an idiot, that is clear. Similar to the one in UK, can't remember her name. They want attention, she has no coherent pattern to her view points. It just what will get me some attention this week.

If they turned around tomorrow and said lockdown is over, she would be standing tomorrow in high court saying she wants a lockdown.

Case in point, she drove up to a Garda checkpoint, Garda laughed and waved her on, she was more angry because she hadn't started a row than if the Garda actually stopped her. It was just a big show......

RocketRaccoon

dan1895 wrote: »

If anyone is wondering what type of people these are that were in the four courts yesterday, check out the salute the woman with the crutch is doing.

Would the lad behind her not be in a high risk category?

podgeandrodge

dan1895 wrote: »

If anyone is wondering what type of people these are that were in the four courts yesterday, check out the salute the woman with the crutch is doing.

They are a slightly mad looking bunch.

osarusan

Shefwedfan wrote: »

When they next time in court?

Must buy myself a couple of cheap Irish flags and stand outside selling them, make a fortune I would

"Get yer hats scarves and badgiz."