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?
Mortelaro wrote: » Jaysis
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.
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?
Mortelaro wrote: » I did omit to mention Mary Lou is not related...
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: » 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: » 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: » 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)
blanch152 wrote: » Government is the ultimate essential service - therefore he has an exception, just like hospital workers.
[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?
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: » 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?
[Deleted User] wrote: » How like? Given the level of sanitiser usage,i taught it was accepted surface spread was low to min and biggest risk remained sneezing?? Afaik.the risk of catching it,in general public/outside is like a million to one last week?(in the free state,admittedely,maybe belfast air is different??)
Mortelaro wrote: » glad to be of service What key phrase did I 'deliberately ' leave out ?What I posted is the guidelines in full from here So now what piece did I deliberately leave out from the guidelines ? Just to add the guidelines do not allow for Mary Lou or Michelle to have been in the Church Those guidelines are what every ordinary bereaved family have had to sadly adhere to
So you're back tracking and saying someone else did now I see Obviously not because last time ye did,ye were presented with the sign language interpreters at every Tony Holahan press conference showing that a zoom lens distorts distances Nothing is ever black and white
For what its worth and here's the rub,I understand why what happened today at the funeral happened I respect the dead and understand why regulations were flouted and fully respect why MLM, Gerry and others went into the Church and to be honest am happy that they did I doubt they'll be handed the £1000 fine You'll understand and to be fair you've said so more or less why today isn't fair on other funerals Now out of respect for the dead,that's my points made,Ar dheis Dé go raibh a Anam.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You omitted the '10 person limit' that you said was broken. There isn't one and that is why you probably didn't link to the regs.
As you were told at the time and also ignored, there isn't a lens in the world that can distort an overhead shot. That is called photoshop.
It's no excuse, but it is a difficult thing to steward on the day.
[Deleted User] wrote: » https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/expert-one-in-a-million-chance-of-randomly-contracting-covid-19-1006429.html Soap and water will.kill.this......social distencing shouldnt affect mary-lou,as she simply cant spread it/catch it
Mortelaro wrote: » Yeah but in this fast moving thread you've probably forgotten that,I did say afterwards that I was only reporting what the BBC were saying Pasted the relevant part of that page in full Even if it was a top secret page which obviously it isn't, It was very obvious what I posted did not reference 10 people If I wanted to hide that fact,then ,posting that would have been stupid I posted it as the regulations period.[
I'm sorry but all cameras well away from the subjects need to zoom and distort distances I have not seen the footage you are referring to,at least I don't think I have
FrancieBrady wrote: » So it were the BBC at fault (whom you didn't reference) either. Sorry, the impression given was you were being less than honest. No credit given to the BBC and no link given to the regs. [
It was posted more than once on the thread where you treated us to your forensics. I again say, you are running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.
As I said, I don't care what you believe to be perfectly frank.
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?
Mortelaro wrote: » I most certainly did reference the BBC regarding the 10 people I said later that driveline were reporting that the BBC were reporting that So now I'm dishonest for having posted the guidance in full? And I did say where I got that the BBC were reporting the more than 10 people Posts attached Both of your statements are wrong on what I said and you've the cheek to mention honesty after that :eek: Jaysis
Tony Holahans press conferences Ignore them all you like but they're a perfect example of where you are wrong when you try to say zooms don't distort distances, they do Or anyone that disagrees with you it seems to me or in this case provides an inconveniently irrefutable bit of zoom lens evidence on distance distortion
event wrote: » Do you answer every question with a question?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, there is no veto there. If a vote (which a free and democratic choice) decides there is to be a UI, Unionists have no Veto on that decision.
FrancieBrady wrote: » My bad, I meant you didn't 'link' to the BBC and still haven't. I could say the BBC said Paisley was a catholic...but it would be worthless because I didn't link to it. What are the two screenshots about?
standardg60 wrote: » Jesus Francie you seem to have come round to the actual art of rational debate, i have not disagreed with a single salient post you have made since i was last on. I've just highlighted this one in the hope you might now agree that given our own election was a free and democratic choice that ignoring the 1/4 of voters in the Government formation talks was indeed just that and protesting about it now is not a valid and rational thing to do.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I am not protesting the formation of the government, I think PBP are but I don't see much about it. I defend people's right to protest just as I defend your right to express an opinion on those protests. That sometimes means I have to accept protest I don't agree with.
Finty Lemon wrote: » Now that the orations are over and there is time to reflect, what do people think was Bobby Storey's greatest contribution to life in Ireland?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
