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

Balf

[HTML][/HTML]

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

One of the problems he has had is that he is too intelligent for arguing with people who like things simple. But I don’t get how same sex marriage was making things harder for fathers?

Put very briefly, the opening position in both European and Irish law was that the right to marry was wrapped up in the right of heterosexual couples to have a family together. That didn't mean that gay marriage couldn't be provided for, just that it wasn't a right.

Waters argument, as I understand it, was you couldn't change the law around the right to marriage without impacting the law around parental rights, as you'd be changing one of the ways that such rights are established.

Not saying he's right or wrong, and the voting is over on that anyway.

Clarence Boddiker

YFlyer wrote: »

Sir Stevo Timothy doing a parody of Gemma confronting the Gardai.

Utterly unfunny and pathetic gimp, establishment stooge.

There was a time when comedians were wildly transgressive and very much anti establishment. Not anymore.

That takes balls though and clearly Sir Stevo and that other gimp Blindboy have none.

Clarence Boddiker

Irish people legally required to stay within 2k of their homes and if over 70 to stay at home.
Someone challenges this and the normies lose their minds.

Non residents allowed to move about freely.....crickets.

[Deleted User]

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Irish people legally required to stay within 2k of their homes and if over 70 to stay at home.
Someone challenges this and the normies lose their minds.

Non residents allowed to move about freely.....crickets.

Someone challenged it because they believe 5g is poisoning us.. They don't care about public health and have a track record of being terrible people.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone challenged it because they believe 5g is poisoning us.. They don't care about public health and have a track record of being terrible people.

They (the protesters + their figure heads) are not "normies" though <washes hands thoroughly after typing>
One can say that about them! :pac:

Clarence Boddiker

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone challenged it because they believe 5g is poisoning us.. They don't care about public health and have a track record of being terrible people.

Eh no they challenged it because they believe the laws are unconstitutional.

And as I said, the normies (and the media) had a meltdown over the fact that the restrictions may be lifted and of course the lack of social distancing at the courthouse.

As for the fact that anyone from outside the state may come in move about freely as the laws don't apply to them? Kind of defeats the purpose of the restrictions you might say.

But it doesn't seem to bother the normies or indeed the media at all. Not much outrage going around over that one is there? Funny that

TheChizler

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Irish people legally required to stay within 2k of their homes and if over 70 to stay at home.
Someone challenges this and the normies lose their minds.

Non residents allowed to move about freely.....crickets.

Only 1 of those 3 statements is true

Skylinehead

TheChizler wrote: »

Only 1 of those 3 statements is true

He used the word "normie", think that says enough.

[Deleted User]

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Eh no they challenged it because they believe the laws are unconstitutional.

And as I said, the normies (and the media) had a meltdown over the fact that the restrictions may be lifted and of course the lack of social distancing at the courthouse.

As for the fact that anyone from outside the state may come in move about freely as the laws don't apply to them? Kind of defeats the purpose of the restrictions you might say.

But it doesn't seem to bother the normies or indeed the media at all. Not much outrage going around over that one is there? Funny that

The lack of social distancing is a health risk so a reasonable concern and also not exactly a great sign of the intelligence of those supporters. They challenged it because Gemma does performances and will claim a national conspiracy when this fails.

And since our R0 is dropping, it's pretty clear that the measures have had an effect. Regardless of whatever gaps exist. Saying "normies" repeatedly is also a tad cringe.

Annasopra

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Eh no they challenged it because they believe the laws are unconstitutional.

And as I said, the normies (and the media) had a meltdown over the fact that the restrictions may be lifted and of course the lack of social distancing at the courthouse.

As for the fact that anyone from outside the state may come in move about freely as the laws don't apply to them? Kind of defeats the purpose of the restrictions you might say.

But it doesn't seem to bother the normies or indeed the media at all. Not much outrage going around over that one is there? Funny that

Pull the other one. Its an excuse for media whoring to rile up support. Nothing more.

[Deleted User]

shaveAbullock wrote: »

I don't understand how the 2km radius limit is misunderstood by so many people.
It only applies to exercise!

They need to hammer that home for the next round of restrictions, or make the restrictions tighter.

[Deleted User]

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Careful now. You're starting to side with Gemma O'Doherty.

I don't think the bould Gemma has ever come out in support of cycling.

maestroamado

Does anyone here know what this case is about?
I thought they were looking for attention.
Is it over? what the outcome? anyone in jail?

Mrs Shuttleworth

maestroamado wrote: »

Does anyone here know what this case is about?
I thought they were looking for attention.
Is it over? what the outcome? anyone in jail?

It's a Judicial Review action they're taking. Effectively asking the High Court to review the legislation to see if it's compatible with the Constitution or not. The President should have referred the legislation to the Council of State, particularly given the obvious restrictions on movement and the economy, but he didn't, so a big "boo boo" on his part and wide open to legal challenge.

The State has been given two weeks to file a replying Affidavit to the contents of the Applicants proceedings.

blueythebear

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

It's a Judicial Review action they're taking. Effectively asking the High Court to review the legislation to see if it's compatible with the Constitution or not. The President should have referred the legislation to the Council of State, particularly given the obvious restrictions on movement and the economy, but he didn't, so a big "boo boo" on his part and wide open to legal challenge.

The State has been given two weeks to file a replying Affidavit to the contents of the Applicants proceedings.

Actually it would be a boo boo to have referred it under the article 26 procedure. It would then not be amenable to challenge ever again. Many times legislation is only discovered to have a problem after its in operation for a time.

Long_Wave

A neighbor of mine who is a former government minister told me that he believes the legislation is "very unsound". It's such a shame that G"OD is involved because she is mentally unhinged and can't keep her mouth shut. If it were just Waters with a good barrister I'd be confident of success

plodder

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Eh no they challenged it because they believe the laws are unconstitutional.

And as I said, the normies (and the media) had a meltdown over the fact that the restrictions may be lifted and of course the lack of social distancing at the courthouse.

As for the fact that anyone from outside the state may come in move about freely as the laws don't apply to them? Kind of defeats the purpose of the restrictions you might say.

But it doesn't seem to bother the normies or indeed the media at all. Not much outrage going around over that one is there? Funny that

I think everyone gets that it was an oversight. If it turns out that hordes of people from the North start making day trips down South, then a new regulation could be drawn up to deal with that. Or maybe the gardai can report them to the PSNI as they may be breaking the NI rules by coming down south. I think most people have better things to be doing than exploiting a loophole in this way.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1254690967376072704

It must be tiring seeing whacky conspiracy in everything you see on a daily basis.

threeball

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1254690967376072704

It must be tiring seeing whacky conspiracy in everything you see on a daily basis.

Its worrying the amount of nutters that are replying positively in the comments. I thought she'd be getting torn to shreds. Or have people given up?

dan1895

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1254690967376072704

It must be tiring seeing whacky conspiracy in everything you see on a daily basis.

And I for one welcome our new communist/UN overlords.

dan1895

threeball wrote: »

Its worrying the amount of nutters that are replying positively in the comments. I thought she'd be getting torn to shreds. Or have people given up?

Anyone who would rip her to shreds over that either ignores her or has already been blocked by her. Those agreeing are nutters and in some cases paid for fake accounts.

manodepeeple

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1254690967376072704

It must be tiring seeing whacky conspiracy in everything you see on a daily basis.

threeball wrote: »

Its worrying the amount of nutters that are replying positively in the comments. I thought she'd be getting torn to shreds. Or have people given up?

dan1895 wrote: »

Anyone who would rip her to shreds over that either ignores her or has already been blocked by her. Those agreeing are nutters and in some cases paid for fake accounts.

Yeah, her ramblings are basically an echo-chamber. Most who disagree are blocked or just ignoring her. She won't engage on Twitter as her only weapon is to "verbally shout down" common sense.
There's little comedic value in her anymore unfortunately - it's all gone very samey.

mikhail

I feel sorry for her. How can you sustain that level of paranoia? Next week, when it's clear even to the nutters that there hasn't been a coup by the UN, what's going on in a mind like that? It has to be a very unhappy existence.

[Deleted User]

Shes a sad case and I presume very unwell.

owlbethere

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1254690967376072704

It must be tiring seeing whacky conspiracy in everything you see on a daily basis.

communist control - lol.

Isn't she a bad b1tch trying to stir the pot to get people to revolt during a pandemic of a new viral disease.

Beasty

I've just moved over 40 posts to the Restrictions Megathread

Please note the thread title here, which is not specifically related to a 2km exercise zone

Any questions PM me, do not respond to this post in-thread

[Deleted User]

mikhail wrote: »

I feel sorry for her. How can you sustain that level of paranoia? Next week, when it's clear even to the nutters that there hasn't been a coup by the UN, what's going on in a mind like that? It has to be a very unhappy existence.

Presumable her intervention and calling to arms resulted in a climb down from the coup leaders

trashcan

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1254690967376072704

It must be tiring seeing whacky conspiracy in everything you see on a daily basis.

Oh my God, the UN are Commies now ? Heaven help us, will nobody think of the children ?

TaurenDruid

Long_Wave wrote: »

A neighbor of mine who is a former government minister told me that he believes the legislation is "very unsound". It's such a shame that G"OD is involved because she is mentally unhinged and can't keep her mouth shut. If it were just Waters with a good barrister I'd be confident of success

Define "success" in this scenario? Waters wins, the regulations are struck down, a few thousand muppets have house parties and go to the beach, and two weeks later, we've thousands more covid cases and hundreds of daily deaths.

I wouldn't exactly call that success, really, would you?

freddie1970

I stopped following her on twitter..i used to look at her a laugh but after a while i found it quiet sad..as for the eejits that follow her ...