Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IX *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

The Nal wrote: »

Theres no presumption of innocence. If there was he wouldn't have been charged.

He is innocent until convicted. No presumed innocent or presumed guilty about it.

Either way, (I dont mean you) good boring to see the usual "RTE/Gardai suppressing our right to protest" sh1te being trotted out again. Same with the Jobstown protests.

I mean, its almost like if you fire off an explosive in a persons face or keep an elderly women trapped in a car while an angry mob block the road and throw stuff, you're labelled a prat. And thats the game.

Presumption of innocence is the name of the legal principle.

Presumption of Innocence

Its supposed to protect everyone. Do you think that if you yourself were arrested for something you didn't do it might come in handy?

Is The Nal entitled to the presumption of innocence?

timmyntc wrote: »

The Minister is accountable to the public - the CMO is not.
This is why we have ministers in the first place to head up Departments - otherwise we would just let high-ranking civil servants run the country unopposed.


In fact what is happening right now with Holohan & the govt is a prime example of why Ministers should always take charge of the Department. Because if everything is left to the civil servants, there is no accountability. The govt have deferred responsiblity onto NPHET, and NPHET are not publically electable so have no consequences for their actions.

There is also the added issue that the HSE is one of the biggest buyers of ad space in the State at the moment (fairly prolific spenders in ordinary times also)...so we have representatives of the dysfunctional Health Department facing a media industry desperate for their ad spend.

SAMTALK wrote: »

Not according to the videos. I would imagine the media wouldnt take any chances unless there was a certainty of which there is

Thats the point! Even if we are 99% sure its him and he's guilty, he is still entitled to the presumption of innocence up to the point he is convicted.

Anyways this is going well off-topic so its the last I'll be saying on the matter

growleaves wrote: »

Presumption of innocence is the name of the legal principle.

Presumption of Innocence

Its supposed to protect everyone. Do you think that if you yourself were arrested for something you didn't do it might come in handy?

Is The Nal entitled to the presumption of innocence?

No, no one is. Im entitled to be innocent or guilty. Not presumed innocent or guilty. This lad is innocent. I don't presume hes innocent or guilty, legally. Nor should the media. Just that hes been charged.

From the link you provided - "The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer"

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, you could try an add something worthwhile, you've been here long enough!!!

But what he said is correct in fairness

You'd think from this thread that Tony Holohan on his own was overseeing everything to do with the Pandemic ( or at least the things people dont like or agree with )

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well, it would be easy to point to Tony's successes after a year of this then, I'm talking specifics, what has he done that you can point to that we could agree was a success, besides pushing us into the longest lock down in Europe that is, start with care homes, what has Tony done to deserve credit for protecting the most vulnerable people in this country to this virus?

His job is to advise the Government,

I'm not saying I agree with everything that has been done but the hate towards the man is ridiculous.

I wouldnt be his biggest fan but it's way over the top at the minute

SAMTALK wrote: »

His job is to advise the Government,

I'm not saying I agree with everything that has been done but the hate towards the man is ridiculous.

I wouldnt be his biggest fan but it's way over the top at the minute

Look at the hate that the honest protesters had to put up with, or the young people in Limerick last night, we are a divided country and it was Tony Houlihan who is the principle driver of that with his inability to recommend policies other than severe lock downs and our Government who have facilitated it.

He gets paid the big bucks with a golden pension, I wouldn't worry about Tony!

Criticism does not equate to hate either, the man has been a disaster, but it is not personal.

washman3 wrote: »

'yer man' is John McGurk. .

John 'Gript' McGuirk?

Yeah, no thanks...

timmyntc wrote: »

You're missing the point - if he gets found innocent, he has already had his reputation ruined by the national broadcaster.

If he were to be found innocent - im sure he will have fun suing boards.ie and the member above for posting his photo

Edit: not timmyntc - rather the poster who published his photo

The Nal wrote: »

Well ask and you shall receive!

HSE misses 100,000 vaccine dose target for last week


Hi RTE editor!

Meanwhile the UK announces another 10m fresh doses just arrived. One wonders why Ireland still considers itself a key player in EU, perhaps it would be better adopting the same attitude as Hungary and Czech Republic - and purchasing some Sputnik for our elderly. Perhaps they could take some of the massive warehoused supplies of AZ off the German and French hands - given that there is considerable reluctance to accept this vaccine there?

SAMTALK wrote: »

His job is to advise the Government,

I'm not saying I agree with everything that has been done but the hate towards the man is ridiculous.

I wouldnt be his biggest fan but it's way over the top at the minute

The problem is that NPHET can be seen to dominate government thinking. They are front and centre of the state response, manning press conferences etc.. 
They show no interest whatsoever in balance. Their only objective is to minimise the direct impact of COVID-19, which is absolutely fine if they are one of many sets of advisors, but they get a profile that no other advisors do.  

They should not have allowed that to happen to themselves. That they haven't withdrawn themselves from the public eye and focused on being advisors. Instead they push their narrow view on the public repeatedly. This is decisive in the public sphere.

That they haven't themselves identified this as a problem, should tell you everything you need to know about the personalities involved. I'd have no problem with the CMO being at a press conference and giving a scientific view on occasion. But the way in which he dominates is ridiculous. 

ArthurDayne wrote: »

A very good post — though my response would be that all those things are broad and long term — and there is an element here where your argument seems to be elevated to a level above the tangible human experience. What I mean by that is, yes, socioeconomic destruction leads ultimately to society moving towards fundamental changes which can be beneficial — but while that economic theory plays out there are real people and real communities suffering who bear the cost of that suffering for many years and perhaps a lifetime. Socioeconomic problems cannot simply be confined to a zero-sum game where we say “business die and others take their place” — they come with all manner of adverse consequences on individual peoples’ lives and the communities they inhabit that do not necessarily abate when the good times roll back around.

My interpretation of your argument is that socioeconomic disaster is effectively cancelled out by recovery — that the pain precipitates progress. I’m getting the impression that you veer that way, and forgive me if I’m taking liberties, because it provides a better basis on which to maintain that the lockdown strategy was justified. If you remove the tangible human experience of socioeconomic depression from the equation, then socioeconomic problems are little more than abstract themes — and thus it becomes much easier to defend lockdown — because ultimately it is very difficult to pose the abstract against the very real loss of life. But it is an unfair way to pose the matter — because socioeconomic depression also has a humanitarian cost — and this is not abstract or philosophical. It causes misery, it affects the quality of life of many, it breaks households and families, it pushes many towards crime, it causes conflict — and indeed it can ultimately lead to death both directly and indirectly.

I‘ve always been quick to confess that my views on lockdown give rise to difficult moral calls, and I have to accept that the implementation of my views would cause death. Having said that, if people think lockdown was a price worth paying to save lives, I think they must be realistic enough to accept that it will come at a humanitarian cost (even if they think that cost does not outweigh things) and brave enough to admit that the implementation of their view will likewise cause death in different ways — instead of just saying that economies will recover and therefore it’s all OK. To me, the argument of “bad things inevitably happen anyway and lead to good things” is not satisfactory and could almost be applied to any disaster humanity has encountered — and I am not sure you would accept it if I used the same premise to defend my own views.

The public discussion has fallen down throughout the pandemic because it has failed to properly emphasise that we are balancing risks, as we are with the recurring conversations around lockdown restrictions and school reopenings. We should do more to acknowledge that there are no good options, only trade offs between different downsides. As a result, instead of recognising the difficulty of the situation, we have had too much of people on one side accusing the other side of being callous and uncaring.

I accept my blame in that at times.

To open up to the extent and speed demanded in this thread at all points would have increased the death toll and the pressure on the health service. Not to the extent originally estimated this time last year, sure - but leagues beyond what we have seen even in mid January. Would this have reduced those claiming PUP and saved some businesses and by extension reduced what you describe as the "tangible socioeconomic and humanitarian cost", sure - but not to the extent sometimes imagined in this thread. My position has always been that consumer confidence would be through the floor if our health service became overwhelmed and we were necessarily applying battlefield triage in our hospitals. People may be free to go to the bar in such a context, but my bet is they wouldn't to a dramatic extent that would sweep away jobs and businesses just the same.

This is where there are no good options. I have stated numerous times on this thread that I understand the economic reality for hospitality and service industry businesses. Many businesses will close and many specific jobs are lost forever. I think it was necessary (and again I think many of these would have gone anyway because of rock bottom consumer confidence, but hey ho - we may not agree there). I accept that this causes great pain and distress and will set back the lives of thousands. But financial strife can be recovered in time. The dead cannot rise again, and the anguish felt by their friends and family left behind can never be assuaged.

So ultimately I accept your view point. I disagree with it but I would not attempt to belittle it or pretend it is incorrect. It is real and tangible and most definitely the lived experience of a huge portion of the 25% of the workforce receiving PUP. You are willing to see a higher death toll as a trade off, and I think that is an arguable position.

Where this thread really falls down is when people pretend that we can reopen without an increase in severe illness and death. Or that we can reopen and save all those jobs and businesses, that somehow we can just wish things to be normal and it will be normal through sheer force of will. This is where the conversation becomes delusional. As delusional as zero covid in the context of our border arrangement with the U.K. is. I'm tired of the extremes on either side, as I'm sure you are too.

In the end, we all need to try and be more realistic and positive for the last few months of this thing. There is too much talk in the media about variants and too much comparisons of vaccine efficacy (even the worst vaccines to hand for Covid so far would be considered significant break throughs for other diseases). And any chat about restrictions next winter or what people won't be able to do after they're vaccinated needs to outright get in the sea.

We're really close to a clean exit from this mess. We can't undo the harm caused to livelihoods or long term health and we can't bring the dead back to life. But we absolutely must look forward to the post covid world with a positive and optimistic mindset. What other way is there to be?

Deleted User wrote: »

It's no secret by this point that I think this level of restriction is and has been the wrong response. I think the right of people to peacefully protest is sacrosanct and it was heartening to see how many people were willing to take to the streets on Saturday and make themselves heard. I also support non-violent civil disobedience when the moment calls for it.

That said, the very second that a person aims an explosive device at the face of a police officer and lets it pop off, all bets are off. That individual should be prosecuted and jailed, and the people who were in favour of the protest in the first place should be angrier with that guy than anyone else, because he has provided the front page "bad people" narrative that was needed to wipe out the message of the protestors at large. Like it or not, that's how these things go. A couple of scrappy scenes at the front lines are expected. A firework aimed deliberately and maliciously at someone's face is most certainly not.

You should also be glad that he will not be able to attend the next protest, and I hope the protestors will have learned that when you attend a peaceful protest it behooves you to make sure it stays that way. Be on the lookout for trouble makers and violent actors, and rally people to help you deliver them to the police when you see them. If you want your message to get across at a time when the media are financially incentivised to ignore it, you have to be responsible for preserving it.

I agree with you but why protest in Dublin why nor organise them everywhere and anwhere you live. Get the message out to newspapers, local/national radio about the protest and do it by social distancing (certainly those against the current lockdown are not against that)

Responder XY wrote: »

The problem is that NPHET can be seen to dominate government thinking. They are front and centre of the state response, manning press conferences etc.. 
They show no interest whatsoever in balance. Their only objective is to minimise the direct impact of COVID-19, which is absolutely fine if they are one of many sets of advisors, but they get a profile that no other advisors do.  

They should not have allowed that to happen to themselves. That they haven't withdrawn themselves from the public eye and focused on being advisors. Instead they push their narrow view on the public repeatedly. This is decisive in the public sphere.

That they haven't themselves identified this as a problem, should tell you everything you need to know about the personalities involved. I'd have no problem with the CMO being at a press conference and giving a scientific view on occasion. But the way in which he dominates is ridiculous. 

Well give out to those who make them do these conferences or do you think they demanded it this way. They give there advice and what should happen (a lot I may not agree with by the way) but its the government (and all other parties bar social democrats) who agree all there recommendations should be followed to the letter