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

chooseusername

Originally Posted by Savecoronabeer ;
You only need to look at the reports of a spike in covid cases after rallies were held in various states across the US to see that the lockdown is definitely needed.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

It wouldnt be the worst thing to happen if an outbreak happened in that group!!!

Deleted User wrote: »

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

How about;

The Goddamits

G emma

O'

D oherty

D arwin

A wards

M ovement

I nnit

[Deleted User]

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm not saying that she was sauting but a salute can be open palmed...

If you look at that picture carefully, you can see an early attempt at a 5G lamppost ðŸ˜€

[Deleted User]

She managed to get 100 people onto the streets yesterday.....usually a protest deos well if it draw out 1% of its support base

Given with restrictions there is likely noone from outside dublin,deos this make gemma odoherty have 10K supporters in dublin....or are numbers skewed higher by the lockdown??

Risteard81

Whatever people feel about the personalities involved, they have a duty to support this challenge to illegal and dangerous totalitarian legislation.

Kermit.de.frog

DubInMeath wrote: »

If you look at that picture carefully, you can see an early attempt at a 5G lamppost &#55357;&#56832;

1G perhaps?

[Deleted User]

a_squirrelman wrote: »

Do you mean Gemma and her crew claim to be left? I don't think they do at all.

I appreciate there's a lot of voices in here but I did quote the person I was speaking with. I don't think Gemma does consider herself left but yet the people who would deny her rights to challenge do claim it. Not all obviously but it happens.

Just have a read through this thread, how many people here would claim to be left wing but are shouting down the opposition? What about the pro choice and pro life sides? Both screaming to silence the other. Both openly selling lies to win the argument.

Then you have so many international groups. Anti fascism groups who will use violence to silence the opposition. Even the Nazis and Stalin had a foot in the socialist and communist corner but I wouldn't call either a left wing liberal. They were dictators who had both left and right wing in them. That's my point. Fascists and dictators while supposedly a right wing entity, frequently pop up in left wing circles.

And before anyone does accuse me of supporting fascists, racism or whatever else (they still will). I don't, I think freedom of speech doesn't just mean allowing someone I agree with speak, it means also allowing those I disagree with. Freedom of assembly means groups I dislike being allowed rally and so on. It means accepting that people have didn't opinions and beliefs to me. I'm not religious but I recognize the right for you to practice a religion. And so on...

James Brown

The should be locked up on public health and safety grounds until this passes. They should also be evaluated by mental health professionals.

I support protest but this is endangering lives. They could write letters to politicians and/or protest while socially distanced.

blueythebear

Risteard81 wrote: »

Whatever people feel about the personalities involved, they have a duty to support this challenge to illegal and dangerous totalitarian legislation.

Can you please explain why you believe it is illegal?

Can you please explain why it is "dangerous" and "totalitarian" ?

Merry Prankster

Risteard81 wrote: »

Whatever people feel about the personalities involved, they have a duty to support this challenge to illegal and dangerous totalitarian legislation.

Totalitarian?! Legislation based upon medical advice to save lives during a pandemic?! Legislation that the majority of the country supports? This is simply evidence of a functioning democracy.

Lord Fairlord

Some UK legal opinion. Hopefully people will be able to see the attachments.

Lord Fairlord

Merry Prankster wrote: »

Totalitarian?! Legislation based upon medical advice to save lives during a pandemic?! Legislation that the majority of the country supports? This is simply evidence of a functioning democracy.

A majority of people supporting something does not necessarily mean that it is not totalitarian. One cannot legislate away true, fundamental and perpetual freedoms.

Widdensushi

Lord Fairlord wrote: »

Some UK legal opinion. Hopefully people will be able to see the attachments.

for a nation with one foot out of the Eu they are well able to draw money and find European laws that suit their interests

Merry Prankster

Lord Fairlord wrote: »

A majority of people supporting something does not necessarily mean that it is not totalitarian. One cannot legislate away true, fundamental and perpetual freedoms.

Our freedoms are qualified, not absolute. Also, there's no such thing as 'true,' or 'perpetual' freedoms.

[Deleted User]

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

1G perhaps?

Ah they had a good few scientists, but got rid of them because of their religion, sexuality etc but yeah mine was a joke.

runawaybishop

Lord Fairlord wrote: »

Some UK legal opinion. Hopefully people will be able to see the attachments.

Its not even from the solicitors it claims to be from, let alone be considered legal opinion.

blueythebear

Lord Fairlord wrote: »

Some UK legal opinion. Hopefully people will be able to see the attachments.

Opinion on the constitutionality of UK legislation is totally irrelevant in ireland. Two very different constitutions. We have a written constitution for a start.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I am not sure why people aim vitriol at her, I think the videos of people running after her shouting abuse at her is just as bad as the cr*p she gets up to

Personally I think she seen the money Katie Hopkins was making and decided that was a route to take career wise. It just hasn't gone according to plan.....

She hasn't the exposure that Hopkins got and ended up with the shower in that picture. Its just going downhill and it aint going to get any better.

Maybe, but I can’t imagine anyone thinking Hopkins’ tack is anything to aspire to. For all her bluster, I suspect that Hopkins’ life is not an easy one. She has to keep going down the track she started on but I bet she regrets it sometimes. Has it made her rich? I’ve never heard anything about her finances.

Shefwedfan

Lord Fairlord wrote: »

Some UK legal opinion. Hopefully people will be able to see the attachments.

UK aint in Eu anymore....so all irrelavant for them

runawaybishop

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Maybe, but I can’t imagine anyone thinking Hopkins’ tack is anything to aspire to. For all her bluster, I suspect that Hopkins’ life is not an easy one. She has to keep going down the track she started on but I bet she regrets it sometimes. Has it made her rich? I’ve never heard anything about her finances.

Hopkins is broke, she lost all work and had to sell her house.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Google it, she lives in a massive house and is worth over 2.75 mil UKP....

Before she became so "famous" she hadn't two pennys to rub together

Don’t think that’s true. I first saw her on the Apprentice and it was clear that she was from a wealthy background.

Shefwedfan

runawaybishop wrote: »

Hopkins is broke, she lost all work and had to sell her house.

Just seen she sold house, still listed as 1-2mil worth....

Before that she was rolling in it, about the time Gemma decided she wasnt making enough from those pesky newspapers

growleaves

eastie17 wrote: »

Christ, go live in Murica, good lad. Plenty of other head the balls over there

Protests so far in France, Germany, Russia, Iraq, Lebanon, Phillippines, Malawi and the US.

Lockdown ruled illegal by Supreme Court in Malawi after a human rights group took a case.

Shefwedfan

growleaves wrote: »

Protests so far in France, Germany, Russia, Iraq, Lebanon, Phillippines, Malawi and the US.

Lockdown ruled illegal by Supreme Court in Malawi after a human rights group took a case.

So?

growleaves

So?

So it isn't merely 'Trumptards' or 'Murica' people who are opposed to lockdowns.

is_that_so

growleaves wrote: »

Protests so far in France, Germany, Russia, Iraq, Lebanon, Phillippines, Malawi and the US.

Lockdown ruled illegal by Supreme Court in Malawi after a human rights group took a case.

We don't have a lockdown, just extreme restrictions and in all probability they will be lifted in 12 days. Once this ends those new powers end with it.

[Deleted User]

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Maybe, but I can’t imagine anyone thinking Hopkins’ tack is anything to aspire to. For all her bluster, I suspect that Hopkins’ life is not an easy one. She has to keep going down the track she started on but I bet she regrets it sometimes. Has it made her rich? I’ve never heard anything about her finances.

She was doing very well until she lost a couple of libel judgement. She could have kept it all if she had just said sorry.

It was nice to see her getting this award this year though;

https://twitter.com/joshua_pieters/status/1222943917307572225?s=20

Shefwedfan

growleaves wrote: »

So it isn't merely 'Trumptards' or 'Murica' people who are opposed to lockdowns.

I don't get you, explain to me your point?

[Deleted User]

growleaves wrote: »

Protests so far in France, Germany, Russia, Iraq, Lebanon, Phillippines, Malawi and the US.

Lockdown ruled illegal by Supreme Court in Malawi after a human rights group took a case.

All using different legal systems to us. Malawi is probable the closest and that changed dramatically after Independence

Shefwedfan

is_that_so wrote: »

We don't have a lockdown, just extreme restrictions and in all probability they will be lifted in 12 days. Once this ends those new powers end with it.

Best let he/she explain their point.....I would prefer in detail as well

[Deleted User]

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I don't get you, explain to me your point?

People seem to believe only right wing lunatics oppose the lockdown