Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

humberklog

In one of @aciquestion recent twitter links they have Gemma hypothesising that Irish women are being tempted away from their farms and menfolk by their love of, check notes--"Multicultural Curry".

Hqrry113

I know nothing about this woman, can someone please explain what is so bad about her?

What crazy claims has she made?

Kermit.de.frog

"It's the Chinese she's after..."


https://twitter.com/aciquestion/status/1326446032121688064

Seth Brundle

Hqrry113 wrote: »

I know nothing about this woman, can someone please explain what is so bad about her?

What crazy claims has she made?

Watch some of her ignorant, racist videos and form your own opinion.

ChikiChiki

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

"It's the Chinese she's after..."


https://twitter.com/aciquestion/status/1326446032121688064

Didn't know she lives around Donnybrook. Will keep a closer eye out from now on.

Would love to dish out some Gemma derangement syndrome :pac:

Seth Brundle

Don't know if she lives there or was she reared there (wikipedia says she was raised in Ranelagh).
From memory, I think I recall hearing that she may have been hiding out more recently to avoid being summonsed - I recall someone mentioning Blessington as one potential hiding place.

freshpopcorn

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Didn't know she lives around Donnybrook. Will keep a closer eye out from now on.

Would love to dish out some Gemma derangement syndrome :pac:

Just look for a woman having an argument taking into her phone!

Sardonicat

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Don't know if she lives there or was she reared there (wikipedia says she was raised in Ranelagh).
From memory, I think I recall hearing that she may have been hiding out more recently to avoid being summonsed - I recall someone mentioning Blessington as one potential hiding place.

What a way to live. It must be exhausting being in battle mode and seeing everyone as an enemy all of the time.

Odhinn

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

"It's the Chinese she's after..."


https://twitter.com/aciquestion/status/1326446032121688064

Brazen race baiting.

Eric Cartman

"the Chinese will bring their communism with them"

in my experience of people escaping communism, they tend to be opposed to just about anything they even interpret as communism.

Cubans in america all vote republican
polish here have words I would consider extreme to say about the looney pbp left
etc...

the 'Chinese gardai' are almost certainly not bringing the communism with them.

knucklehead6

Hqrry113 wrote: »

I know nothing about this woman, can someone please explain what is so bad about her?

What crazy claims has she made?

You'll be particularly interested in the MI5 = IRA claims that she has made.

Yes I have had a VERY quick look at your post history. No I am not trying to bait you. There's something in Gemma for us all to pity.

salmocab

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Just look for a woman having an argument taking into her phone!

Wait long enough by someone working and she’ll be along to have a rant. Maybe after she’ll peek into a graveyard for giggles.

Be right back

salmocab wrote: »

Wait long enough by someone working and she’ll be along to have a rant. Maybe after she’ll peek into a graveyard for giggles.

Especially if they are wearing a garda uniform or a hi-vis jacket.

oranbhoy67

Shankill it lives in
it grew up in Ranleagh

salmocab

Be right back wrote: »

Especially if they are wearing a garda uniform or a hi-vis jacket.

Maybe hi vis is her trigger? Guards wear it too.

ohnonotgmail

salmocab wrote: »

Maybe hi vis is her trigger? Guards wear it too.

no need for the kink shaming

Annasopra

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

Shankill it lives in
it grew up in Ranleagh

Gemma is an extremist hatemonger. I have huge problems with what she promotes; Hate, Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, Islamophobia, Dangerous conspiracies. But lets not lower to her level of spewing hatred referring to her as "it"

walshb

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But lets not lower to her level of spewing hatred referring to her as "it"

No, lets!

AngryHippie

walshb wrote: »

No, lets!

How far down the track of being mental do you have to go before someone will sign the papers ?
Surely she has reached the point now where her antics pose a thread to public safety and to herself... Who can sign the forms for her ?

PhoneMain

AngryHippie wrote: »

How far down the track of being mental do you have to go before someone will sign the papers ?
Surely she has reached the point now where her antics pose a thread to public safety and to herself... Who can sign the forms for her ?

As previously posted:

Under the mental health act for involuntary admissions:

1) You pose a serious risk that they may cause immediate and serious harm to yourself or others.
2) Your judgement must be so impaired that you need treatment that you can only get in a hospital.
3) Your condition could get worse if you don't get the treatment that could help your mental health.

Notably excluded from involuntary admission are those with substance addictions or those with a personality disorder.

Gemma might be acting the absolute c&nt but she isnt placing herself or others in immediate or serious harm.

Its ridiculously limited on how we can detain people against their will.............and absolutely rightly so.

knucklehead6

PhoneMain wrote: »

As previously posted:

Under the mental health act for involuntary admissions:

1) You pose a serious risk that they may cause immediate and serious harm to yourself or others.
2) Your judgement must be so impaired that you need treatment that you can only get in a hospital.
3) Your condition could get worse if you don't get the treatment that could help your mental health.

Notably excluded from involuntary admission are those with substance addictions or those with a personality disorder.

Gemma might be acting the absolute c&nt but she isnt placing herself or others in immediate or serious harm.

Its ridiculously limited on how we can detain people against their will.............and absolutely rightly so.

She bullied an old man into taking off a mask saying no one was allowed wear a mask near her, in a pandemic. That IS putting someone at risk or harm, no matter what way you spin it.

AndyBoBandy

knucklehead6 wrote: »

She bullied an old man into taking off a mask saying no one was allowed wear a mask near her, in a pandemic. That IS putting someone at risk or harm, no matter what way you spin it.

she also has a hoard of minions that follow her around to protest, all without masks, all not social distancing...

PhoneMain

knucklehead6 wrote: »

She bullied an old man into taking off a mask saying no one was allowed wear a mask near her, in a pandemic. That IS putting someone at risk or harm, no matter what way you spin it.

And you think she should be detained against her will for telling a man on a street to take off his mask (which he did and was free to put on again 30 seconds later when the interaction finished) in an outdoor location with no known covid positive contacts around......will you get a grip. We have a very mirky history of people being locked away against their will in this country, you either dont seem to know that or are ignoring it.

And by the way, I'm a doctor and I'm not willing to diagnose her based on her public utterances, nor am I willing to speculate about it........because it's unethical. Maybe you have more psychiatry experience than me.....which if you do, also makes it unethical for you to speculate about her mental health unless you've assessed/treated her.......which is even more unethical!!!!

PhoneMain

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

she also has a hoard of minions that follow her around to protest, all without masks, all not social distancing...

Well then we should lock up Donald Trump so.

I 100% dont agree with her by the way. But if you start detaining people under the mental health for this sort of behaviour, then you could argue that people who drink and drive could be locked up under the mental health act. You could argue that the acute risk for other drivers on the road is much higher than for people gathering at outdoor protests.

knucklehead6

PhoneMain wrote: »

And you think she should be detained against her will for telling a man on a street to take off his mask (which he did and was free to put on again 30 seconds later when the interaction finished) in an outdoor location with no known covid positive contacts around......will you get a grip. We have a very mirky history of people being locked away against their will in this country, you either dont seem to know that or are ignoring it.

And by the way, I'm a doctor and I'm not willing to diagnose her based on her public utterances, nor am I willing to speculate about it........because it's unethical. Maybe you have more psychiatry experience than me.....which if you do, also makes it unethical for you to speculate about her mental health unless you've assessed/treated her.......which is even more unethical!!!!

And I'm a space astronaut, typing this from the international space station.

See, I can play imaginary career too.

Sardonicat

PhoneMain wrote: »

Well then we should lock up Donald Trump so.

I 100% dont agree with her by the way. But if you start detaining people under the mental health for this sort of behaviour, then you could argue that people who drink and drive could be locked up under the mental health act. You could argue that the acute risk for other drivers on the road is much higher than for people gathering at outdoor protests.

It depends on what's driving the behaviour, though , doesn't it? In this case it's pretty clear its been driven by delusions and paranoia. About a week or so ago there was a video posted on this thread of her approaching an elderly gent and removing his face mask. Now that is endangering others. But apparently no Dr will touch it. We've gone from locking people up for being a bit different to sitting back and watching as someone's life unravels publicly to the point where all their employment prospects, their social and family support groups disintegrate and can be left to languish in homelessness because 'they don't pose a serious danger to themselves and others'.

Sardonicat

PhoneMain wrote: »

And you think she should be detained against her will for telling a man on a street to take off his mask (which he did and was free to put on again 30 seconds later when the interaction finished) in an outdoor location with no known covid positive contacts around......will you get a grip. We have a very mirky history of people being locked away against their will in this country, you either dont seem to know that or are ignoring it.

And by the way, I'm a doctor and I'm not willing to diagnose her based on her public utterances, nor am I willing to speculate about it........because it's unethical. Maybe you have more psychiatry experience than me.....which if you do, also makes it unethical for you to speculate about her mental health unless you've assessed/treated her.......which is even more unethical!!!!

She put her hand up to his face and removed his mask.

PhoneMain

knucklehead6 wrote: »

And I'm a space astronaut, typing this from the international space station.

See, I can play imaginary career too.

Fair enough if that's what you think but what makes you think I'm not? I could give you my MCRN but I'm not identifying myself on an anomymous website.

PhoneMain

Sardonicat wrote: »

It depends on what's driving the behaviour, though , doesn't it? In this case it's pretty clear its been driven by delusions and paranoia. About a week or so ago there was a video posted on this thread of her approaching an elderly gent and removing his face mask. Now that is endangering others. But apparently no Dr will touch it. We've gone from locking people up for being a bit different to sitting back and watching as someone's life unravels publicly to the point where all their employment prospects, their social and family support groups disintegrate and can be left to languish in homelessness because 'they don't pose a serious danger to themselves and others'.

If removing a facemask (which he could legitimately put on again 30 seconds later) warranted serious risk of harm, then every person who's thrown a punch on a night out could be locked up under the mental health act.

By the way, a little info on how involuntary admissions work. A concerned person can apply to a medical professional to have someone assessed. This professional is usually a GP. The medical professional has to examine within 24 hours and can recommend admitting to hospital. There a consultant psychiatrist must examine within 24 hours and can determine if the patient can be detained based on the very stringent criteria as outlined above. Theres stuff about mental health tribunals and the like which I have no experience in so I wont comment on.
But the mental health act specifically disallows detaining someone who:
1) has a personality disorder
2) Is socially deviant or
3) is addicted to drugs or intoxicants.

PhoneMain

Sardonicat wrote: »

She put her hand up to his face and removed his mask.

That's hardly serious harm.