Granny jailed for refusing to wear a face mask

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.........

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.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

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.

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.

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

HBC08

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

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.

She shouldn't go in to shops that require her to wear something that distresses her then. Private businesses should be able to set their own rules. Youd think you "freedom of choice " lads would be sticking up for dunnes to be able to set their own rules on their propertyh ere,

We all know its bull**** that they distress her anyway, just like all the other idiots that pretend they can't wear them for "medical reasons". I bet if they go skiing and its freezing cold, suddenly masks aren't an issue.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

I know you have I just can't find any evidence to support that not wearing a mask is a contempt of court, it seems to be advisory. Granted you probably know what your taking about though. Spotted this a minute ago, maybe if she agrees to a jab instead.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

She shouldn't go in to shops that require her to wear something that distresses her then. Private businesses should be able to set their own rules. Youd think you "freedom of choice " lads would be sticking up for dunnes to be able to set their own rules on their propertyh ere,

She's not required to wear them if it distresses her, businesses set their own rules on reporting or even asking people, I have my doubts it's dunnes policy to report non face cover wearing, the others don't actively do it.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

She's not required to wear them if it distresses her, .

And surely you should be supporting the businesses right to refuse entry to her without a mask if it distresses their staff/owners/other customers?

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And surely you should be supporting the businesses right to refuse entry to her without a mask if it distresses their staff/owners/other customers?

No, not when it comes to face coverings, if your afraid of someone keep your distance she's entitled to go into shops with a reasonable excuse.

I witnessed a mentally disabled girl freaking out in a shop the other day as she said she couldn't breathe in the mask, her minder kept forcing it back on her, felt really sorry for her, she was sitting down on a seat inside the shop as I was leaving crying her eyes out.
They're not worth it in my opinion due to the negative effects on society, if you want to wear one off you go but nobody should be forced.