John Waters & Gemma O'Doherty to challenge lockdown in the high Court

Balf

TaurenDruid wrote: »

It absolutely isn't. The 2Km restriction relates solely to exercise. You claim otherwise.

You are being pedantic.

As I correctly said, the restrictions require people not to leave their homes without good reason, and then not to stray further than 2km without good reason.

If you think for more than ten seconds before replying, you will appreciate that is correct.

And then you'll appreciate the leap involved in not batting an eyelid over folk flying in from Bulgaria.

Otherwise, I can be of no further help.

Balf

Mongfinder General wrote: »

He has to be getting up on her. There's no way that he can really believe what is happening is not in the general public's interest.

Maybe that's why Magda Sinead is so pissed.

Mongfinder General

Balf wrote: »

Maybe that's why Magda Sinead is so pissed.

Jaysus. Didn't think of that.

AndrewJRenko

Balf wrote: »

You are being pedantic.

As I correctly said, the restrictions require people not to leave their homes without good reason, and then not to stray further than 2km without good reason.

If you think for more than ten seconds before replying, you will appreciate that is correct.

It is not correct. The 2km restriction relates solely to exercise, no more and no less. Your statement is contradictory in itself - if you can't leave your home without good reason, then not going more than 2km without good reason adds nothing.

There is nothing in law to stop you going 10km for food or 100km for legal business. The only distance limit in law is 2km for exercise. And it's a pretty pointless restriction, but that's for another day or thread.

Balf wrote: »

Maybe that's why Magda Sinead is so pissed.

Every utterance from Sinead would suggest that she has long since moved on from that particular scenario.

Balf

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It is not correct. The 2km restriction relates solely to exercise, no more and no less. Your statement is contradictory in itself - if you can't leave your home without good reason, then not going more than 2km without good reason adds nothing. .

Again,pedantry, unless you are claiming that the restrictions envisage widespread travel, except for exercise.

Are you actually conscious that you are obfusticating?

AndrewJRenko

Balf wrote: »

Again,pedantry, unless you are claiming that the restrictions envisage widespread travel, except for exercise.

Are you actually conscious that you are obfusticating?

This is a legal issue. In law, the 2km limit applies only to exercise. There is no distance limit set out in law for any of the other activities.

You can play whatever games you like about what is 'envisaged', but the legal facts don't change. The 2km limit applies only to exercise.

Balf

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This is a legal issue. In law, the 2km limit applies only to exercise. There is no distance limit set out in law for any of the other activities.

You can play whatever games you like about what is 'envisaged', but the legal facts don't change. The 2km limit applies only to exercise.

Can I suggest you are missing the point, in the pedantic fog you are lost in.

Which is folk are meant to stay at home, unless ......

Are you making some other point?

runawaybishop

Jaysus get a room you two.

Balf

runawaybishop wrote: »

Jaysus get a room you two.

Nothing could be further from my mind, but I'd hate to be a blond in a pub when Renko has a few on board and wants a ride.

TaurenDruid

Balf wrote: »

Can I suggest you are missing the point, in the pedantic fog you are lost in.

Which is folk are meant to stay at home, unless ......

Are you making some other point?

If you think everyone else is being pedantic, maybe the problem is actually in how you express yourself?

AndrewJRenko

Balf wrote: »

Can I suggest you are missing the point, in the pedantic fog you are lost in.

Which is folk are meant to stay at home, unless ......

Are you making some other point?

The point I'm making is that the 2km limit only applies to exercise. There is no legal limit on the distance traveled for other essential services.

Folks are indeed meant to stay at home unless they go shopping, or for other essential business, or (within the 2km limit) they go to exercise.

It's not complicated really.

Balf

TaurenDruid wrote: »

If you think everyone else is being pedantic, maybe the problem is actually in how you express yourself?

But, sure, its only you and the other eejit who are being pedantic

Balf

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The point I'm making is that the 2km limit only applies to exercise. There is no legal limit on the distance traveled for other essential services.

Folks are indeed meant to stay at home unless they go shopping, or for other essential business, or (within the 2km limit) they go to exercise.

It's not complicated really.

Indeed, so why are you dragging the point out? What point of substance did you think was at issue?

Do you feel, in some way, that rephrasing the same basic point means its perfectly obvious that someone would fly 3,500km into the middle of this circus? To pick fruit?

Or did you hope that obvious disconnect would be lost in a flood of pedantry?

TaurenDruid

Balf wrote: »

But, sure, its only you and the other eejit who are being pedantic

But, sure, it's only you being obtuse. :rolleyes:

southstar

Balf wrote: »

Can I suggest you are missing the point, in the pedantic fog you are lost in.

Which is folk are meant to stay at home, unless ......

Are you making some other point?

You are quite clearly the waffler here.....and pedantic...and rather infantile. .the points made to you couldn't be more simple..but feel free to throw a strop .,.isn't that what Boards is for..

Kermit.de.frog

We need a way to get help for people with psychological illness being sucked in to all this. That's what we are dealing with here.

The number of people being drawn in by these conspiracy theories is getting higher all the time. For most I don't believe it's their fault, they are victims of manipulation and misinformation because they are not all there to begin with or they are just vulnerable.

If you believe 5G is a deep state plot spreading disease you have serious issues, you need help from somewhere.

Shame on Waters and O'Doherty for abusing and using these people. That's what it is, abuse.

The Nal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We need a way to get help for people with psychological illness being sucked in to all this. That's what we are dealing with here.

The number of people being drawn in by these conspiracy theories is getting higher all the time. For most I don't believe it's their fault, they are victims of manipulation and misinformation because they are not all there to begin with or they are just vulnerable.

If you believe 5G is a deep state plot spreading disease you have serious issues, you need help from somewhere.

Exactly what RTE and the evil MSM want you to think,

AndrewJRenko

Balf wrote: »

Indeed, so why are you dragging the point out? What point of substance did you think was at issue?

Do you feel, in some way, that rephrasing the same basic point means its perfectly obvious that someone would fly 3,500km into the middle of this circus? To pick fruit?

Or did you hope that obvious disconnect would be lost in a flood of pedantry?

My only hope here was to clarify the actual facts of the actual law- that the 2km limit applies only to exercise and not to anything else.

Balf

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

My only hope here was to clarify the actual facts of the actual law- that the 2km limit applies only to exercise and not to anything else.

Which would be a good way of putting it, if the point of the law was to obstruct sport and exercise for some reason.

But when the point of the law is to confine people to their homes as much as possible, its just pedantic.

pjproby

This is a story about how the link between 5G and coronavirus went viral.

https://www.logically.co.uk/blog/heres-who-was-behind-the-former-vodafone-boss-blows-whistles-on-5g-coronavirus-clip-that-went-viral-on-youtube

blueythebear

Gemma's rousing speech outside the court this week has been noticed by the csso and it looks like a transcript shall be provided to the court...including yhe part where she said she is going to strip the judge of her pension and perks and bring the judge before "our courts".. what that is and for what reason i dont know

Sunny Disposition

Used to like Waters a lot years ago, was an excellent columnist and seemed
like a decent sort, kind of an everyman in a way other IT writers like Fintan O’Toole wouldn’t be.
Now he seems to run out of his way to back any unpopular cause he can. Was stunned that he campaigned against same sex marriage.
Maybe the abuse he got a few years back when he was libelled on the Brendan O’Connor show took a big toll on him? It’s actually quite sad to see. He was once a brilliant journalist.

Kermit.de.frog

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Used to like Waters a lot years ago, was an excellent columnist and seemed
like a decent sort, kind of an everyman in a way other IT writers like Fintan O’Toole wouldn’t be.
Now he seems to run out of his way to back any unpopular cause he can. Was stunned that he campaigned against same sex marriage.
Maybe the abuse he got a few years back when he was libelled on the Brendan O’Connor show took a big toll on him? It’s actually quite sad to see. He was once a brilliant journalist.

Is he being dragged down by Gemma you reckon? The crazy does not seem quite as strong with him to be fair but seems to be getting worse.

shaveAbullock

Yeah same here, didn't always agree with him but liked him as journalist. But something happened that took a serious toll on his mental health. Same with Gemma, she is metally unwell and unfortantily is a danger to others who are mentally unwell.

Sunny Disposition

About eight years ago he wrote a book that showed his intellect was still extremely sharp. Around that time he was also writing excellent articles in the Sindo, remember one brilliant one about the problems facing Roscrea.
Dunno what way he is now, hadn’t heard anything about him for a long time until this week.
Tbh I do think he has often been misunderstood and being libelled by a media darling like Panti Bliss, who somehow became seen as a heroic figure afterwards, was surely difficult.
But I still can’t see how he possibly thought gay marriage should be illegal. The outburst on Dunphy’s podcast was obviously very poor behaviour, wondered at the time had he become kinda hardwired for conflict due to the abuse he had gotten.

astrofool

The worst thing about these cases, is that there's only 2 options.

1. They're mentally unwell, and we should feel sorry for them.

2. It's all a façade for attention in order to increase their profile and keep money from their mentally unwell followers flowing in.

Because of 1, it's very hard to be too harsh on them, which lets them get away with 2.

The only thing for definite, is that their supporters are mentally unwell.

Sunny Disposition

shaveAbullock wrote: »

Yeah same here, didn't always agree with him but liked him as journalist. But something happened that took a serious toll on his mental health. Same with Gemma, she is metally unwell and unfortantily is a danger to others who are mentally unwell.

Hadn’t thought about Waters for years until the last few days. Would actually love to see him interviewed on a chat show now, just to talk about life and himself, rather than getting into his political opinions. The abuse he has gotten over recent times has been very full-on, and the treatment at the IT and particularly from Patsy McGarry must have taken a toll. It’d be good to hear some of his perspective.
Younger readers wouldn’t remember, but he did a lot to raise the lack of rights for single fathers back in the day.

un5byh7sqpd2x0

I presume they’re shagging each other

Weepsie

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Younger readers wouldn’t remember, but he did a lot to raise the lack of rights for single fathers back in the day.

Thing is, all of his nonsense of recent years would suggest there's a good reason he's a single father,

suicide_circus

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Used to like Waters a lot years ago, was an excellent columnist and seemed
like a decent sort, kind of an everyman in a way other IT writers like Fintan O’Toole wouldn’t be.

Waters' association with Gemma is really unfortunate

RicketyCricket

Kaliyah Drab Harpoon wrote:

I presume they’re shagging each other

I presume the same, but is he mad enough to shag her? Is she mad enough to shag him? Are they mad enough to shag each other?

TaurenDruid

blueythebear wrote: »

Gemma's rousing speech outside the court this week has been noticed by the csso and it looks like a transcript shall be provided to the court...including yhe part where she said she is going to strip the judge of her pension and perks and bring the judge before "our courts".. what that is and for what reason i dont know

Now how that plays out - if it's referenced in the next hearing - is going to be really interesting!

freak scence

interview with Waters on gee bags video page he sounds off his trolly

Balf

suicide_circus wrote: »

Waters' association with Gemma is really unfortunate

It reflects a deeper political problem, IMHO. Lack of a coherent opposition.

He still raises necessary points. It shouldn't be that raising this case means your only allies are Gemma and fruitcake nationalists who don't even fit in with Sinn Fein.

But that's how it is.

The Nal

Balf wrote: »

It reflects a deeper political problem, IMHO. Lack of a coherent opposition.

He still raises necessary points. It shouldn't be that raising this case means your only allies are Gemma and fruitcake nationalists who don't even fit in with Sinn Fein.

But that's how it is.

Theres never going to be a viable opposition - a credible right wing - in Ireland because of these nutjobs. Gemma and now Waters are the ones ensuring that. The Nazi National Party and that little sack of shíte Barrett realised this when it was too late, after their utterly embarrassing and hilarious election results. Even they have cut ties with Gems and the conspiracy loons now.

Balf

The Nal wrote: »

Theres never going to be a viable opposition - a credible right wing - in Ireland because of these nutjobs. Gemma and now Waters are the ones ensuring that. The Nazi National Party and that little sack of shíte Barrett realised this when it was too late, after their utterly embarrassing and hilarious election results. Even they have cut ties with Gems and the conspiracy loons now.

And you could add in the Irexit crowd and Renua to that. There's a mash of irrelevant loon movements and supporters, going nowhere.

SF is the only party that mops up enough votes to have meaningful representation. But they're committed to their own agenda.

Then you've a bunch of rural independents, a mildly better option to taking your ballot paper and ripping it in two.

And I'm not especially thinking right wing. Just no reasonable opposition to the substance of policies, when there's a need.

Sunny Disposition

suicide_circus wrote: »

Waters' association with Gemma is really unfortunate

Yeah it is. He was very good one time, personally I can’t understand why he was campaigning against gay marriage, even when he was talking about it he didn’t address the issues.

The Nal

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Yeah it is. He was very good one time, personally I can’t understand why he was campaigning against gay marriage, even when he was talking about it he didn’t address the issues.

Hes in with the Iona crowd isnt he?

plodder

I used to like reading Waters stuff back in the day too.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Maybe the abuse he got a few years back when he was libelled on the Brendan O’Connor show took a big toll on him? It’s actually quite sad to see. He was once a brilliant journalist.

I always thought the furore after that libel settlement (don't think it went to court) must have had an effect on him, as he completely disappeared from public view then. I wondered if he might have been a bit conflicted, that on one hand he was 'vindicated' in a technical sense, but the complete absurdity of Ireland's defamation regime must have been obvious to him. I can't imagine it's easy either for any public figure with any kind of "conservative" reputation. They need thick skin as they are all basically hate figures now.

Balf

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Yeah it is. He was very good one time, personally I can’t understand why he was campaigning against gay marriage, even when he was talking about it he didn’t address the issues.

When something has had as much public support as the gay marriage referendum, and when the issue isn't about gay couple per se, its hard to make the points needed. I'm even in two minds about posting here, as I similarly don't want to start another 500 posts consisting of folk attacking a position that I'm not advancing.

I understood his argument was around impacts on parental rights coming from his previous work on equality for fathers in custody battles. I suspect he had a point, but that was similarly an issue where any questioning was shouted down to an extent that only complete nutterrs with nothing to lose would be with you. It shouldn't be controversial to say that constitutional change should be a last option, as you cannot change on thing in isolation. And we didn't need a constitutional amendment to legislate for gay marriage.

The Nal

The Nal wrote: »

Theres never going to be a viable opposition - a credible right wing - in Ireland because of these nutjobs. Gemma and now Waters are the ones ensuring that. The Nazi National Party and that little sack of shíte Barrett realised this when it was too late, after their utterly embarrassing and hilarious election results. Even they have cut ties with Gems and the conspiracy loons now.

They are still handy mouth pieces for the scrote Barrett, he doesn't mind trying to visit their gatherings when he can.

TaurenDruid

Balf wrote: »

And we didn't need a constitutional amendment to legislate for gay marriage.

Constitutional lawyers, a peoples' assembly and the Oireachtas disagree with you, but sure, whatever...

Balf

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Constitutional lawyers, a peoples' assembly and the Oireachtas disagree with you, but sure, whatever...

Ah, what joy there must be in a simple outlook.

I wish I wasn't able to distinguish between the absence of a right, and a prohibition.

Useful, though, if you want to confine people to their homes.

uptherebels

Balf wrote: »

Ah, what joy there must be in a simple outlook.

I wish I wasn't able to distinguish between the absence of a right, and a prohibition.

Useful, though, if you want to confine people to their homes.

If only your opinion of the necessity of a referendum had any actual weight

Annasopra

Balf wrote: »

Ah, what joy there must be in a simple outlook.

I wish I wasn't able to distinguish between the absence of a right, and a prohibition.

Useful, though, if you want to confine people to their homes.

Maybe you could expand on why you believe the referendum was not legally necessary then?

TaurenDruid

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Maybe you could expand on why you believe the referendum was not legally necessary then?

Maybe we could not feed the troll?

Sunny Disposition

Balf wrote: »

When something has had as much public support as the gay marriage referendum, and when the issue isn't about gay couple per se, its hard to make the points needed. I'm even in two minds about posting here, as I similarly don't want to start another 500 posts consisting of folk attacking a position that I'm not advancing.

I understood his argument was around impacts on parental rights coming from his previous work on equality for fathers in custody battles. I suspect he had a point, but that was similarly an issue where any questioning was shouted down to an extent that only complete nutterrs with nothing to lose would be with you. It shouldn't be controversial to say that constitutional change should be a last option, as you cannot change on thing in isolation. And we didn't need a constitutional amendment to legislate for gay marriage.

One of the problems he has had is that he is too intelligent for arguing with people who like things simple. But I don’t get how same sex marriage was making things harder for fathers?

Sunny Disposition

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

One of the problems he has had is that he is too intelligent for arguing with people who like things simple. But I don’t get how same sex marriage was making things harder for fathers?

His storming out of the podcast with Dunphy would indicate otherwise.

As for marriage equality making things harder for fathers the only sites that I have seen stating anything close to this are the usual sh1te fests and religious based sites popular with the likes of iona.

YFlyer

Sir Stevo Timothy doing a parody of Gemma confronting the Gardai.

Balf

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Maybe we could not feed the troll?

Actually not trolling, but not surprised that a baying mob is starting to assemble.