Shefwedfan wrote: » Both of them are a joke, they have no agenda. No plan. No nothing. Just whatever goes against the grain so hopefully they can get a bit of TV time If the government announced tomorrow everyone can get out and about, they would be in the court saying they need a lock down If they cancelled the role out of 5g, they would be in the court saying they need 5g for connectivity and the government if stopping them communciating That is the sort of gobsh**ter that we are dealing with.
seamus wrote: » John Waters is a professional contrarian. You say up, he says down, you say right, he says left. ......... The man is an odious scumbag. He has no sense of ethics or morality beyond himself.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Nah, dude, it isn't. Your post implies you can't move more than 2k outside your house. Which is not the case.
Balf wrote: » It patently doesn't, and you are vanishing down a rabbit hole.
Balf wrote: » If the risk is so great that people can't move outside their homes without very good reason, and then no further than 2km without similarly good reason
BarryD2 wrote: » Certainly a professional contrarian and a hypocrite - not sure if that extends to being an odious scumbag. There's a time and a place for contrarians but this most certainly is not the right issue. Complete misjudgement on their parts. Pair of tits.
https://www.thesun.ie/news/5349506/coronavirus-ireland-ivan-yates-disastrous-restrictions-people-afraid-lockdown/ Ivan, 60, has revealed audiences for his Hard Shoulder radio show and the Tonight show on Virgin Media are through the roof but thinks the lockdown is a disaster. He told the Irish Sun: “Absolutely no good will come from it. It is entirely negative. People are denial about it big time. “They are people across Ireland who are hurting by all this but they won’t say this in public because they afraid of being seen as unpatriotic.”
TaurenDruid wrote: » So you didn't type: ... Ok, then...
Exodus 1811 wrote: » I guffawed at "odius scumbag"
Balf wrote: » I did type that, and it is an accurate description of the restrictions.
TaurenDruid wrote: » It absolutely isn't. The 2Km restriction relates solely to exercise. You claim otherwise.
Mongfinder General wrote: » He has to be getting up on her. There's no way that he can really believe what is happening is not in the general public's interest.
Balf wrote: » Maybe that's why Magda Sinead is so pissed.
Balf wrote: » You are being pedantic. As I correctly said, the restrictions require people not to leave their homes without good reason, and then not to stray further than 2km without good reason. If you think for more than ten seconds before replying, you will appreciate that is correct.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It is not correct. The 2km restriction relates solely to exercise, no more and no less. Your statement is contradictory in itself - if you can't leave your home without good reason, then not going more than 2km without good reason adds nothing. .
Balf wrote: » Again,pedantry, unless you are claiming that the restrictions envisage widespread travel, except for exercise. Are you actually conscious that you are obfusticating?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » This is a legal issue. In law, the 2km limit applies only to exercise. There is no distance limit set out in law for any of the other activities. You can play whatever games you like about what is 'envisaged', but the legal facts don't change. The 2km limit applies only to exercise.
runawaybishop wrote: » Jaysus get a room you two.
Balf wrote: » Can I suggest you are missing the point, in the pedantic fog you are lost in. Which is folk are meant to stay at home, unless ...... Are you making some other point?
TaurenDruid wrote: » If you think everyone else is being pedantic, maybe the problem is actually in how you express yourself?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The point I'm making is that the 2km limit only applies to exercise. There is no legal limit on the distance traveled for other essential services. Folks are indeed meant to stay at home unless they go shopping, or for other essential business, or (within the 2km limit) they go to exercise. It's not complicated really.
Balf wrote: » But, sure, its only you and the other eejit who are being pedantic
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » We need a way to get help for people with psychological illness being sucked in to all this. That's what we are dealing with here. The number of people being drawn in by these conspiracy theories is getting higher all the time. For most I don't believe it's their fault, they are victims of manipulation and misinformation because they are not all there to begin with or they are just vulnerable. If you believe 5G is a deep state plot spreading disease you have serious issues, you need help from somewhere.
Balf wrote: » Indeed, so why are you dragging the point out? What point of substance did you think was at issue? Do you feel, in some way, that rephrasing the same basic point means its perfectly obvious that someone would fly 3,500km into the middle of this circus? To pick fruit? Or did you hope that obvious disconnect would be lost in a flood of pedantry?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » My only hope here was to clarify the actual facts of the actual law- that the 2km limit applies only to exercise and not to anything else.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
