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

Frank Bullitt · 05-05-2020 08:17PM

There they are now...

blueythebear · 05-05-2020 08:30PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

When is the case actually being heard?

The leave application started this afternoon and should finish tomorrow. Judgement will likely be reserved so there likely wont be a decision tomorrow.

blueythebear · 05-05-2020 08:31PM

Gintonious wrote: »

There they are now...

Seeiously, some of those people are in the vulnerable category and should be cocooning

RocketRaccoon · 05-05-2020 08:39PM

The lad with down syndrome was in the photo from their first "protest" too.

Raisins · 05-05-2020 08:41PM

Gintonious wrote: »

There they are now...

I wonder what you’d get from a jury if someone photoshopped your face into that group.

05-05-2020 09:02PM

Cupatae wrote: »

whats GOD Derangement Syndrome when its at home?

Term used by gems supporters, or those who claim to only like some of her ideas, to try and distract from the facts that she and her fellow travelers are scrotes, at least going by the discussion about her on here.

shaveAbullock · 05-05-2020 09:06PM

I would also guess that many of her following have mental health issues and they cling on to her false reasoning for why the world seems so messed up, rather than getting the real professional help that could improve their lives.
I'm not saying this to insult them, they are vulnerable people and are being taken advantage of.

GM228 · 05-05-2020 09:06PM

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

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

I have read it, it amends the 1947 Act amongst others, you need to re-read the parts you think are relevant in relation to the point I made.

Balf wrote: »

Will it make any difference when that poster reads the factual position is as you said? I doubt it.
To be fair, reading the out-of-date version of the legislation is at least an attempt to get informed.

Notable, though, that no one seemed to know the facts of the matter.

I have read the most up to date amended version of the Act, note that you quote S31A (14) of the 1947 Act, had you of read the previous sub section 31A (13)(a) you would see:-

(13) (a) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide for their implementation and enforcement by a person (in this section referred to as a ‘ relevant person ’ ), or group of such relevant persons, as may be specified, and for this purpose different persons, or combinations of persons, may be so specified for different purposes in, or in relation to different provisions of, such regulations.

The minister may provide for certain persons to enforce the measures in the Regulations, he did not do that, therefore the claim that an "authorised person" can detain you is wrong.

Annasopra · 05-05-2020 09:41PM

Cupatae wrote: »

im not incontrovertible when the discriminating dates are but foreconscious conceptualize its not being taken extraordinarily unquestioningly

Gobbledegook tarjelling ob ichi pluf tee ra nesi

Annasopra · 05-05-2020 09:42PM

blueythebear wrote: »

The leave application started this afternoon and should finish tomorrow. Judgement will likely be reserved so there likely wont be a decision tomorrow.

I think its going back next week to finish the leave application?

blueythebear · 05-05-2020 09:46PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think its going back next week to finish the leave application?

Papers and gemma saying its tomorrow at 1030

Balf · 05-05-2020 10:55PM

GM228 wrote: »

I have read the most up to date amended version of the Act, note that you quote S31A (14) of the 1947 Act, had you of read the previous sub section 31A (13)(a) you would see:-

The minister may provide for certain persons to enforce the measures in the Regulations, he did not do that, therefore the claim that an "authorised person" can detain you is wrong.

OK, I can appreciate you don't really understand what's at issue, but you are making an attempt to be informed which is good.

Briefly, the Constitution gives you rights and puts strong limits on the capacity of your parliament to encroach on those rights. For instance, your parliament couldn't pass a law that automatically puts penalty points on your driving licence, which is why the notification of points requires to forgo your right to a Court hearing and consent to the points being added to your record. The Constitution demands that you have a right to a fair trial before you get penalised.

The point at issue with that article you have now read is this: does the Constitution allow your parliament to give Simon Harris (in his job as Minister, not Si personally) the power to do things that mean you can be detained against your will, or that your home can be invaded? Because, if the Constitution doesn't allow that, that Act shouldn't say that he can.

And, yes, it is quite important not to have your parliament writing laws that the Constitution doesn't allow.

Kermit.de.frog · 05-05-2020 10:59PM

blueythebear wrote: »

Papers and gemma saying its tomorrow at 1030

Are we on first name terms with this wan now?

Tony EH · 05-05-2020 11:03PM

Gintonious wrote: »

There they are now...

Loony bin fodder, the lot.

Cupatae · 05-05-2020 11:06PM

Gintonious wrote: »

There they are now...

You just know most of these post on the regular on boards

:D it'd make so much sense :pac:

Cupatae · 05-05-2020 11:09PM

6e6d2ba7-70c1-41a0-b1ed-4fad06f7b4dc__355d6597-b36f-4cc4-81a7-481e416543ce.jpg

"Lemme just quote some legislation!"

ChikiChiki · 05-05-2020 11:19PM

Crackpots, even if you were vehemently opposed to the lockdown you would keep well away from being photographed with this lot.

Would do untold reputational damage by association.

bada_bing · 05-05-2020 11:21PM

the irish DEPLORABLES......

Bridge93 · 05-05-2020 11:29PM

Cupatae wrote: »

"Lemme just quote some legislation!"

That book he’s holding is about 25 years out of date

Tony EH · 05-05-2020 11:39PM

^
He's about 25 years out of date himself.

blueythebear · 05-05-2020 11:42PM

Balf wrote: »

OK, I can appreciate you don't really understand what's at issue, but you are making an attempt to be informed which is good.

Briefly, the Constitution gives you rights and puts strong limits on the capacity of your parliament to encroach on those rights. For instance, your parliament couldn't pass a law that automatically puts penalty points on your driving licence, which is why the notification of points requires to forgo your right to a Court hearing and consent to the points being added to your record. The Constitution demands that you have a right to a fair trial before you get penalised.

The point at issue with that article you have now read is this: does the Constitution allow your parliament to give Simon Harris (in his job as Minister, not Si personally) the power to do things that mean you can be detained against your will, or that your home can be invaded? Because, if the Constitution doesn't allow that, that Act shouldn't say that he can.

And, yes, it is quite important not to have your parliament writing laws that the Constitution doesn't allow.

Did you happen to have a look at section 31 (8) of the health act 1947 when carrying out your research?

Balf · 05-05-2020 11:51PM

blueythebear wrote: »

Did you happen to have a look at section 31 (8) of the health act 1947 when carrying out your research?

Point?

blueythebear · 06-05-2020 12:10AM

Balf wrote: »

Point?

It operates very similarly to the new section 31a and was enacted over 70 years ago.

Balf · 06-05-2020 12:20AM

blueythebear wrote: »

It operates very similarly and was enacted over 70 years ago

No. The section you cite just creates penalties that can be applied by the Courts. It doesn't say the Minister for Health can authorise people to detain you without trial, or invade your home.

Now, the Act did allow that a person with a specified infectious disease could be confined and forced to have treatment, so long as it didn't involve surgery (IIRC). But that's quite different to the new Act, which is why the new Act was made.

Edit: At the same time, if the case means people are at least trying to inform themselves by reading the legislation in question, that's a positive step forward.

Snickers Man · 06-05-2020 12:24AM

Bridge93 wrote: »

That book he’s holding is about 25 years out of date

He looks worryingly like a well known (and very good) folk musician/singer.

Say it ain't so!

owlbethere · 06-05-2020 12:25AM

bada_bing wrote: »

the irish DEPLORABLES......

Was this a crowd that gathered around gemma and your man today? Words fail me right now. Maybe they all have a wish to get sick.

Mrs Shuttleworth · 06-05-2020 12:39AM

owlbethere wrote: »

Was this a crowd that gathered around gemma and your man today? Words fail me right now. Maybe they all have a wish to get sick.

Have you not seen the news tonight? The chief proponent of "social distancing" in the UK, Government Adviser Neil Ferguson, has resigned after encouraging his married lover to cross London on more than one occasion for nookie.

One such occasion on March 30 coincided with his advising BoJo that "social distancing" and lockdown should continue until June.

Do keep up.

threeball · 06-05-2020 12:48AM

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Have you not seen the news tonight? The chief proponent of "social distancing" in the UK, Government Adviser Neil Ferguson, has resigned after encouraging his married lover to cross London on more than one occasion for nookie.

One such occasion on March 30 coincided with his advising BoJo that "social distancing" and lockdown should continue until June.

Do keep up.

Good night Gemma. Get some sleep and get ready for your court date.

blueythebear · 06-05-2020 12:55AM

Balf wrote: »

No. The section you cite just creates penalties that can be applied by the Courts. It doesn't say the Minister for Health can authorise people to detain you without trial, or invade your home.

Now, the Act did allow that a person with a specified infectious disease could be confined and forced to have treatment, so long as it didn't involve surgery (IIRC). But that's quite different to the new Act, which is why the new Act was made.

Edit: At the same time, if the case means people are at least trying to inform themselves by reading the legislation in question, that's a positive step forward.

Sorry i thought you were talking about the offences defined by the minister under s31a re holding someone against their will..

Section 38a is also very similar to the ecisting section 38 with similar powers anf that too has been enacted for more than 70 years. I think the main difference is s38a allows the isolation of potential covid infected people which is broader. Section 38 was challenged previously in the high court and upheld as constitutional.

I imagine a challenge to 38a would not succeed because to contagiousness of covid warrants more powers to trace and treat patients.

Larbre34 · 06-05-2020 12:59AM

owlbethere wrote: »

Was this a crowd that gathered around gemma and your man today? Words fail me right now. Maybe they all have a wish to get sick.

We can only hope the entire content of that photo become gravely ill and die.

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

Comments