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

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

1…130131133135136…212

Comments

  • #3962
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,875 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    So the upshot of all this is that if you can afford a flight to Ireland the government will pay for your 2 weeks in a hotel.


    Tis a great country we are running.


  • #3963
    standardg60
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭standardg60


    b0nk1e wrote: »
    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.

    Lol, and you're indulging in none of that!
    The simple fact is that none of what you're speculating was produced as evidence in court. The cosmetic procedure reason was quickly withdrawn, as i'm sure enquiries quickly established wasn't the reason for travel.
    There is more to this case than meets the eye, something which you seem determined to pre-dismiss.
    What is it?


  • #3964
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 232 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lmkrnr wrote: »
    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.

    It's not so much that it's a silly law. It's quite a reasonable aspiration in terms of trying to stop people travelling abroad (I believe I am obliged here to add the tautology) during a global pandemic.

    The problem is that it was drafted by a Minister of dubious legitimacy, and one who has a fatal mixture of hubris, arrogance, and incompetence, and can be circumvented by any citizen with access to a computer.


  • #3965
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 232 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    standardg60 wrote: »
    Lol, and you're indulging in none of that!
    The simple fact is that none of what you're speculating was produced as evidence in court. The cosmetic procedure reason was quickly withdrawn, as i'm sure enquiries quickly established wasn't the reason for travel.
    There is more to this case than meets the eye, something which you seem determined to pre-dismiss.
    What is it?

    You are fundamentally misunderstanding the reason for the court case and the outcome being sought.

    This is not a trial into whether the women had a legitimate reason for leaving the country.


  • #3966
    Ace2007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,029 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    b0nk1e wrote: »
    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.

    Not one bit - your the one calling me out - you could choose not to reply.

    You don't need a legitimate reason to fly, but without one there will be a €500 fine when you get back. So now the guards will look into their reasons for going out - given they didn't get any medical treatment - so if they are found to have lied on way out they could have that fine coming their way.

    Like I said you seem to be getting very hot headed about this - a personal interest in the case perhaps.


  • Advertisement
  • #3967
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 232 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    Not one bit - your the one calling me out - you could choose not to reply.

    You don't need a legitimate reason to fly, but without one there will be a €500 fine when you get back. So now the guards will look into their reasons for going out - given they didn't get any medical treatment - so if they are found to have lied on way out they could have that fine coming their way.

    Like I said you seem to be getting very hot headed about this - a personal interest in the case perhaps.

    No personal interest in the case at all. Just a frustration with curtain-twitchers losing the run of themselves and thinking they're internet detectives.

    Would you actually look at yourself, look at the state you have yourself in.

    Far too many people in this country are far too interested in other people's business.

    Wash your hands.

    Wear your mask.

    Mind your business.


  • #3968
    Sono Topolino
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 509 ✭✭✭Sono Topolino


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    Not one bit - your the one calling me out - you could choose not to reply.

    You don't need a legitimate reason to fly, but without one there will be a €500 fine when you get back. So now the guards will look into their reasons for going out - given they didn't get any medical treatment - so if they are found to have lied on way out they could have that fine coming their way.

    Like I said you seem to be getting very hot headed about this - a personal interest in the case perhaps.

    The problem here is that the crime is committed at the point at which you leave the country. Therefore, your intention at the point at which you leave the country is what matters. If you intend to fly to Dubai for breast enhancement surgery, and upon arriving in Dubai you decide that you no longer want that surgery, no crime has been committed. It's only a crime if you lied about your intentions.

    It would be immensely hard to prove that the intention was never sincerely held. I mean, maybe having arrived in Dubai you decided for one reason or another that you don't want the surgery - the doctor didn't seem trustworthy, the clinic didn't seem sanitary, or your friends convinced you that it was a bad idea...

    All of this means that as a cover story, breast enhancement surgery is a good option - as a lot of women decide at the last minute not to go through with it.


  • #3969
    Ace2007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,029 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    b0nk1e wrote: »
    No personal interest in the case at all. Just a frustration with curtain-twitchers losing the run of themselves and thinking they're internet detectives.

    Would you actually look at yourself, look at the state you have yourself in.

    Far too many people in this country are far too interested in other people's business.

    Wash your hands.

    Wear your mask.

    Mind your business.

    Like i said your the one replying to my posts, why don't you just mind your own business and if others want to chat about these two then they are allowed to.


  • #3970
    standardg60
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭standardg60


    b0nk1e wrote: »
    You are fundamentally misunderstanding the reason for the court case and the outcome being sought.

    This is not a trial into whether the women had a legitimate reason for leaving the country.

    You're right, it isn't, but you've very quickly ignored the fact you were waxing lyrical about it a couple of posts ago.
    Also you have no evidence they satisfied any guard as to their reason for travel on their way out, but if it is established that they did indeed furnish evidence of a medical procedure which subsequently did not proceed, then they are open to the initial fine for non-essential travel, in which case the reasons for the non procedure would be relevant. They did not refer to these reasons.

    Would you not agree?


  • #3971
    standardg60
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭standardg60


    b0nk1e wrote: »
    No personal interest in the case at all. Just a frustration with curtain-twitchers losing the run of themselves and thinking they're internet detectives.

    Would you actually look at yourself, look at the state you have yourself in.

    Far too many people in this country are far too interested in other people's business.

    Wash your hands.

    Wear your mask.

    Mind your business.

    You are quickly losing any semblance of being impartial to this thread if you continue to denigrate posters themselves rather than their opinions.


  • Advertisement
  • #3972
    gally74
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,949 ✭✭✭gally74


    Sono Topolino wrote: »
    The problem here is that the crime is committed at the point at which you leave the country. Therefore, your intention at the point at which you leave the country is what matters. If you intend to fly to Dubai for breast enhancement surgery, and upon arriving in Dubai you decide that you no longer want that surgery, no crime has been committed. It's only a crime if you lied about your intentions.

    It would be immensely hard to prove that the intention was never sincerely held. I mean, maybe having arrived in Dubai you decided for one reason or another that you don't want the surgery - the doctor didn't seem trustworthy, the clinic didn't seem sanitary, or your friends convinced you that it was a bad idea...

    All of this means that as a cover story, breast enhancement surgery is a good option - as a lot of women decide at the last minute not to go through with it.

    When did travel become a crime?

    Country had lost the plot,


  • #3973
    gally74
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,949 ✭✭✭gally74


    Table 5: Number of confirmed COVID-19 cases by most likely transmission source notified from 19/03/2021 to midnight 01/04/2021
    Most likely transmission source Number of cases
    Percent
    Travel related* 148
    1.87%
    Close contact with a known confirmed case 3,930
    49.53%
    Healthcare setting acquired: patient 120
    1.51%
    Healthcare setting acquired: staff 47
    0.59%
    Community transmission 1,612
    20.32%
    Under investigation 2,078
    26.19%
    Total 7,935
    100.00%
    *Travel related cases include cases who acquire COVID-19 infection outside of Ireland (imported cases) and cases who acquire COVID-19 infection directly from imported cases


  • #3974
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 232 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    standardg60 wrote: »
    Would you not agree?

    No, I would not.

    You are coming at this from a position of utter - almost, in fact, militant - ignorance on the law, and on what this court case is about.

    To try and explain quite how badly you're getting it wrong, what you're doing is the equivalent of watching Ireland beat Germany 5-0 in the European Championship final and criticising them for not scoring any tries.

    It's a quite extraordinary display, and I almost admire you for the perseverance with which you keep at it.


  • #3975
    standardg60
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭standardg60


    b0nk1e wrote: »
    No, I would not.

    You are coming at this from a position of utter - almost, in fact, militant - ignorance on the law, and on what this court case is about.

    To try and explain quite how badly you're getting it wrong, what you're doing is the equivalent of watching Ireland beat Germany 5-0 in the European Championship final and criticising them for not scoring any tries.

    It's a quite extraordinary display, and I almost admire you for the perseverance with which you keep at it.

    Lovely, thanks for confirming my subsequent post.

    Do you think you are going to bully people from posting on this thread?

    Skin in the game.


  • #3976
    standardg60
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭standardg60


    gally74 wrote: »
    Table 5: Number of confirmed COVID-19 cases by most likely transmission source notified from 19/03/2021 to midnight 01/04/2021
    Most likely transmission source Number of cases
    Percent
    Travel related* 148
    1.87%
    Close contact with a known confirmed case 3,930
    49.53%
    Healthcare setting acquired: patient 120
    1.51%
    Healthcare setting acquired: staff 47
    0.59%
    Community transmission 1,612
    20.32%
    Under investigation 2,078
    26.19%
    Total 7,935
    100.00%
    *Travel related cases include cases who acquire COVID-19 infection outside of Ireland (imported cases) and cases who acquire COVID-19 infection directly from imported cases

    So the B117 variant currently consists of 1.87% of all cases?


  • #3977
    Away With The Fairies
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,077 ✭✭✭Away With The Fairies


    b0nk1e wrote: »
    No personal interest in the case at all. Just a frustration with curtain-twitchers losing the run of themselves and thinking they're internet detectives.

    Would you actually look at yourself, look at the state you have yourself in.

    Far too many people in this country are far too interested in other people's business.

    Wash your hands.

    Wear your mask.

    Mind your business.

    Hardly curtain twitchers when their actions affect others and we all end up with longer restrictions. Did you want them to go home and self isolate? Not hardly self isolating collecting kids from the granny and taking their kids home and passing on any infections to the granny and kids.


  • #3978
    Away With The Fairies
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,077 ✭✭✭Away With The Fairies


    Sono Topolino wrote: »
    The problem here is that the crime is committed at the point at which you leave the country. Therefore, your intention at the point at which you leave the country is what matters. If you intend to fly to Dubai for breast enhancement surgery, and upon arriving in Dubai you decide that you no longer want that surgery, no crime has been committed. It's only a crime if you lied about your intentions.

    It would be immensely hard to prove that the intention was never sincerely held. I mean, maybe having arrived in Dubai you decided for one reason or another that you don't want the surgery - the doctor didn't seem trustworthy, the clinic didn't seem sanitary, or your friends convinced you that it was a bad idea...

    All of this means that as a cover story, breast enhancement surgery is a good option - as a lot of women decide at the last minute not to go through with it.

    I'm guessing the purpose of the first trip is to meet the doctors and see if you're a suitable for a boob job... Surely it's at that point you should be deciding not to go ahead with it and not fly across the world a second time?


  • #3979
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,506 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


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

    Seeing a dentist is not essential. The law was changed for this exact reason. A scale and polish is not essential and your dentist will tell you that themselves.
    standardg60 wrote: »
    Not so, the letters contain a code which lets travellers book the hotel without paying. Otherwise they can't board the flight. So in essence the waiver is already given.
    The DFA has stated that it's then a matter for the justice and health depts. to decide whether payment should be made upon arrival.

    How can another dept. decide something that another dept. has already decided?

    There is clearly an inter-departmental spat going on here between Coveney and Donnelly.

    So how is that "not so"? They booked them in but they never said they didn't have to pay and they still haven't.
    b0nk1e wrote: »
    There's absolutely nothing in the legislation which says it has to be an essential medical procedure.

    It's very clearly included. It's in large letters. The act was amended and now states 'essential' very clearly


  • #3980
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,506 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Away With The Fairies wrote: »
    I'm guessing the purpose of the first trip is to meet the doctors and see if you're a suitable for a boob job... Surely it's at that point you should be deciding not to go ahead with it and not fly across the world a second time?

    Nope, decisions made before flying. Let's be clear here, the surgery was a lie to avoid the fine


  • #3981
    standardg60
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Seeing a dentist is not essential. The law was changed for this exact reason. A scale and polish is not essential and your dentist will tell you that themselves.



    So how is that "not so"? They booked them in but they never said they didn't have to pay and they still haven't.



    It's very clearly included. It's in large letters. The act was amended and now states 'essential' very clearly

    Booking them in the first place essentially removed any legal requirement for them to pay. I imagine that is why the bail requirements were dismissed by the high court.

    I agree with your other posts


  • Advertisement
  • #3982
    saabsaab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,751 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    standardg60 wrote: »
    So the B117 variant currently consists of 1.87% of all cases?


    Sure isn't more like 95% now. Mass air travel may be affected by the crisis for a long time to come.


  • #3983
    standardg60
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭standardg60


    gally74 wrote: »
    The virus will continue to mutate for the next 1000 years,

    Are you goimg to shut the airport till then

    I don't necessarily disagree with you.
    But the law is what we've all voted for.
    Would you prefer anarchy?


  • #3984
    gally74
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,949 ✭✭✭gally74


    standardg60 wrote: »
    I don't necessarily disagree with you.
    But the law is what we've all voted for.
    Would you prefer anarchy?

    No but we didn’t vote for this,

    Were in a bad state, prime for a new party to emerge. No leadership, borrowing weekly, no ond to see the wood from the trees with nphet,

    RTÉ in compliance with the gov.

    Theres more damage being done now than in 2008.


  • #3985
    saabsaab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,751 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    The airports aren't shut! Still thousands coming in.


  • #3986
    saabsaab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,751 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    gally74 wrote: »
    No but we didn’t vote for this,

    Were in a bad state, prime for a new party to emerge. No leadership, borrowing weekly, no ond to see the wood from the trees with nphet,

    RTÉ in compliance with the gov.

    Theres more damage being done now than in 2008.


    All parties are in favour of these measures or stricter. Not only that most people are also of the same opinion as per recent polls.


  • #3987
    gally74
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,949 ✭✭✭gally74


    saabsaab wrote: »
    All parties are in favour of these measures or stricter. Not only that most people are also of the same opinion as per recent polls.

    Ya, and thats nor leadership its populance,

    In years to come i cant wait for the tribunal, who knew what when etc.


  • #3988
    gally74
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,949 ✭✭✭gally74


    saabsaab wrote: »
    The airports aren't shut! Still thousands coming in.

    Yes many with genuine reasons, not all holidays, met a chapbthe other day who was a keybtesource to a manufacture doubling their vaccine supply. But youd have yhem do 14 days


  • #3989
    standardg60
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭standardg60


    gally74 wrote: »
    No but we didn’t vote for this,

    Were in a bad state, prime for a new party to emerge. No leadership, borrowing weekly, no ond to see the wood from the trees with nphet,

    RTÉ in compliance with the gov.

    Theres more damage being done now than in 2008.

    I'm with you. My policies..
    Withdrawal of all state payments and tax reliefs to the housing sector.
    Removal of tax relief on union dues.
    Removal of tax relief on pension subscriptions.
    Privatisation of the health and transport services.
    Grants for the rewetting of bogs and reforestation of farmland, and CPOs in cases of non compliance.

    What do you reckon on our chances?


  • #3990
    gally74
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,949 ✭✭✭gally74


    standardg60 wrote: »
    I'm with you. My policies..
    Withdrawal of all state payments and tax reliefs to the housing sector.
    Removal of tax relief on union dues.
    Removal of tax relief on pension subscriptions.
    Privatisation of the health and transport services.
    Grants for the rewetting of bogs and reforestation of farmland, and CPOs in cases of non compliance.

    What do you reckon on our chances?

    I write it out in a verse—
    MacDonagh and MacBride
    And Connolly and Pearse
    Now and in time to be,
    Wherever green is worn,
    Are changed, changed utterly:
    A terrible beauty is born.

    And i say that as an irish man not as some sinn fein muppet.


  • Advertisement
  • #3991
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,506 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    standardg60 wrote: »
    Booking them in the first place essentially removed any legal requirement for them to pay. I imagine that is why the bail requirements were dismissed by the high court.

    I agree with your other posts

    Nope. There's a system in place, the decision on payment still hasn't been made.

    They may well have lied to the embassy and it was assumed they wouldn't pay but as they should have 5 or 6 grand going spare now, they can pay.


Advertisement