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

plodder

blueythebear wrote: »

There you go

Thanks for the info. I still think it's excessive though, but that's not a debate for here :pac:

VillageIdiot71

plodder wrote: »

Thanks for the info. I still think it's excessive though, but that's not a debate for here :pac:

Indeed, but should temper the idea that stuffing them with the costs has no implications for anyone else. As if we all agree that an undeniable outcome of the case is three barristers should split €75,000 and the only doubt is over who gives it to them.

Like, whoever loses, they should obviously win. Took three of them to answer a case by two amateurs? Gemtrails and John are that good? Strong risk of the judge being swayed by the comparison to Nazi Germany?

Come to think of it, why not discuss it here? Its the practical outcome of the case. No merits to the complaint, now who's giving these kind people their moolah?

trashcan

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Indeed, but should temper the idea that stuffing them with the costs has no implications for anyone else. As if we all agree that an undeniable outcome of the case is three barristers should split €75,000 and the only doubt is over who gives it to them.

Like, whoever loses, they should obviously win. Took three of them to answer a case by two amateurs? Gemtrails and John are that good? Strong risk of the judge being swayed by the comparison to Nazi Germany?

Come to think of it, why not discuss it here? Its the practical outcome of the case. No merits to the complaint, now who's giving these kind people their moolah?

Well, the States barristers will get paid either way, so if costs are not awarded against GemJohn then that will be the taxpayer footing the bill.

VillageIdiot71

trashcan wrote: »

Well, the States barristers will get paid either way, so if costs are not awarded against GemJohn then that will be the taxpayer footing the bill.

That's sort of my point. Global pandemic, yadda yadda. But the one certainty is the sacrosanct barristers fee.

Fair play to the legals on thus thread not saying "well, its not just the couple of days in Court. They've to prepare documents, research the case and so forth". Because we get that. But, as I'm sure we all appreciate, the point is how did GemJohn make a case that was so good it cost €75,000 to refute it?

Anticipating the " do you think they should work for free" line, there's a lot of scope between zero and €75,000. Say this took the three barristers one to two weeks. How about a fee related to the Covid payment of €350pw? Just given the big picture issue involved.

Say up to €2000, split three ways. Fair?

TaurenDruid

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Say up to €2000, split three ways. Fair?

If you can find a decent barrister willing to take a case for €700, fair play to you!

And can I get their number, please?

VillageIdiot71

TaurenDruid wrote: »

If you can find a decent barrister willing to take a case for €700, fair play to you!

And can I get their number, please?

Yeah, and that's sort of yarn that gets pulled out to make it seem reasonable, isn't it? Of course you need three decent barristers to do this as, like the infinite number of monkeys producing the perfect copy of King Lear, GemJohn stumbled into making such a brilliant case that the best legal minds had to be brought into play.

Like the other yarn that gets airplay at these times is that excessive fees can be reduced by the Taxing Master. But, like yourself, the Taxing Master's mindset is calibrated to see €75,000 for a couple of days in the High Court as perfectly reasonable.

So if he'd cut them down from €100,000, he'd head home thinking he'd done a good day's work and maybe even bore his wife, once again, with his he can't understand all the negative comment about legal fees. Do people not understand that he'd never let three guys get more than €75,000 for a couple of days in the High Court listening to a pair of loopers antagonising a Judge? Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

whippet

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Yeah, and that's sort of yarn that gets pulled out to make it seem reasonable, isn't it? Of course you need three decent barristers to do this as, like the infinite number of monkeys producing the perfect copy of King Lear, GemJohn stumbled into making such a brilliant case that the best legal minds had to be brought into play.

Like the other yarn that gets airplay at these times is that excessive fees can be reduced by the Taxing Master. But, like yourself, the Taxing Master's mindset is calibrated to see €75,000 for a couple of days in the High Court as perfectly reasonable.

So if he'd cut them down from €100,000, he'd head home thinking he'd done a good day's work and maybe even bore his wife, once again, with his he can't understand all the negative comment about legal fees. Do people not understand that he'd never let three guys get more than €75,000 for a couple of days in the High Court listening to a pair of loopers antagonising a Judge? Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

And that the sort of bar stool comment you’d expect to hear from someone who hasn’t a clue

VillageIdiot71

whippet wrote: »

And that the sort of bar stool comment you’d expect to hear from someone who hasn’t a clue

But apparently, it would still cost €75,000 to prove me wrong.

Seriously. You can't justify it. €75,000 to refute a pair of amateurs.

Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

CrabRevolution

I'd be shocked if it was declared "In the public interest" and costs weren't awarded against them. How could the courts declare a case to be totally baseless, yet at the same time in the public interest?

brightspark

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

But apparently, it would still cost €75,000 to prove me wrong.

Seriously. You can't justify it. €75,000 to refute a pair of amateurs.

Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

If they had taken competent legal advice beforehand they would have been told either to not to take the case or it would have been presented properly and IF they won they wouldn't have to pay the states cost.

They lost due to their own incompetence, why should the taxpayer pick up the cost?

VinLieger

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

But apparently, it would still cost €75,000 to prove me wrong.

Seriously. You can't justify it. €75,000 to refute a pair of amateurs.

Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

Yes because if they had got through to the next stage because the state hadnt argued their case correctly due to maybe only paying 10k for a barrister instead of 75k, people like you you be the first on here complaining they cheaped out.

They have to take things like this seriously regardless of who they are against.

CrabRevolution

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes because if they had got through to the next stage because the state hadnt argued their case correctly due to maybe only paying 10k for a barrister instead of 75k, people like you you be the first on here complaining they cheaped out.

They have to take things like this seriously regardless of who they are against.

Pretty much. There are numerous posts on this thread saying that even if it fails we should be grateful that this case is before the courts, such cases act as a bulwark against tyrannical state power, it's only right that the government are forced to defend themselves, can't put a cost on freedom etc.

But now that the case failed it was all a waste of time and money and we should've done it cheaper....

Wildlife Actor

The State solicitor is entitled to costs too. Usually the solicitors bill is higher that barristers but the state solicitor would not have a profit component so maybe not here.

VillageIdiot71

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes because if they had got through to the next stage because the state hadnt argued their case correctly due to maybe only paying 10k for a barrister instead of 75k, people like you you be the first on here complaining they cheaped out.

They have to take things like this seriously regardless of who they are against.

Point totally missed. And, no, I wouldn't be complaining if the legal costs were less, that's wishful thinking on your part.

Unless you are saying GemJohn had an incredibly robust case.

brightspark wrote: »

They lost due to their own incompetence, why should the taxpayer pick up the cost?

You do realise I'm not arguing about who pick up the cost, but the amount.

plodder

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

That's sort of my point. Global pandemic, yadda yadda. But the one certainty is the sacrosanct barristers fee.

They are doing a job. So, they deserve to be paid for it surely? Not sure if it's the same here, but in England, the taxi-rank rule means they can't even refuse a job if it's within their area of expertise.

If the costs are 75K then I assume they can appeal it and maybe there is a point to be made about the approach towards preparation when dealing with lay litigants.

blueythebear

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

You do realise I'm not arguing about who pick up the cost, but the amount.

The state does not employ the barristers who a self employed so the state has no control over their fees. They could have sought 3 quotes but barristets rates dont differ a great deal.

VinLieger

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Point totally missed. And, no, I wouldn't be complaining if the legal costs were less, that's wishful thinking on your part.

Unless you are saying GemJohn had an incredibly robust case.


You do realise I'm not arguing about who pick up the cost, but the amount.

Yes i do realise that and its a fvcking moronic argument because your approaching it with the hindsight of knowing their case was garbage, the government had no way of knowing this beforehand and therefore had to field a fully equipped defense.


Also you seem to be the one who missed the point of what i said. If the government hadn't fielded a defense and the nutjobs case had somehow lucked into meeting the requirements thanks to the lack of a good government defense then people like you would have been the first on here complaining about that and that the government should have taken it seriously and spent more money.


Basically your posts read like a serial complainer who will never be happy and no matter the outcome you, in your captain hindsight suit, would have done a better job.

VillageIdiot71

plodder wrote: »

They are doing a job. So, they deserve to be paid for it surely? Not sure if it's the same here, but in England, the taxi-rank rule means they can't even refuse a job if it's within their area of expertise.

If the costs are 75K then I assume they can appeal it and maybe there is a point to be ma Ide about the approach towards preparation when dealing with lay litigants.

blueythebear wrote: »

The state does not employ the barristers who a self employed so the state has no control over their fees. They could have sought 3 quotes but barristets rates dont differ a great deal.

The State has no control over what what it pays as they all charge the same. I tell you what, I won't say what's the obvious problem with that statement, and just point out that the 'appeal' point was already addressed.

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Like the other yarn that gets airplay at these times is that excessive fees can be reduced by the Taxing Master. But, like yourself, the Taxing Master's mindset is calibrated to see €75,000 for a couple of days in the High Court as perfectly reasonable.

So if he'd cut them down from €100,000, he'd head home thinking he'd done a good day's work and maybe even bore his wife, once again, with his he can't understand all the negative comment about legal fees. Do people not understand that he'd never let three guys get more than €75,000 for a couple of days in the High Court listening to a pair of loopers antagonising a Judge? Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

VillageIdiot71

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes i do realise that and its a fvcking moronic argument because your approaching it with the hindsight of knowing their case was garbage, the government had no way of knowing this beforehand and therefore had to field a fully equipped defense.

Which, again, is already addressed.

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Yeah, and that's sort of yarn that gets pulled out to make it seem reasonable, isn't it? Of course you need three decent barristers to do this as, like the infinite number of monkeys producing the perfect copy of King Lear, GemJohn stumbled into making such a brilliant case that the best legal minds had to be brought into play.

So you tell us the great case that GemJohn might have pulled out of their pocket.

If you've something to actually say, you might find you can make s post without resorting to the puerile practice of typing a v instead of a u so you can get around the swearometer.

I understand. You get the point, and find you can't address it. Fine. It just means you need to change your perspective, as its just plain wrong if the one certainty in the situation is three guys trouser €75,000 and someone's gotta pay.

VinLieger wrote: »

Basically your posts read like a serial complainer who will never be happy and no matter the outcome you, in your captain hindsight suit, would have done a better job.

This is just harrumph, harrumph, harrumph.

Are you a legal professional, and is that why you're getting so worked up?

VillageIdiot71

Because I'm all about helping people develop, here's a post from 15 April on this very thread, commenting on the merits of GemJohn's arguments.

John Hutton wrote: »

The restrictions may be necessary and worthwhile but it doesn't mean they are legal.

There are some very interesting constitutional questions at play here, will be curious to see what happens.

VinLieger wrote: »

There really isn't, do you know how I can tell? Cus of the conspiracy idiots involved.

See how it doesn't say the case has a realistic chance?

Still cost you €75,000 to prove that. That goes without saying.

blueythebear

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Because I'm all about helping people develop, here's a post from 15 April on this very thread, commenting on the merits of GemJohn's arguments.
See how it doesn't say the case has a realistic chance?

Still cost you €75,000 to prove that. That goes without saying.

The applicants prepared a 30 page statement of grounds. Submissions had to be prepared to counter every argument no matter how unmeritorious. Three barristers needed because of a multiplicity of respondents.

Regardless of the merits of the case, the state had to put its best foot forward, to get rid of it at leave stage. Its not very difficult to get leave for a judicial review but if they had gotten leave you are talking about double the fees most likely plus amuch bigger dog and pony show from gemma and her supporters. That is why you pay a little more upfront to avoid much larger fees down the line.

Plus killing this case from the start will avoid a flood of other cases from her followers for damages over unconstitutional laws as well as avoid further "gatherings"at the four courts

blueythebear

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Because I'm all about helping people develop, here's a post from 15 April on this very thread, commenting on the merits of GemJohn's arguments.
See how it doesn't say the case has a realistic chance?

Still cost you €75,000 to prove that. That goes without saying.

The applicants prepared a 30 page statement of grounds. Submissions had to be prepared to counter every argument no matter how unmeritorious. Three barristers needed because of a multiplicity of respondents.

Regardless of the merits of the case, the state had to put its best foot forward, to get rid of it at leave stage. Its not very difficult to get leave for a judicial review but if they had gotten leave you are talking about double the fees most likely plus amuch bigger dog and pony show from gemma and her supporters. That is why you pay a little more upfront to avoid much larger fees down the line.

Plus killing this case from the start will avoid a flood of other cases from her followers for damages over unconstitutional laws as well as avoid further "gatherings"at the four courts

VinLieger

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Which, again, is already addressed.
So you tell us the great case that GemJohn might have pulled out of their pocket.

I don't know im not a legal expert and i dont think you are either, however there are always potential problems with legislation that was rushed as this was. Your argument for not paying 75k is entirely based on the ability to apply hindsight and therefore it has no merit as a real argument.

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

If you've something to actually say, you might find you can make s post without resorting to the puerile practice of typing a v instead of a u so you can get around the swearometer.

Ohh no ive offended your sensibilities.....imagine me playing the smallest violin etc etc....

If you have such thin skin as to be offended by me typing "fvcking" you probably should avoid the internet entirely.

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

I understand. You get the point, and find you can't address it. Fine. It just means you need to change your perspective, as its just plain wrong if the one certainty in the situation is three guys trouser €75,000 and someone's gotta pay.

Why is it wrong? they did the work. should they not get paid? Your problem seems to be with the legal profession and our legal system tbh and your tacking it onto this case to try and make yourself feel better about your own bias.

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Are you a legal professional, and is that why you're getting so worked up?

Lol and your claiming im making ad hominem arguments?

political analyst

Did Waters and O'Doherty seek legal advice at all? Judging by what they were at in court, it looks like they didn't.

Surely, there must be many others who have the means to take a better legal challenge to the Covid restrictions than that!

Wildlife Actor

political analyst wrote: »

Did Waters and O'Doherty seek legal advice at all? Judging by what they were at in court, it looks like they didn't.

Surely, there must be many others who have the means to take a better legal challenge to the Covid restrictions than that!

They could have:
Lawyer: "you need to have evidence to prove what you're saying"
Gemtrails: "I'm not a scientist but I knows things"
Lawyer: "eh that won't cut it in court"

Outcome 1 - Gemtrails: "you're fired"

Outcome 2 - Lawyer : "I still have some self respect. Bye"

VillageIdiot71

blueythebear wrote: »

The applicants prepared a 30 page statement of grounds. Submissions had to be prepared to counter every argument no matter how unmeritorious. Three barristers needed because of a multiplicity of respondents.

<snip>

Plus killing this case from the start will avoid a flood of other cases from her followers for damages over unconstitutional laws as well as avoid further "gatherings"at the four courts

Partly, we're talking about two slightly different things. You're saying "this is just the kind of nonsense that the State has to do whenever it has to turn up in the High Court", where I'm more saying "Isn't there a strong element of nonsense to what the State has to do when it turns up in Court". You see it as unavoidable. I accept it's endemic, and really just want folk to notice the farce involved (because questioning things is a start to seeing them as, eventually, avoidable). That shouldn't be an unbridgeable gap.

From what I've read, the Judges dealing with GemJohn were excellent. Judge Murphy, in the transcript linked to this thread, poured cold water on your "30 page submission" point, when the State was looking for a lengthy delay to respond to GemJohn's Deep Thought. As she said, there's a core issue that just ain't that hard to respond to. And it was good to see the final Judge, in his decision, saying pretty clearly that if he thought it was a case of two citizens without legal representation having their rights infringed, he wouldn't knock them out on a purely procedural point.

I think you need to reflect on restricting access to the High Court, by frightening folk with the risk of being hit with a €75,000 bill, I mean, we're either saying the High Court can be called on by any citizen willing to cough up two hundred yoyos in Stamp Duty, or we're not.

Maybe it's "not", and that's probably how most people feel. But do you think that's a positive feature? Would you like to see that stated as a necessary requirement for any citizen feeling their rights have been infringed in some material way?

VillageIdiot71

Oh, dear.

VinLieger wrote: »

Why is it wrong? they did the work. should they not get paid? Your problem seems to be with the legal profession and our legal system tbh and your tacking it onto this case to try and make yourself feel better about your own bias.

I've actually made it as clear as clear can be that the point I'm raising is, indeed, how the legal system descends into farce if the main conclusion in this case is that the three barristers engaged by the State absolutely must trouser €75,000, and the only ambiguity is who give it to them.

VinLieger wrote: »

Lol and your claiming im making ad hominem arguments?

I can appreciate you can't distinguish between simply insulting someone and asking if someone has a vested interest.

Tbh, there's no short-cut to your personal reflection on how these two things are different.

VillageIdiot71

political analyst wrote: »

Surely, there must be many others who have the means to take a better legal challenge to the Covid restrictions than that!

There are, but I suspect they'll pick their ground. Like, if there was an attempt to prevent pubs with restaurant licences opening at the end of June I suspect there would be a challenge. But you can anticipate it would be along the lines that they were doing whatever is necessary to ensure staff and customers are not at risk.

extra gravy

Long live the Ivory Coast!

plodder

extra gravy wrote: »

Long live the Ivory Coast!

technically it's not wrong - so long as you imagine Waters as 'the flagpole'

Kermit.de.frog

Cote d'ivoire!

Penn

plodder wrote: »

technically it's not wrong - so long as you imagine Waters as 'the flagpole'

Of all the things I've imagined John Waters as, a flagpole would be one of the kinder ones.

VillageIdiot71

political analyst wrote: »

Surely, there must be many others who have the means to take a better legal challenge to the Covid restrictions than that!

Just to say, indeed a more professional and resourced group is making noises.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/human-rights-group-two-week-quarantine-and-garda-powers-raise-issues-amid-pandemic-1000449.html

ICCL warned significant pre-legislative scrutiny will be required before the implementation of any further measures, such as a quarantine, and criticised the Minister for Health Simon Harris for not carrying out a human rights assessment ahead of extending garda powers. It also urged the government to reduce the extent of garda powers.

Specifically on the quarantine issue, Mr Herrick said "such regulations raise a number of human rights issues".

"Creating a blanket legal requirement to self-isolate is a significant interference with the right the liberty and free movement," he said. "Any such interference must be proven to be necessary and proportionate to the ongoing health risk posed by Covid-19. This means that there needs to be clear advice from health experts that this is required. And it needs to be the least interference possible to achieve public health aims."

The blanket quarantine without sufficient health context would represent "too broad a restriction on rights to be proportionate", ICCL said.

Again, notable that ICCL pick their ground and cite comments by WHO people when making their case.

But I'd say its a long distance before ICCL would make a Court challenge, particularly if relevant powers simply lapse on 6 November. I suspect they are just giving a timely reminder that emergency measures can't be just slid into a 'new normal', as if a ' new normal' had just been presented to us on tablets of stone.

Guy:Incognito

plodder wrote: »

technically it's not wrong - so long as you imagine Waters as 'the flagpole'

Planted in the ground head first.



I see from the other banners they want people to have the freedom over their own bodies.

Has Waters done a 180 and is now in support of the repeal of the 8th amendment or is it just body autonomy for the things he wants it for (dont know Gemmas stance but is she not going the hardline catholic angle now so presumably shes anti the repealing of the 8th?)

Brock Turnpike

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Planted in the ground head first.



I see from the other banners they want people to have the freedom over their own bodies.

Has Waters done a 180 and is now in support of the repeal of the 8th amendment or is it just body autonomy for the things he wants it for (dont know Gemmas stance but is she not going the hardline catholic angle now so presumably shes anti the repealing of the 8th?)

You're a ****ing bollix! You can **** off!


*That's my John Waters impression*

blueythebear

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Just to say, indeed a more professional and resourced group is making noises.
Again, notable that ICCL pick their ground and cite comments by WHO people when making their case.

But I'd say its a long distance before ICCL would make a Court challenge, particularly if relevant powers simply lapse on 6 November. I suspect they are just giving a timely reminder that emergency measures can't be just slid into a 'new normal', as if a ' new normal' had just been presented to us on tablets of stone.

Another great patriot has challenged the legislation with as much success. At least he didnt shamelessly court publicity....

https://beta.courts.ie/view/judgments/2bbb3b58-8d5c-40cf-aaa1-1ca292d4f360/33ae99a2-c81f-4235-9f71-43f8ca6676bd/2020_IEHC_220.pdf/pdf

Kermit.de.frog

This is bonkers stuff. I thought John Waters use to be the sensible type. Maybe i'm wrong but seems to be heading downhill fast!

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1263055601816473601

sydthebeat

The irony is so delicious that's its completely lost on those gobsh!tes.

Creol1

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is bonkers stuff. I thought John Waters use to be the sensible type. Maybe i'm wrong but seems to be heading downhill fast!

I blame the fluoride. :rolleyes:

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is bonkers stuff. I thought John Waters use to be the sensible type. Maybe i'm wrong

sorry Kermit but its 100% the case that you were wrong!

he was always a nutcase, but once upon a time he had a cushy number and never had to hear anyone tell him he was a nutcase.

like anyone who makes serious arguments in 2020 based on esoteric theological points, he has entire levers switched the wring way in his head

the irish times funnelling money to him, iona or any of their slush companies until recently is an excellent argument to never giving them a cent of yr money ever again (fintan and una are the next two best arguments for same lest i be accused of picking on the right)

Capt'n Midnight

political analyst wrote: »

Did Waters and O'Doherty seek legal advice at all? Judging by what they were at in court, it looks like they didn't.

They didn't seek medical or scientific advice either.

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

I think you need to reflect on restricting access to the High Court, by frightening folk with the risk of being hit with a €75,000 bill, I mean, we're either saying the High Court can be called on by any citizen willing to cough up two hundred yoyos in Stamp Duty, or we're not.

Key point in the judgement was they didn't have to start off in the High Court. They chose probably the most expensive and most time wasting way to do it.

Both have have gone down the legal route many times so are well aware of lawyers and court proceedings, costs and how long it takes.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is bonkers stuff. I thought John Waters use to be the sensible type. Maybe i'm wrong but seems to be heading downhill fast!

John was jailed rather than pay a €40 parking fine. So has form on utterly wasting court time. And no he wasn't actively unloading at the time. It's also very difficult to square the whole holier than thou Iona Institute thing with his dealings with Sinead O'Connor.

EDIT :mad: at that tweet now because blasphemy was removed in 2018.
Also long ago , 5 January, 1973
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1972 [Removed from the Constitution the special position of the Catholic Church and the recognition of other named religious denominations.]

VillageIdiot71

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Both have have gone down the legal route many times so are well aware of lawyers and court proceedings, costs and how long it takes.

And, you'll appreciate, that's tangental to any point I'm making.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

EDIT :mad: at that tweet now because blasphemy was removed in 2018.
Also long ago , 5 January, 1973
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1972 [Removed from the Constitution the special position of the Catholic Church and the recognition of other named religious denominations.]

I think the point he's making is, today, the preamble of the Constitution still says

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,

Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

IIRC, the preamble can't be amended. To get rid of it, you'd have to adopt a new Constitution.

The preamble has, in the past, been cited by the Courts as meaning the State has a Christian ethos.

And, just anticipating reactions, no I don't believe in the Holy Trinity. I'm just reminding people of what their Constitution says, although I'm sure they all knew this.

TaurenDruid

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

I think the point he's making is, today, the preamble of the Constitution still saysIIRC, the preamble can't be amended. To get rid of it, you'd have to adopt a new Constitution.

Which could be identical in every way to the existing Constitution, just with a new 21st century non-RC preamble.

lawrencesummers

It doesn’t look good for the Gardaí that they move on people protesting in a socially distanced way outside Debenhams while the gemmaroid gang were allowed to congregate, abuse Gardaí and act the maggot on a few occasions.

Doesn’t look good at all unfortunately and I would be full of praise for their work over the last few months.

blueythebear

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

And, you'll appreciate, that's tangental to any point I'm making.

I think the point he's making is, today, the preamble of the Constitution still saysIIRC, the preamble can't be amended. To get rid of it, you'd have to adopt a new Constitution.

The preamble has, in the past, been cited by the Courts as meaning the State has a Christian ethos.

And, just anticipating reactions, no I don't believe in the Holy Trinity. I'm just reminding people of what their Constitution says, although I'm sure they all knew this.

But the preamble is not binding. The presence of divorce, same sex marriage and abortion in the constitution is proof positive of this.

Hotblack Desiato

blueythebear wrote: »

But the preamble is not binding. The presence of divorce, same sex marriage and abortion in the constitution is proof positive of this.

It still needs to go though.

Where in the Constitution does it say the preamble cannot be amended? Either it is part of the constitution, or it is not. If it is not, then what is stopping it being changed legislatively? If it is, then by a specific referendum?

VillageIdiot71

blueythebear wrote: »

But the preamble is not binding. The presence of divorce, same sex marriage and abortion in the constitution is proof positive of this.

I guess you know the point, and 'not binding' isn't speaking to it. As I suspect you know, any part of the Constitution can and pretty much has been taken into account by the Courts. And, specifically, the preamble has been used by the Courts in the manner I have stated, as I guess you know.

I don't think we need to avoid the point. Our Constitution is a bit incoherent, as it starts by pledging the State to the Holy Trinity (not just the RC religion), and then goes on to provide for gay marriage. So we are constituted as a Christian State that recognises gay marriage.

Go figure. But that's where we are. I mean, the Preamble is hard to miss. As are the references to it in High Court cases that you are probably well aware of.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It still needs to go though.

Where in the Constitution does it say the preamble cannot be amended? Either it is part of the constitution, or it is not. If it is not, then what is stopping it being changed legislatively? If it is, then by a specific referendum?

I'm not absolutely sure, but I think the Constitution allows that any "provision" can be changed, and the legals say the Preamble isnt a "provision".

Its the kind of nonsense they cook up to make stuff complicated, so they can charge you €75,000 for spending a couple of days laughing at a couple of loopers.

extra gravy

https://twitter.com/tpmlaws/status/1265372778632556544?s=19

The Internet is too fast!

The Nal

Gems and John a complete joke now. Instead of protests they're just being pranked sort of Jackass style.

What a pathetic turnout aswell.

dundalkfc10

The Nal wrote: »

Gems and John a complete joke now. Instead of protests they're just being pranked sort of Jackass style.

What a pathetic turnout aswell.

The most pathetic part IMO was the council and gardai saying beach was closed, but not stopping Gemma entering it (pity the tide never came in quick though)

Videos of people throwing sand and water on her aswell (great to see)