Granny jailed for refusing to wear a face mask

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If they distress her it's a reasonable excuse so she shouldn't have been in court in the first place. Surprised at Dunnes for reporting her and the manager challenging her it's not really the norm.

They don't though. That's just a bull**** excuse bring thrown out now.

She had ample opportunities to raise this excuse as did her legal team. No person did so

HBC08

Just as easily could have read "c unt refuses to wear mask)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I didn't know that, I can see here it says you should https://courts.ie/news/courts-users-are-reminded-continue-adhere-covid-19-protocols-restrictions-ease
I can't see where it says you must, surely the lady is only bound by the laws of the land.

I can't really help you further with this. I have told you twice now exactly how this happened and under what. 'contempt of court'.

If you don't understand the legal system. So be it but again, her legal team have no such misunderstanding

NaFirinne wrote: »

And many people disagree with being legally forced into wearing a Mask and as such will use civil disobiedience as a protest.

However we don't know this womens personal life, we don't know if she has some sort of medical condition such as being bi-polar which may prevent her having rational decisions at times.

Lockdowns can have detrimental effects on a lot of peoples mental health at any age.

People are so quick to judge others, like a mob with pitchforks.

Oh look someone isn't following the new facist laws - quickly burn them at the stake.

Listen to yourselves, what kind of people are you becoming, cold hearted, incompassionate zombies.

Perhaps she had a troubled childhood, your honor.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Well if she was the type of person that did that she wouldn't have been in court in the first place.........

If they distress her it's a reasonable excuse so she shouldn't have been in court in the first place. Surprised at Dunnes for reporting her and the manager challenging her it's not really the norm.

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I have little sympathy for her. But is she all that big a criminal?

She fully deserved to get thrown out of the shops.

She was verbally abusive to the staff, would not put on a mask in court and she fully deserves a large fine? If she does not pay the fine then lock her up.

But does the state have to bear the cost and is it the best use of the justice system to throw her in jail for a few days to massage the judges ego here? There are lads getting suspended sentences every day of the week for serious offences.

She's in jail because of her contempt of court, should she just be allowed to be continually in contempt of court and the judge should have to just accept it and continue with the case? Can then do whatever I like in court and a judge has to just accept it because the punishment would cost the state money? If custodial sentences were done on a cost basis no one would ever go to jail.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

, surely the lady is only bound by the laws of the land.

Well if she was the type of person that did that she wouldn't have been in court in the first place.........

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What do they do with her when she continually refuses to follow the rules, just send her on her way and say they don't apply to her? Is there a separate set for people in their 20's and those in their 60's?

I have little sympathy for her. But is she all that big a criminal?

She fully deserved to get thrown out of the shops.

She was verbally abusive to the staff, would not put on a mask in court and she fully deserves a large fine? If she does not pay the fine then lock her up.

But does the state have to bear the cost and is it the best use of the justice system to throw her in jail for a few days to massage the judges ego here? There are lads getting suspended sentences every day of the week for serious offences.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It's not a law he made up. The president of the courts made it up over a year ago. As is his right under the court regulations.

I didn't know that, I can see here it says you should https://courts.ie/news/courts-users-are-reminded-continue-adhere-covid-19-protocols-restrictions-ease
I can't see where it says you must, surely the lady is only bound by the laws of the land.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

. Her solicitors are satisfied that the judge was within his legal power.

Yeah, but what about what drunkmonkey "thinks". Why does the court not consider that?

GT89 wrote: »

There are exemptions to wearing masks. It seems certain businesses and members of An Garda Siochana won't recognise this.

It seems that the cranks rowed back on their "everyone can make their own choices" when the choice being made by business owners that they wanted people to wear masks when entering their premises didnt suit them.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm not seeing how the judge is correct here legally, he made up the rule and jailed her on the back of it. Was she socially distanced at the time, either or is good enough.

What part of 'contempt of court' are you struggling with?

It's not a law he made up. The president of the courts made it up over a year ago. As is his right under the court regulations.

There's no judicial review, there's no habeas corpus application. Her solicitors are satisfied that the judge was within his legal power.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm not seeing how the judge is correct here legally, he made up the rule and jailed her on the back of it. Was she socially distanced at the time, either or is good enough.

You not seeing doesn't change it. If you think you know more about the law than the judge, let them know or cite the relevant points of law here that she should be released under if you like.

GT89

There are exemptions to wearing masks. It seems certain businesses and members of An Garda Siochana won't recognise this. Refusing someone for not wearing a mask is like refusing someone with a guide dog. It is discrimination.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No because there's sensible limits

I'm not seeing how the judge is correct here legally, he made up the rule and jailed her on the back of it. Was she socially distanced at the time, either or is good enough.

Does a granny in her 30's get the same protection from having to follow rules and /or laws as a 66 year old granny?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There is no law that's the point, he could have asked her for a foot massage and jailed her for not complying going by the same logic.

No because there's sensible limits

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I don't think a judge can just make up a law and jail you on the back of it for not complying. He could have jailed her for the dunnes incident but he didn't. Also starting she has to stay in jail until she puts on a mask is redicilolous.

She is in jail. The physical reality of the situation renders your opinion incorrect. Contempt of court is not new.

questionmark?

NaFirinne wrote: »

The times we are living in - Granny Jailed for refusing too wear a Mask....people jeering that she gets what she deserves - how could she be so irresponsible.

Wow - people just love using fear to indimidate others and to force them to comply with pure evil tryanny.

I pray for God to give this women strenght and courage and help through any mental health issues that she may have.

Unsure if this a serious post or your on the windup but sure I'll humour you.

People don't have sympathy because she is a gowl looking to cause trouble for the sake of it. Wouldn't surprise me if she was drooling over Gemma and Dee and any other Karen on Facebook She looked for a fight, bit off more than she can chew and is now sleeping in a cell.

Also why say Granny. Age is irrelevant once an adult in eyes of the law and well common sense expectations in general.

P.s. wearing a mask isn't evil. Wearing a mask isn't tryanny. It's a short term minor inconvenience so get over it and stop moaning.

P.s.s. Stop comparing mental health issues with just been a Gowl!!

Strumms

FuzzyThinking wrote: »

Do we have to add these terms like “grandmother” as if that somehow changes everything.

Grandmother who refused to stop at red lights...

Grandmother who refused to pay for groceries...

Grandmother who refused to provide a breath sample...

Grandmothers are not exempt from the law, every single expectation of a man / woman of 40 is expected of a grandmother of 80 plus...

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Has this old dear any previous convictions? Is she a danger to the public?

She deserved to get thrown out of Dunnes but I doubt shes too well and what does the nation gain from throwing her in the clink.

What do they do with her when she continually refuses to follow the rules, just send her on her way and say they don't apply to her? Is there a separate set for people in their 20's and those in their 60's?

NaFirinne wrote: »

Of course it is - your preventing a person from getting a fair hearing or defending themselves, how can people not see this as tyranny?

If she also refused to wear clothes, is that more tyranny to make her?

She chose not 5o obey the court. The fair hearing is there for her when she wants to follow their rules. She doesn't get to pick the ones that apply.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So all laws are tyranny then?

There is no law that's the point, he could have asked her for a foot massage and jailed her for not complying going by the same logic.

Has this old dear any previous convictions? Is she a danger to the public?

She deserved to get thrown out of Dunnes but I doubt shes too well and what does the nation gain from throwing her in the clink.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Demanding she does and sending her to jail indefinitely is.

Tyranny
noun
"cruel and oppressive government or rule"

So all laws are tyranny then?

NaFirinne

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Demanding she does and sending her to jail indefinitely is.

Tyranny
noun
"cruel and oppressive government or rule"

Of course it is - your preventing a person from getting a fair hearing or defending themselves, how can people not see this as tyranny?

dockysher

drunkmonkey wrote: »

?

Real

dockysher wrote: »

Fake