nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Forum feedback

smacl

I'm creating a sticky here which is to be used for all feedback on this forum. Feel free to discuss what you feel should and should not be allowed on this forum and raise any issues in relation to moderation.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

smacl

Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »

CAB is the Criminal Assets Bureau btw! I hope we can all agree they should not be involved here

Thanks, edited.

[Deleted User]

So is that a no to my proposed solution? You seem to taking a position that states essentially everything is banned unless specifically "exempted". This is nonsense - the law does not work this way.

If so, (rejecting compromise) please advise how this should be escalated, dispute resolution is not appropriate. Should I email or send a letter to the site directly?

Note: Even the Citizens information excerpt you post draws the distinction: "The Government continues to issue guidance to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. It has also passed laws that make it an offence to do or not do certain things." There is a distinction between guidance, and what is law.

smacl

Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »

So is that a no to my proposed solution? You seem to taking a position that states essentially everything is banned unless specifically "exempted". This is nonsense - the law does not work this way.

If so, (rejecting compromise) please advise how this should be escalated, dispute resolution is not appropriate. Should I email or send a letter to the site directly?

Note: Even the Citizens information excerpt you post draws the distinction: "The Government continues to issue guidance to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. It has also passed laws that make it an offence to do or not do certain things." There is a distinction between guidance, and what is law.

As per my previous post, the covid thread will remain locked until such time as the mod team have discussed the best approach to dealing with this topic moving forward. Certain things in this context includes any indoor events that are not specifically exempted.

[Deleted User]

smacl wrote: »

As per my previous post, the covid thread will remain locked until such time as the mod team have discussed the best approach to dealing with this topic moving forward. Certain things in this context includes any indoor events that are not specifically exempted.

You are utterly incorrect. The text on Citizens Info, even if it meant what you say here it does, is not the law. "Certain things" is not a legal definition, nor does it purport to be. Citizens Info are saying here that the government has issued guidance AND also passed laws banning certain things. The guidance, and the laws, are not the same. I'm trying to help you here but you just keep digging. Why are you doing this, you did it before with your previous comments which had the appearance of accusing me of a crime (sectarian commentary), and a reasoned compromise had to be dragged out of you, but only after you wasted the time of multiple people. Why do you have such an issue with me that you make these wild claims and persist even when a fair compromise to edit the language in a way which does not diminish your point one iota is presented (indeed it actually closes off that avenue of discussion of guidelines etc. altogether). Accusations like you have made here are totally unnecessary, not to mention unfair. It has been explained to you previously how I treat these matters as incidents of the upmost importance. Accusing someone of supporting or advocating criminal activity is no trivial issue and I will treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

It need not be unlocked for you to edit your post as per my suggestion? Are you saying that you are waiting for internal discussion about my suggestion, and as such you have not rejected it?

The comment has been there for 24 hours now. At the very least, if you feel the need to discuss it, it should be removed in the meantime.

smacl

If you're not happy with the Citizens Information website, here is the full text of the [URL="file:///D:/Downloads/134499_bb2a7e1a-4170-446d-b09d-9c024dff8d0c%20(3).pdf"]HEALTH ACT 1947 (SECTION 31A - TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS), (COVID-19) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2021, REVISED[/URL] which is currently the law at this point in time. You will note that it makes not mention of baptisms or communions, but uses the term "relevant event" defined as follows;

HEALTH ACT 1947 wrote:

“relevant event” means an event held, or to be held, for social, recreational, exercise,
cultural, entertainment or community reasons, but does not include –
(a) an event to be held in a dwelling,
(b) a wedding reception,
(c) a sporting event,
(d) a training event, or
(e) a dance rehearsal event;

Baptisms and communions are currently relevant events in the eyes of the law and dealt with in section 8 of the act as follows;

HEALTH ACT 1947 wrote:

Restrictions on relevant events and funerals
8. F6 [(1) A person shall not organise, or cause to be organised, a relevant event in a relevant geographical location other than in accordance with paragraph (1A).]
F7 [(1A) A person may organise, or cause to be organised, a relevant event in a relevant geographical location where –
(a) in the case of a relevant event held, or to be held, before the 7th day
of June 2021, the person takes all reasonable steps to ensure that –
(i) the event takes place entirely outdoors, and (ii) the number of persons attending, or proposed to attend, the event does not exceed 15,
(b) in the case of a relevant event held, or to be held, on or after the 7th
day of June 2021, the person takes all reasonable steps to ensure
that –
(i) the event takes place entirely outdoors, and
(ii) the number of persons attending, or proposed to attend, the
event –
(I) does not exceed 200 where the event is held, or to be
held, in a relevant venue, or
(II) does not exceed 100 where the event is held, or to be
held, other than in a relevant venue,
or
(c) the event is a scheduled event.]

Note that "scheduled events" are a small number of specifically listed sports events. A communion or baptism held in a church or any other indoor venue is clearly a "relevant event" as per section 8 of the act, and hence constitutes a prohibited event as per my original warning in thread. For the third time, I would suggest that if you have any contradictory reference, please make it known. In the absence of same my warning remains valid. Note also that your assertions that anything defamatory has been posted would be entirely specious either way asssuming "ex loco refugii" isn't your given name.

Unless you can provide some more solid support for your assertions, I consider this matter closed. If you have an issue with this, please take it up with a cmod or admin.

[Deleted User]

You say that a Baptism etc. is a "relevant event" and then go on to post an excerpt stating how relevant events can be legally organised. Did you read that before you posted it?

Based on what you outline I am going with what you say. I make no comment on the veracity of what you have presented, including this statement:

Baptisms and communions are currently relevant events in the eyes of the law and dealt with in section 8 of the act as follows;

But I will take your argument, on the basis of which you have presented it.

Your excerpts say that a person "shall not organise, or cause to be organised, a relevant event in a relevant geographical location other than in accordance with paragraph (1A)"

What does 1A say?

A person may organise, or cause to be organised, a relevant event in a relevant geographical location where

And as we are past the "7th day of June 2021" the conditions to hold a "relevant event" are that:

(i) the event takes place entirely outdoors, and
(ii) the number of persons attending, or proposed to attend, the event –
(I) does not exceed 200 where the event is held, or to be held, in a relevant venue, or
(II) does not exceed 100 where the event is held, or to be held, other than in a relevant venue,

Just for clarity:

Relevant Venue:
F3 [“relevant venue” means a fixed or temporary venue, including a stadium, arena, grandstand, park, pitch or golf course, that would, but for the restrictions on attendance at events provided for by these Regulations, be capable of accommodating at least 5,000 persons outdoors;]

“relevant geographical location” means a geographical location to which an affected areas order applies;

And for the avoidance of doubt, the entire country has been declared an "affected area" and is subject to an affected areas order. This means that a "relevant geographical location" is anywhere in the country.

So under what you have said, a baptism or confirmation, as a "relevant event" can be legally held outdoors with up to 200 attendees if in a venue that would normally hold 5,000, or 100 in a place "other than a relevant venue". Therefore, your publication of the above in support of the claim that confirmations, baptisms etc. are illegal does not stand, even on the basis of your own argument.

Indeed, in a post I made several hours before your incorrect post referenced that the "guidance" - not law - advised against outdoor sacraments:

The advice is that first communions, baptism or confirmations cannot be held at all.

So an idea that some have proposed, to do the confirmation outdoors at the local GAA pitch or something, is not allowed.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117562372&postcount=156

So under what you have said, it is clear that there is a difference between the guidance that confirmations etc. should not go ahead and what the position is under the law. They are two different things, even as you present it yourself! (again, I make no claim that what you present is actually the law as it stands) Which is my point all along.

Incidentally, you are also incorrect when you say the following:

Note also that your assertions that anything defamatory has been posted would be entirely specious either way asssuming "ex loco refugii" isn't your given name.

This is wrong. Utterly wrong.

This should suffice as an accessible explanation:

Identification

A defamatory statement need not necessarily name anyone. It may suggest a person or persons by – for example – their profession, location or connections. A former garda commissioner was awarded £30,000 damages for the use of a graphic which featured his ears in a television programme on corruption! And a senior barrister settled a High Court action against Irish television for an undisclosed amount for using a graphic of her car in a story about drunk drivers.

If just one person gives credible evidence that he recognised the complainant by the description or image, that is enough to ground a defamation action.

https://www.lawyer.ie/defamation/

I have previously explained to you that as I have been doxxed previously, I must treat things like this seriously because I certainly can be identified, and my name on here, as such, is associated with me. If I thought, or could be assured, that I could not be identified I would not care what you said, certainly not to the degree that I do. It has been explained to you previously that I have been idetified on the basis of a username, and also there are people on this site who know who I am. Perhaps others do too, I had thought I was anonymous previously, but as I said I was doxxed. I am not anonymous, how could anyone make that assumption? You shouldn't either. This has been explained to you previously!

But this is all so completely unnecessary and unwarranted to be getting into legal discussions as to what can and can't be defamation. It will not be necessary to go down that sorry road so I don't quite understand why you are trying to raise (incorrect) legal technicalities about defamation, this would seem an unnecessary escalation, who on earth wants that?

The compromise wording I provided earlier is more than fair and should leave everyone 'happy'. Especially given this post, I would think.

I have raised this with a Cmod also.

[Deleted User]

One last piece of further context, from the initial post I made that you took issue with I said the following: (emphasis added)

Where is the expertise that demonstrates that confirmations or baptisms are more dangerous than say, thousands attending a GAA double header? Or hundreds a regular sporting event? The same kids can meet up for GAA matches and training with parents watching and there is no issue, but if a sacrament is involved it's deadly? How does this make sense?

If it is not the law it should be roundly ignored, if it is made law it should be challenged in court and priests should act in accordance with their conscience.

This is the context. For the removal of any doubt, GAA matches and training are outdoor events. So the exact same scenario (outdoors, less that 100) without the sacrament is fine, but with it, is against the guidance. As per your own post here, while it is against the guidance, it is not illegal. They are not the same thing. I did not advocate illegal activity, by your own post. Indeed, I said it should be taken to court if it was illegal, or ignored if not. You may object to saying guidance should be ignored, which as I said is fair enough, but that is miles away from advocating illegal activity. Hence my proposed compromise language.

And from a previous comment of mine again:

There is no reason why confirmations cannot be held with sufficient precautions, outdoors if needs be. They should offer two ceremonies, one now, and one later in the year for those who don't feel comfortable now or want to wait for pubs etc to be open to 'enjoy' it as a social occasion. If anything, it makes more sense to have the ceremonies when people cannot book function rooms, pack into restaurants etc.

The church had to up the pressure to defend the Mass earlier in the year and successfully got that over the line. They have to do the same here.

Important to note however that the alleged prohibition on confirmation, communions and (for the first time) baptisms are merely guidelines with no basis in law for the time being. Any "breach" of these, or support of same is not a breach or support of the breaking of any law. The Gardaí exceeded their authority previously in enforcing a non-existent ban on the Mass and harassed and intimidated that priest in Cavan, so people won't fall for that tactic twice, nor is it fair to put Gardai in that position by telling them something is a law when it isn't.

Of course, should these "guidelines" be made law, that does make a material difference.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117552699&postcount=149

looksee

The above is largely irrelevant here as this thread is for Forum Feedback, i.e. feedback relevant to the forum, not to your particular rules lawyering monologues. You are simply continuing to soapbox here instead of on the closed thread. This topic is now closed on this thread.

[Deleted User]

Come on guys. One moderator asks for specific legal reference/refutation, and when I give it the other says it is a soapboxing, rules lawyering monologue. How is this fair. It is clear it needs to be escalated so there is no more for me to say here, so lets wait and see.

smacl

Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »

Come on guys. One moderator asks for specific legal reference/refutation, and when I give it the other says it is a soapboxing, rules lawyering monologue. How is this fair. It is clear it needs to be escalated so there is no more for me to say here, so lets wait and see.

Ok, you have made your arguments. While in my opinion they are specious, I'll leave it for others to decide on their merits and any action to be taken. I have discussed the issue with my co-moderator here and we are of the opinion that the covid thread should remain locked and that all further covid related discussion should be made on the covid forum and not here. This matter is now closed for discussion pending review from a cmod or admin.

Dizzyblonde

Category moderator here.

ex loco refugii it strikes me that you may have a problem with the moderation of this forum, and the correct way to address that is in the Help Desk forum not here.

If you wish to dispute any warning or infraction cards the Dispute Resolution Forum is the place to discuss them.

Discussion about the moderation of any forum doesn't take place in the forum itself.

Yellow_Fern

I think Smacl is heavy handed attacking any mention of non Christians in a negative light. It isnt fair or reasonable and is quite frankly double standards.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120405521#Comment_120405521

I would respectfully suggest you read the charter, noting the excerpts below

3. Bigotry, crude generalisations and unreasonable antagonism will not be tolerated. This rule encompasses all intolerance towards creeds, beliefs, lifestyles or opinions that differ from one's own.

and

6. Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. The goal of this forum is to be a place where ideas relating to Christianity are expounded, debated and challenged. While discussion is encouraged, each member is expected to remain within the boundaries of taste and decency. If you disagree with a opinion expressed, please do so in a well mannered fashion.

As per my post in this thread, describing a group of people as savages because of ethnic or religious origin is not acceptable in this forum and will be sanctioned. I consider the sanctioned comment in that thread stating "there wouldn’t be victims in the first place if these savages were kept out of Europe to where they belong" to fall foul of both charter items and be in very poor taste. Should you take issue with this, please feel free to contact a CMod or Admin.