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…5455575960

Comments

  • #1682
    chancer12
    Registered Users Posts: 702 ✭✭✭chancer12


    Would someone please lock them up and throw away the key!


  • #1683
    Corkblowin
    Registered Users Posts: 622 ✭✭✭Corkblowin


    Has she just libelled a judge?


  • #1684
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,410 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    I hope that Judge sues her for defamation.


  • #1685
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,425 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Harry Palmr wrote: »
    Someone tell Gemma they pay the state not a government.

    I think her and her Ilk struggle to note the difference.


  • #1686
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,810 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Corkblowin wrote: »
    Has she just libelled a judge?

    Really not the sharpest crayon in the box, is she?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Advertisement
  • #1687
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    owlbethere wrote: »
    It's good news that they will have to pay for their costs.
    The ruling is that they'll have to pay the State's costs.

    "Their costs" would be negligible, as they represented themselves.
    owlbethere wrote: »
    Countries the world over went into great turmoil over this virus and that pair were trouble makers completely ignorant and bling to the reasons restrictions were implemented.
    In fairness, as the Judge said, there were issues to be addressed. But these aren't the pair to do that.


  • #1688
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,717 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    Big Vern wrote: »
    Aren't they still in government because of the constitution she loves so much!!!

    Article 28.11 of our Constitution covers "caretaker govts" post election.

    Funny how most of the anti-vaxx loonies online arent familiar with that part of the document.


  • #1689
    Big Vern
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭Big Vern


    Tenger wrote: »
    Article 28.11 of our Constitution covers "caretaker govts" post election.

    Funny how most of the anti-vaxx loonies online arent familiar with that part of the document.

    So typical of them to just ignore that part that goes against their arguments.

    The members of the Government in office at the date of a dissolution of Dáil Éireann shall continue to hold office until their successors shall have been appointed.


  • #1690
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    VillageIdiot71 wrote: »
    The ruling is that they'll have to pay the State's costs.

    "Their costs" would be negligible, as they represented themselves.
    In fairness, as the Judge said, there were issues to be addressed. But these aren't the pair to do that.

    What the judge said was “were important matters of public interest.“ a bit different from issues to be addressed.

    “ In his ruling, Mr Justice Charles Meenan said the issues raised by the widespread restrictions and regulations were important matters of public interest.

    But he said the way Ms O'Doherty and Mr Waters conducted their case, their failure to consider or answer the case being made against them and the fact that they only had regard to their own opinions, meant the proceedings they took were very far from being in the public interest. ”


  • #1691
    Clarence Boddiker
    Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Clarence Boddiker


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Really not the sharpest crayon in the box, is she?

    I would say the public IE you are not the sharpest tools in the box, remember the protest last weekend? Looks like the lockdown was not legally binding after all.


  • Advertisement
  • #1692
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,942 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Corkblowin wrote: »
    Has she just libelled a judge?

    My thinking too.

    Surely calling a judge corrupt is very dicey from a legal point of view


  • #1693
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,942 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Clarence Boddiker wrote: »
    I would say the public IE you are not the sharpest tools in the box, remember the protest last weekend? Looks like the lockdown was not legally binding after all.

    We haven't been in lockdown for nearly two weeks now...... Or have you just crawled from a cave somewhere


  • #1694
    Clarence Boddiker
    Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Clarence Boddiker


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    We haven't been in lockdown for nearly two weeks now...... Or have you just crawled from a cave somewhere

    The protests at the weekend have made a complete fool out of you.


  • #1695
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    Is being a believer in conspiracy theories and also being a bigot a requirement, or is it just another sign of being a bit thick?

    Based on her supporters it definitely appears to be the case, along for some of them also being an asshole.


  • #1696
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,745 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Big Vern wrote: »
    So typical of them to just ignore that part that goes against their arguments.

    The members of the Government in office at the date of a dissolution of Dáil Éireann shall continue to hold office until their successors shall have been appointed.
    Maybe she should take a constitutional challenge!


  • #1697
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What the judge said was “were important matters of public interest.“ a bit different from issues to be addressed.

    “ In his ruling, Mr Justice Charles Meenan said the issues raised by the widespread restrictions and regulations were important matters of public interest.

    But he said the way Ms O'Doherty and Mr Waters conducted their case, their failure to consider or answer the case being made against them and the fact that they only had regard to their own opinions, meant the proceedings they took were very far from being in the public interest. ”
    I'd don't see any substantial difference between what the Judge said and what I've said. He said
    There is no doubt but that issues raised by the widespread restrictions imposed by the legislation and regulations in question are important matters of public interest. However, the manner in which the applicants conducted their proceedings, their failure to consider or answer the case being made against them and to only have regard to their own opinions meant that these proceedings were very far from being in the public interest.
    Now, he didn't say (and nor am I) that a case that actually spoke to the public interest would succeed.

    What he said was the plonkers didn't speak coherently to the issues raised. Maybe a case could be made - but they just didn't make it.


  • #1698
    MickeyLeari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 917 ✭✭✭MickeyLeari


    The judge can only rule on the points made before him. I bet the judiciary, many barristers, solicitors not to mention Civil service legal heads could easily have brought a far more robust challenge. I can certainly think where the regs and indeed the primary legislation could be subject to challenge. Interesting also that the DPP asked to be consulted before the Guards charged anyone. And Harris was stopped bringing in quarantining regs.


  • #1699
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    MickeyLeari wrote: »
    I bet the judiciary, many barristers, solicitors not to mention Civil service legal heads could easily have brought a far more robust challenge.
    This case in the UK may give some indication of that
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/07/ba-launches-legal-battle-over-covid-19-quarantine-ruling

    Britain’s three biggest airlines have started legal proceedings against the government in a bid to overturn quarantine rules due to take effect in the UK from Monday.
    I don't expect their case will make much reference to Nazi Germany. It might be more focused on what constitutes a proportionate response to a risk, when you take off the purely medical blinkers that make you see only a single illness.


  • #1700
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    MickeyLeari wrote: »
    Interesting also that the DPP asked to be consulted before the Guards charged anyone.

    Well that would be standard given it's the DPP that decides whether to prosecute any crime.


  • #1701
    MickeyLeari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 917 ✭✭✭MickeyLeari


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    Well that would be standard given it's the DPP that decides whether to prosecute any crime.

    It is not standard. The Guards will normally send a file - they do not usually consult on every case before the file is sent.


  • Advertisement
  • #1702
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭mynamejeff


    MickeyLeari wrote: »
    It is not standard. The Guards will normally send a file - they do not usually consult on every case before the file is sent.


    depending on the offence it is not just standard it is required .

    what do you think the file is for ?


  • #1703
    shaveAbullock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭shaveAbullock


    Interesting that BLM have out dune John & Gemma in opposing the restrictions. I never expected the two groups to be campaigning on the same side.


  • #1704
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    If John and Gemma had wanted to make a commonsense case, in the hope of influencing a Court with a simple appeal to basic human standards, they could have chosen this well-written view from the UK
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/06/tell-mps-not-name-horrified-social-experiment/?WT.mc_id=e_DM1254155&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Edi_New_Reg&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_Edi_New_Reg20200608&utm_campaign=DM1254155


    … So as someone who just about counts, because of my age, as one of those being protected by everybody else’s sacrifices, I assume the moral right to say this: please don’t. Don’t give up the freedoms and the opportunities that are proper to your stage of life for my sake and do not go meekly into that imprisonment to which the government has sentenced you.

    …..By all means, let those for whom the danger is actually greatest (or who do not have the capacity to make a conscious decision) be given maximum protection. But leave it to the rest - who have been told by countless television medics and health page features that chronological age means almost nothing anymore - and to those who care for them, to decide on their own priorities. Of course, they must not (and I can promise you, will not) be irresponsible. Otherwise, I cannot see how this is ever going to end.

    The most pernicious of these measures - the social distancing rule which makes an aberration of the most basic emotional need - is the one that the scientific authorities are most adamant must remain. At first we were told that it must stay in place “until we have a vaccine”. Then, without any explanation or apology, we were being given the new message that there might never be a vaccine....
    This issue shouldn't need an appeal to the Courts. To an extent, that's the assessment the Courts have made - whether its bonkers or not, this is mostly within the freedom given to Government to be bonkers, within its democratic mandate.

    And the right to be a bit bonkers is a very basic freedom.


  • #1705
    double jobbing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 322 ✭✭double jobbing


    shaveAbullock wrote: »
    Interesting that BLM have out dune John & Gemma in opposing the restrictions. I never expected the two groups to be campaigning on the same side.

    Some of the most voiciferous people I saw saying her and Waters should be prosecuted (they should) are the same people saying the BLM protests, in ****ing Ireland, were necessary. One useless twunt last week banging on about how you can't be pro opening business but anti BLM marches.

    Because, they're both as necessary as each other like....


  • #1706
    Creol1
    Registered Users Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Creol1


    MickeyLeari wrote: »
    It is not standard. The Guards will normally send a file - they do not usually consult on every case before the file is sent.

    The DPP is not required at all for minor offences that can be tried in the District Court.


  • #1707
    plodder
    Registered Users Posts: 7,119 ✭✭✭plodder


    Not really related to JW or GOD, but what do people think of the group of ten senators who think that the Senate should be able to sit and even pass legislation without the new Taoiseach's nominations.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/senators-to-go-ahead-with-high-court-case-over-seanad-sittings-1.4276939

    They seem to be putting the cart before the horse in saying the government's position has "startling consequences". There are startling consequences all right, but their cause is the ridiculous situation in not having a government months after the election imo, not the Taoiseach's refusal to sanction an initial sitting of a partially constituted Seanad.

    Is it conceivable that they might win the case? I don't see how unless they are suggesting that Senate votes might be passed with a majority greater than 11, but that would conflict with the provision that requires decisions to be a simple majority of the members present. It's really hard to see how the courts will allow such an abrogation of normal constitutional procedure, to side-step what has essentially been political laziness. The parties could have (and still could) put a temporary government in place to deal with important legislation as the only non-temporary question they would have needed to answer is who the 11 appointed senators should be.


  • #1708
    Damian F
    Closed Accounts Posts: 82 ✭✭Damian F


    Gemma reminds me of a school headmistress from the 60s who would enjoy caning naughty children.


  • #1709
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    I suppose this case is more likely to tell us if a well-funded professional legal case can succeed, where the (erm) more principles-based approach failed.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/one-of-state-s-biggest-restaurant-and-pub-groups-starts-legal-action-over-covid-19-measures-1.4375698?mode=amp

    One of the biggest restaurant and pub groups in the State has taken legal action against the Government over the extension of the Covid-19 restrictions closing their premises to indoor dining.


  • #1710
    brightspark
    Registered Users Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    Ryan Air didn't succeed

    https://www.businessworld.ie/news-from-ireland/Ryanair-loses-High-Court-case-over-Ireland-s-COVID-19-travel-advice--574566.html


  • Advertisement
  • #1711
    tobefrank321
    Registered Users Posts: 4,421 ✭✭✭tobefrank321


    VillageIdiot71 wrote: »
    I suppose this case is more likely to tell us if a well-funded professional legal case can succeed, where the (erm) more principles-based approach failed.

    Unlikely to succeed. There is a very close relationship between the leading political parties and the judiciary despite what they'd like you to believe.

    If the government bring in new laws or rules around covid, the judiciary are also likely to back it.


Advertisement