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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

1…5455565860

Comments

  • #1712
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    brightspark wrote: »
    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
    Are the measures that close restaurants just advice? Could a licence be at risk if there's non-compliance?


  • #1713
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    tobefrank321 wrote: »
    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.
    Maybe you're right. I'd only point out you are effectively saying what Gemma says, when she claims the whole State is corrupt.

    I don't agree with Gemm, incidently. I think the judges hearing her case treated her with extreme patience.

    Which is why I'd wonder if a professional case might make more headway.


  • #1714
    KindOfIrish
    Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭KindOfIrish


    brightspark wrote: »
    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

    Ryanair did succeed. They forced the court to announce that all those who cancelled their holidays are fools. There has never been a restriction to travel.


  • #1715
    brightspark
    Registered Users Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭brightspark


    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.

    The "Press up" group should remove themselves from the stay and spend scheme if they continue to pursue this.

    Win or lose I won't be spending a cent in any of their premises for a long time.


  • #1716
    Hibernicis
    Registered Users Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Hibernicis


    Gemma's appeal against the High Court decision set for 20th January 2021.
    Ms Justice Caroline Costello, of the Court of Appeal, dealt on Friday, via remote video conference hearing, with a directions hearing in relation to the appeal. Having consulted with the sides, she fixed January 20th for the appeal, which is expected to last a day.

    Full Article (Irish Times)


  • Advertisement
  • #1717
    VillageIdiot71
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭VillageIdiot71


    Successful case in Germany.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/court-overturns-order-to-shut-berlins-restaurants-bars-from-11pm-5235159-Oct2020/

    Looks like the case for extreme measures is hard to maintain, when argued in an impartial forum by competent advocates.


  • #1718
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,415 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    VillageIdiot71 wrote: »
    Successful case in Germany.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/court-overturns-order-to-shut-berlins-restaurants-bars-from-11pm-5235159-Oct2020/

    Looks like the case for extreme measures is hard to maintain



  • #1719
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    VillageIdiot71 wrote: »
    Successful case in Germany.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/court-overturns-order-to-shut-berlins-restaurants-bars-from-11pm-5235159-Oct2020/

    Looks like the case for extreme measures is hard to maintain, when argued in an impartial forum by competent advocates.

    Username checks out.


  • #1720
    cruizer101
    Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    Gemma and John have to pay costs of failed appeal.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/gemma-odoherty-court-of-appeal-5425140-Apr2021/

    Couldn't be happier for them.

    Not sure how it works in terms of enforcement and will they actually end up paying but nice to hear all the same.


  • #1721
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    Gemma and John have to pay costs of failed appeal.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/gemma-odoherty-court-of-appeal-5425140-Apr2021/

    Couldn't be happier for them.

    Not sure how it works in terms of enforcement and will they actually end up paying but nice to hear all the same.

    Seizure of assets or prison time if not paid?

    John might finally keep his word and emigrate like he said he would when the 8th was repealed.


  • Advertisement
  • #1722
    Infini
    Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    Gemma and John have to pay costs of failed appeal.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/gemma-odoherty-court-of-appeal-5425140-Apr2021/

    Couldn't be happier for them.

    Not sure how it works in terms of enforcement and will they actually end up paying but nice to hear all the same.

    Couldn't have happened to a nicer person eh? :P


  • #1723
    harrylittle
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭harrylittle


    cruizer101 wrote: »
    Gemma and John have to pay costs of failed appeal.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/gemma-odoherty-court-of-appeal-5425140-Apr2021/

    Couldn't be happier for them.

    Not sure how it works in terms of enforcement and will they actually end up paying but nice to hear all the same.

    why would you be happy ... their fighting for your civil rights .... and yet your cheering on their defeat ... weird


  • #1724
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    harrylittle wrote: »
    why would you be happy ... their fighting for your civil rights .... and yet your cheering on their defeat ... weird

    Except they weren't.

    They were fighting against what most people considered sensible precautions.


  • #1725
    harrylittle
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭harrylittle


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Except they weren't.

    They were fighting against what most people considered sensible precautions.

    what sensible precautions is that ... two weeks to flatten the curve .... 12 months on still one of the most restricted countries world wide


  • #1726
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    harrylittle wrote: »
    why would you be happy ... their fighting for your civil rights .... and yet your cheering on their defeat ... weird

    They weren't fighting for me.

    They don't do anything in my name.


  • #1727
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    harrylittle wrote: »
    what sensible precautions is that ... two weeks to flatten the curve .... 12 months on still one of the most restricted countries world wide

    Yes. Those ones.

    They lost a stupid argument that they only brought so they could argue.

    why shouldn't they pay?


  • #1728
    KaneToad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,156 ✭✭✭KaneToad


    harrylittle wrote: »
    why would you be happy ... their fighting for your civil rights .... and yet your cheering on their defeat ... weird

    They weren't fighting for my civil rights. They were making a nonsense argument, in my opinion, and the court of appeal thought so too.


  • #1729
    swampy353
    Registered Users Posts: 927 ✭✭✭swampy353


    harrylittle wrote: »
    why would you be happy ... their fighting for your civil rights .... and yet your cheering on their defeat ... weird

    It was a vanity exercise that they tried to disguise as a civil rights issue. These "patriots" don't give a toss about the public, they are only interested in their agenda and extracting money from people stupid enough to give it to them.
    Let see if their US backers will stump up the money for this!


  • #1730
    harrylittle
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭harrylittle


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Yes. Those ones.

    They lost a stupid argument that they only brought so they could argue.

    why shouldn't they pay?

    why is it stupid .. there are fundamental rights at stake .. whether you agree or disagree with the argument... they have the courage and conviction to stand up for those rights ... having people like that is very important to maintain democracy and civil liberties... and should be applauded for their stance ... not jeered at


  • #1731
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,428 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    harrylittle wrote: »
    why is it stupid .. there are fundamental rights at stake .. whether you agree or disagree with the argument... they have the courage and conviction to stand up for those rights ... having people like that is very important to maintain democracy and civil liberties... and should be applauded for their stance ... not jeered at

    Abusing people on the streets?
    Abusing Gardai going about their duties?
    Talking pure drivel and being told so by the judges?

    I’d rather sane people with sane arguments fighting my corner.
    Those two are just attention seekers.


  • Advertisement
  • #1732
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users Posts: 4,017 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    harrylittle wrote: »
    why is it stupid .. there are fundamental rights at stake .. whether you agree or disagree with the argument... they have the courage and conviction to stand up for those rights ... having people like that is very important to maintain democracy and civil liberties... and should be applauded for their stance ... not jeered at

    There possibly were and are valid arguments to be made for balancing, on the one hand, the right of people to not become infected because of the global pandemic, with, on the other hand, the restrictions such a right would necessarily impose upon society.

    Waters and O'Doherty didn't do that, though. They spouted nonsense about conspiracies and hoaxes, ignored the basics of advancing legal arguments, and kept on with it even when it was obvious they would lose.


  • #1733
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,304 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    harrylittle wrote: »
    why is it stupid .. there are fundamental rights at stake .. whether you agree or disagree with the argument... they have the courage and conviction to stand up for those rights ... having people like that is very important to maintain democracy and civil liberties... and should be applauded for their stance ... not jeered at

    "maintain democracy" from the wan who keeps telling us which Gardai and which RTE bosses and which reporters she's going to get fired when she seizes power? (in her dreams of course)

    There's nothing democratic about that racist demon.


  • #1734
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    harrylittle wrote: »
    why is it stupid .. there are fundamental rights at stake .. whether you agree or disagree with the argument... they have the courage and conviction to stand up for those rights ... having people like that is very important to maintain democracy and civil liberties... and should be applauded for their stance ... not jeered at

    Their arguments had nothing to do with the actual law and constitution. The court told them that directly to their faces.

    They should be told to **** off and not block up the courts and waste tax payers money.

    You are clearly in their camp and that's s camp that will definitely drag me down and best me with experience


  • #1735
    harrylittle
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭harrylittle


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    There possibly were and are valid arguments to be made for balancing, on the one hand, the right of people to not become infected because of the global pandemic, with, on the other hand, the restrictions such a right would necessarily impose upon society.

    Waters and O'Doherty didn't do that, though. They spouted nonsense about conspiracies and hoaxes, ignored the basics of advancing legal arguments, and kept on with it even when it was obvious they would lose.

    Well that's the most important point of the case.

    if its a pandemic ... well yes you could argue certain rights could be temporally restricted ... common sense at play

    if its a plandemic ... thats a different matter ...something more sinister at play.... a real treat to civil liberties and democracy .

    Given the seriousness of a plandemic argument ... the courts should look at the facts objectively and not go with flow of the mob mentally controlled by the media that's its a conspiracy theory .... whether the courts did look at the facts in detail ...its hard to know .... waters claimed they didn't ... it wouldn't surprise me .... it would take a very courageous court to go against the government, media , who and public opinion


  • #1736
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,486 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    harrylittle wrote: »
    Well that's the most important point of the case.

    if its a pandemic ... well yes you could argue certain rights could be temporally restricted ... common sense at play

    if its a plandemic ... thats a different matter ...something more sinister at play.... a real treat to civil liberties and democracy .

    Given the seriousness of a plandemic argument ... the courts should look at the facts objectively and not go with flow of the mob mentally controlled by the media that's its a conspiracy theory .... whether the courts did look at the facts in detail ...its hard to know .... waters claimed they didn't ... it wouldn't surprise me .... it would take a very courageous court to go against the government, media , who and public opinion

    It isn't really.

    GemGem argued Covid didn't exist whilst simultaneously arguing she had the cure.

    I imagine the Judge took one look and muttered 'Cuckoo'.


  • #1737
    duffman13
    Registered Users Posts: 8,945 ✭✭✭duffman13


    harrylittle wrote: »
    Well that's the most important point of the case.

    if its a pandemic ... well yes you could argue certain rights could be temporally restricted ... common sense at play

    if its a plandemic ... thats a different matter ...something more sinister at play.... a real treat to civil liberties and democracy .

    Given the seriousness of a plandemic argument ... the courts should look at the facts objectively and not go with flow of the mob mentally controlled by the media that's its a conspiracy theory .... whether the courts did look at the facts in detail ...its hard to know .... waters claimed they didn't ... it wouldn't surprise me .... it would take a very courageous court to go against the government, media , who and public opinion

    Ah stop with this nonsense. As someone else said there is an argument to be made about restrictions, enforcement and the restrictions of liberty. That could have all been made using a science based argument however the constitution of their argument was pure drivel.

    Gemma and John will take the minority controversial opinion every time in the chase for notoriety and fame. A pair of self indulgent idiots who organised rallies to be outside these court hearings with some absolute nut jobs involved.


  • #1738
    harrylittle
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭harrylittle


    duffman13 wrote: »
    Ah stop with this nonsense. As someone else said there is an argument to be made about restrictions, enforcement and the restrictions of liberty. That could have all been made using a science based argument however the constitution of their argument was pure drivel.

    Gemma and John will take the minority controversial opinion every time in the chase for notoriety and fame. A pair of self indulgent idiots who organised rallies to be outside these court hearings with some absolute nut jobs involved.

    you could say the same thing about every person that has ever fought for human rights ghandi .. marter luther king .... and many of which we never heard about..... if we all had that attitude about every one that stood up for human rights we would all be living in countries worse than north Korea


  • #1739
    Ashbourne hoop
    Registered Users Posts: 999 ✭✭✭Ashbourne hoop


    swampy353 wrote: »
    It was a vanity exercise that they tried to disguise as a civil rights issue. These "patriots" don't give a toss about the public, they are only interested in their agenda and extracting money from people stupid enough to give it to them.
    Let see if their US backers will stump up the money for this!

    That's what she's counting on. She's ramped up her religious beliefs for this purpose. She's no more religious than I am. Her case was ridiculous and without merit, only right she pays.


  • #1740
    eleventh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭eleventh


    duffman13 wrote: »
    Gemma and John will take the minority controversial opinion every time in the chase for notoriety and fame. A pair of self indulgent idiots who organised rallies to be outside these court hearings with some absolute nut jobs involved.
    John is alright, he made a mistake aligning with Gemma I think.

    The comments are harsh. I would hate to see comments if they'd done something wrong, like murder someone or something.


  • Advertisement
  • #1741
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,415 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    harrylittle wrote: »
    you could say the same thing about every person that has ever fought for human rights ghandi .. marter luther king .... and many of which we never heard about..... if we all had that attitude about every one that stood up for human rights we would all be living in countries worse than north Korea

    Comparing these two to Ghandi and MLK! This is great banter.

    Lets see all this unfold. Hopefully they'll be arrested and jailed. Either way they're in deep deep trouble. Legally and financially. Its hilarious.


Advertisement