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

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?

Tenger · 27-05-2020 11:51am

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.

Would be nice to see such a prank on the crowd who were outside the GPO last Saturday. They are planning to do the same next Saturday at 2pm.

freak scence · 27-05-2020 2:11pm

Anyone know what the falling out with gemma and that yoke deeeloorress was over ? Have a bit if a twitter spat the other day. Two utter mongs

Beasty · 27-05-2020 2:42pm

It seems their challenge against the Covid restrictions goes no further. Anything non-Covid related can be posted in the relevant CA thread rather than here

Thread closed

Beasty · 27-05-2020 2:57pm

And it appears they are "appealing" (not a word I should really associate with them)

I'm re-opening the thread, but please keep it to the topic of their challenge to coronavirus restrictions. Anyone going off at a tangent can expect to be threadbanned

The Nal · 27-05-2020 3:16pm

From what the judge has said, it seems Gems insistence on “utterly pointless” speeches may cost them. A lot.

There were no exceptional circumstances raised by the applicants that would allow the court deviate from the normal rule that the losing party should pay the costs of the proceedings according to the Times.

lol

TaurenDruid · 27-05-2020 3:43pm

The Nal wrote: »

From what the judge has said, it seems Gems insistence on “utterly pointless” speeches may cost them. A lot.

There were no exceptional circumstances raised by the applicants that would allow the court deviate from the normal rule that the losing party should pay the costs of the proceedings according to the Times.

lol

Is that not "according to the state's lawyers" rather than the Times?

RTE's report says O'D complained in court that she had been detained by Gardaí on her way to court... I assume that means the time she was stopped at a checkpoint and started filming? Absolute gowl.

Boggles · 04-06-2020 11:02am

High Court rules O'Doherty, Waters must pay legal costs over Covid-19 challenge

Kids inheritance gone.

Glebee · 04-06-2020 11:26am

Boggles wrote: »

High Court rules O'Doherty, Waters must pay legal costs over Covid-19 challenge

Kids inheritance gone.

What sort of money would they be looking at here?

04-06-2020 11:29am

Glebee wrote: »

What sort of money would they be looking at here?

It's more than fifty thousand.

lawrencesummers · 04-06-2020 11:30am

Great news.
All going well it bankrupts the two of them to the point they can’t afford a laptop and internet connection

KrustyUCC · 04-06-2020 11:32am

Deleted User wrote: »

It's more than fifty thousand.

Together or individually?

Either way it's good news

Might give them pause in the future

bocaman · 04-06-2020 11:41am

Some Irish-American Republican Party racist will probably foot the bill for them.

Brock Turnpike · 04-06-2020 11:49am

No don't they'll refuse to pay, be brought to court over it, and then claim it's discrimination.

Big Vern · 04-06-2020 1:10pm

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

No don't they'll refuse to pay, be brought to court over it, and then claim it's discrimination.

She has already said that they are appealing the case and wont be paying a cent to the un-elected government.

brightspark · 04-06-2020 1:16pm

Big Vern wrote:

She has already said that they are appealing the case and wont be paying a cent to the un-elected government.

They got a lot more votes than she did!

Bridge93 · 04-06-2020 1:28pm

Where have the constitutional experts who backed their challenge so belligerently gone. I’d be fascinated to hear their take on the rulings of the court

Big Vern · 04-06-2020 1:42pm

brightspark wrote: »

They got a lot more votes than she did!

Aren't they still in government because of the constitution she loves so much!!!

Gods Gift · 04-06-2020 1:45pm

Over €50k but under €100k.
Seems small.

super_furry · 04-06-2020 1:47pm

Big Vern wrote: »

She has already said that they are appealing the case and wont be paying a cent to the un-elected government.

Brilliant, lock them up so.

Big Vern · 04-06-2020 1:50pm

super_furry wrote: »

Brilliant, lock them up so.

Im sure if you or I didn't pay a 50k debt we'd be dealt with quickly enough.

pjdarcy · 04-06-2020 1:56pm

I'd be surprised if a Go Fund Me page doesn't appear shortly :rolleyes:

Seth Brundle · 04-06-2020 2:23pm

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1268498683659771905

owlbethere · 04-06-2020 2:26pm

It's good news that they will have to pay for their costs. 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.

Harry Palmr · 04-06-2020 2:26pm

Someone tell Gemma they pay the state not a government.

owlbethere · 04-06-2020 2:29pm

pjdarcy wrote: »

I'd be surprised if a Go Fund Me page doesn't appear shortly :rolleyes:

Revenue should go in and investigate the pair of them. Will they be declaring any money donated from people for their cause.

owlbethere · 04-06-2020 2:32pm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Someone tell Gemma they pay the state not a government.

Truth be told, I don't know how the system works about the courts and payments but I read the tweet up above and thought what a load of codswallop from her. It's not the government that is paid when a court fee is paid.

Big Vern · 04-06-2020 2:34pm

She is looking for donations already!!!

Gemma O'Doherty
@gemmaod1
·
2h
Replying to
@CCus19
Gemma O’Doherty is funding me but you’re welcome to make a small donation to http://anti-corruptionireland.com to help to rid Ireland of corruption. Be assured it won’t go into the pockets of the illegal government to pay their treasonous lawyers

12:08 PM · Jun 4, 2020·Twitter for iPad

An Claidheamh · 04-06-2020 2:41pm

bocaman wrote: »

Some Irish-American Republican Party racist will probably foot the bill for them.

Irish Americans likely only support a Pro United Ireland group, not a British fascist front

The people behind that pair are anti-Irish British nationalists, Gemma is their regional head.

The people Gemma and John work for hate our constitution, don’t believe Ireland has a right to exist nor do they agree with Irish unification or sovereignty.

Everyone knows this. Gemma’s loyalist friends burn our flag regularly, she refuses to answer these things on twitter

Irish media have always chosen to ignore the far British right in Ireland, so as to blame Sinn Féin or something

chancer12 · 04-06-2020 2:44pm

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

Corkblowin · 04-06-2020 3:03pm

Has she just libelled a judge?

tayto lover · 04-06-2020 3:11pm

I hope that Judge sues her for defamation.

banie01 · 04-06-2020 3:14pm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Someone tell Gemma they pay the state not a government.

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

Hotblack Desiato · 04-06-2020 3:23pm

Corkblowin wrote: »

Has she just libelled a judge?

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

VillageIdiot71 · 04-06-2020 3:25pm

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.

Tenger · 04-06-2020 3:28pm

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.

Big Vern · 04-06-2020 3:45pm

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.

04-06-2020 3:55pm

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. ”

Clarence Boddiker · 04-06-2020 3:59pm

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.

sydthebeat · 04-06-2020 3:59pm

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

sydthebeat · 04-06-2020 4:01pm

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

Clarence Boddiker · 04-06-2020 4:03pm

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.

04-06-2020 4:51pm

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.

Seth Brundle · 04-06-2020 8:13pm

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!

VillageIdiot71 · 04-06-2020 11:00pm

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.

MickeyLeari · 05-06-2020 12:40am

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.

VillageIdiot71 · 08-06-2020 10:11am

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.

El Weirdo · 08-06-2020 3:41pm

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.

MickeyLeari · 08-06-2020 5:44pm

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.

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

Comments