Can we have some fcuking control on the airports from high risk countries please?

NSAman

Jizique wrote: »

Taxpayer will end up having to pay them compo yet

Oh great, shows you that Ireland is screwed. From what I have read, sole source of income is unmarried mothers allowance, no money for MHQ and no one to look after their children (who looked after them while the boobs were being done?), legal aid granted, and pictures of Balenciaga trainers?

Something rotten in the State of Ireland.

Yet me, as an Irish citizen living abroad has not been outside the door for a year and a half, Quarantined properly, not gone on any trips at all (longest stay in one place since I was 12), might still have to mandatory quarantine, despite having a vaccine (next week) and would travel with a pc test done prior to travel, and also purchase one at home to protect those in Ireland?

Guess it’s all who your free legal representative is!

Away With The Fairies

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

Their address was printed in other news articles. One of them living in an apartment in temple bar. Checked daft for a similar property in same apartment building.

Imagine being like this.

Red Silurian

Ace2007 wrote: »

The inquiry is not directed at the law though - it's more directed at the bail conditions - for instance had the judge set bail at having to quarantine at hotel and deferred the hotel payment, would they still be objecting to bail?

Weren't they initially allowed to pay for their quarantine at a later date? Seems strange that their bail conditions required lodged payments from that point of view... Mind you the ladies initially said they would hotel quarantine just to get on the flight

ZX7R

Ace2007 wrote: »

The inquiry is not directed at the law though - it's more directed at the bail conditions - for instance had the judge set bail at having to quarantine at hotel and deferred the hotel payment, would they still be objecting to bail?

They were granted under the Constitution to challenge the laws used to what they were charged with.
If there is a problem with the laws to inforce none compliance doesn't matter how small it will affect mandatory quarantine if they win there case.
The inquiry is about there current incarceration.

Away With The Fairies

Red Silurian wrote: »

Weren't they initially allowed to pay for their quarantine at a later date? Seems strange that their bail conditions required lodged payments from that point of view... Mind you the ladies initially said they would hotel quarantine just to get on the flight

Yes they were allowed to pay at a later date. But then they thought they could have their kids join them in the quarantine hotel and when the kids couldn't join them, they refused to go to the hotel. God, how is it self-isolating if you want to bring your kids in as well, kids that weren't abroad with them in the first place.

Ace2007

ZX7R wrote: »

They were granted under the Constitution to challenge the laws used to what they were charged with.
If there is a problem with the laws to inforce none compliance doesn't matter how small it will affect mandatory quarantine if they win there case.
The inquiry is about there current incarceration.

And what if the inquiry finds that the law is sound - what will happen to these two women then? are they happy to sit in jail for a month and possible face fine of 2k?

Away With The Fairies

b0nk1e wrote: »

Imagine being like this.

I honestly couldn't care less. An expensive apartment in temple bar. Fly off and have an expensive holiday, turn around and change their tune and now they can't afford hotel quarantine. Can't afford to keep their own family and friends safe. The same family and friends who apparently gifted them the holiday.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

And what if the inquiry finds that the law is sound - what will happen to these two women then? are they happy to sit in jail for a month and possible face fine of 2k?

They're being imprisoned against their will anyway. What have they to lose?

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I honestly couldn't care less. An expensive apartment in temple bar. Fly off and have an expensive holiday, turn around and change their tune and now they can't afford hotel quarantine. Can't afford to keep their own family and friends safe. The same family and friends who apparently gifted them the holiday.

Jealousy is such a terrible look.

ZX7R

Ace2007 wrote: »

And what if the inquiry finds that the law is sound - what will happen to these two women then? are they happy to sit in jail for a month and possible face fine of 2k?

If the law is sound,they should receive there punishment

Ace2007

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I honestly couldn't care less. An expensive apartment in temple bar. Fly off and have an expensive holiday, turn around and change their tune and now they can't afford hotel quarantine. Can't afford to keep their own family and friends safe. The same family and friends who apparently gifted them the holiday.

How would you feel to be a family member or friend - supporting their need to a boob job - and then they don't get the job done and the money wasted. Instead they have a holiday.

Away With The Fairies

b0nk1e wrote: »

They're being imprisoned against their will anyway. What have they to lose?



Jealousy is such a terrible look.

It's not jealousy. Their stories aren't adding up.

Ace2007

b0nk1e wrote: »

They're being imprisoned against their will anyway. What have they to lose?

A criminal record probably wouldn't be a good thing to have now would it?

This could impact them going to Dubai in future or other countries.

Wouldn't look great for job prospects either.

Leinster90

How shameless does a family have to be to give someone a boob job for their birthday?

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

A criminal record probably wouldn't be a good thing to have now would it?

This could impact them going to Dubai in future or other countries.

Wouldn't look great for job prospects either.

Yes, Dubai is well known for its complete ban on Irish criminals :rolleyes:

Sono Topolino

The quarantine law is obviously unconstitutional - it's disproportionate and arbitrary (France is not on the quarantine list), and does not distinguish between Irish residents who have a home where they can isolate and visitors. I expect the entire law will get thrown out.

Edit: the reason for putting the UAE on the list seems to be that it's a transport hub and they don't want people travelling to Asia full stop.

NSAman

Ace2007 wrote: »

Wouldn't look great for job prospects either.

Errrrrrr........hmmmmmm........Ok I won’t face a ban by commenting

Sono Topolino

Sono Topolino wrote: »

The quarantine law is obviously unconstitutional - it's disproportionate and arbitrary (France is not on the quarantine list), and does not distinguish between Irish residents who have a home where they can isolate and visitors. I expect the entire law will get thrown out.

Edit: the reason for putting the UAE on the list seems to be that it's a transport hub and they don't want people travelling to Asia full stop.

What part of the constitution? How so?

Would love someone who makes this claim could back it up

faceman

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

It's not jealousy. Their stories aren't adding up.

With all due respect, your posts are implying your interest in the case is more about how they got the money rather than whether the law they are being charged with is sound.

I dont think you realise the gravity of what is happening here. If the court finds their detention unconstitutional, it creates a massive issue for the Health Act for which it rolls under. We know all this legislation is somewhat rushed given the times we live in and this could unravel MHQ entirely.

But if found unconstitutional, aside from political fallout and further anger from the general public, it begs the question; what other aspects of the Health Act is unconstitutional? Perhaps none at all, but it leaves it open to further scrutiny.

None of this has anything to do with where they got the money from, whether they live in Temple Bar or Leitrim or whether they eat Corn Flakes or Pop Tarts for breakfast.

faceman

Ace2007 wrote: »

But the inquiry is directed at the Governor of the prison, not the state.:rolleyes:

The prison service is responsible for people held in custody

Alast

The demonization of people coming back from abroad ( no matter what the reason of their travel) is horrific and needs to stop.

I wonder, how a lot of the people whom are carrying pitchforks here, would act if it is them or their family members being put in a similar situation.

faceman

*Sigh*

Zero credibility in the team who make recommendations as to who should be on the category 2 list.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/twelve-states-on-hotel-quarantine-list-have-covid-incidence-rates-of-below-10-1106470.html

Ace2007

Alast wrote: »

The demonization of people coming back from abroad ( no matter what the reason of their travel) is horrific and needs to stop.

I wonder, how a lot of the people whom are carrying pitchforks here, would act if it is them or their family members being put in a similar situation.

But they went on holidays abroad, and then wanted to come back to Ireland and not quarantine as per the law.

Alast

faceman wrote: »

*Sigh*

Zero credibility in the team who make recommendations as to who should be on the category 2 list.

It was obvious, from day 1, that the MHQ is pure optics/blustering for the Irish Government.

Disgraceful how it discriminates against poorer African/Southern American countries.

xhomelezz

Alast wrote: »

The demonization of people coming back from abroad ( no matter what the reason of their travel) is horrific and needs to stop.

I wonder, how a lot of the people whom are carrying pitchforks here, would act if it is them or their family members being put in a similar situation.

I know it's so horrible, half of the local villagers travels in the middle of this shìt for a boob job. And all of them refuse the hotel charges in Ireland, cause you know kids etc., or hotel rooms are so small, any excuse you can find will be there. All essential tho.

Hellrazer

The article that the judge directed the inquiry under.

Article 40.4.1. No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law. Article 40.4.2. Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law. Article 40.4.3. Where the body of a person alleged to be unlawfully detained is produced before the High Court in pursuance of an order in that behalf made under this section and that Court is satisfied that such person is being detained in accordance with a law but that such law is invalid having regard to the provisions of this Constitution, the High Court shall refer the question of the validity of such law to the Supreme Court by way of case stated and may, at the time of such reference or at any time thereafter, allow the said person to be at liberty on such bail and subject to such conditions as the High Court shall fix until the Supreme Court has determined the question so referred to it. Article 40.4.4. The High Court before which the body of a person alleged to be unlawfully detained is to be produced in pursuance of an order in that behalf made under this section shall, if the President of the High Court or, if he is not available, the senior judge of that Court who is available so directs in respect of any particular case, consist of three judges and shall, in every other case, consist of one judge only. 5° Nothing in this section, however, shall be invoked to prohibit, control, or interfere with any act of the Defence Forces during the existence of a state of war or armed rebellion. 6° Provision may be made by law for the refusal of bail by a court to a person charged with a serious offence where it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person. 5.

And the Health Act 2021.

An Act, to make exceptional provision, in the public interest and having regard to the manifest and grave risk to human life and public health posed by the spread of the disease known as Covid-19 and variants of that disease and in order to mitigate, where practicable, the effect of the spread of that disease; to amend the Health Act 1947to make further and better provision for the enforcement of regulations under section 31A of that Act; to provide for the mandatory quarantine of persons coming into the State from certain areas from where there is known to be sustained human transmission of Covid-19 or any variant of concern, or from which there is a high risk of importation of infection or contamination with Covid-19 or any variant of concern by travel from that area; to provide for the designation of such areas by the Minister; to provide for the mandatory quarantine of persons coming into the State who fail to comply with certain requirements relating to testing for the disease; to provide for the designation of facilities for such quarantine; to provide for the conveying of persons to those facilities; to provide for the making of service agreements to facilitate such quarantine; to provide for alternatives to such quarantine for persons coming into the State where such persons indicate an intention to apply for international protection or where such persons are children who are not accompanied by an adult; and to provide for related matters.


[7th March, 2021]


WHEREAS the disease known as Covid-19, and the emergence of variants of the disease, including VOC202012/01, 501Y.V2 and P.1, with evidence of increased transmissibility and the potential to evade immune response, and the spread of those variants, presents a very serious risk to public health and it is essential that persons testing positive or who are asymptomatic for the disease including in particular, variants of the disease, are detected given that the transmission of the disease has proven difficult to prevent;


WHEREAS travel into the State by persons from certain areas where variants of the disease exist and the spread of any such variants may pose a threat to the effectiveness of some vaccines and affect the programme of vaccination in the State;


WHEREAS the prevalence of the disease and its increased transmissibility is severely


impacting on the health system in the State which is under significant and sustained pressure;


WHEREAS the crisis occasioned by the spread of that disease is causing and will continue to cause significant damage to the economy of the State resulting, thus far, in a substantial increase in the number of persons who have become unemployed and a substantial increase in the national debt;


WHEREAS the restrictive measures imposed on persons in the State for the purposes of preventing situations and behaviours that may lead to further transmission of the disease are many and onerous and it is desired to return to the normal social and economic functioning of society as soon as is practicable;


WHEREAS the European Centre for Disease Control has advised that based on information available, the risks associated with the introduction and spread of variants of the disease means that escalated measures should be considered, including quarantining of travellers and testing during such quarantine;


WHEREAS travel into the State by persons from certain areas with high incidence levels of the disease, variants of the disease or without taking the appropriate test for the disease is a significant concern, and measures adopted to date, including self-quarantining with its practical challenges in monitoring and enforcement, for the purposes of addressing that concern require to be supplemented by further measures in respect of those persons for compelling reasons of public interest and for the common good to safeguard the public, the health system and the vaccination programme;

Im no lawyer or solicitor but it seems that the health act has itself covered quite well except for the part that's highlighted.

It could be argued that some countries on the list have lower infection rates than Ireland - UAE being one of them with a much lower death rate and a much higher vaccine rate.

The second part Ive highlighted could also be used to win the case - as far as Im aware they were tested and had negative tests.


They could win their case based on those two arguments.

Sono Topolino

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

What part of the constitution? How so?

Would love someone who makes this claim could back it up

Articles 40.3 and 40.4.

The state is obliged to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen under 40.3. No citizen may be deprived of their personal liberty save "in accordance with the law." The state is also obliged to protect the citizen from "unjust attack".

Clearly liberty in this case is being deprived in accordance with the law, but the question is whether this law violates the state's obligation to vindicate the personal rights of the citizen and whether it amounts to an "unjust attack".

The answer to that is yes - because the states on the quarantine list have been added in an arbitrary fashion. And that is before I even get into the stupidity of forcing Irish citizens to pay for their own detention.

Quarantining travelers for public health reasons is not unconstitutional per se, but the state has completely made a mess of this and I expect the Supreme Court will take a dim view.

Alast

Ace2007 wrote: »

But they went on holidays abroad, and then wanted to come back to Ireland and not quarantine as per the law.

The law is wrong.

You have a higher chance getting COVID in the wild in Ireland then contracting it on the plane.
Everybody on the plane was tested negative before being allowed to board.

hmmm

Ace2007 wrote: »

But they went on holidays abroad, and then wanted to come back to Ireland and not quarantine as per the law.

1. The only people I know currently flying are doing it because they work abroad, or they have urgent family situations to attend (funerals etc.). I'd love to know how many genuine holiday-makers there are.
2. How would you know whether people were quarantining or not? The only person I know who definitely didn't quarantine came in on the boat from the UK - and ironically they picked up Covid over here.

I'm not saying quarantine won't help to keep Covid numbers reduced. I'm saying it is a disproportionate response considering how much Ireland relies on international travel, panders to the mob who want someone else to blame for their own non-compliance, and is being done now far too late to make much of a difference.

Ace2007

Alast wrote: »

The law is wrong.

You have a higher chance getting COVID in the wild in Ireland then contracting it on the plane.
Everybody on the plane was tested negative before being allowed to board.

Then why did the two women agree to go into MHQ before boarding the plane? They could have said no way - but instead they said whatever they needed to go get back to Ireland.

Alast

Ace2007 wrote: »

Then why did the two women agree to go into MHQ before boarding the plane? They could have said no way - but instead they said whatever they needed to go get back to Ireland.

Which is their right as a Irish citizen/resident