Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

John Waters & Gemma O'Doherty to challenge lockdown in the high Court

1…1617192122…60

Comments

  • #542
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 54,334 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    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.

    Yes indeed. The same as many posters on here.


  • #543
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    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.

    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.


  • #544
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    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.
    It patently doesn't, and you are vanishing down a rabbit hole.


  • #545
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,269 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    Balf wrote: »
    It patently doesn't, and you are vanishing down a rabbit hole.

    So you didn't type:
    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
    ...

    Ok, then...

    ===
    boards.ie default cookie settings now include "legitimate interest" for >200 companies, unless you specifically opted out!



  • #546
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,269 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    Radio Nova know their editorial position on this one, anyway...

    https://twitter.com/radionova100/status/1253356867683786752

    ===
    boards.ie default cookie settings now include "legitimate interest" for >200 companies, unless you specifically opted out!



  • Advertisement
  • #547
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    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.
    On the legal merits, we'll see. I'd worry they won't coherently make the case, but that's another matter.

    On whether the time is right, interesting to see Ivan Yates also seems to judge its the right point to question the lockdown.
    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.”
    I don't think Ivan would be satisfied if he thought he'd only attract an audience of 50 to 100 mutters. He'd at least want to attract the kind of classy people who read the Irish Sun.

    I think the tide is going out on this issue, politically.


  • #548
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    So you didn't type:

    ...

    Ok, then...
    I did type that, and it is an accurate description of the restrictions.

    Are you fluent in English?


  • #549
    Mongfinder General
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,992 ✭✭✭Mongfinder General


    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.


  • #550
    southstar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭southstar


    Exodus 1811 wrote: »
    I guffawed at "odius scumbag"


    I guffawed at ' guffawed '....


  • #551
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,269 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    Balf wrote: »
    I did type that, and it is an accurate description of the restrictions.

    It absolutely isn't. The 2Km restriction relates solely to exercise. You claim otherwise.

    ===
    boards.ie default cookie settings now include "legitimate interest" for >200 companies, unless you specifically opted out!



  • Advertisement
  • #552
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    It absolutely isn't. The 2Km restriction relates solely to exercise. You claim otherwise.
    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.

    And then you'll appreciate the leap involved in not batting an eyelid over folk flying in from Bulgaria.

    Otherwise, I can be of no further help.


  • #553
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    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.
    Maybe that's why Magda Sinead is so pissed.


  • #554
    Mongfinder General
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,992 ✭✭✭Mongfinder General


    Balf wrote: »
    Maybe that's why Magda Sinead is so pissed.

    Jaysus. Didn't think of that.


  • #555
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,933 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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.
    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.

    There is nothing in law to stop you going 10km for food or 100km for legal business. The only distance limit in law is 2km for exercise. And it's a pretty pointless restriction, but that's for another day or thread.
    Balf wrote: »
    Maybe that's why Magda Sinead is so pissed.
    Every utterance from Sinead would suggest that she has long since moved on from that particular scenario.


  • #556
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    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. .
    Again,pedantry, unless you are claiming that the restrictions envisage widespread travel, except for exercise.

    Are you actually conscious that you are obfusticating?


  • #557
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,933 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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?

    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.


  • #558
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    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.
    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?


  • #559
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,523 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Jaysus get a room you two.


  • #560
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Jaysus get a room you two.
    Nothing could be further from my mind, but I'd hate to be a blond in a pub when Renko has a few on board and wants a ride.


  • #561
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,269 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    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?

    If you think everyone else is being pedantic, maybe the problem is actually in how you express yourself?

    ===
    boards.ie default cookie settings now include "legitimate interest" for >200 companies, unless you specifically opted out!



  • Advertisement
  • #562
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,933 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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?

    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.


  • #563
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    If you think everyone else is being pedantic, maybe the problem is actually in how you express yourself?
    But, sure, its only you and the other eejit who are being pedantic


  • #564
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    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.
    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?


  • #565
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,269 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    Balf wrote: »
    But, sure, its only you and the other eejit who are being pedantic

    But, sure, it's only you being obtuse. :rolleyes:

    ===
    boards.ie default cookie settings now include "legitimate interest" for >200 companies, unless you specifically opted out!



  • #566
    southstar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭southstar


    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?

    You are quite clearly the waffler here.....and pedantic...and rather infantile. .the points made to you couldn't be more simple..but feel free to throw a strop .,.isn't that what Boards is for..


  • #567
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,247 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    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.

    Shame on Waters and O'Doherty for abusing and using these people. That's what it is, abuse.


  • #568
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,901 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    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.

    Exactly what RTE and the evil MSM want you to think,


  • #569
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,933 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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?

    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.


  • #570
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    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.
    Which would be a good way of putting it, if the point of the law was to obstruct sport and exercise for some reason.

    But when the point of the law is to confine people to their homes as much as possible, its just pedantic.


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    pjproby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 844 ✭✭✭pjproby


    This is a story about how the link between 5G and coronavirus went viral.

    https://www.logically.co.uk/blog/heres-who-was-behind-the-former-vodafone-boss-blows-whistles-on-5g-coronavirus-clip-that-went-viral-on-youtube


Advertisement