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…3637394142…60

Comments

  • #1142
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I thought the judge was extremely fair towards O'Doherty and Waters. He
    Just to know, the Judge is a she - Deirdre Murphy. I agree she absolutely handles the matter fairly.
    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    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
    For me, I found I wanted to see the transcript of the first case. As Judge Murphy points out, their case is looking for the decision to pass the legislation to be set aside, as distinct from simply asking for the constitutionality of the legislation to be determined. The Court could do the latter, but not the former.

    John and Gemma say this is how the Judge (Sanfey, not Murphy) steered the case at the first hearing. I think we'd need to see the detail of that hearing to see what exactly transpired. While Gemma seems clueless, John seems to know enough not to let the case go down a pointless path - unless a Judge steered it that way.

    And Judge Murphy's only explanation for how the case seemed to be wrongly steered was Judge Sanfey might not have read the submission.

    Gemma will talk seven shades of ****e, no matter what happens. I think John really needs to find some new pals. I mean, at times the Judge is pretty much saying "Gemma, shut up you silly cow so I can dig you out of a hole. John, does she have a mute button?"


  • #1143
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Personal dislike of Gemma O'Doherty and John Waters needs to be set aside. The contents of this legislation and manner in which it was passed warrants serious examination.


  • #1144
    Brock Turnpike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭Brock Turnpike


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    Personal dislike of Gemma O'Doherty and John Waters needs to be set aside. The contents of this legislation and manner in which it was passed warrants serious examination.

    Says who?


  • #1145
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    Personal dislike of Gemma O'Doherty and John Waters needs to be set aside. The contents of this legislation and manner in which it was passed warrants serious examination.
    I agree completely and, to make my own position clear, I no personal animosity towards Gemma. I genuinely worry about her mental health. I think her contributions in the transcript were inept, bordering on delusional.

    But the substantial issue exists - as Judge Murphy indicates, there is an obvious core issue about whether the very severe restraints are proportionate to the risks. Would banning all private cars be a proportionate response to preventing road deaths? What are the limits?

    But I hate to think of those serious issues being ruled on, after Gemma has 'contributed' to the case.


  • #1146
    threeball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,813 ✭✭✭threeball


    Balf wrote: »
    I agree completely and, to make my own position clear, I no personal animosity towards Gemma. I genuinely worry about her mental health. I think her contributions in the transcript were inept, bordering on delusional.

    But the substantial issue exists - as Judge Murphy indicates, there is an obvious core issue about whether the very severe restraints are proportionate to the risks. Would banning all private cars be a proportionate response to preventing road deaths? What are the limits?

    But I hate to think of those serious issues being ruled on, after Gemma has 'contributed' to the case.

    Hardly a valid analogy. You can't get killed by passing by a car, or kill someone else at home by being in a minor tip with a stranger. Nor do you see 1000 deaths in two months from car accidents whilst the cars are generally off the road. Its amazing how people will rail against the greater good to suit their own preference.


  • Advertisement
  • #1147
    Infini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,654 ✭✭✭Infini


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    Personal dislike of Gemma O'Doherty and John Waters needs to be set aside. The contents of this legislation and manner in which it was passed warrants serious examination.

    She's well earned it IMO with her shenanigans, behaviour and general motivations your not gonna be able to get alot of people to agree with you on that unfortunately because of it. If it was someone else but them doing it on academic grounds for example that would be a different story but it's obvious she's doing this for attention and to push her blighted agenda.
    Balf wrote: »
    But the substantial issue exists - as Judge Murphy indicates, there is an obvious core issue about whether the very severe restraints are proportionate to the risks. Would banning all private cars be a proportionate response to preventing road deaths? What are the limits?

    Car Death's are a tiny amount in the grand scheme of things like low 100's a year so it's a poor analogy this is a virulent pandemic with a much higher mortality rate in the elderly and the vulnerable and can kill regardless of age though risk drastically decreases the younger you are. If it had been allowed to run rampant without restriction we would possibly be talking about death's in the hundred thousand range and compounded by deaths from non-covid cases as well caused by an overloaded health system collapsing. We've seen the damage in other places like bodies piling up in Morgues in the states, plastic wrapped corpses in Latin America and those images of the military taking truckloads of the dead to the crematorium. It's the kind of deadly emergency that requires drastic emergency measures like limiting freedom simply because the other option: Mass Vaccination is currently not available on the table yet.

    We need to get it right the first time with this because there's a chance of a 2nd wave happening as well and being able to contain and manage that is key as the costs as bad as they are now are far worse in terms of Human Lives and the economy will be far worse if we dont have a handle on this.


  • #1148
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    Personal dislike of Gemma O'Doherty and John Waters needs to be set aside. The contents of this legislation and manner in which it was passed warrants serious examination.

    It isn't merely personal dislike of Gemma and John at all. I am not sure why you are trying to characterise it that way. People opposed to this case are in a lot of cases opposed to what Gemma and John stand for not Gemma and John personally.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1149
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,138 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    You should put your theory to the test over the weekend.

    I'm working all through it and get stopped up to 5 times a day, at first i would have been offering reasons and providing documentation but at this stage it's a pain in the ring. The people arrested all seem to be drug related.


  • #1150
    maestroamado
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    We really should learn from this as a Country.
    In recent weeks we have had the incident of people visiting holiday homes.
    We also had people complaining of UK people coming of boats in Rosslare and Leo's comment on same.
    There is the people from NI who can move freely in this jurisdiction.
    There is the ongoing mess with the NCT test and what is what happening with this.

    We have 160+ legislators+ advisors + AG.
    There is another cluster in the Seanad.
    And two people can challenge the legislation.
    We need to tighten things up.


  • #1151
    boetstark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭boetstark


    Balf wrote: »
    I agree completely and, to make my own position clear, I no personal animosity towards Gemma. I genuinely worry about her mental health. I think her contributions in the transcript were inept, bordering on delusional.

    But the substantial issue exists - as Judge Murphy indicates, there is an obvious core issue about whether the very severe restraints are proportionate to the risks. Would banning all private cars be a proportionate response to preventing road deaths? What are the limits?

    But I hate to think of those serious issues being ruled on, after Gemma has 'contributed' to the case.

    Why oh why do we have to complicate things in this country. We have a worldwide pandemic that has affected millions and killed over 250k. Its not the flu because we have no vaccine and no verified treatment.
    Most every other democracy has implemented a shutdown, some far more severe than ours. It has been done to try and contain this virus.
    But in Ireland we have two dickheads and a band of social retards that decide nitpicking is more important than saving lives.
    It really can only happen in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • #1152
    keybordWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭keybordWarrior


    boetstark wrote: »
    Why oh why do we have to complicate things in this country. We have a worldwide pandemic that has affected millions and killed over 250k. Its not the flu because we have no vaccine and no verified treatment.
    Most every other democracy has implemented a shutdown, some far more severe than ours. It has been done to try and contain this virus.
    But in Ireland we have two dickheads and a band of social retards that decide nitpicking is more important than saving lives.
    It really can only happen in Ireland.

    Thankfully these muppets usually have little to no impact and are mostly just limited to posting on forums.


  • #1153
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    It isn't merely personal dislike of Gemma and John at all. I am not sure why you are trying to characterise it that way. People opposed to this case are in a lot of cases opposed to what Gemma and John stand for not Gemma and John personally.

    Because you personally spend so much of your time on this site bashing them, so much so that you yourself are actively being discussed on other websites as suffering from GOD Derangement Syndrome?


  • #1154
    Panrich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,992 ✭✭✭Panrich


    boetstark wrote: »
    Why oh why do we have to complicate things in this country. We have a worldwide pandemic that has affected millions and killed over 250k. Its not the flu because we have no vaccine and no verified treatment.
    Most every other democracy has implemented a shutdown, some far more severe than ours. It has been done to try and contain this virus.
    But in Ireland we have two dickheads and a band of social retards that decide nitpicking is more important than saving lives.
    It really can only happen in Ireland.

    While I can't argue with the general sentiment, it certainly is not unique to this country. Look at how the 'freedom' movement in the US is currently mobilising in protest.


  • #1155
    sabat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,896 ✭✭✭sabat


    threeball wrote: »
    Hardly a valid analogy. You can't get killed by passing by a car, or kill someone else at home by being in a minor tip with a stranger. Nor do you see 1000 deaths in two months from car accidents whilst the cars are generally off the road. Its amazing how people will rail against the greater good to suit their own preference.

    How about cigarettes then? They will kill more Irish people this year than covid19.


  • #1156
    Xertz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭Xertz


    maestroamado wrote: »
    We really should learn from this as a Country.
    In recent weeks we have had the incident of people visiting holiday homes.
    We also had people complaining of UK people coming of boats in Rosslare and Leo's comment on same.
    There is the people from NI who can move freely in this jurisdiction.
    There is the ongoing mess with the NCT test and what is what happening with this.

    We have 160+ legislators+ advisors + AG.
    There is another cluster in the Seanad.
    And two people can challenge the legislation.
    We need to tighten things up.

    I think the high court challenge is utterly ludicrous myself but I would stand behind the ability to constitutionally challenge legislation. It’s an important part of our checks and balances and it’s one that has been used for good on numerous occasions over the years.

    If anything, the fact that the pair of them have the ability to do what they’re doing shows that we are absolutely, in no way, anything like the ridiculous accusations she regularly makes about Ireland being everything from a dictatorship to a fascist state, while threatening to strip an unarmed Garda of her uniform and ranting and raving like a fascist of some sort and having absolutely no sense of irony.

    Every step of what she’s done has been met with polite, fair procedure, due diligence and absolutely upholding of her rights, proving the complete opposite of everything she claims is actually true.

    It’s frustrating to watch but it’s probably better to just let her at it. She’ll eventually tire herself out.

    You’re just watching a small band of conspiracy theorists jousting at windmills and being revealed for exactly what they are.

    There’s a point when this stuff eventually collides with reality.


  • #1157
    mikhail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭mikhail


    boetstark wrote: »
    But in Ireland we have two dickheads and a band of social retards that decide nitpicking is more important than saving lives.
    It really can only happen in Ireland.
    Don't fool yourself into believing in Irish exceptionalism. There are idiots and worse everywhere. It's just a question of visibility. Look at the protests in the US - hicks armed to the teeth, protesting outside of hospitals and governors' offices because they don't like being told what to do unless it's by some shady group on facebook that definitely isn't manipulating them. I'm sure if you're fluent in German, or Slovenian, or Mongolian, you would find stories in the media of those countries of people who'd make you groan with despair.


  • #1158
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    The legislation is draconian.

    It provides for the detention and isolation of any person who may be "potentially infected" or "thought" to be infected at the direction of an "authorised officer" (not necessarily a doctor) and for the breaking and entering of your home to detain you and indefinitely with no right of appeal to the Minister.

    It also reduces the composition of the Mental Health Tribunal which makes determinations on whether someone should be admitted to a mental institution from three persons to one person - a tribunal of ONE FFS - and that person has to be a solicitor or barrister of seven years standing NOT a psychiatrist or doctor!


  • #1159
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    threeball wrote: »
    Hardly a valid analogy. You can't get killed by passing by a car, or kill someone else at home by being in a minor tip with a stranger. Nor do you see 1000 deaths in two months from car accidents whilst the cars are generally off the road. Its amazing how people will rail against the greater good to suit their own preference.
    In fairness, you're missing the point completely.

    The point is establishing the threshold. Extraordinary measures require extraordinary justification. And winning the media battle doesn't constitute justification.
    boetstark wrote: »
    Why oh why do we have to complicate things in this country. We have a worldwide pandemic that has affected millions and killed over 250k. Its not the flu because we have no vaccine and no verified treatment.
    Most every other democracy has implemented a shutdown, some far more severe than ours. It has been done to try and contain this virus.
    But in Ireland we have two dickheads and a band of social retards that decide nitpicking is more important than saving lives.
    It really can only happen in Ireland.
    Your very partial description of the situation is actually the problem.

    We're not the only people looking at the wreckage and asking if this is really the only way.

    No-one systematically considered the wider impacts of the approach taken. The wishful thinking by some on this thread, to the effect that the current approach us justified on economic grounds, requires a Gemma level of self delusion.

    The middle path would be openness to the obvious questions. Very destructive measures were used, taking it on faith that the hurt avoided justified the hurt inflicted.

    We have to ask if its worth it. Honestly. If we want to leave a bad national habit behind, let's leave behind the habit of burying dissent.


  • #1160
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Balf wrote: »
    In fairness, you're missing the point completely.

    The point is establishing the threshold. Extraordinary measures require extraordinary justification. And winning the media battle doesn't constitute justification.

    Your very partial description of the situation is actually the problem.

    We're not the only people looking at the wreckage and asking if this is really the only way.

    No-one systematically considered the wider impacts of the approach taken. The wishful thinking by some on this thread, to the effect that the current approach us justified on economic grounds, requires a Gemma level of self delusion.

    The middle path would be openness to the obvious questions. Very destructive measures were used, taking it on faith that the hurt avoided justified the hurt inflicted.

    We have to ask if its worth it. Honestly. If we want to leave a bad national habit behind, let's leave behind the habit of burying dissent.

    There are many elements to this legislation that posters are not addressing - in all likelihood because they haven't read the Act in question - as opposed to the immediate Regulations about what you can and cannot do signed by Simon Harris.

    It is vicious and draconian legislation that threatens the safety of everyone resident in the State (including migrants) and imperative in everyone's interest that it is reviewed by a Court.


  • #1161
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,901 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Yep idiots everywhere unfortunately. If you're one of those "I know best" people and spend a lot of time on Facebook and Youtube watching ignorant "must watch" videos by some grifter you're a lot more likely to have these silly views.

    And they're all the same, like clones. 5G, Coronahoax, anti vax, Bill Gates blah blah. What ever happened to Islam and open borders? Thats fallen by the wayside. Amazing how these free thinkers all get involved in the exact same 5 or 6 things at the exact same time. Some of these people will "I know best" themselves into friendless oblivion and financial ruin.


  • Advertisement
  • #1162
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    The Nal wrote: »
    one of those "I know best" people
    Self awareness, much?


  • #1163
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    The Nal wrote: »
    Yep idiots everywhere unfortunately. If you're one of those "I know best" people and spend a lot of time on Facebook and Youtube watching ignorant "must watch" videos by some grifter you're a lot more likely to have these silly views.

    And they're all the same, like clones. 5G, Coronahoax, anti vax, Bill Gates blah blah. What ever happened to Islam and open borders? Thats fallen by the wayside. Amazing how these free thinkers all get involved in the exact same 5 or 6 things at the exact same time. Some of these people will "I know best" themselves into friendless oblivion and financial ruin.

    Read the legislation.

    Then comment.


  • #1164
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    The Nal wrote: »
    Yep idiots everywhere unfortunately. If you're one of those "I know best" people and spend a lot of time on Facebook and Youtube watching ignorant "must watch" videos by some grifter you're a lot more likely to have these silly views.

    And they're all the same, like clones. 5G, Coronahoax, anti vax, Bill Gates blah blah. What ever happened to Islam and open borders? Thats fallen by the wayside. Amazing how these free thinkers all get involved in the exact same 5 or 6 things at the exact same time. Some of these people will "I know best" themselves into friendless oblivion and financial ruin.

    Because they are extremely stupid people. Stupid and gullible people are drawn to extremism and conspiracy theories as they believe they provide simple answers and solutions to complex and nuanced questions.


  • #1165
    brightspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote:
    It is vicious and draconian legislation that threatens the safety of everyone resident in the State (including migrants) and imperative in everyone's interest that it is reviewed by a Court.

    Not having the legislation leaves people in danger of dying too.

    Or is your attitude like Gemma's that these people would have died anyway?


  • #1166
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    Because they are extremely stupid people. Stupid and gullible people are drawn to extremism and conspiracy theories as they believe they provide simple answers and solutions to complex and nuanced questions.

    Tbh, that accurately describes many posters who simplistically parrot that the lockdown must be good because it saves lives, as if it had no impacts on other lives, child welfare, economy and longer term capacity to fund healthcare etc.

    Folk questioning the lockdown are more likely to point out its more complex, and involves finding a balance between many conflicting goals.


  • #1167
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,138 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Any idea what the pair are trying to achieve from this malarkey?

    disruption


  • #1168
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 43,057 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    The legislation is draconian.

    It provides for the detention and isolation of any person who may be "potentially infected" or "thought" to be infected at the direction of an "authorised officer" (not necessarily a doctor) and for the breaking and entering of your home to detain you and indefinitely with no right of appeal to the Minister.
    The legislation is designed to stop the spread of a dangerous virus, a virus that has killed thousands around the world in a few months.
    What method would you have proposed that would not have been draconian and where you would not have been isolated?
    If you were forming legislation, how would you propose to prevent someone who is suspected of having this dangerous virus from coming in close contact with others?


  • #1169
    Xertz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭Xertz


    There’s also a lot of leeway in almost every legislative framework that allows for emergency powers of limited scope in exceptional circumstances and it would seem this meets all the criteria to warrant that.

    We had emergency situations during WWII. We also had during the height of the Northern Ireland troubles.

    This emergency may not involve bombs, guns and the risk of being taken out by the Luftwaffe, but it has, if mismanaged, the risk of causing very large numbers of deaths and absolute chaos.

    I think we’re likely to see just how horrible this disease really is when it started to run though places that really don’t have the infrastructure to deal with it. I mean flawed and all as the HSE may be, it is actually a pretty solidly funded, high tech, capable and comprehensive system and as a nation we tend to take things pragmatically.

    We haven’t had a meltdown. Supply chains are all still working very well. We’ll get the economy back up and running and so will all of our EU neighbours, the U.K. and the US (well... possibly after a bit of drama with Trump) but they’ll survive and get back to reality soon as they all have the infrastructure - health, social and economic to do so.

    In all cases all of those countries too drastic action, including restricting movement of people.

    If we had done nothing, we almost certainly wouldn’t be in very good shape now. Watch places like Brazil over the weeks ahead for a rather tragic illustration of why those moves were necessary.


  • #1170
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 43,057 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    sabat wrote: »
    How about cigarettes then? They will kill more Irish people this year than covid19.
    Smoking is a choice.
    People don't choose to catch the virus.


  • Advertisement
  • #1171
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,138 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    brightspark wrote: »
    Not having the legislation leaves people in danger of dying too.

    Or is your attitude like Gemma's that these people would have died anyway?

    that's exactly it, i've had the misfortune of hearing some of the arguments against lockdown and it seems to suggest that if your elderly family member has an underlying health issue (that isn't really an issue in the short term, eg heart issues or respiratory issues) that's it's ok if they die....even though they had a good life ahead of them, although the argument was more like this...

    " day hav underlion illnessses it's not covid its a hoax"


Advertisement