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

Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

[Deleted User]

She's permanently on twitter now tweeting links to wacky stories from a few years ago and every single conspiracy theory she can get her hands on

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ohnonotgmail

lawrencesummers wrote: »

How did you come up with that nonsense???? most people are not mentally unwell. If someone is suspected of being mentally unwell - and it’s not a big leap to think that she has mental problems going by the nonsense that comes out of her mouth then having her competence assessed by professionals is not unreasonable.

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I didn’t read anybody’s diagnosis here, just conclusions based on her numerous incoherent and off the wall ramblings. I’m fairly sure I advocated for a professional assessment, if it quacks like a duck and it’s sick you let a vet decide.

who decides that a professional assessment is required? a judge only has the papers filed in court to go on. have you read the trancript of her last court appearance? there is nothing in it to suggest mental illness. she likes to give speeches and her lack of legal knowledge is appallng but nothing she did or said would justify a judge thinking she is mentally unwell.

Penn

I doubt she has any mental illness bar maybe narcissistic personality disorder or similar. Nothing that would have her cases thrown out of court.

She just believes she is absolutely right and completely justified in everything she does, and she feeds off the admiration of those who follow and praise her. She can't see anything outside of that. That doesn't make her psychologically unsuitable to bring these cases to court. She's just wrong and can't accept it.

lawrencesummers

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who decides that a professional assessment is required? a judge only has the papers filed in court to go on. have you read the trancript of her last court appearance? there is nothing in it to suggest mental illness. she likes to give speeches and her lack of legal knowledge is appallng but nothing she did or said would justify a judge thinking she is mentally unwell.

The state should request that the judge look as her recent behavior, and then refer the matter for professional assessment to establish her competence to continue addressing the court.

seamus

splinter65 wrote: »

When it’s obvious, as it is with GOD, that the plaintiff is mentally ill, then the judge should be able to proceed only after a psychiatric report has been received.
I’d say GOD would happily comply with an order for a psychiatric assessment.

Fairly dangerous precedent tbh.
There's no reason any case should be contingent on the mental health of those bringing it.

Otherwise you risk a scenario where any legal challenge which questioned someone's authority could "automatically" trigger a mental fitness test that the plaintiff is destined to fail.

If someone is completely off the reservation and (e.g.) suffering paranoid hallucinations, but their legal argument is still upheld, does that mean we should ignore their legal argument? Of course not.

There's a fair argument that this woman is wasting massive amounts of court time, but "mental fitness" should not be a prerequisite to having a case heard.

ohnonotgmail

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The state should request that the judge look as her recent behavior, and then refer the matter for professional assessment to establish her competence to continue addressing the court.

she has already established her competence to address the court. have you read the transcript of her last court appearance? what in it marks her out as incompentent to address the court?

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I didnt realise there were so many psychiatrists posting here. is Waters also "obviously" mad?

You don’t have to have a medical qualification to recognize that another human has suffered some kind of major mental health trauma.
GODs recent behaviors in comparison to years gone by would make it obvious to anyone that something has gone badly wrong.
But I’ve encountered you before and you honestly believe that there’s no such thing as psychosis or anything like that even when it has been diagnosed by a medical professional.

lawrencesummers

seamus wrote: »

Fairly dangerous precedent tbh.
There's no reason any case should be contingent on the mental health of those bringing it.

Otherwise you risk a scenario where any legal challenge which questioned someone's authority could "automatically" trigger a mental fitness test that the plaintiff is destined to fail.

If someone is completely off the reservation and (e.g.) suffering paranoid hallucinations, but their legal argument is still upheld, does that mean we should ignore their legal argument? Of course not.

There's a fair argument that this woman is wasting massive amounts of court time, but "mental fitness" should not be a prerequisite to having a case heard.

I disagree, a case taken against the constitutionality of legislation is often in the public interest, by allowing somebody who is mentally unsuitable to take that case it decreases the chances of a fair outcome for the public.

If somebody wants to be a basket case For their own personal axe grinding then away with them when they sue their neighbours dog for speaking Russia or whatever is running around in their head, but matters in the public interest that are related to the constitution should be fought by people on a sane footing to allow the judgement be clear and above reproach.

Would we the public be happy to have somebody mentally unwell defend this case? I would say not, then in the interest of fairness putting forward the case all parties should be mentally capable.

I dont agree with her and it seems the courts won’t either, in this instance it may be fine but the constitution and legislation is to important to have Cases taken by unstable people which will effect the outcome.

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

You don’t have to have a medical qualification to recognize that another human has suffered some kind of major mental health trauma.
GODs recent behaviors in comparison to years gone by would make it obvious to anyone that something has gone badly wrong.
But I’ve encountered you before and you honestly believe that there’s no such thing as psychosis or anything like that even when it has been diagnosed by a medical professional.

i have no idea what you are on about. you have me confused with somebody else.

zompea

Has anyone wondered how she's making a living? Ya'd imagine there's some bogey money coming from somewhere.

lawrencesummers

zompea wrote: »

Has anyone wondered how she's making a living? Ya'd imagine there's some bogey money coming from somewhere.

Presumably she’s not accepting the 350 per week.

seamus

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Would we the public be happy to have somebody mentally unwell defend this case? I would say not, then in the interest of fairness putting forward the case all parties should be mentally capable.

That's a fair point. Though that wouldn't be a barrier to having the case heard, you would just find someone who is mentally capabale.

There may be an argument here that if the plaintiff is not mentally fit to argue the case, then the case should be adjourned until they find someone who is. Free legal aid should be available for this so that the ability to pay for a solicitor is not a barrier to bringing a case.

I certainly wouldn't make the right to bring a case contingent on the mental health of the plaintiff*, or allow judges to dismiss a case just because the plaintiff is not well.

*Unless of course they have already been declared unfit/incapable before they bring the case to the court

Carfacemandog

Eric Cartman wrote: »

was there actually anyone on here backing her. I mean I know we've all had our differing views here but to my knowledge (and I hope I'm right) nobody has ever been a defender of let alone promotional fan of Gemma's political campaigns.

She ticks an awful lot of boxes for a lot of AH posters from what I have seen, though as she has no notable support base beyond a few dozen loopers going by the recent protests, there doesn't seem to be that same "treat politics like reality tv/sports" appeal and need for a sense of belonging that you see from hardcore Donald Trump, Tommy Robinson, etc supporters on here.

She seems to be forever trying to tap that market, but for those people it typically has far more to do with the identity politics of belonging and loyalty than what the people they are following are actually espousing (as they tend to contradict themselves almost endlessly), so she hasn't really gotten anywhere.

And thank feck for that!

Annasopra

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The state as part of their defense to her legal action should seek the judge have her medically and psychologically assessed for suitability to continue this case.

Mental people should not be allowed to waste the time of the courts.

I think let her do this and she tries again just slap her with and Isaac Wunder order

lawrencesummers

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think let her do this and she tries again just slap her with and Isaac Wunder order

Sounds good, an award of costs against her would do not harm either.

Edgware

A good democracy can afford to entertain such space cadets. It's the loo lahs like Wallace,Daly etc that supported her we should concern ourselves with. They are on the payroll

TaurenDruid

Edgware wrote: »

A good democracy can afford to entertain such space cadets. It's the loo lahs like Wallace,Daly etc that supported her we should concern ourselves with. They are on the payroll

At the time of the presidential election, though, she had been a lot more circumspect on social media. It still wasn't clear where she stood on a lot of issues, and IIRC she wasn't even openly anti-vaxx then? She may even have denied being anti-vax. She definitely seemed a lot more reasonable, at least unless you did a lot of research.

Wow - that was only two years ago!

Grab All Association

Weren't they criticising Claire Daly recently about her supporting some illegal immigrant iirc

LollipopJimmy

TaurenDruid wrote: »

At the time of the presidential election, though, she had been a lot more circumspect on social media. It still wasn't clear where she stood on a lot of issues, and IIRC she wasn't even openly anti-vaxx then? She may even have denied being anti-vax. She definitely seemed a lot more reasonable, at least unless you did a lot of research.

Wow - that was only two years ago!

She denied being anti vax, she had been nice about migrants and was more focused on uncovering corruption. I wouldnt hold it against anybody who supported her back then.

Birneybau

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

She denied being anti vax, she had been nice about migrants and was more focused on uncovering corruption. I wouldnt hold it against anybody who supported her back then.

AND she reached out to Panti Bliss (I really hate that name) for support.

padd b1975

ShamNNspace wrote: »

What on heavens name was she thinking of when she made that Video with the camera making her look like ET or something. It's terrible this won't end well at all and I once admired her work on the Mary Boyle case among others in the early days

Same here to be honest.

Annasopra

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

She denied being anti vax, she had been nice about migrants and was more focused on uncovering corruption. I wouldnt hold it against anybody who supported her back then.

Ah I dunno. Many observers knew what she was really like months before it all.

Annasopra

Birneybau wrote: »

AND she reached out to Panti Bliss (I really hate that name) for support.

Now she is suing Rory O'Neill. Now that court case will be interesting.

ShamNNspace

padd b1975 wrote: »

Same here to be honest.

I saw afterwards though that the video was manipulated by "Veronica" to make her look that way.... anyways this won't end well for her

Carfacemandog

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah I dunno. Many observers knew what she was really like months before it all.

She's been a known quantity for a long time. I don't think those people supporting her would qualify them as equal minded loonies, but I think it shows a level of incompetence and lack of due diligence that really has to make you wonder how fit for office they are.

lawrencesummers

In an effort to be impartial and give her the benefit of the doubt in halfway through the documentary about Mary Boyle and there is so much wrong with it it’s embarrassing.

It’s great that she has tried to highlight the case, but so far the documentary is just plain bad.

Ash.J.Williams

the ET video had a tone that she was a subversive, that would put her as number 1 enemy of the state and her life will be made hell by the gardai.

It was the way she said "when we take over she's on our list of people to bla bla"

very commie

Annasopra

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

the ET video had a tone that she was a subversive, that would put her as number 1 enemy of the state and her life will be made hell by the gardai.

It was the way she said "when we take over she's on our list of people to bla bla"

very commie

Thats why her fanclub were continuously laughed out of it when they were like "but she's a free speech advocate"

Looptheloop30

Just came in to click the "Follow" button after that decision. Could be good craic in here today!

Penfailed

Looptheloop30 wrote: »

Just came in to click the "Follow" button after that decision. Could be good craic in here today!

Decision?

Looptheloop30

http://https://twitter.com/MaryCarolanIT/status/1260513305300537345