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

owlbethere wrote: »

https://www.change.org/p/irish-court-services-gemma-o-doherty-and-or-john-waters-do-not-speak-for-us

shaveAbullock wrote: »

You can't expect privacy in a public place.
Although a few people use this to make awful videos it's still a good law.

I don't expect privacy in a public place, it's the uploading to social media without consent that's not on.

owlbethere wrote: »

https://www.change.org/p/irish-court-services-gemma-o-doherty-and-or-john-waters-do-not-speak-for-us

Is it too obvious if i point out thats shes never had so many votes?

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Nobody at all bothered by the fact that the legislation may be unconstitutional?

I've no issue with their challenges, it's good that this happens and we have the ability to do so. The issue is her attitude, in particular in the video today, and the gathering of protestors obviously not adhering to the social distancing measures in place, and the limit on travel.

People who challenge for the good of the people, good. People who challenge for attention and because they're conspiracy theorist nutjobs, not good.

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Nobody at all bothered by the fact that the legislation may be unconstitutional?

Has it never occurred to GO'D that the important questions she seeks to raise are completely lost in the total circus she engages in, shrieking like a fishwife at a public servant just doing their job, and throwing insults and thinly-veiled threats around like confetti?

Maybe people would be more concerned about the constitutional question if there wasn't so much (completely self-inflicted) distraction around it.

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Has it never occurred to GO'D that the important questions she seeks to raise are completely lost in the total circus she engages in, shrieking like a fishwife at a public servant just doing their job, and throwing insults and thinly-veiled threats around like confetti?

Maybe people would be more concerned about the constitutional question if there wasn't so much (completely self-inflicted) distraction around it.

Yes it's true shes her own worst enemy, Waters though is an honourable man.
I am more interested in whether the legislation is in effect legal than the personality of ODoherty. So should everyone else be.
If the legal profession and especially the media class were doing their jobs it would be them asking these questions and not O'Doherty.

shaveAbullock wrote: »

Do you think there should be a law to address this?

Definitely think it should looked at. We shouldn’t lose our right to privacy when we step out into public spaces. Obviously every situation would be different. Would you think it acceptable if I brought my kid to the park and someone took a photo of him and put it up on Facebook? There has to be some sort of line there.

political analyst wrote: »

O'Doherty is a political weathervane - she just goes whichever way the wind blows.

But Waters seems level-headed from what I know about him - he has been consistent in his criticism of family-law courts and the State's power over families, i.e. his opposition to the Children Amendment to the Constitution.

Level headed my ass, he must be bat **** crazy to stand beside or be associated with that deluded, unstable, abusive, racist woman. She needs medical help and he must be not far from needing it also because if he was level headed he would kick her to the kerb faster that you can say “I am your master”.

Arghus wrote: »

I suppose that's true. But in fairness I think she overstepped the mark, she was provocative and rude, threatened the guard and filmed her without her consent. It was a bit much. I've seen people arrested for less.

Gemma seems to get away with a lot when she's speaking to the law, because she takes a good guess that they don't want the hassle. I think it would no harm for someone to soften her cough.

I agree with your sentiments 100% however I'm wondering is this approach being taken for two reasons -

1) To me I think she's filming her confrontations with guards to not only intimidate them but also to have her 'time to shine'. A part of me believes she wants to be filmed being arrested and to be considered a 'martyr' whose cause is being 'suppressed' by the big bad police state. I reckon AGS are well aware of this too. You could only imagine how much editing would go onto that vid before it would be uploaded!

2) AGS personnel themselves are, by the very nature of what is going on in this instance, wary of the consequences of such a video. It's been shown in the past that the followers go to all lengths to identify the guard and where they live as well as their husbands/wives/children - and the intimidation and defamation from that alone would cause incredible worry and stress.

That's not to mention the media circus that is GSOC and the 12 months of worry/stress associated with that.

All for just doing their jobs.

I don't think people should be able to upload videos of interactions with others in public places without consent unless their identities are concealed. The Social Media sites should be compelled to remove footage like this at a far quicker pace than they currently do - and as mentioned earlier a good old law suit to those who make defamatory remarks to anyone who is justly going about their business.

And if she thinks Ireland is a Police State - imagine how she'd react to life in China!

Anyway - on to sign that petition.

blueythebear wrote: »

Is it too obvious if i point out thats shes never had so many votes?

All these loud people who claim to represent "the people" (and I don't mean politicians now) are being disingenuous - they don't care what the people think, but are just trying to make their own opinions carry more weight.

At least with politicians, in theory you can choose which ones will represent the people, but GO'D and the like are just self-nominated "representatives".

Patois wrote: »

john was alrite, remember seeing him on telly one time, seemed very well read, had a cool book about times in ireland when the roads were shyte. cant fault him yet, dont know why he's hooked up with this gemma character, she seems strange!

Jiving at the Crossroads.

A great read with a brilliant anecdote about a chef's nut sack and a steak for Charles J. Haughey.

Arghus wrote: »

Personally, I thought the Guard was too meek. Gemma was allowed to say whatever she liked to her and then film her. Pretty sure I wouldn't have got away with it.

Her attitude is appalling in that video. She's so hateful.

IMO, the garda acted 100% right - looking at the overall situation and beyond. Think about it. (1) The garda let her ,and the cameraman off with their rant which she uploaded. The more she said / was filmed the greater the chance that she broke the law and the information could be used as evidence in court - if someone wishes to sue her.
(2) the guards could have arrested her / ground the car/ make more of a scene. But they only quoted the law to her and gave her no further ‘oxygen’ to ‘make her case’.

It’s of interest that RTE thought that the ‘fact’ that Sean o Rourke is going on Dancing with the stars’ and it worthy of making the RTE News Programme and that that interaction of GOD with the guards on some Dublin street did not must have been a very big disappointment to her. Also says something about what drives the RTE editorial team/ policy as to what should be reported and what should not be reported even though it might be more news worthy. It opened my eyes even further - apart from the ‘slant’ it might give. To some news items