[Deleted User] wrote: » This is really splitting hairs territory....if you have antibodies...it cant attach to human cells (Same way,as yous get cancer everyday,but your body beats it everyday iirc) If its not attaching to you/entering system,how can you spread it?
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are a painful person to debate with.
You copied and pasted the regs from the webiste...and omitted a key phrase and a link (probably trying to hide that key phrase) I googled the text and it brought me directly to the regs. Where there is no mention, I can find, of a 10 person limit.
Leo broke the regs in his PR stunt in the warehouse. As an overhead shot showed he allowed the team around him to behave in breach of the regs.
*No...not going back to your forensic amateur hour on that, so save yourself some time. I don't care if you disagree with me.
[Deleted User] wrote: » The regulations are their to keep people/public safe.....she is according to generally accepted medical.science a non-risk of getting/spreading it?
blanch152 wrote: » Government is the ultimate essential service - therefore he has an exception, just like hospital workers.
Deleted User wrote: » Am.i missing something here.....mary-lou has had coronavirus and recovered (had it quiet bad,by all.accounts) The science and evidence indicates,she cant get it again,nor spread it anymore.....if anyone,the restrictions dont need to apply to her?? (Also applies for ryan tubrity and the 20K or so recovered cases here)
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are a painful person to debate with. You copied and pasted the regs from the webiste...and omitted a key phrase and a link (probably trying to hide that key phrase) I googled the text and it brought me directly to the regs. Where there is no mention, I can find, of a 10 person limit. Leo broke the regs in his PR stunt in the warehouse. As an overhead shot showed he allowed the team around him to behave in breach of the regs. *No...not going back to your forensic amateur hour on that, so save yourself some time. I don't care if you disagree with me.
Mortelaro wrote: » Mary Lou is a close family member of Bobby Storeys family is she? I said what I heard on drive time and that is the BBC is reporting more than 10 people in the church I never actually said what the regulations were,you were first with the number Is Mary Lou a family member or not? Is it on the fathers side or the mothers side?? Where did Leo break the regulations?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Do you know if the family would consider her a 'close family member' And yes you omitted to include where the regs say anything about '10 people'. Did you also notice where the BBC reported that SF stewards were on street junctions trying to hold back the numbers wanting to attend? As I said previously...this was wrong, no doubts about it, but like the funeral of the Garda showed too, it is extremely difficult to steward if a lot of people want to be there. Same as gatherings that have happened all over the island. We have also seen everybody from Varadkar to BLM break the regs. If SF flagrantly broke the regs, then they need to apologise for it.
Mortelaro wrote: » I did omit to mention Mary Lou is not related...
JohnnyFlash wrote: » The 'community activists' needed a payoff. Or a completely unrelated topic I'm sure; did we ever find out how SF ended up owning 50 properties?
dundalkfc10 wrote: » Jesus is what most sane people would say if they knew about the Irish Govt letting other Irish people get treated the way they did and done nothing.
Mortelaro wrote: » Jaysis
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where does it stipulate how many should be inside? 'Further restrictions apply if the venue is small'...did you omit that bit on purpose?
dundalkfc10 wrote: » What does it matter what they do up North. People here "only care" about the North when it is to have a dig at SF. FF and FG sat by while the British army and RUC murdered and treated Catholics like pieces of dirt for years, but now all their fans care that there was a big funeral up North.
Mortelaro wrote: » That's at the event,not inside the church Wakes are also not allowed, never mind 3 day wakes Close family members only or household members are what's allowed guidance The funeral should be private and only the following should be there, up to a maximum of 30 people (this figure does not include funeral directors or other people needed to officiate at the service, such as faith/ pastoral representatives, grave diggers and so on), including: members of the person’s household close family members if the deceased has neither household nor family members in attendance, then it is possible for a modest number of friends to be there Social distancing must be practised at all times, which means numbers attending funerals may be restricted further in smaller enclosed places -detailed information on social distancing can be found at this link:
Bowie wrote: » Slow news day? Did you inquire about the lenses used?
Mortelaro wrote: » The BBC are reporting more than 10 people were inside the church Afaik, regulations were followed inside the church for the Garda's State funeral I do not know whether covid 19 regulations apply to official parts of a state funeral eg army pall bearers etc
FrancieBrady wrote: » The maximum allowed is up to 30 at a funeral service in the north, not including those officiating or undertakers etc.
Mortelaro wrote: » Suzanne Breen there on RTE's drive time said Bobby Storey was the mastermind behind the Northern Bank robbery
Edgware wrote: » At least he got a funeral more dignified than his M15 pal Scapaticci gave to his victims
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Apparently he was a Republican with a sense of himself and very 'tolerant' and a kind man. Basically, your average Republican Jesus figure.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where is the 'dodge'? I compared two funerals, not two people. Are you saying different regs apply because one was a guard and the other a member of SF?
event wrote: » Nice dodge of the question.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Are you saying different Covid regulations applied because he was a Garda? For the record, I think both funerals ignored the regulations/advice. My point is that we have the usual crew on pouring out their outrage for political gain about one but who were silent about the other. As far as I am aware NOBODY complained about last week. Which was ok by me actually.
blanch152 wrote: » Do you mean a clause that says something like this? "The Irish Government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland desired a change in that status. The British Government solemnly declared that it was, and would remain, their policy to support the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The present status of Northern Ireland is that it is part of the United Kingdom. If in the future the majority of the people of Northern Ireland should indicate a wish to become part of a united Ireland, the British Government would support that wish."
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
