Can we have some fcuking control on the airports from high risk countries please?

Away With The Fairies · 04-04-2021 08:23PM

Cunning Stunt wrote: »

What happened to the other thread on this? I cant find it.
News says they didnt even get the procedures done after travelling there?

That's because it was a lie. They were caught out. So they needed a reasonable excuse, ah yeah medical procedures.

I wonder would they actually look into this and find out that there was never any procedures booked, so they decided to say that they decided to not go ahead with it... Despite one of them going over for corrective surgery.

They have so much holes in their story and none of it adding up.

mcgragger · 04-04-2021 08:28PM

How did they even get to the airport?

Thats more than 5km from the ****hole they come from.

This episode above all else in Covid has me fuming.
Everything about what they did is a big FC*K you to the rest of us that followed the rules for over a year.

arctictree · 04-04-2021 08:30PM

You kind of wonder would any if this happen if they entered another country and asked to quarantine? Imagine going to the US or Australia and starting high court challenges etc...

johnire · 04-04-2021 08:35PM

That’s exactly what I thought of today. If they didn’t get the procedure done then what happened that money?

Cunning Stunt wrote: »

What happened to the other thread on this? I cant find it.
News says they didnt even get the procedures done after travelling there?
Edit - just wondering how they couldnt pay for quarantine or bail if they hadnt usedtheir op monies...:/

AlekSmart · 04-04-2021 08:38PM

Cunning Stunt wrote: »

What happened to the other thread on this? I cant find it.
News says they didnt even get the procedures done after travelling there?
Edit - just wondering how they couldnt pay for quarantine or bail if they hadnt usedtheir op monies...:/

It appears to have become an ecumenical matter...........;)

Red Silurian · 04-04-2021 08:43PM

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Which they never had, so it looks like repeat of the Canary dentist essential scam

Small difference - seeing a dentist is an essential medical procedure... Can the same be said for silicone implants?

Cunning Stunt · 04-04-2021 08:46PM

So if there were no OPs planned, why were they in Dubai twice in last few weeks?

basill · 04-04-2021 08:48PM

mcgragger wrote: »

How did they even get to the airport?

Thats more than 5km from the ****hole they come from.

This episode above all else in Covid has me fuming.
Everything about what they did is a big FC*K you to the rest of us that followed the rules for over a year.

5km is for exercise only and its commonly misunderstood. How else would someone in Kerry get to Dublin airport to undertake an essential journey? Grannies grave up in Ballybackendofnowhere? And your support bubbler doesn't have to be within 5km either. There are lots of exemptions.

Away With The Fairies · 04-04-2021 08:50PM

Cunning Stunt wrote: »

So if there were no OPs planned, why were they in Dubai twice in last few weeks?

Nice family to fund two trips.

NSAman · 04-04-2021 08:50PM

Cunning Stunt wrote: »

So if there were no OPs planned, why were they in Dubai twice in last few weeks?

Now don’t be asking probing questions like that. We have Gardai for that and social welfare inspectors.... will it ever be known? Of course it WON’T

Red Silurian · 04-04-2021 08:52PM

basill wrote: »

5km is for exercise only and its commonly misunderstood. How else would someone in Kerry get to Dublin airport to undertake an essential journey? Grannies grave up in Ballybackendofnowhere? And your support bubbler doesn't have to be within 5km either. There are lots of exemptions.

Is a boob job considered an essential journey?

Ace2007 · 04-04-2021 08:55PM

Red Silurian wrote: »

Is a boob job considered an essential journey?

There was something that the two can appeal the quarantine, but I think given the amount of holes in their story that they won't appeal it and will leave it whatever the high court are looking into.

Appealing could open them up to having to produce documents and evidence of this so call operation? I'm sure the Garda have already being in contact with the hospitals out in Dubai to see how accurate their story is - most likely it is complete BS.

Red Silurian · 04-04-2021 09:05PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

There was something that the two can appeal the quarantine, but I think given the amount of holes in their story that they won't appeal it and will leave it whatever the high court are looking into.

Appealing could open them up to having to produce documents and evidence of this so call operation? I'm sure the Garda have already being in contact with the hospitals out in Dubai to see how accurate their story is - most likely it is complete BS.

Well it's only fair in a democracy that laws can be properly challenged and appealed but to give credit to the govt (not something I often do) it looks like the hotel quarantine legislation is water tight and any appeals are likely to fail

04-04-2021 09:24PM

Red Silurian wrote: »

Small difference - seeing a dentist is an essential medical procedure... Can the same be said for silicone implants?

There's absolutely nothing in the legislation which says it has to be an essential medical procedure.

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I'm actually pro-authority with conditions - those conditions namely being that measures taken should be proportional, consistent and balancing public health with individual liberty ONLY.

Here's a summary of what I support vs what we have:

Mandatory centralised quarantine for anyone testing positive

Why is it a good idea? People who test positive will be immediately taken into quarantine and unable to spread the infection. While in quarantine, they will be fed, checked on regularly by health care professionals and if they do not have symptoms, have designated exercise hours away from other people.

Just to clarify your position here, if a five year old tests positive for Covid, you want them taken away from their family and imprisoned in isolation?

Ace2007 · 04-04-2021 09:27PM

b0nk1e wrote: »

There's absolutely nothing in the legislation which says it has to be an essential medical procedure.

But they didn't go for a medical procedure- they went on holidays.

MissShihTzu · 04-04-2021 09:28PM

According to the Examiner, these women went for 'cosmetic procedures', which were in fact not done. So they went on holiday then.

All paid for by family whiprounds. How the defence lawyers told the judge all that with a straight face, I have no idea.

Beechwoodspark · 04-04-2021 09:29PM

MissShihTzu wrote: »

According to the Examiner, these women went for 'cosmetic procedures', which were in fact not done. So they went on holiday then.

All paid for by family whiprounds. How the defence lawyers told the judge all that with a straight face, I have no idea.

Hmmmm

More cynical ppl might wonder if they went to deliver something to notorious gangsters who live over there.....

04-04-2021 09:32PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

But they didn't go for a medical procedure- they went on holidays.

The fact that no medical procedure took place doesn't necessarily mean they didn't go for a medical procedure.

The doctor scheduled to do the operation could have dropped dead of a heart attack the morning before. A dog could have savaged one of them on their way into the boob job centre. The police could have pulled them over for speeding and they missed their appointments.

The fact is, you simply don't know. You're pontificating, and you're speculating, and your curtains are twitching like Harry Redknapp on speed.

Ace2007 · 04-04-2021 09:33PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Hmmmm

More cynical ppl might wonder if they went to deliver something to notorious gangsters who live over there.....

Well it safe to say that they won't be going out to Dubai again any time soon regardless - Indeed their actions may have drawn attention to anyone else randomly going to Dubai at this time of the year.

If they didn't get the cosmetic surgery done - where did this money go to? Or was it just a cover story that has holes in it.

MissShihTzu · 04-04-2021 09:34PM

b0nk1e wrote: »

The fact that no medical procedure took place doesn't necessarily mean they didn't go for a medical procedure.

The doctor scheduled to do the operation could have dropped dead of a heart attack the morning before. A dog could have savaged one of them on their way into the boob job centre. The police could have pulled them over for speeding and they missed their appointments.

The fact is, you simply don't know. You're pontificating, and you're speculating, and your curtains are twitching like Harry Redknapp on speed.

Huh??:rolleyes:

04-04-2021 09:35PM

MissShihTzu wrote: »

Huh??:rolleyes:

I said, the fact that no medical procedure took place doesn't necessarily mean they didn't go for a medical procedure.

The doctor scheduled to do the operation could have dropped dead of a heart attack the morning before. A dog could have savaged one of them on their way into the boob job centre. The police could have pulled them over for speeding and they missed their appointments.

The fact is, Ace2007 simply doesn't know. Ace2007 is pontificating, and Ace2007 is speculating, and Ace2007's curtains are twitching like Harry Redknapp on speed.

Ace2007 · 04-04-2021 09:36PM

b0nk1e wrote: »

The fact that no medical procedure took place doesn't necessarily mean they didn't go for a medical procedure.

The doctor scheduled to do the operation could have dropped dead of a heart attack the morning before. A dog could have savaged one of them on their way into the boob job centre. The police could have pulled them over for speeding and they missed their appointments.

The fact is, you simply don't know. You're pontificating, and you're speculating, and your curtains are twitching like Harry Redknapp on speed.

So if say any of the above is true, they will need to go out a third time - how are they going to pay for that - given that they are broke?

04-04-2021 09:40PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

So if say any of the above is true, they will need to go out a third time - how are they going to pay for that - given that they are broke?

Maybe they'll get a loan. Maybe they'll get an overdraft. Maybe they'll be fortunate enough to get further gifts from family and friends. Maybe Katie Price will read of their plight and pay for it.

However they do, it's not one iota of your business. This is nothing more than jealousy marinated in nosiness.

Red Silurian · 04-04-2021 09:41PM

b0nk1e wrote: »

There's absolutely nothing in the legislation which says it has to be an essential medical procedure.

Leaving the country is only supposed to be done for certain reasons, of which essential medical procedures are included

b0nk1e wrote: »

Just to clarify your position here, if a five year old tests positive for Covid, you want them taken away from their family and imprisoned in isolation?

I would assume that a 5 year old who tests positive would be taken to isolation with his or her household and most of the close contacts... Any attempt at quarantining positive cases must also include quarantining close contacts

04-04-2021 09:46PM

Red Silurian wrote: »

Leaving the country is only supposed to be done for certain reasons, of which essential medical procedures are included

You are wrong, in fact and in law. The word "essential" does not appear in the legislation. The legislation allows for people to leave the State for the purposes of medical procedures.

You are confused between "you must only travel outside the State for essential reasons", and a permitted reason being a medical appointment. Any medical appointment, by definition, is therefore considered essential for the purpose of travel.

That's the legislation.

Red Silurian wrote: »

I would assume that a 5 year old who tests positive would be taken to isolation with his or her household and most of the close contacts... Any attempt at quarantining positive cases must also include quarantining close contacts

Right, so we're now into collective preventative detention. That's absolutely wild. Within about ten minutes we've spiralled from "anyone who tests positive for Covid must be imprisoned" to "anyone who tests positive for Covid must be imprisoned. And their children. And their children's children. Regardless of whether they test positive or not".

Ace2007 · 04-04-2021 09:47PM

b0nk1e wrote: »

Maybe they'll get a loan. Maybe they'll get an overdraft. Maybe they'll be fortunate enough to get further gifts from family and friends. Maybe Katie Price will read of their plight and pay for it.

However they do, it's not one iota of your business. This is nothing more than jealousy marinated in nosiness.

Well it's safe to say that if they do go out again they'll have to pay for quarantine cause no judge is going to believe they are broke if they travel back out.

Must be right pain in the hole for their family and friends in Dubai all this heat coming onto them - guards looking into what they were up to, who they stayed with, purpose of trip, who paid hotels etc.

Can see that it's stirred you right up and all.

Sono Topolino · 04-04-2021 09:49PM

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So then I'm back to asking how so and on what basis.

Interested to hear the answer and see how it compares to the final decision considering the application was changed after a reduced bail was agreed by both sides. So we should see if it is declared unconstitutional soon enough

I have already answered why it is unconstitutional. For some reason you are under the impression I agreed with you that it's not unconstitutional, but I have explained that it violates Article 40.03 and 40.04.

Interestingly, as late as 3 February 2021 the Taoiseach was claiming that MHQ for Irish citizens was unconstitutional. He has since changed his tune, and we'll see soon whether this is correct.

The counter argument is that personal rights in the Constitution are subordinate to the public good. The Supreme Court in the past has permitted the government to restrict fundamental rights in the name of the public good. This was acknowledged in Ryan v Attorney General [1965]. However, there is a strict proportionality test that must be met, and this was set out by Costello J. in Heaney v Ireland [1994]. In order to justify restraining personal rights and liberties of citizens, a measure must meet all of the following criteria:

Pursue an objective of sufficient importance.
Be rationally connected to that objective, and not unfair or arbitrary.
Impair the right as little as possible.

Clearly the objective being pursued is of sufficient importance, and arguably it impairs rights as little as possible (being that the quarantine period is determined by scientific data). However, as I have alrady stated - the measure is both unfair and arbitrary in that the designation of countries in Category 2 is arbitrary and not based on the science.

The government has undermined itself repeatedly in its public pronouncements on this. No doubt the barristers representing these two women will be combing over everything Simon Coveney, Micheál Martin, Stephen Donnelly and NPHET have said publicly about the Category 2 countries.

Ergo I argue that this particular quarantine law is unconstitutional by my understanding of the constitution and case law. Now the ultimate decision is in the hands of the court, but hopefully this explains my reasoning to your satisfaction.

gozunda · 04-04-2021 09:50PM

Alast wrote: »

The law is wrong.
You have a higher chance getting COVID in the wild in Ireland then contracting it on the plane.
Everybody on the plane was tested negative before being allowed to board.

Stating the "law is wrong does not mean the law is wrong.

PCR testing is a snap shot of someone's infection status at a single point in time. It does not mean someone can't catch Covid whilst in transit, at the Airport or whilst flying etc. There are also known false negatives.

The law on hotel quarantine is meant to make sure such cases don't slip through the system after arrival.

3 such cases have already been detected in the Hotel Quarantine system to date.

Alast wrote: »

Also what is the point is of MHQ if COVID is rampant in Ireland.

This system will have NO impact in daily COVID cases

Covid is indeed here. We currently have a relatively low rate of infection compared to many other countries. The issue atm is countries of high incident and and those with variants of concern. Those countries in the current list are countries where a number of such varients and / or a high incidence rate are known.

The very first known cases arrived in Ireland via international travel and subsequently via community spread. The introduction of these new variants already here can be contained by current level 5 restrictions. That said it remains - that it makes sense to keep additional cases from being introduced

04-04-2021 09:51PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

Well it's safe to say that if they do go out again they'll have to pay for quarantine cause no judge is going to believe they are broke if they travel back out.

Must be right pain in the hole for their family and friends in Dubai all this heat coming onto them - guards looking into what they were up to, who they stayed with, purpose of trip, who paid hotels etc.

Can see that it's stirred you right up and all.

Why on earth do you think the gardaí will be looking into any of this?

Just because you've lost the run of yourself doesn't mean anyone else has. They clearly satisfied the gardaí on their outward journey that they had a legitimate reason for travel.

When they apply for legal aid, the Legal Aid Board might look into their finances.

You are in absolute hysterics over this and have whipped yourself up into a frenzy. The idea that this is going to be some Enemy of the State-esque investigation, with guards talking to UAE counterparts through earpieces and seizing bank statements and hotel bookings is just pure and utter fantasy.

This needs to stop.

Lmkrnr · 04-04-2021 09:53PM

A CT scan ect is a medical procedure right? As is an X-ray. If one books either of those in a private clinic in any countr they are exempt. Pretty silly law tbf.

Can we have some fcuking control on the airports from high risk countries please?

Comments