Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

brightspark

GT89 wrote: »

So your another who supports the stripping of constitutional rights under the guise of public health.

I have had enough of people bleating about their "constitutional rights" when they have no sense of civic responsibility.

Seth Brundle

Killinator wrote: »

He knew he had a warrant before the Garda came back to him, that's why he said he probably wouldn't make it to the protest he was heading to, and why he started saying hes never done anything wrong.

What occurred to me was iow calm he was when the garda went off to check his details which has led me to think (maybe incorrectly) it's not his first encounter with the law.

GT89

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What constitutional rights have I advocated being stripped?
I never said people couldn't protest.

Right to free assembly. It is a fundamental right in a democracy.

You said they should not protest.

pjohnson

GT89 wrote: »

So your another who supports the stripping of constitutional rights under the guise of public health.

And you support people skipping out and ignoring warrants already against them.

Why am I not suprised?

Dravokivich

GT89 wrote: »

Right to free assembly. It is a fundamental right in a democracy.

You said they should not protest.

Since when is free assembly a fundamental right? We can all be interred and it'll still be a democracy.

GT89

pjohnson wrote: »

And you support people skipping out and ignoring warrants already against them.

Why am I not suprised?

If he's guilty he'll be found guilty in a court of law. In the meantime people can protest and continue to protest until he is released. I never said once that I support him. What I support is people's right to protest and assemble whether I agree or disagree with the reason behind it.

GT89

Dravokivich wrote: »

Since when is free assembly a fundamental right? We can all be interred and it'll still be a democracy.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/irish_constitution_1/constitution_fundamental_rights.html

Coillte_Bhoy

GT89 wrote: »

That's all you've heard so far. He has not been charged with anything as of yet and could be totally innocent for all you know.

His innocence or not is irrelevant, there was bench warrant out for him, do you not even understand what that means? And before you ask, no i dont support peoples right to protest if doing so breaches public health restrictions

freshpopcorn

GT89 wrote: »

If he's guilty he'll be found guilty in a court of law. In the meantime people can protest and continue to protest until he is released. I never said once that I support him. What I support is people's right to protest and assemble whether I agree or disagree with the reason behind it.

If one of those protesters contacted covid at the protest and passed it onto your family and they died from it. It's good to know that you support them and it wouldn't bother you.

Seth Brundle

GT89 wrote: »

Right to free assembly. It is a fundamental right in a democracy.

You said they should not protest.

I'll clarify what I said: they should not be gathering in groups to protest nor should they be travelling more than 5km from home.
Nothing stopping them protesting closer to home!

Dravokivich

GT89 wrote: »

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/irish_constitution_1/constitution_fundamental_rights.html

Eh... as with everything there are disclaimers in that:

"This right is limited by legislation to protect public order and morality. The law prevents or controls meetings that are calculated or designed to cause a riot or breach of the peace."

Its not absolute.

Seth Brundle

GT89 wrote: »

If he's guilty he'll be found guilty in a court of law.

How would he be tried in a court of law if he won't turn up?

GT89 wrote: »

In the meantime people can protest and continue to protest until he is released.

Just because they can does not mean that they should!

GT89 wrote: »

I never said once that I support him. What I support is people's right to protest and assemble whether I agree or disagree with the reason behind it.

Is people's right to assemble and protest more important than people's right to not be infected with a potentially deadly virus?

GT89

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

His innocence or not is irrelevant, there was bench warrant out for him, do you not even understand what that means? And before you ask, no i dont support peoples right to protest if doing so breaches public health restrictions

I know what it is again I do not know the full story regarding tbis man's bench warrant. Maybe there was a mix up in the post and he never received we do not know. You may not support their right to protest but last I checked consttitutional rights trumped public health guidelines.

GT89

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Just because they can does not mean that they should!

Just because you don't agree with the protest does not mean they should be arrested for doing so

Is people's right to assemble and protest more important than people's right to not be infected with a potentially deadly virus?

So by that logic since the flu is both infectious and potentially deadly. People should not protest in case they catch the flu at the protest and pass it on to someone vulnerable.

GT89

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh... as with everything there are disclaimers in that:

"This right is limited by legislation to protect public order and morality. The law prevents or controls meetings that are calculated or designed to cause a riot or breach of the peace."

Its not absolute.

If the protest was in breach of the peace then I would be against it.

fullstop

GT89 wrote: »

If he's guilty he'll be found guilty in a court of law. In the meantime people can protest and continue to protest until he is released. I never said once that I support him. What I support is people's right to protest and assemble whether I agree or disagree with the reason behind it.

Well he’d need to turn up to the court of law first. He hasn’t managed that part on his own, so hopefully they give him a nice helping hand this time.

Seth Brundle

GT89 wrote: »

Just because you don't agree with the protest does not mean they should be arrested for doing so

I didn't suggest they should be arrested for protesting.
I believe they should be stopped if they travel more than 5km from their home as it is not an essential trip.
Having seen footage of similar protests held recently, I know there will be a lot of knuckle draggers who will justify their arrest though.

GT89 wrote: »

So by that logic since the flu is both infectious and potentially deadly. People should not protest in case they catch the flu at the protest and pass it on to someone vulnerable.

Whilst the flu is dangerous, it's nowhere near as dangerous as COVID-19 and there is also a vaccine against many strains of it.

GT89

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I didn't suggest they should be arrested for protesting.
I believe they should be stopped if they travel more than 5km from their home as it is not an essential trip.
Having seen footage of similar protests held recently, I know there will be a lot of knuckle draggers who will justify their arrest though.

Another poster said they should be arrested.

blueythebear

This bunch of geniuses actually posed for a photo taken by a garda outside the station. Bunch of absolute morons

gandalf

GT89 wrote: »

Do you know the full story? People are entitled to protest for whatever reason they like as long as it's peaceful. You don't have to support them.

During a global pandemic, will you ever cop on.

I know people who have died. I have friends who have it and have had it.

These idiots are involved in a spurous protest and some of their number are stoking this up for their own ulterior motives.

Coillte_Bhoy

GT89 wrote: »

I know what it is again I do not know the full story regarding tbis man's bench warrant. Maybe there was a mix up in the post and he never received we do not know. You may not support their right to protest but last I checked consttitutional rights trumped public health guidelines.

Well i suggest you check again, when and how exactly did you 'check'?

ohnonotgmail

blueythebear wrote: »

This bunch of geniuses actually posed for a photo taken by a garda outside the station. Bunch of absolute morons

Irelands best and brightest.

francois

jelem wrote: »

ah lingus__ sense,
the post by me, a statement that one can utter male bovine excrement
whilst in government office and paid by citizen whilst another countering the political crafted
forced "norm" is harrassed.
too much for you whom may be busy watching for mispellling.

I'll have 2 of what you are on

ohnonotgmail

francois wrote: »

I'll have 2 of what you are on

you really need to ease yourself into stuff like that.

Killinator

GT89 wrote: »

That's all you've heard so far. He has not been charged with anything as of yet and could be totally innocent for all you know.

He HAS been charged or summoned already, that's why he got a warrant.
You don't receive a warrant in the post. He'll have been aware he was due I'm court and didn't show up.
He was aware he had it which was clear from his talk before he was arrested.
Bench warrants are not complicated. If he didn't show up in court then that's it, bench warrant.
So he was due in court for something

Again, onnce the Gardai became aware of the warrant they had no choice but to arrest him and bring him to the next sitting of court. It's written on the warrant.

TaurenDruid

GT89 wrote: »

That's all you've heard so far. He has not been charged with anything as of yet and could be totally innocent for all you know.

Are you... are you just trolling, badly? He *was* charged! That's the whole point!

He was charged for some alleged crime some time ago. He received a summons to turn up in court for the issue to be tried. He failed to turn up, and so a bench warrant was issued for his arrest.

There is no conspiracy here, the gardaí are doing what they had to do, the court will do what they have to do.

So Gemma's bunch are flouting "Guidelines" with their protests, and just as it looks like this C19 is not just going to be a '1 yr wonder' , and though they're within their Lawful rights to protest atm, I got to wonder is the poll above just for 'academic' purposes, or will this thread be shut down in the short to medium term to censor discussion. As from now on; as long as Gemma is being discussed here - so too will the rights of the Irish Citizen to move freely within their Country be discussed also (as she's unlikely to quit protesting at this stage of the game) - and that is what a discussion board is for.

Of course there are many threads on the pandemic, but most or all are staying "on message" , with everything else in the CT forum.

For a month or more there it was nip and tuck. There was a time even when "No" held a marginal sway. In the last 10 days or so "Yes" has pulled ahead leaving No in its wake.

Has anyone looked into this? Are numerous accounts being opened to vote Yes?

The patterns are very unusual to say the least. For all that most posters don't agree with her, there are some who agree with her constitutional right to protest esp re "Guidelines" and "Restrictions" , as they currently are; and not yet framed into Law thankfully. As well as those posters who agree with the protests, there are probably many more who are not buying in to the hysteria, and the "figures" that are issued on a daily basis.

Point being as long as her shenanigans are talked about here; for the foreseeable (hopefully at least), the level of intrusion and erosion of our Civil Liberties can also be talked about, and we won't have to just "Trust RTE as a reliable News Source" . I think the opinions of many folks site-wide from all and varied social / political / economic stripes are beginning to believe that it is a biased, redundant, joke of an organisation and not interested in serving or behaving in the "Public Interest".

Very sinister imo; and the poll up top looking all innocent and just for a lark may well be utilised to close this thread down


TLDR Those poll numbers have seen a sudden and unusual upsurge in favour of the "Yes" ( yes = All posts of Gemma O'Doherty should be banned on Boards) side.

All very sinister imo.

TaurenDruid

Deleted User wrote: »

So Gemma...

All very sinister imo.

Yes. It's a conspiracy!

knucklehead6

[Deleted User] wrote: »

TLDR Those poll numbers have seen a sudden and unusual upsurge in favour of the "Yes" ( yes = All posts of Gemma O'Doherty should be banned on Boards) side.

All very sinister imo.

So a poll on boards which apart from requiring the odd bit of mod intervention when one of the posters on either side gets a little bit rowdy but other than that has no bearing in anything and isn’t even a mod supported poll and is just users expressing an opinion is very sinister cos chief whacky lady is getting outvoted?

Riiiiiiight

humberklog

Deleted User wrote: »

So Gemma's bunch are flouting "Guidelines" with their protests,

I don't think that was Gemma's bunch. Gemma doesn't really have any bunch as such. No one (or very few) want to play with her.