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

VinLieger · 17-05-2020 03:35PM

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Which, again, is already addressed.
So you tell us the great case that GemJohn might have pulled out of their pocket.

I don't know im not a legal expert and i dont think you are either, however there are always potential problems with legislation that was rushed as this was. Your argument for not paying 75k is entirely based on the ability to apply hindsight and therefore it has no merit as a real argument.

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

If you've something to actually say, you might find you can make s post without resorting to the puerile practice of typing a v instead of a u so you can get around the swearometer.

Ohh no ive offended your sensibilities.....imagine me playing the smallest violin etc etc....

If you have such thin skin as to be offended by me typing "fvcking" you probably should avoid the internet entirely.

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

I understand. You get the point, and find you can't address it. Fine. It just means you need to change your perspective, as its just plain wrong if the one certainty in the situation is three guys trouser €75,000 and someone's gotta pay.

Why is it wrong? they did the work. should they not get paid? Your problem seems to be with the legal profession and our legal system tbh and your tacking it onto this case to try and make yourself feel better about your own bias.

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Are you a legal professional, and is that why you're getting so worked up?

Lol and your claiming im making ad hominem arguments?

political analyst · 17-05-2020 09:23PM

Did Waters and O'Doherty seek legal advice at all? Judging by what they were at in court, it looks like they didn't.

Surely, there must be many others who have the means to take a better legal challenge to the Covid restrictions than that!

Wildlife Actor · 17-05-2020 09:29PM

political analyst wrote: »

Did Waters and O'Doherty seek legal advice at all? Judging by what they were at in court, it looks like they didn't.

Surely, there must be many others who have the means to take a better legal challenge to the Covid restrictions than that!

They could have:
Lawyer: "you need to have evidence to prove what you're saying"
Gemtrails: "I'm not a scientist but I knows things"
Lawyer: "eh that won't cut it in court"

Outcome 1 - Gemtrails: "you're fired"

Outcome 2 - Lawyer : "I still have some self respect. Bye"

VillageIdiot71 · 17-05-2020 09:59PM

blueythebear wrote: »

The applicants prepared a 30 page statement of grounds. Submissions had to be prepared to counter every argument no matter how unmeritorious. Three barristers needed because of a multiplicity of respondents.

<snip>

Plus killing this case from the start will avoid a flood of other cases from her followers for damages over unconstitutional laws as well as avoid further "gatherings"at the four courts

Partly, we're talking about two slightly different things. You're saying "this is just the kind of nonsense that the State has to do whenever it has to turn up in the High Court", where I'm more saying "Isn't there a strong element of nonsense to what the State has to do when it turns up in Court". You see it as unavoidable. I accept it's endemic, and really just want folk to notice the farce involved (because questioning things is a start to seeing them as, eventually, avoidable). That shouldn't be an unbridgeable gap.

From what I've read, the Judges dealing with GemJohn were excellent. Judge Murphy, in the transcript linked to this thread, poured cold water on your "30 page submission" point, when the State was looking for a lengthy delay to respond to GemJohn's Deep Thought. As she said, there's a core issue that just ain't that hard to respond to. And it was good to see the final Judge, in his decision, saying pretty clearly that if he thought it was a case of two citizens without legal representation having their rights infringed, he wouldn't knock them out on a purely procedural point.

I think you need to reflect on restricting access to the High Court, by frightening folk with the risk of being hit with a €75,000 bill, I mean, we're either saying the High Court can be called on by any citizen willing to cough up two hundred yoyos in Stamp Duty, or we're not.

Maybe it's "not", and that's probably how most people feel. But do you think that's a positive feature? Would you like to see that stated as a necessary requirement for any citizen feeling their rights have been infringed in some material way?

VillageIdiot71 · 17-05-2020 10:08PM

Oh, dear.

VinLieger wrote: »

Why is it wrong? they did the work. should they not get paid? Your problem seems to be with the legal profession and our legal system tbh and your tacking it onto this case to try and make yourself feel better about your own bias.

I've actually made it as clear as clear can be that the point I'm raising is, indeed, how the legal system descends into farce if the main conclusion in this case is that the three barristers engaged by the State absolutely must trouser €75,000, and the only ambiguity is who give it to them.

VinLieger wrote: »

Lol and your claiming im making ad hominem arguments?

I can appreciate you can't distinguish between simply insulting someone and asking if someone has a vested interest.

Tbh, there's no short-cut to your personal reflection on how these two things are different.

VillageIdiot71 · 17-05-2020 10:24PM

political analyst wrote: »

Surely, there must be many others who have the means to take a better legal challenge to the Covid restrictions than that!

There are, but I suspect they'll pick their ground. Like, if there was an attempt to prevent pubs with restaurant licences opening at the end of June I suspect there would be a challenge. But you can anticipate it would be along the lines that they were doing whatever is necessary to ensure staff and customers are not at risk.

extra gravy · 20-05-2020 09:00AM

Long live the Ivory Coast!

plodder · 20-05-2020 10:39AM

extra gravy wrote: »

Long live the Ivory Coast!

technically it's not wrong - so long as you imagine Waters as 'the flagpole'

Kermit.de.frog · 20-05-2020 10:44AM

Cote d'ivoire!

Penn · 20-05-2020 10:45AM

plodder wrote: »

technically it's not wrong - so long as you imagine Waters as 'the flagpole'

Of all the things I've imagined John Waters as, a flagpole would be one of the kinder ones.

VillageIdiot71 · 20-05-2020 12:45PM

political analyst wrote: »

Surely, there must be many others who have the means to take a better legal challenge to the Covid restrictions than that!

Just to say, indeed a more professional and resourced group is making noises.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/human-rights-group-two-week-quarantine-and-garda-powers-raise-issues-amid-pandemic-1000449.html

ICCL warned significant pre-legislative scrutiny will be required before the implementation of any further measures, such as a quarantine, and criticised the Minister for Health Simon Harris for not carrying out a human rights assessment ahead of extending garda powers. It also urged the government to reduce the extent of garda powers.

Specifically on the quarantine issue, Mr Herrick said "such regulations raise a number of human rights issues".

"Creating a blanket legal requirement to self-isolate is a significant interference with the right the liberty and free movement," he said. "Any such interference must be proven to be necessary and proportionate to the ongoing health risk posed by Covid-19. This means that there needs to be clear advice from health experts that this is required. And it needs to be the least interference possible to achieve public health aims."

The blanket quarantine without sufficient health context would represent "too broad a restriction on rights to be proportionate", ICCL said.

Again, notable that ICCL pick their ground and cite comments by WHO people when making their case.

But I'd say its a long distance before ICCL would make a Court challenge, particularly if relevant powers simply lapse on 6 November. I suspect they are just giving a timely reminder that emergency measures can't be just slid into a 'new normal', as if a ' new normal' had just been presented to us on tablets of stone.

Guy:Incognito · 20-05-2020 12:52PM

plodder wrote: »

technically it's not wrong - so long as you imagine Waters as 'the flagpole'

Planted in the ground head first.

I see from the other banners they want people to have the freedom over their own bodies.

Has Waters done a 180 and is now in support of the repeal of the 8th amendment or is it just body autonomy for the things he wants it for (dont know Gemmas stance but is she not going the hardline catholic angle now so presumably shes anti the repealing of the 8th?)

Brock Turnpike · 20-05-2020 12:54PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Planted in the ground head first.

I see from the other banners they want people to have the freedom over their own bodies.

Has Waters done a 180 and is now in support of the repeal of the 8th amendment or is it just body autonomy for the things he wants it for (dont know Gemmas stance but is she not going the hardline catholic angle now so presumably shes anti the repealing of the 8th?)

You're a ****ing bollix! You can **** off!

*That's my John Waters impression*

blueythebear · 20-05-2020 01:51PM

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Just to say, indeed a more professional and resourced group is making noises.
Again, notable that ICCL pick their ground and cite comments by WHO people when making their case.

But I'd say its a long distance before ICCL would make a Court challenge, particularly if relevant powers simply lapse on 6 November. I suspect they are just giving a timely reminder that emergency measures can't be just slid into a 'new normal', as if a ' new normal' had just been presented to us on tablets of stone.

Another great patriot has challenged the legislation with as much success. At least he didnt shamelessly court publicity....

https://beta.courts.ie/view/judgments/2bbb3b58-8d5c-40cf-aaa1-1ca292d4f360/33ae99a2-c81f-4235-9f71-43f8ca6676bd/2020_IEHC_220.pdf/pdf

Kermit.de.frog · 21-05-2020 12:35AM

This is bonkers stuff. I thought John Waters use to be the sensible type. Maybe i'm wrong but seems to be heading downhill fast!

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1263055601816473601

sydthebeat · 21-05-2020 12:40AM

The irony is so delicious that's its completely lost on those gobsh!tes.

Creol1 · 21-05-2020 01:09AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is bonkers stuff. I thought John Waters use to be the sensible type. Maybe i'm wrong but seems to be heading downhill fast!

I blame the fluoride. :rolleyes:

21-05-2020 01:22AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is bonkers stuff. I thought John Waters use to be the sensible type. Maybe i'm wrong

sorry Kermit but its 100% the case that you were wrong!

he was always a nutcase, but once upon a time he had a cushy number and never had to hear anyone tell him he was a nutcase.

like anyone who makes serious arguments in 2020 based on esoteric theological points, he has entire levers switched the wring way in his head

the irish times funnelling money to him, iona or any of their slush companies until recently is an excellent argument to never giving them a cent of yr money ever again (fintan and una are the next two best arguments for same lest i be accused of picking on the right)

Capt'n Midnight · 21-05-2020 01:38AM

political analyst wrote: »

Did Waters and O'Doherty seek legal advice at all? Judging by what they were at in court, it looks like they didn't.

They didn't seek medical or scientific advice either.

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

I think you need to reflect on restricting access to the High Court, by frightening folk with the risk of being hit with a €75,000 bill, I mean, we're either saying the High Court can be called on by any citizen willing to cough up two hundred yoyos in Stamp Duty, or we're not.

Key point in the judgement was they didn't have to start off in the High Court. They chose probably the most expensive and most time wasting way to do it.

Both have have gone down the legal route many times so are well aware of lawyers and court proceedings, costs and how long it takes.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is bonkers stuff. I thought John Waters use to be the sensible type. Maybe i'm wrong but seems to be heading downhill fast!

John was jailed rather than pay a €40 parking fine. So has form on utterly wasting court time. And no he wasn't actively unloading at the time. It's also very difficult to square the whole holier than thou Iona Institute thing with his dealings with Sinead O'Connor.

EDIT :mad: at that tweet now because blasphemy was removed in 2018.
Also long ago , 5 January, 1973
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1972 [Removed from the Constitution the special position of the Catholic Church and the recognition of other named religious denominations.]

VillageIdiot71 · 21-05-2020 10:25AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Both have have gone down the legal route many times so are well aware of lawyers and court proceedings, costs and how long it takes.

And, you'll appreciate, that's tangental to any point I'm making.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

EDIT :mad: at that tweet now because blasphemy was removed in 2018.
Also long ago , 5 January, 1973
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1972 [Removed from the Constitution the special position of the Catholic Church and the recognition of other named religious denominations.]

I think the point he's making is, today, the preamble of the Constitution still says

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,

Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

IIRC, the preamble can't be amended. To get rid of it, you'd have to adopt a new Constitution.

The preamble has, in the past, been cited by the Courts as meaning the State has a Christian ethos.

And, just anticipating reactions, no I don't believe in the Holy Trinity. I'm just reminding people of what their Constitution says, although I'm sure they all knew this.

TaurenDruid · 21-05-2020 10:33AM

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

I think the point he's making is, today, the preamble of the Constitution still saysIIRC, the preamble can't be amended. To get rid of it, you'd have to adopt a new Constitution.

Which could be identical in every way to the existing Constitution, just with a new 21st century non-RC preamble.

lawrencesummers · 21-05-2020 11:19AM

It doesn’t look good for the Gardaí that they move on people protesting in a socially distanced way outside Debenhams while the gemmaroid gang were allowed to congregate, abuse Gardaí and act the maggot on a few occasions.

Doesn’t look good at all unfortunately and I would be full of praise for their work over the last few months.

blueythebear · 21-05-2020 11:24AM

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

And, you'll appreciate, that's tangental to any point I'm making.

I think the point he's making is, today, the preamble of the Constitution still saysIIRC, the preamble can't be amended. To get rid of it, you'd have to adopt a new Constitution.

The preamble has, in the past, been cited by the Courts as meaning the State has a Christian ethos.

And, just anticipating reactions, no I don't believe in the Holy Trinity. I'm just reminding people of what their Constitution says, although I'm sure they all knew this.

But the preamble is not binding. The presence of divorce, same sex marriage and abortion in the constitution is proof positive of this.

Hotblack Desiato · 21-05-2020 12:31PM

blueythebear wrote: »

But the preamble is not binding. The presence of divorce, same sex marriage and abortion in the constitution is proof positive of this.

It still needs to go though.

Where in the Constitution does it say the preamble cannot be amended? Either it is part of the constitution, or it is not. If it is not, then what is stopping it being changed legislatively? If it is, then by a specific referendum?

VillageIdiot71 · 21-05-2020 01:03PM

blueythebear wrote: »

But the preamble is not binding. The presence of divorce, same sex marriage and abortion in the constitution is proof positive of this.

I guess you know the point, and 'not binding' isn't speaking to it. As I suspect you know, any part of the Constitution can and pretty much has been taken into account by the Courts. And, specifically, the preamble has been used by the Courts in the manner I have stated, as I guess you know.

I don't think we need to avoid the point. Our Constitution is a bit incoherent, as it starts by pledging the State to the Holy Trinity (not just the RC religion), and then goes on to provide for gay marriage. So we are constituted as a Christian State that recognises gay marriage.

Go figure. But that's where we are. I mean, the Preamble is hard to miss. As are the references to it in High Court cases that you are probably well aware of.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It still needs to go though.

Where in the Constitution does it say the preamble cannot be amended? Either it is part of the constitution, or it is not. If it is not, then what is stopping it being changed legislatively? If it is, then by a specific referendum?

I'm not absolutely sure, but I think the Constitution allows that any "provision" can be changed, and the legals say the Preamble isnt a "provision".

Its the kind of nonsense they cook up to make stuff complicated, so they can charge you €75,000 for spending a couple of days laughing at a couple of loopers.

extra gravy · 26-05-2020 10:28PM

https://twitter.com/tpmlaws/status/1265372778632556544?s=19

The Internet is too fast!

The Nal · 27-05-2020 09:49AM

Gems and John a complete joke now. Instead of protests they're just being pranked sort of Jackass style.

What a pathetic turnout aswell.

dundalkfc10 · 27-05-2020 10:07AM

The Nal wrote: »

Gems and John a complete joke now. Instead of protests they're just being pranked sort of Jackass style.

What a pathetic turnout aswell.

The most pathetic part IMO was the council and gardai saying beach was closed, but not stopping Gemma entering it (pity the tide never came in quick though)

Videos of people throwing sand and water on her aswell (great to see)

rubadub · 27-05-2020 10:10AM

The garda helicopter could have whipped up a nice crowd dispersing sandstorm.

Muscles Schultz · 27-05-2020 10:33AM

rubadub wrote: »

The garda helicopter could have whipped up a nice crowd dispersing sandstorm.

What crowd?

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

Comments