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

shaveAbullock

extra gravy wrote: »

Totally agree. With data protection being such a big issue now, it beggars belief how this is allowed to continue.

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.

political analyst

Infini wrote: »

Believe she does have children and even THEY'RE ashamed of her, nothing but sympathy for them having to deal with an absolute batshìt insane woman.

Are you sure? I'm aware that she was the second wife of fellow former Indo journalist Peter Carvosso, who died of motor neurone disease in 2015, and that Peter had a son. But I don't know whether she is the mother of his son.

extra gravy

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.

Clarence Boddiker

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

blueythebear

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?

shaveAbullock

extra gravy wrote: »

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

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

blueythebear

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

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

How so? No constitutional right is absolute. All of them can be curtailed

HeidiHeidi

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.

Clarence Boddiker

blueythebear wrote: »

How so? No constitutional right is absolute. All of them can be curtailed

Curtailed how? I was under the impression that the restrictions could only take effect in the situation of war.

Clarence Boddiker

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.

HeidiHeidi

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

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.

Maybe you should get in touch with Gemma and tell her to pipe down a bit, then, and she might get more traction.

V hard to see past the ridiculous antics, which is a factor entirely within her control.

extra gravy

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.

blueythebear

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Curtailed how? I was under the impression that the restrictions could only take effect in the situation of war.

Restrictions of your constitutional rights can be limited / curtailed / restricted in many scenariosby law.

How does a garda physically arrest a person? How does a doctor perform emergency surgery on an unconscious patient?

Constitutional rights get curtailed all the time

shaveAbullock

extra gravy wrote: »

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.

I agree, but it is difficult to make legislation for it without taking away civil liberties.

Sheep breeder

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Curtailed how? I was under the impression that the restrictions could only take effect in the situation of war.

I don’t care about the restrictions if it saves lives in Ireland from this bloody Covid 19 and I would say the 1100+ people who have died would say the same.we all have family and friends and community that want to avoid this pandemic and these two nut jobs are only trying to piss petroleum to build their image up.

gooseygander

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”.

shaveAbullock

He has a type, she is his new Sinead O'Connor

FGR

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.

2ndcoming

I think I said it on Page 1 or 2, but it is still just as valid.

DON'T.
GIVE.
THEM.
AIR.

Polar101

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".

padd b1975

Patois wrote: »

somebody on twitter said they were riding

so ya kno... must b tru

Waters has form for dipping his wick in dangerous parts so it wouldn't surprise me.

padd b1975

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.

barney shamrock

Waters should have been arrested years ago for composing that Eurovision song.
Talk about crimes against humanity!

Field east

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

Field east

Central Services wrote: »

There was no breach of the peace. There is some case law on that as well where a breach of the peace cannot occur if only a garda was present.

She wasn't breaking any covid law because she was going to the High Court, as was her passenger.
Hence the Garda Sergeant did not stop her from continuing.

I’d put her behavior up there in the same box as coughing/spitting at garda. She did the same thing verbally and is spitting not an offense? Let the courts decide although. You are entitled to your opinion

Shefwedfan

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

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

Prefer to keep people alive........

walshb

shaveAbullock wrote: »

He has a type, she is his new Sinead O'Connor

Exactly.

The man has absolute form...

Level-headed my arse!!!

Shefwedfan

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

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.

Waters is not an honourable man.....he is just as big a gobsh*t

Field east

190RearTyre wrote: »

What an absolutely shameful racist she is. From lurking on here it looks like she has a lot of support for her thoughts especially in the relaxation of restrictions thread.

‘Empty vessels make the most noise’ comes to mind. From what I can gather ‘on the grapevine’ people are quiet happy to abide by the restrictions because of their necessity - otherwise potential for dying/ serious long term health implications for oneself, family members, friends, neighbors, etc . And the potential for otherwise puking frontline staff under untoward pressure

Field east

Boggles wrote: »

Why is a court entertaining this bollíx?

Surely the 2 of them should just be detained under the mental health act and put in a rubber room for 12 months.

NO , DO’nt. The country could end up with twins or worst still triplets!