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…3738404243…60

Comments

  • #1172
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,901 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    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.

    I'm all for a bit of thinking outside the box but why is it always the same - the exact same - 4 or 5 issues/theories? Surely theres more to be concerned about?

    Gemma really is the case study for this now in Ireland. From a once promising journalist with a good life and friends and family, to a hopeless Twitter addict with no family and whos only "friends" now are people like that Dee one and John Waters. A really spectacular way to flush your life down the toilet in 3 or 4 years.

    Sure shes more famous now, but not in a good way. Years of bitterness, anger and ultimately, failure.


  • #1173
    Xertz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭Xertz


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Smoking is a choice.
    People don't choose to catch the virus.

    Yup!

    Remember the last time you went to the supermarket, someone sneezed and you caught smoking. Then you sneezed and ended up infecting your granny, colleague and neighbour with smoking and who all ended up in ICU?

    I also remember clearly the last time we all caught car accidents off each other.

    [/sarcasm]


  • #1174
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    Xertz wrote: »
    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.
    You need to think through you simultaneous use of the words "lot of leeway" and "limited" in the one sentence, and this kind of self contradiction is a mark of those with a simplistic approach.
    Xertz wrote: »
    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.
    Similarly, you'd want to reflect on your simplistic dismissal of the economic impact, which involves a Gemma level of denial of unwelcome complexities.


  • #1175
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    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?

    The legislation should have been drafted in accordance with constitutional and international human rights laws. It has not been.

    If you're detained under this legislation you don't even have to have COVID nor is the "authorised officer" detaining you obliged to test you for COVID for up to 14 days and the period of detention is indefinite.

    There's also no right for you to be examined by an independent doctor or your own doctor.

    All of these safeguards could have been included in this legislation whilst not impacting on actions taken to stop the spread of the virus.


  • #1176
    Xertz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭Xertz


    Balf wrote: »
    You need to think through you simultaneous use of the words "lot of leeway" and "limited" in the one sentence, and this kind of self contradiction is a mark of those with a simplistic approach.Similarly, you'd want to reflect on your simplistic dismissal of the economic impact, which involves a Gemma level of denial of unwelcome complexities.

    And you’d want to learn to read and interpret written English and appreciate that writing a boards post is not the same as writing a complex legal document.

    A lot of leeway can be subject to limits. There’s nothing contradictory about that. One is an informal noun describing a loosely defined large quantity, the other is a noun defining a maximum not to be exceeded. Those two concepts are totally compatible in language.

    Almost all legislation and many parts of the constitution are not absolute and are circumscribed by a degree of flexibility (limited in scope) in the event of an emergency.

    That’s why you get declarations of states of emergency, emergency powers etc.

    There’s no contradiction in the above sentence and your second statement is just insulting.

    The very reason a case like this is allowed at all is because the courts ultimately have oversight over where those limits on the states leeway to act in an emergency end. They can look at whether they are being exceeded, based on the court’s interpretation of the constitution: the written document itself, on previous interpretations and precedent and unwritten rights.

    The court would look at the constitutional context only and in a very technical way. They would be acting beyond their powers if they were to look at a political discussion of the pros and cons or business implications of the legislation. That’s nothing to do with the court. All their job is is to ensure the legislation is constitutional.

    Any arguments beyond that would be ignored. They’re not going to consider ranting and raving type arguments. It would have to be a cold hard discussion of constitutional law.


  • Advertisement
  • #1177
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,138 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    The legislation should have been drafted in accordance with constitutional and international human rights laws. It has not been.

    If you're detained under this legislation you don't even have to have COVID nor is the "authorised officer" detaining you obliged to test you for COVID for up to 14 days and the period of detention is indefinite.

    There's also no right for you to be examined by an independent doctor or your own doctor.

    All of these safeguards could have been included in this legislation whilst not impacting on actions taken to stop the spread of the virus.

    Yet people say we were a little late ?


  • #1178
    Brock Turnpike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭Brock Turnpike


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    The legislation should have been drafted in accordance with constitutional and international human rights laws. It has not been.

    If you're detained under this legislation you don't even have to have COVID nor is the "authorised officer" detaining you obliged to test you for COVID for up to 14 days and the period of detention is indefinite.

    There's also no right for you to be examined by an independent doctor or your own doctor.

    All of these safeguards could have been included in this legislation whilst not impacting on actions taken to stop the spread of the virus.

    I wish someone would detain you, somewhere away from all Internet capable devices.


  • #1179
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Brock Turnpike wrote: »
    I wish someone would detain you, somewhere away from all Internet capable devices.

    Because I'm relaying the contents of the legislation to those who might not be aware?

    Hi Simon!


  • #1180
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,311 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    How is our collective safety being threatened? I'm most curious.


  • #1181
    Cupatae
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,915 ✭✭✭Cupatae


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Interesting to see what a judges take will be.

    It ll be a common sense one they ll be told where to go. The fact that people believe it even has a chance is hilarious ... Some people watching too much law n order


  • Advertisement
  • #1182
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,385 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Cupatae wrote: »
    It ll be a common sense one they ll be told where to go. The fact that people believe it even has a chance is hilarious ... Some people watching too much law n order

    Jesus even in Law n Order it would not fly. McCoy would never file anything like that


  • #1183
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Deleted User wrote: »
    How is our collective safety being threatened? I'm most curious.

    Read the legislation, particularly the detention and isolation provisions and the amendments to the Mental Health Act. I've already summarised the provisions in earlier posts.


  • #1184
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Cupatae wrote: »
    It ll be a common sense one they ll be told where to go. The fact that people believe it even has a chance is hilarious ... Some people watching too much law n order

    I assume from your post you've had sight of the proceedings that the rest of us haven't.


  • #1185
    Brock Turnpike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭Brock Turnpike


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    Because I'm relaying the contents of the legislation to those who might not be aware?

    Hi Simon!

    Because you are the online equivalent of the pub bore.


  • #1186
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    Brock Turnpike wrote: »
    Because you are the online equivalent of the pub bore.

    This is a legal thread. What do you expect?

    I was going to say you should go to the pub, but they're closed.

    Unless Gemma wins of course.


  • #1187
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    This is a legal thread. What do you expect?

    That the people posting on it at least know how an Irish government is formed and what happens until one is formed.


  • #1188
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,246 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    You'd think this John Waters fella would have more common sense than being associated with this?

    Or would you?

    Wasn't he once the sensible Irish Times type?


  • #1189
    threeball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,813 ✭✭✭threeball


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

    A choice, you don't get a choice with Covid. You can do your best to avoid it but if others refuse to help the cause they can kill you through carelessness.

    So no, not a valid analogy either


  • #1190
    threeball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,813 ✭✭✭threeball


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    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.

    Yes, I can see the country disintegrating before my eyes. Get a grip


  • #1191
    threeball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,813 ✭✭✭threeball


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    The legislation should have been drafted in accordance with constitutional and international human rights laws. It has not been.

    If you're detained under this legislation you don't even have to have COVID nor is the "authorised officer" detaining you obliged to test you for COVID for up to 14 days and the period of detention is indefinite.

    There's also no right for you to be examined by an independent doctor or your own doctor.

    All of these safeguards could have been included in this legislation whilst not impacting on actions taken to stop the spread of the virus.

    Are you for real? This isn't to stop just infected people roaming around the country, its to stop everyone. Whats the Cop going to say, Do you have a fever this evening madam, would you mind blowing in to my Covid breathalyzer for a second, after that you can be on your way.

    Did you say you were a solicitor? its no wonder that the country is upside down in bullsh1t legal actions and arsecovering when this is the quality of common sense that prevails.


  • Advertisement
  • #1192
    Balf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭Balf


    Xertz wrote: »
    There’s no contradiction in the above sentence and your second statement is just insulting.
    "Lot of leeway for limited" is a direct contradiction.

    But, indeed, the Constitution qualifies many rights as subject to the public good. You should have s look at how the Courts have dealt with property rights, if you want to see how limited your "lot of leeway for limited" is.

    Ah, right, the other guy is simplistic, but its insulting to point out when you are being equally simplistic.

    In any event, if there's one thing many of us agree its that Gemma won't be a good advocate of the case, and the transcript suggests theyve already been steered down a procedural blind alley. You'd need a focussed challenge by someone like the publicans, something specific like the right to earn a living in a context where Government acknowledges the €350 pandemic payment is unsustainable.

    On that point of agreement, I'm happy to leave further deliberation in the hands of Judge Murphy.


  • #1193
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Personally I wish they televised the last hearing...in full.

    That would take care of about 50% of her supporters as they'd see how how of a nutjob she is

    The other 50%, well they're probably long past gone


  • #1194
    Infini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,654 ✭✭✭Infini


    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.

    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!

    It's a health emergency they have to be realistic and be able to react quickly with something that move's very fast once it begins spreading, lets also not forget there's plenty of pig ignorant gob****e's out there who lack any sort of common sense and will kick up because quite simply they dont like being told what to do even when it's in their own interest and that of their loved ones safety to do so. It should also be noted that these powers arent being used simply because they can but only in certain circumstances usually because they're acting like gobshítes and they've no other option but to excerise these powers.
    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    The legislation should have been drafted in accordance with constitutional and international human rights laws. It has not been.

    If you're detained under this legislation you don't even have to have COVID nor is the "authorised officer" detaining you obliged to test you for COVID for up to 14 days and the period of detention is indefinite.

    There's also no right for you to be examined by an independent doctor or your own doctor.

    All of these safeguards could have been included in this legislation whilst not impacting on actions taken to stop the spread of the virus.

    Honestly if people do get detained it's because they're basically behaving like an absolute ásshat and had it coming, there's certainly a certain amount of pig ignorant bellends our there you cannot reason with no matter what and have no other option but to deain them, the states resources are also being pushed hard due to the circumstances so of course the normal checks and such will be reduced due to this.


  • #1195
    Tokyo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,656 ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    Brock Turnpike wrote: »
    I wish someone would detain you, somewhere away from all Internet capable devices.
    Brock Turnpike wrote: »
    Because you are the online equivalent of the pub bore.

    Mod: 24 hours away from the thread.


  • #1196
    shaveAbullock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭shaveAbullock


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Personally I wish they televised the last hearing...in full.

    That would take care of about 50% of her supporters as they'd see how how of a nutjob she is

    The other 50%, well they're probably long past gone

    You think the people that have decided Bill Gates and George Soross are taking over the world through Vaccines,5G and cemtrails would change their mind when they see her acting a little crazy?


  • #1197
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,919 ✭✭✭GM228


    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.

    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!

    Your getting all that from the Health Act 1947?

    An "authorised officer" does not have that power, such an order for detention must be made by both a HSE Medical Officer of Health and another registered medical practitioner.

    Also authorised officers can enter certain lands, premises and temporary dwellings (as defined), nothing in the Act allows them entry to your dwelling however.


  • #1198
    Cupatae
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,915 ✭✭✭Cupatae


    Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »
    I assume from your post you've had sight of the proceedings that the rest of us haven't.

    Honestly lad you need to give your head a wobble, if you genuinely think...gemma and the other genius are going to get a lock down over turned... Its utter nonsense.. and anyone given it any sort of credence just need to stop. No matter how much legislation you can reel off its never ever ever going to win, because its flat out stupid.


  • #1199
    maestroamado
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,425 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    Xertz wrote: »
    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.


    My point is that the Legislation should be water-tight and hopefully it is.
    What i cannot understand is their ability to bring this case when we are all trying our best.
    I wonder will the Judge be able to make an order either way?


    I not be a big fan of either of them and i hate having to take a side.
    I think they are abusing their position and the only thing annoys me is that they can waste Courts, Gardai time with this.
    I suppose it gives us here something to argue about...


  • #1200
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,955 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    GOM and Waters have zero interest in overturning the lock down. If the judge did turn around and say, right lads, I agree lets overturn it then both of them would leg it. This is just a PR exercise to get another few loopers to start giving them money. Simple as that. They couldn't give two f**k about the constitution.

    Next week it will be some other BS they think will get a few more hanger on's to give them a few quid....


  • Advertisement
  • #1201
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    GM228 wrote: »
    Your getting all that from the Health Act 1947?

    An "authorised officer" does not have that power, such an order for detention must be made by both a HSE Medical Officer of Health and another registered medical practitioner.

    Also authorised officers can enter certain lands, premises and temporary dwellings (as defined), nothing in the Act allows them entry to your dwelling however.

    No. I'm getting it from the new legislation.

    Here it is for anyone still not prejudiced enough to actually read it.

    https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/act/2020/1/eng/enacted/a0120.pdf
    https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/act/2020/2/eng/enacted/a0220.pdf


Advertisement