Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

1…293294296298299…332

Comments

  • #8852
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,136 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Just look for a woman having an argument taking into her phone!

    Wait long enough by someone working and she’ll be along to have a rant. Maybe after she’ll peek into a graveyard for giggles.


  • #8853
    Be right back
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,504 ✭✭✭Be right back


    salmocab wrote: »
    Wait long enough by someone working and she’ll be along to have a rant. Maybe after she’ll peek into a graveyard for giggles.

    Especially if they are wearing a garda uniform or a hi-vis jacket.


  • #8854
    oranbhoy67
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,804 ✭✭✭oranbhoy67


    Shankill it lives in
    it grew up in Ranleagh


  • #8855
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,136 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Be right back wrote: »
    Especially if they are wearing a garda uniform or a hi-vis jacket.

    Maybe hi vis is her trigger? Guards wear it too.


  • #8856
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,296 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    salmocab wrote: »
    Maybe hi vis is her trigger? Guards wear it too.

    no need for the kink shaming :)


  • Advertisement
  • #8857
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    oranbhoy67 wrote: »
    Shankill it lives in
    it grew up in Ranleagh

    Gemma is an extremist hatemonger. I have huge problems with what she promotes; Hate, Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, Islamophobia, Dangerous conspiracies. But lets not lower to her level of spewing hatred referring to her as "it"

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #8858
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60,189 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    But lets not lower to her level of spewing hatred referring to her as "it"

    No, lets!


  • #8859
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    walshb wrote: »
    No, lets!

    How far down the track of being mental do you have to go before someone will sign the papers ?
    Surely she has reached the point now where her antics pose a thread to public safety and to herself... Who can sign the forms for her ?


  • #8860
    PhoneMain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭PhoneMain


    AngryHippie wrote: »
    How far down the track of being mental do you have to go before someone will sign the papers ?
    Surely she has reached the point now where her antics pose a thread to public safety and to herself... Who can sign the forms for her ?

    As previously posted:

    Under the mental health act for involuntary admissions:

    1) You pose a serious risk that they may cause immediate and serious harm to yourself or others.
    2) Your judgement must be so impaired that you need treatment that you can only get in a hospital.
    3) Your condition could get worse if you don't get the treatment that could help your mental health.

    Notably excluded from involuntary admission are those with substance addictions or those with a personality disorder.

    Gemma might be acting the absolute c&nt but she isnt placing herself or others in immediate or serious harm.

    Its ridiculously limited on how we can detain people against their will.............and absolutely rightly so.


  • #8861
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,810 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    PhoneMain wrote: »
    As previously posted:

    Under the mental health act for involuntary admissions:

    1) You pose a serious risk that they may cause immediate and serious harm to yourself or others.
    2) Your judgement must be so impaired that you need treatment that you can only get in a hospital.
    3) Your condition could get worse if you don't get the treatment that could help your mental health.

    Notably excluded from involuntary admission are those with substance addictions or those with a personality disorder.

    Gemma might be acting the absolute c&nt but she isnt placing herself or others in immediate or serious harm.

    Its ridiculously limited on how we can detain people against their will.............and absolutely rightly so.


    She bullied an old man into taking off a mask saying no one was allowed wear a mask near her, in a pandemic. That IS putting someone at risk or harm, no matter what way you spin it.


  • Advertisement
  • #8862
    AndyBoBandy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,353 ✭✭✭✭AndyBoBandy


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    She bullied an old man into taking off a mask saying no one was allowed wear a mask near her, in a pandemic. That IS putting someone at risk or harm, no matter what way you spin it.

    she also has a hoard of minions that follow her around to protest, all without masks, all not social distancing...


  • #8863
    PhoneMain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭PhoneMain


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    She bullied an old man into taking off a mask saying no one was allowed wear a mask near her, in a pandemic. That IS putting someone at risk or harm, no matter what way you spin it.


    And you think she should be detained against her will for telling a man on a street to take off his mask (which he did and was free to put on again 30 seconds later when the interaction finished) in an outdoor location with no known covid positive contacts around......will you get a grip. We have a very mirky history of people being locked away against their will in this country, you either dont seem to know that or are ignoring it.

    And by the way, I'm a doctor and I'm not willing to diagnose her based on her public utterances, nor am I willing to speculate about it........because it's unethical. Maybe you have more psychiatry experience than me.....which if you do, also makes it unethical for you to speculate about her mental health unless you've assessed/treated her.......which is even more unethical!!!!


  • #8864
    PhoneMain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭PhoneMain


    AndyBoBandy wrote: »
    she also has a hoard of minions that follow her around to protest, all without masks, all not social distancing...

    Well then we should lock up Donald Trump so.

    I 100% dont agree with her by the way. But if you start detaining people under the mental health for this sort of behaviour, then you could argue that people who drink and drive could be locked up under the mental health act. You could argue that the acute risk for other drivers on the road is much higher than for people gathering at outdoor protests.


  • #8865
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,810 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    PhoneMain wrote: »
    And you think she should be detained against her will for telling a man on a street to take off his mask (which he did and was free to put on again 30 seconds later when the interaction finished) in an outdoor location with no known covid positive contacts around......will you get a grip. We have a very mirky history of people being locked away against their will in this country, you either dont seem to know that or are ignoring it.

    And by the way, I'm a doctor and I'm not willing to diagnose her based on her public utterances, nor am I willing to speculate about it........because it's unethical. Maybe you have more psychiatry experience than me.....which if you do, also makes it unethical for you to speculate about her mental health unless you've assessed/treated her.......which is even more unethical!!!!

    And I'm a space astronaut, typing this from the international space station.

    See, I can play imaginary career too.


  • #8866
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,458 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    PhoneMain wrote: »
    Well then we should lock up Donald Trump so.

    I 100% dont agree with her by the way. But if you start detaining people under the mental health for this sort of behaviour, then you could argue that people who drink and drive could be locked up under the mental health act. You could argue that the acute risk for other drivers on the road is much higher than for people gathering at outdoor protests.

    It depends on what's driving the behaviour, though , doesn't it? In this case it's pretty clear its been driven by delusions and paranoia. About a week or so ago there was a video posted on this thread of her approaching an elderly gent and removing his face mask. Now that is endangering others. But apparently no Dr will touch it. We've gone from locking people up for being a bit different to sitting back and watching as someone's life unravels publicly to the point where all their employment prospects, their social and family support groups disintegrate and can be left to languish in homelessness because 'they don't pose a serious danger to themselves and others'.


  • #8867
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,458 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    PhoneMain wrote: »
    And you think she should be detained against her will for telling a man on a street to take off his mask (which he did and was free to put on again 30 seconds later when the interaction finished) in an outdoor location with no known covid positive contacts around......will you get a grip. We have a very mirky history of people being locked away against their will in this country, you either dont seem to know that or are ignoring it.

    And by the way, I'm a doctor and I'm not willing to diagnose her based on her public utterances, nor am I willing to speculate about it........because it's unethical. Maybe you have more psychiatry experience than me.....which if you do, also makes it unethical for you to speculate about her mental health unless you've assessed/treated her.......which is even more unethical!!!!

    She put her hand up to his face and removed his mask.


  • #8868
    PhoneMain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭PhoneMain


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    And I'm a space astronaut, typing this from the international space station.

    See, I can play imaginary career too.

    Fair enough if that's what you think but what makes you think I'm not? I could give you my MCRN but I'm not identifying myself on an anomymous website.


  • #8869
    PhoneMain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭PhoneMain


    Sardonicat wrote: »
    It depends on what's driving the behaviour, though , doesn't it? In this case it's pretty clear its been driven by delusions and paranoia. About a week or so ago there was a video posted on this thread of her approaching an elderly gent and removing his face mask. Now that is endangering others. But apparently no Dr will touch it. We've gone from locking people up for being a bit different to sitting back and watching as someone's life unravels publicly to the point where all their employment prospects, their social and family support groups disintegrate and can be left to languish in homelessness because 'they don't pose a serious danger to themselves and others'.

    If removing a facemask (which he could legitimately put on again 30 seconds later) warranted serious risk of harm, then every person who's thrown a punch on a night out could be locked up under the mental health act.

    By the way, a little info on how involuntary admissions work. A concerned person can apply to a medical professional to have someone assessed. This professional is usually a GP. The medical professional has to examine within 24 hours and can recommend admitting to hospital. There a consultant psychiatrist must examine within 24 hours and can determine if the patient can be detained based on the very stringent criteria as outlined above. Theres stuff about mental health tribunals and the like which I have no experience in so I wont comment on.
    But the mental health act specifically disallows detaining someone who:
    1) has a personality disorder
    2) Is socially deviant or
    3) is addicted to drugs or intoxicants.


  • #8870
    PhoneMain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭PhoneMain


    Sardonicat wrote: »
    She put her hand up to his face and removed his mask.


    That's hardly serious harm.


  • #8871
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,810 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    PhoneMain wrote: »
    Fair enough if that's what you think but what makes you think I'm not? I could give you my MCRN but I'm not identifying myself on an anomymous website.

    I'll refer you to the thread in AH about people who tell you how honest they are

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058131039

    Anyone who starts unprompted waffling on about how honest they are or their career immediately sets alarm bells ringing


  • Advertisement
  • #8872
    Killinator
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,479 ✭✭✭Killinator


    PhoneMain wrote: »
    That's hardly serious harm.

    Would it be correct as well to state that it doesn't matter even if you did consider that serious harm as Dr has to assess in person and the person being assessed has to be an immediate risk there and then, not from some previous time.

    No doubt that if you got a doctor to assess her she would be able to act perfectly normal to the point no Dr could say she was an immediate threat to herself or others.


  • #8873
    ancapailldorcha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,370 ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    PhoneMain wrote: »
    That's hardly serious harm.

    It's completely unacceptable in the middle of a pandemic. I wouldn't be averse to considering it a form of assault. Why you're defending this is beyond me frankly.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #8874
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,458 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    PhoneMain wrote: »
    That's hardly serious harm.

    No? If she did it to my Dad she''d get a lesson in serious harm. You dont see the implicit threat in touching someone's face and face covering? You say you're a Dr. If someone did that to you,you'd be fine with it, yes?


  • #8875
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,296 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    It's completely unacceptable in the middle of a pandemic. I wouldn't be averse to considering it a form of assault. Why you're defending this is beyond me frankly.

    if she put her hand to his face and removed his mask that is definitely assault.


  • #8876
    PhoneMain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭PhoneMain


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    I'll refer you to the thread in AH about people who tell you how honest they are

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058131039

    Anyone who starts unprompted waffling on about how honest they are or their career immediately sets alarm bells ringing


    I was saying that in the context of the point I was making - that people on here with no medical or psychiatric experience is diagnosing someone they've never met with a condition they know very little about and talking about dealing with them in ways that has very serious consequences. Sure feck it, we will throw electro convulsive therapy at Gemma as well, for the craic like.


  • #8877
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,810 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    This is it wrote: »
    I'm fairness, a quick look at their posting history would suggest they're telling the truth. Unless they were playing the long game, which would be pretty impressive :)

    Damn. Now i'll have to offer an apology! :p;)


  • #8878
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,810 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    PhoneMain wrote: »
    I was saying that in the context of the point I was making - that people on here with no medical or psychiatric experience is diagnosing someone they've never met with a condition they know very little about and talking about dealing with them in ways that has very serious consequences. Sure feck it, we will throw electro convulsive therapy at Gemma as well, for the craic like.

    OK, so you're a doctor (shakes fist at This is it) but no one has ACTUALLY diagnosed her. We've all just said she's freaking crackers! :pac:

    Your post that kicked this off was in response to a question asked about how does it happen.

    My response to you was that she was potentially putting that gentleman in harm.

    As for do I think she should be locked up? Well yeah, I do. And I've no problem about saying that. But us astronauts up here have no real say in it :D


  • #8879
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,472 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    PhoneMain wrote: »
    I was saying that in the context of the point I was making - that people on here with no medical or psychiatric experience is diagnosing someone they've never met with a condition they know very little about and talking about dealing with them in ways that has very serious consequences. Sure feck it, we will throw electro convulsive therapy at Gemma as well, for the craic like.

    Yeah, cos that's been suggested on here... bit of a slippery slope argument, there, really.

    Absolutely, you're correct, none of us can formally diagnose her.

    But when someone is posting videos on the internet claiming that there's something up with the sky, chemtrails are there to control us, council workers cleaning the streets and traffic wardens are agents of fascism, "Muslim curry", and the IRA was really MI5 (to name just a few bat**** pronouncements!) then the only reasonable conclusion is yes, there's something up.

    When those pronouncements result in real harm to completely innocent bystanders (and she has absolutely fomented hate against completely innocent bystanders, including children) then you might understand why people want something done! Within the law, obviously.

    ===
    boards.ie default cookie settings now include "legitimate interest" for >200 companies, unless you specifically opted out!



  • #8880
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,458 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    Yeah, cos that's been suggested on here... bit of a slippery slope argument, there, really.

    Absolutely, you're correct, none of us can formally diagnose her.

    But when someone is posting videos on the internet claiming that there's something up with the sky, chemtrails are there to control us, council workers cleaning the streets and traffic wardens are agents of fascism, "Muslim curry", and the IRA was really MI5 (to name just a few bat**** pronouncements!) then the only reasonable conclusion is yes, there's something up.

    When those pronouncements result in real harm to completely innocent bystanders (and she has absolutely fomented hate against completely innocent bystanders, including children) then you might understand why people want something done! Within the law, obviously.

    Not to mention the harm this is doing to the woman herself. Really, if a friend or even a patient told you that she noticed most of the net curtains in a particular town displayed hidden symbols and indicated that the residents of that town pose a threat to the general population would you not at least gently suggest that she might want to talk to someone qualified to help her get to the bottom of why she believes that? One or two odd beliefs is one thing. Beliefs that have caused a rift with your family, rendered you unemployable and lead you to publicly incite hatred to others indicate someone who is drowning mentally. How sick does someone have to get before they get help?


  • Advertisement
  • #8881
    PhoneMain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭PhoneMain


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    It's completely unacceptable in the middle of a pandemic. I wouldn't be averse to considering it a form of assault. Why you're defending this is beyond me frankly.


    I'm not defending her behaviour. I'm stating the reasons why its not appropriate to involuntary detain this person based on the limited actions we have seen of her on social media. I think it's reprehensible what she's doing and the way she carries on e.g. the abuse she gave to that family on the lidl ad or the kids in longford. I disagree with their viewpoint on Covid and am all for public health safety measures (facemasks, hand washing and social distancing). However, I am trying to point out to people who keep saying to "lock her up" is that her behaviour as evidenced by social media doesnt warrant what in actuality is a very serious thing to do. I worked in psych and had numerous lectures in a brief period of time of the powers and, most importantly, limitations of the mental health act. And as I said, rightly so, you dont want someone locked up easily, this happened very easily in this country (and across the world) in the past e.g. mother and child homes, long term psychiatric facilities.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement