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

mynamejeff · 08-06-2020 5:48pm

MickeyLeari wrote: »

It is not standard. The Guards will normally send a file - they do not usually consult on every case before the file is sent.

depending on the offence it is not just standard it is required .

what do you think the file is for ?

shaveAbullock · 08-06-2020 7:01pm

Interesting that BLM have out dune John & Gemma in opposing the restrictions. I never expected the two groups to be campaigning on the same side.

VillageIdiot71 · 09-06-2020 3:11pm

If John and Gemma had wanted to make a commonsense case, in the hope of influencing a Court with a simple appeal to basic human standards, they could have chosen this well-written view from the UK

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/06/tell-mps-not-name-horrified-social-experiment/?WT.mc_id=e_DM1254155&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Edi_New_Reg&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_Edi_New_Reg20200608&utm_campaign=DM1254155

… So as someone who just about counts, because of my age, as one of those being protected by everybody else’s sacrifices, I assume the moral right to say this: please don’t. Don’t give up the freedoms and the opportunities that are proper to your stage of life for my sake and do not go meekly into that imprisonment to which the government has sentenced you.

…..By all means, let those for whom the danger is actually greatest (or who do not have the capacity to make a conscious decision) be given maximum protection. But leave it to the rest - who have been told by countless television medics and health page features that chronological age means almost nothing anymore - and to those who care for them, to decide on their own priorities. Of course, they must not (and I can promise you, will not) be irresponsible. Otherwise, I cannot see how this is ever going to end.

The most pernicious of these measures - the social distancing rule which makes an aberration of the most basic emotional need - is the one that the scientific authorities are most adamant must remain. At first we were told that it must stay in place “until we have a vaccine”. Then, without any explanation or apology, we were being given the new message that there might never be a vaccine....

This issue shouldn't need an appeal to the Courts. To an extent, that's the assessment the Courts have made - whether its bonkers or not, this is mostly within the freedom given to Government to be bonkers, within its democratic mandate.

And the right to be a bit bonkers is a very basic freedom.

double jobbing · 09-06-2020 6:27pm

shaveAbullock wrote: »

Interesting that BLM have out dune John & Gemma in opposing the restrictions. I never expected the two groups to be campaigning on the same side.

Some of the most voiciferous people I saw saying her and Waters should be prosecuted (they should) are the same people saying the BLM protests, in ****ing Ireland, were necessary. One useless twunt last week banging on about how you can't be pro opening business but anti BLM marches.

Because, they're both as necessary as each other like....

Creol1 · 09-06-2020 11:11pm

MickeyLeari wrote: »

It is not standard. The Guards will normally send a file - they do not usually consult on every case before the file is sent.

The DPP is not required at all for minor offences that can be tried in the District Court.

plodder · 12-06-2020 11:52am

Not really related to JW or GOD, but what do people think of the group of ten senators who think that the Senate should be able to sit and even pass legislation without the new Taoiseach's nominations.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/senators-to-go-ahead-with-high-court-case-over-seanad-sittings-1.4276939

They seem to be putting the cart before the horse in saying the government's position has "startling consequences". There are startling consequences all right, but their cause is the ridiculous situation in not having a government months after the election imo, not the Taoiseach's refusal to sanction an initial sitting of a partially constituted Seanad.

Is it conceivable that they might win the case? I don't see how unless they are suggesting that Senate votes might be passed with a majority greater than 11, but that would conflict with the provision that requires decisions to be a simple majority of the members present. It's really hard to see how the courts will allow such an abrogation of normal constitutional procedure, to side-step what has essentially been political laziness. The parties could have (and still could) put a temporary government in place to deal with important legislation as the only non-temporary question they would have needed to answer is who the 11 appointed senators should be.

Damian F · 16-06-2020 7:29pm

Gemma reminds me of a school headmistress from the 60s who would enjoy caning naughty children.

VillageIdiot71 · 08-10-2020 4:22pm

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.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/one-of-state-s-biggest-restaurant-and-pub-groups-starts-legal-action-over-covid-19-measures-1.4375698?mode=amp

One of the biggest restaurant and pub groups in the State has taken legal action against the Government over the extension of the Covid-19 restrictions closing their premises to indoor dining.

brightspark · 08-10-2020 4:28pm

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

tobefrank321 · 08-10-2020 4:40pm

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.

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.

VillageIdiot71 · 08-10-2020 4:46pm

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?

VillageIdiot71 · 08-10-2020 4:49pm

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.

KindOfIrish · 08-10-2020 4:50pm

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.

brightspark · 08-10-2020 4:51pm

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.

Hibernicis · 09-10-2020 1:09pm

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)

VillageIdiot71 · 16-10-2020 3:04pm

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.

The Nal · 16-10-2020 3:06pm

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

AndrewJRenko · 25-10-2020 6:31pm

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.

cruizer101 · 30-04-2021 3:58pm

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.

30-04-2021 8:08pm

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.

Infini · 30-04-2021 8:51pm

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

harrylittle · 30-04-2021 9:51pm

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

30-04-2021 9:52pm

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.

harrylittle · 30-04-2021 9:59pm

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

AndrewJRenko · 30-04-2021 10:05pm

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.

30-04-2021 10:48pm

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?

KaneToad · 30-04-2021 10:58pm

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.

swampy353 · 30-04-2021 10:58pm

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!

harrylittle · 30-04-2021 11:19pm

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

tayto lover · 30-04-2021 11:41pm

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.

TaurenDruid · 01-05-2021 12:08am

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.

AndrewJRenko · 01-05-2021 12:30am

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.

01-05-2021 9:27am

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

harrylittle · 01-05-2021 9:56am

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

Boggles · 01-05-2021 9:59am

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'.

duffman13 · 01-05-2021 10:05am

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.

harrylittle · 01-05-2021 10:18am

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

Ashbourne hoop · 01-05-2021 10:21am

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.

eleventh · 01-05-2021 10:24am

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.

The Nal · 01-05-2021 10:24am

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.

harrylittle · 01-05-2021 10:29am

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

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.

why was her case ridiculous and without merit ?

Ashbourne hoop · 01-05-2021 10:29am

The Nal wrote: »

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.

I think Mr. Little is trolling at this stage....

Seth Brundle · 01-05-2021 10:46am

harrylittle wrote: »

why was her case ridiculous and without merit ?

Maybe read the judges comments and then come back to us!

The Nal · 01-05-2021 10:48am

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

I think Mr. Little is trolling at this stage....

With 5Gemma supporters it's difficult to tell as the real ones are sometimes more like parody than parody.

01-05-2021 11:32am

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

The two people you highlight as fighting for human rights are the very type of people gems and her supporters have ssues with.

Other difference between gems and the two examples you provided was that they didn't advocate violence, they didn't harass old people on the street and they didn't run away as fast as they could when challenged.

She certainly knows how to attract the mentally challenged and scrotes of Ireland, but the same can be said for similar bags of sh1te like the national party.

01-05-2021 11:35am

eleventh wrote: »

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.

Maybe he'll finally emigrate like he promised if the 8th was repealed.

Ash.J.Williams · 01-05-2021 11:45am

If you see gem and beardo as fighting for your rights you’re already doomed

musiknonstop · 01-05-2021 11:49am

harrylittle wrote: »

if its a plandemic ...

And I stopped reading there.

TaurenDruid · 01-05-2021 1:07pm

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...

But it isn't.

I'd started actually typing out stuff explaining why there is no 'plandemic conspiracy' but ffs, what was I thinking.

The 'plandemic' stuff is bollocks. I know that, the courts know that, the people who've died from covid... well. Deep down, I suspect even John, Gemma, and possibly even you actually know that.

myfreespirit · 01-05-2021 1:30pm

harrylittle wrote: »

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

This post is succinctly summed up by the following apposite comment by Umberto Eco:

"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots"

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

Comments