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

Brock Turnpike · 04-05-2020 08:47AM

Shefwedfan wrote: »

How dare the nurses try to brighten up their day with a video on a break after watching people die....selfish yokes

So tell me what medical experience have you got to make these statements?

I'll tell you. None. They got is a complete fantasist. Imagine getting banned from boards and re-registering to start spouting that type of ****e. An argument for why access to Internet and social media should be vetted before people are allowed post.

maestroamado · 04-05-2020 10:05AM

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Wait out for a vaccine? You didn't pay any attention to Leo's announcement the other day where he gave a plan on how we open back up the country? Which didn't include waiting on a vaccine. Or does that not suit your narrative?

Seems to me you're here to parrot your anti-vaxx and "anti-constitution" rhetoric. Where you out in the Phoenix Park yesterday? Yeah?

If we had a vaccine today i wonder how long it would take to be effective.
I think if this virus does not fizzle out by itself we will have to learn to live with it like the flu and unfortunately .
Does anyone know where there is a world chart of infections?
I seen one a few weeks ago and like just to see whats happening around the world.
Also has anyone mentioned what percentage of population likely already exposed to virus in some way?
I think this is the Doherty/Watters thread but not sure.

Balf · 04-05-2020 11:51AM

maestroamado wrote: »

I am unhappy that necessary legislation can be challenged in the courts by the un-elected individuals you refer to.
..

How many people appreciate that this pretty much the basis for Western democracy?

The Courts are actually there to protect the unelected from any excesses by the elected.

By all means, have a view on their campaign. But there's an unhealthy lack of appreciation of some of the basics in many of these posts.

04-05-2020 01:04PM

Here's the transcript of the hearing. Its about 40 pages, but its hilarious to read G'OD losing the plot multiple times.

CrabRevolution · 04-05-2020 01:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Here's the transcript of the hearing. Its about 40 pages, but its hilarious to read G'OD losing the plot multiple times.

I'm only a quarter through but Lord above...

John Waters is unpleasant, awkward and contrary, but O'Doherty really seems truly deranged. I'd like the people trying to be edgy and saying these 2 are doing the public a service by standing up to the state to actually read the drivel they spout.

Their opening statement is that the press is biased and the courts plan on editing the audio recording of the proceedings before making it public. Then they complain that the state defending the case was a waste of taxpayers money and they should just surrender immediately instead. Then O'D goes on a rant and claims there's not even any test for Covid-19 and the virus presents no threat to life.

And that's just the opening pages...

Truthvader · 04-05-2020 01:56PM

That is just sad. Clearly what concerned them most was that the train looney society they had assembled outside were not allowed witness their self important performance. In addition as their entire focus is on self promotion they have failed to put any thought at all into their actual application. Enough to get your name in the papers. Sad, small, nasty little people

HeidiHeidi · 04-05-2020 01:58PM

That link won't open for me.

Any other way of providing it?

AndrewJRenko · 04-05-2020 02:01PM

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

An argument for why access to Internet and social media should be vetted before people are allowed post.

Who's going to do the vetting? Not everyone has the privilege of freedom of speech from their employer or their partner or their community.

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

I am absolutely amazed that you disregard dancing nurses videos all over social media in empty hospitals. But that is your choice, you chose to see what you want to see.

How exactly can you manage to tell how full or empty a hospital is from a one minute clip in one corridor?

Seth Brundle · 04-05-2020 02:16PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How exactly can you manage to tell how full or empty a hospital is from a one minute clip in one corridor?

Simple. Seeing as how they believe it's all fake news, then all the hospitals are completely empty. There's no virus and all those funerals and fresh graves are part of a massive government conspiracy.
I think!

AndrewJRenko · 04-05-2020 02:25PM

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

When did boards end up with all these GO'D/JW bots? Had it always been like this?

You can ask the question, and you'll be told 'nothing to see here', but it is becoming increasingly obvious that boards is the platform of choice for alt-right crazies.

brightspark wrote: »

I believe that the legislation is necessary, whether or not it is constitutional or not is a debate that the legal professionals will decide. (How ironic that it will ultimately be decided by a few un-elected wealthy individuals).

Are you suggesting that Supreme Court should be staff by politicians or what?

CrabRevolution · 04-05-2020 02:29PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How exactly can you manage to tell how full or empty a hospital is from a one minute clip in one corridor?

That same poster was claiming that it's Leo Varadkar's fault the entire world's aviation industry has collapsed over the last 2 months. Apparently because of regulations which don't even exist yet.

brightspark · 04-05-2020 02:30PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Supreme Court should be staff by politicians or what?

No. It's just a little ironic.

Xertz · 04-05-2020 02:38PM

maestroamado wrote: »

If we had a vaccine today i wonder how long it would take to be effective.
I think if this virus does not fizzle out by itself we will have to learn to live with it like the flu and unfortunately .
Does anyone know where there is a world chart of infections?
I seen one a few weeks ago and like just to see whats happening around the world.
Also has anyone mentioned what percentage of population likely already exposed to virus in some way?
I think this is the Doherty/Watters thread but not sure.

It would take as long as it takes for ~70% (and ideally more) of the population to get vaccinated

If we end up with significant anti vaccine conspiracy theory stuff preventing uptake, as is likely in the USA, we will still be dealing with Coronavirus / COVID-19 in 2030.

If there’s a rapid uptake, the ventilators and PPE will be a bad memory, just like the scenes of people in iron lungs with Polio. Something consigned to history books and Reeling In the Years.

maestroamado · 04-05-2020 03:12PM

Balf wrote: »

How many people appreciate that this pretty much the basis for Western democracy?

The Courts are actually there to protect the unelected from any excesses by the elected.

By all means, have a view on their campaign. But there's an unhealthy lack of appreciation of some of the basics in many of these posts.

I do not understand what is meant by...

"unhealthy lack of appreciation of some of the basics in many of these posts"

Annasopra · 04-05-2020 04:18PM

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

"Bring down the system?" :rolleyes:

Regina Doherty, Shane Ross and Katherine Zappone all lost their seats in February but for some reason remain Government Ministers.

What system is there to trash but an illegal one?

More bullshi ttery :pac::pac::pac:

The current governement is not illegal

Annasopra · 04-05-2020 04:27PM

threeball wrote: »

You'd imagine a call should be put in to twitter and facebook to have them removed. They should have the sense to do it themselves seen as they're based here.

Facebook did ban Gemma

Annasopra · 04-05-2020 04:30PM

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Deadly virus?? I dont mean to undermine covid19 but there are 10 + videos of nurses dancing in empty hospitals on tiktok, youtube and other platforms. It is an outrage that we have empty hospitals and we say "yeah but its good because its better for them to be empty rather than overwhelmed".

Something that gives you 99% chance to live, should not be called "deadly". Cancer is DEADLY. Tuberculosis can easily be called DEADLY. I am just speaking facts.

This is the same drivel Gemma is coming out with :pac::pac::pac:

Annasopra · 04-05-2020 04:38PM

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

Gemma is challenging lockdown restrictions in court. Lockdown restrictions imposed are to A) slow down the spread of the disease & not to overwhelm 100 ICU beds and wait out for a vaccine.

Leo has said this on camera, good few times. I am merely pointing out that this is not feasible and like I've mentioned earlier, Gemma as unlikable as she is - its a good thing someone is challenging these scientifically unproven lockdown measures.

Is that not relevant?

It's bizarre you keep dropping in this faux outrage about how unlikeable Gemma is but then you intrdoduce all her arguments. I've only seen 1 dancing doctor ever; on Gemmas twitter. If you dislike Gemma so much why are you repeating all her nonsense so much?

Balf · 04-05-2020 05:27PM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I'm only a quarter through but Lord above...

John Waters is unpleasant, awkward and contrary, but O'Doherty really seems truly deranged. I'd like the people trying to be edgy and saying these 2 are doing the public a service by standing up to the state to actually read the drivel they spout.

Their opening statement is that the press is biased and the courts plan on editing the audio recording of the proceedings before making it public. Then they complain that the state defending the case was a waste of taxpayers money and they should just surrender immediately instead. Then O'D goes on a rant and claims there's not even any test for Covid-19 and the virus presents no threat to life.

And that's just the opening pages...

Its well worth a read but you are garbling it. For instance, the issue around the cost of contesting the case arises when the case is widened to include the Oireachtas, where its possible that three additional sets of lawyers will be employed. The issue around the DAR is simply drawing attention to the fact that the proceedings are not directly available to the public, which the Judge sensibly resolves by ordering the DAR to be given to Gemma and John for free.

As can be half guessed, Gemma is awful. The Judge is fair, and even puts the State's lawyer in his box when he's clearly trying to drag things out. Waters is focussed on the matter in hand. He'd be better off doing this on his own.

The main thing I'd pick up from it, though, is the recognition by the Judge that there's an important issue at stake, albeit taken by two amateurs. Gemma cant even see where the Judge throws her a lifeline, and a couple of times has to draw in Waters as the more competent party.

CrabRevolution · 04-05-2020 05:35PM

Balf wrote: »

Its well worth a read but you are garbling it. For instance, the issue around the cost of contesting the case arises when the case is widened to include the Oireachtas, where its possible that three additional sets of lawyers will be employed. The issue around the DAR is simply drawing attention to the fact that the proceedings are not directly available to the public, which the Judge sensibly resolves by ordering the DAR to be given to Gemma and John for free.

As can be half guessed, Gemma is awful. The Judge is fair, and even puts the State's lawyer in his box when he's clearly trying to drag things out. Waters is focussed on the matter in hand. He'd be better off doing this on his own.

The main thing I'd pick up from it, though, is the recognition by the Judge that there's an important issue at stake, albeit taken by two amateurs. Gemma cant even see where the Judge throws her a lifeline, and a couple of times has to draw in Waters as the more competent party.

This makes no sense though. You can't take a scattergun case against numerous arms of the state and not expect them to defend themselves in court. The Department of Health has no legal authority to represent the Dáil in court. The additional lawyers are all only being hired solely because Waters and O'Doherty are taking cases against their clients.

If Waters and O'Doherty hadn't challenged the Oireachtas, the Oireachtas and their lawyers wouldn't be involved.

If Waters and O'Doherty hadn't challenged the Department of Health, the Department of Health and their lawyers wouldn't be involved.

Etc.

Mrs Shuttleworth · 04-05-2020 06:09PM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

This makes no sense though. You can't take a scattergun case against numerous arms of the state and not expect them to defend themselves in court. The Department of Health has no legal authority to represent the Dáil in court. The additional lawyers are all only being hired solely because Waters and O'Doherty are taking cases against their clients.

If Waters and O'Doherty hadn't challenged the Oireachtas, the Oireachtas and their lawyers wouldn't be involved.

If Waters and O'Doherty hadn't challenged the Department of Health, the Department of Health and their lawyers wouldn't be involved.

Etc.

Clearly you haven't read the transcript. O'Doherty and Waters issued proceedings against the Minister for Health, Ireland and the Attorney General which is the exact correct format when taking an action against the State for alleged misfeasance. They did not issue proceedings against the Dail, Seanad or Ceann Comhairle as the term "Ireland" covers vicarious liability in that regard.

It was the State that requested the Judge co-opt the Oireachtas and Ceann Comhairle as notice parties - clearly in an early attempt to pass the buck - and the Judge agreed.

Balf · 04-05-2020 06:15PM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

This makes no sense though. You can't take a scattergun case against numerous arms of the state and not expect them to defend themselves in court. The Department of Health has no legal authority to represent the Dáil in court. The additional lawyers are all only being hired solely because Waters and O'Doherty are taking cases against their clients.

If Waters and O'Doherty hadn't challenged the Oireachtas, the Oireachtas and their lawyers wouldn't be involved.

If Waters and O'Doherty hadn't challenged the Department of Health, the Department of Health and their lawyers wouldn't be involved.

Etc.

The point was you inaccurately described the proceedings, until it was pointed out that you had garbled the transcript.

If you've followed the transcript, the addition of the Oireachtas was at the request of the Department of Health, not Gemma and John. Which is why the Judge said the Department are the people who should serve notice on those parties.

As John said, they are only seeking to have the Constitutionality of the legislation tested, by whatever means. The missing element seems to be what was decided at the first hearing, under a different Judge, who seemed to point proceedings down a fruitless avenue. As Judge Murphy says, she can't really review a decision by the Oireachtas. She can only review the constitutionality of the legislation.

You might have missed that bit, or maybe you just didn't follow what was being said.

CrabRevolution · 04-05-2020 06:19PM

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Clearly you haven't read the transcript. O'Doherty and Waters issued proceedings against the Minister for Health, Ireland and the Attorney General which is the exact correct format when taking an action against the State for alleged misfeasance. They did not issue proceedings against the Dail, Seanad or Ceann Comhairle as the term "Ireland" covers vicarious liability in that regard.

It was the State that requested the Judge co-opt the Oireachtas and Ceann Comhairle as notice parties - clearly in an early attempt to pass the buck - and the Judge agreed.

Right,you know better than the judge and it's all a conspiracy.

Balf · 04-05-2020 06:22PM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Right,you know better than the judge and it's all a conspiracy.

No, the Judge is fine, and you don't understand the transcript.

CrabRevolution · 04-05-2020 06:22PM

Balf wrote: »

The point was you inaccurately described the proceedings, until it was pointed out that you had garbled the transcript.

If you've followed the transcript, the addition of the Oireachtas was at the request of the Department of Health, not Gemma and John. Which is why the Judge said the Department are the people who should serve notice on those parties.

As John said, they are only seeking to have the Constitutionality of the legislation tested, by whatever means. The missing element seems to be what was decided at the first hearing, under a different Judge, who seemed to point proceedings down a fruitless avenue. As Judge Murphy says, she can't really review a decision by the Oireachtas. She can only review the constitutionality of the legislation.

You might have missed that bit, or maybe you just didn't follow what was being said.

I'm not arguing that the state requested the inclusion of the Oireachtas. I'm saying that the sole reason the Oireachtas is included is because O'Doherty and Waters' case is partly based on the Oireachtas supposedly acting illegally. If the 2 of them hadn't mentioned the Oireachtas, the state wouldn't be attaching the Oireachtas to the case.

You can't take a case that hinges heavily on a given body (especially accusing them of acting illegally) and expect them not to be involved in the case.

Balf · 04-05-2020 06:47PM

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I'm not arguing that the state requested the inclusion of the Oireachtas. I'm saying that the sole reason the Oireachtas is included is because O'Doherty and Waters' case is partly based on the Oireachtas supposedly acting illegally. If the 2 of them hadn't mentioned the Oireachtas, the state wouldn't be attaching the Oireachtas to the case.

You can't take a case that hinges heavily on a given body (especially accusing them of acting illegally) and expect them not to be involved in the case.

Its not about arguing anything. It's simply about understanding what the transcript says, and accurately stating that.

We don't have the transcript of the first hearing, which would also be helpful.

Annasopra · 04-05-2020 07:07PM

Balf wrote: »

Its well worth a read but you are garbling it. For instance, the issue around the cost of contesting the case arises when the case is widened to include the Oireachtas, where its possible that three additional sets of lawyers will be employed. The issue around the DAR is simply drawing attention to the fact that the proceedings are not directly available to the public, which the Judge sensibly resolves by ordering the DAR to be given to Gemma and John for free.

As can be half guessed, Gemma is awful. The Judge is fair, and even puts the State's lawyer in his box when he's clearly trying to drag things out. Waters is focussed on the matter in hand. He'd be better off doing this on his own.

The main thing I'd pick up from it, though, is the recognition by the Judge that there's an important issue at stake, albeit taken by two amateurs. Gemma cant even see where the Judge throws her a lifeline, and a couple of times has to draw in Waters as the more competent party.

I thought the judge was extremely fair towards O'Doherty and Waters. He refused to entertain the State counsels legal wranglings and attempts to delay. He went out of his way to ensure that O'Doherty and Waters can go further with this case.

What I did find very interesting is that O'Doherty on her social media claims that the Virus doesnt exist and that it's a hoax bur before the courts she acknowledges it does exist. This all really does show up her to be a Lying charlatan.

Annasopra · 04-05-2020 07:07PM

Balf wrote: »

Its well worth a read but you are garbling it. For instance, the issue around the cost of contesting the case arises when the case is widened to include the Oireachtas, where its possible that three additional sets of lawyers will be employed. The issue around the DAR is simply drawing attention to the fact that the proceedings are not directly available to the public, which the Judge sensibly resolves by ordering the DAR to be given to Gemma and John for free.

As can be half guessed, Gemma is awful. The Judge is fair, and even puts the State's lawyer in his box when he's clearly trying to drag things out. Waters is focussed on the matter in hand. He'd be better off doing this on his own.

The main thing I'd pick up from it, though, is the recognition by the Judge that there's an important issue at stake, albeit taken by two amateurs. Gemma cant even see where the Judge throws her a lifeline, and a couple of times has to draw in Waters as the more competent party.

I thought the judge was extremely fair towards O'Doherty and Waters. He refused to entertain the State counsels legal wranglings and attempts to delay. He went out of his way to ensure that O'Doherty and Waters can go further with this case.

What I did find very interesting is that O'Doherty on her social media claims that the Virus doesnt exist and that it's a hoax but before the courts she acknowledges it does exist. This all really does show up her to be a Lying charlatan.

Mrs Shuttleworth · 04-05-2020 09:34PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I thought the judge was extremely fair towards O'Doherty and Waters. He refused to entertain the State counsels legal wranglings and attempts to delay. He went out of his way to ensure that O'Doherty and Waters can go further with this case.

That's definitely true.

Annasopra · 04-05-2020 09:54PM

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That's definitely true.

If you read between the lines further though O'Doherty and Waters may choose not to take the case further and then blame everyone; the state, the government, the AG, the courts, the judge, the media, the gardai, the Bar, Soros, Gates, Big Pharma

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

Comments