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

Ace2007

b0nk1e wrote: »

The fact that no medical procedure took place doesn't necessarily mean they didn't go for a medical procedure.

The doctor scheduled to do the operation could have dropped dead of a heart attack the morning before. A dog could have savaged one of them on their way into the boob job centre. The police could have pulled them over for speeding and they missed their appointments.

The fact is, you simply don't know. You're pontificating, and you're speculating, and your curtains are twitching like Harry Redknapp on speed.

So if say any of the above is true, they will need to go out a third time - how are they going to pay for that - given that they are broke?

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

So if say any of the above is true, they will need to go out a third time - how are they going to pay for that - given that they are broke?

Maybe they'll get a loan. Maybe they'll get an overdraft. Maybe they'll be fortunate enough to get further gifts from family and friends. Maybe Katie Price will read of their plight and pay for it.

However they do, it's not one iota of your business. This is nothing more than jealousy marinated in nosiness.

Red Silurian

b0nk1e wrote: »

There's absolutely nothing in the legislation which says it has to be an essential medical procedure.

Leaving the country is only supposed to be done for certain reasons, of which essential medical procedures are included

b0nk1e wrote: »

Just to clarify your position here, if a five year old tests positive for Covid, you want them taken away from their family and imprisoned in isolation?

I would assume that a 5 year old who tests positive would be taken to isolation with his or her household and most of the close contacts... Any attempt at quarantining positive cases must also include quarantining close contacts

Red Silurian

Red Silurian wrote: »

Leaving the country is only supposed to be done for certain reasons, of which essential medical procedures are included

You are wrong, in fact and in law. The word "essential" does not appear in the legislation. The legislation allows for people to leave the State for the purposes of medical procedures.

You are confused between "you must only travel outside the State for essential reasons", and a permitted reason being a medical appointment. Any medical appointment, by definition, is therefore considered essential for the purpose of travel.

That's the legislation.

Red Silurian wrote: »

I would assume that a 5 year old who tests positive would be taken to isolation with his or her household and most of the close contacts... Any attempt at quarantining positive cases must also include quarantining close contacts

Right, so we're now into collective preventative detention. That's absolutely wild. Within about ten minutes we've spiralled from "anyone who tests positive for Covid must be imprisoned" to "anyone who tests positive for Covid must be imprisoned. And their children. And their children's children. Regardless of whether they test positive or not".

Ace2007

b0nk1e wrote: »

Maybe they'll get a loan. Maybe they'll get an overdraft. Maybe they'll be fortunate enough to get further gifts from family and friends. Maybe Katie Price will read of their plight and pay for it.

However they do, it's not one iota of your business. This is nothing more than jealousy marinated in nosiness.

Well it's safe to say that if they do go out again they'll have to pay for quarantine cause no judge is going to believe they are broke if they travel back out.

Must be right pain in the hole for their family and friends in Dubai all this heat coming onto them - guards looking into what they were up to, who they stayed with, purpose of trip, who paid hotels etc.

Can see that it's stirred you right up and all.

Sono Topolino

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So then I'm back to asking how so and on what basis.

Interested to hear the answer and see how it compares to the final decision considering the application was changed after a reduced bail was agreed by both sides. So we should see if it is declared unconstitutional soon enough

I have already answered why it is unconstitutional. For some reason you are under the impression I agreed with you that it's not unconstitutional, but I have explained that it violates Article 40.03 and 40.04.

Interestingly, as late as 3 February 2021 the Taoiseach was claiming that MHQ for Irish citizens was unconstitutional. He has since changed his tune, and we'll see soon whether this is correct.

The counter argument is that personal rights in the Constitution are subordinate to the public good. The Supreme Court in the past has permitted the government to restrict fundamental rights in the name of the public good. This was acknowledged in Ryan v Attorney General [1965]. However, there is a strict proportionality test that must be met, and this was set out by Costello J. in Heaney v Ireland [1994]. In order to justify restraining personal rights and liberties of citizens, a measure must meet all of the following criteria:

1. Pursue an objective of sufficient importance.
2. Be rationally connected to that objective, and not unfair or arbitrary.
3. Impair the right as little as possible.

Clearly the objective being pursued is of sufficient importance, and arguably it impairs rights as little as possible (being that the quarantine period is determined by scientific data). However, as I have alrady stated - the measure is both unfair and arbitrary in that the designation of countries in Category 2 is arbitrary and not based on the science.

The government has undermined itself repeatedly in its public pronouncements on this. No doubt the barristers representing these two women will be combing over everything Simon Coveney, Micheál Martin, Stephen Donnelly and NPHET have said publicly about the Category 2 countries.

Ergo I argue that this particular quarantine law is unconstitutional by my understanding of the constitution and case law. Now the ultimate decision is in the hands of the court, but hopefully this explains my reasoning to your satisfaction.

gozunda

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.

Stating the "law is wrong does not mean the law is wrong.

PCR testing is a snap shot of someone's infection status at a single point in time. It does not mean someone can't catch Covid whilst in transit, at the Airport or whilst flying etc. There are also known false negatives.

The law on hotel quarantine is meant to make sure such cases don't slip through the system after arrival.

3 such cases have already been detected in the Hotel Quarantine system to date.

Alast wrote: »

Also what is the point is of MHQ if COVID is rampant in Ireland.

This system will have NO impact in daily COVID cases

Covid is indeed here. We currently have a relatively low rate of infection compared to many other countries. The issue atm is countries of high incident and and those with variants of concern. Those countries in the current list are countries where a number of such varients and / or a high incidence rate are known.

The very first known cases arrived in Ireland via international travel and subsequently via community spread. The introduction of these new variants already here can be contained by current level 5 restrictions. That said it remains - that it makes sense to keep additional cases from being introduced

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

Well it's safe to say that if they do go out again they'll have to pay for quarantine cause no judge is going to believe they are broke if they travel back out.

Must be right pain in the hole for their family and friends in Dubai all this heat coming onto them - guards looking into what they were up to, who they stayed with, purpose of trip, who paid hotels etc.

Can see that it's stirred you right up and all.

Why on earth do you think the gardaí will be looking into any of this?

Just because you've lost the run of yourself doesn't mean anyone else has. They clearly satisfied the gardaí on their outward journey that they had a legitimate reason for travel.

When they apply for legal aid, the Legal Aid Board might look into their finances.

You are in absolute hysterics over this and have whipped yourself up into a frenzy. The idea that this is going to be some Enemy of the State-esque investigation, with guards talking to UAE counterparts through earpieces and seizing bank statements and hotel bookings is just pure and utter fantasy.

This needs to stop.

Lmkrnr

A CT scan ect is a medical procedure right? As is an X-ray. If one books either of those in a private clinic in any countr they are exempt. Pretty silly law tbf.

lawrencesummers

So the upshot of all this is that if you can afford a flight to Ireland the government will pay for your 2 weeks in a hotel.


Tis a great country we are running.

standardg60

b0nk1e wrote: »

I said, the fact that no medical procedure took place doesn't necessarily mean they didn't go for a medical procedure.

The doctor scheduled to do the operation could have dropped dead of a heart attack the morning before. A dog could have savaged one of them on their way into the boob job centre. The police could have pulled them over for speeding and they missed their appointments.

The fact is, Ace2007 simply doesn't know. Ace2007 is pontificating, and Ace2007 is speculating, and Ace2007's curtains are twitching like Harry Redknapp on speed.

Lol, and you're indulging in none of that!
The simple fact is that none of what you're speculating was produced as evidence in court. The cosmetic procedure reason was quickly withdrawn, as i'm sure enquiries quickly established wasn't the reason for travel.
There is more to this case than meets the eye, something which you seem determined to pre-dismiss.
What is it?

Lmkrnr

Lmkrnr wrote: »

A CT scan ect is a medical procedure right? As is an X-ray. If one books either of those in a private clinic in any countr they are exempt. Pretty silly law tbf.

It's not so much that it's a silly law. It's quite a reasonable aspiration in terms of trying to stop people travelling abroad (I believe I am obliged here to add the tautology) during a global pandemic.

The problem is that it was drafted by a Minister of dubious legitimacy, and one who has a fatal mixture of hubris, arrogance, and incompetence, and can be circumvented by any citizen with access to a computer.

standardg60

standardg60 wrote: »

Lol, and you're indulging in none of that!
The simple fact is that none of what you're speculating was produced as evidence in court. The cosmetic procedure reason was quickly withdrawn, as i'm sure enquiries quickly established wasn't the reason for travel.
There is more to this case than meets the eye, something which you seem determined to pre-dismiss.
What is it?

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the reason for the court case and the outcome being sought.

This is not a trial into whether the women had a legitimate reason for leaving the country.

Ace2007

b0nk1e wrote: »

Why on earth do you think the gardaí will be looking into any of this?

Just because you've lost the run of yourself doesn't mean anyone else has. They clearly satisfied the gardaí on their outward journey that they had a legitimate reason for travel.

When they apply for legal aid, the Legal Aid Board might look into their finances.

You are in absolute hysterics over this and have whipped yourself up into a frenzy. The idea that this is going to be some Enemy of the State-esque investigation, with guards talking to UAE counterparts through earpieces and seizing bank statements and hotel bookings is just pure and utter fantasy.

This needs to stop.

Not one bit - your the one calling me out - you could choose not to reply.

You don't need a legitimate reason to fly, but without one there will be a €500 fine when you get back. So now the guards will look into their reasons for going out - given they didn't get any medical treatment - so if they are found to have lied on way out they could have that fine coming their way.

Like I said you seem to be getting very hot headed about this - a personal interest in the case perhaps.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

Not one bit - your the one calling me out - you could choose not to reply.

You don't need a legitimate reason to fly, but without one there will be a €500 fine when you get back. So now the guards will look into their reasons for going out - given they didn't get any medical treatment - so if they are found to have lied on way out they could have that fine coming their way.

Like I said you seem to be getting very hot headed about this - a personal interest in the case perhaps.

No personal interest in the case at all. Just a frustration with curtain-twitchers losing the run of themselves and thinking they're internet detectives.

Would you actually look at yourself, look at the state you have yourself in.

Far too many people in this country are far too interested in other people's business.

Wash your hands.

Wear your mask.

Mind your business.

Sono Topolino

Ace2007 wrote: »

Not one bit - your the one calling me out - you could choose not to reply.

You don't need a legitimate reason to fly, but without one there will be a €500 fine when you get back. So now the guards will look into their reasons for going out - given they didn't get any medical treatment - so if they are found to have lied on way out they could have that fine coming their way.

Like I said you seem to be getting very hot headed about this - a personal interest in the case perhaps.

The problem here is that the crime is committed at the point at which you leave the country. Therefore, your intention at the point at which you leave the country is what matters. If you intend to fly to Dubai for breast enhancement surgery, and upon arriving in Dubai you decide that you no longer want that surgery, no crime has been committed. It's only a crime if you lied about your intentions.

It would be immensely hard to prove that the intention was never sincerely held. I mean, maybe having arrived in Dubai you decided for one reason or another that you don't want the surgery - the doctor didn't seem trustworthy, the clinic didn't seem sanitary, or your friends convinced you that it was a bad idea...

All of this means that as a cover story, breast enhancement surgery is a good option - as a lot of women decide at the last minute not to go through with it.

Ace2007

b0nk1e wrote: »

No personal interest in the case at all. Just a frustration with curtain-twitchers losing the run of themselves and thinking they're internet detectives.

Would you actually look at yourself, look at the state you have yourself in.

Far too many people in this country are far too interested in other people's business.

Wash your hands.

Wear your mask.

Mind your business.

Like i said your the one replying to my posts, why don't you just mind your own business and if others want to chat about these two then they are allowed to.

standardg60

b0nk1e wrote: »

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the reason for the court case and the outcome being sought.

This is not a trial into whether the women had a legitimate reason for leaving the country.

You're right, it isn't, but you've very quickly ignored the fact you were waxing lyrical about it a couple of posts ago.
Also you have no evidence they satisfied any guard as to their reason for travel on their way out, but if it is established that they did indeed furnish evidence of a medical procedure which subsequently did not proceed, then they are open to the initial fine for non-essential travel, in which case the reasons for the non procedure would be relevant. They did not refer to these reasons.

Would you not agree?

standardg60

b0nk1e wrote: »

No personal interest in the case at all. Just a frustration with curtain-twitchers losing the run of themselves and thinking they're internet detectives.

Would you actually look at yourself, look at the state you have yourself in.

Far too many people in this country are far too interested in other people's business.

Wash your hands.

Wear your mask.

Mind your business.

You are quickly losing any semblance of being impartial to this thread if you continue to denigrate posters themselves rather than their opinions.

gally74

Sono Topolino wrote: »

The problem here is that the crime is committed at the point at which you leave the country. Therefore, your intention at the point at which you leave the country is what matters. If you intend to fly to Dubai for breast enhancement surgery, and upon arriving in Dubai you decide that you no longer want that surgery, no crime has been committed. It's only a crime if you lied about your intentions.

It would be immensely hard to prove that the intention was never sincerely held. I mean, maybe having arrived in Dubai you decided for one reason or another that you don't want the surgery - the doctor didn't seem trustworthy, the clinic didn't seem sanitary, or your friends convinced you that it was a bad idea...

All of this means that as a cover story, breast enhancement surgery is a good option - as a lot of women decide at the last minute not to go through with it.

When did travel become a crime?

Country had lost the plot,

gally74

Table 5: Number of confirmed COVID-19 cases by most likely transmission source notified from 19/03/2021 to midnight 01/04/2021
Most likely transmission source Number of cases
Percent
Travel related* 148
1.87%
Close contact with a known confirmed case 3,930
49.53%
Healthcare setting acquired: patient 120
1.51%
Healthcare setting acquired: staff 47
0.59%
Community transmission 1,612
20.32%
Under investigation 2,078
26.19%
Total 7,935
100.00%
*Travel related cases include cases who acquire COVID-19 infection outside of Ireland (imported cases) and cases who acquire COVID-19 infection directly from imported cases

standardg60

standardg60 wrote: »

Would you not agree?

No, I would not.

You are coming at this from a position of utter - almost, in fact, militant - ignorance on the law, and on what this court case is about.

To try and explain quite how badly you're getting it wrong, what you're doing is the equivalent of watching Ireland beat Germany 5-0 in the European Championship final and criticising them for not scoring any tries.

It's a quite extraordinary display, and I almost admire you for the perseverance with which you keep at it.

standardg60

b0nk1e wrote: »

No, I would not.

You are coming at this from a position of utter - almost, in fact, militant - ignorance on the law, and on what this court case is about.

To try and explain quite how badly you're getting it wrong, what you're doing is the equivalent of watching Ireland beat Germany 5-0 in the European Championship final and criticising them for not scoring any tries.

It's a quite extraordinary display, and I almost admire you for the perseverance with which you keep at it.

Lovely, thanks for confirming my subsequent post.

Do you think you are going to bully people from posting on this thread?

Skin in the game.

standardg60

gally74 wrote: »

Table 5: Number of confirmed COVID-19 cases by most likely transmission source notified from 19/03/2021 to midnight 01/04/2021
Most likely transmission source Number of cases
Percent
Travel related* 148
1.87%
Close contact with a known confirmed case 3,930
49.53%
Healthcare setting acquired: patient 120
1.51%
Healthcare setting acquired: staff 47
0.59%
Community transmission 1,612
20.32%
Under investigation 2,078
26.19%
Total 7,935
100.00%
*Travel related cases include cases who acquire COVID-19 infection outside of Ireland (imported cases) and cases who acquire COVID-19 infection directly from imported cases

So the B117 variant currently consists of 1.87% of all cases?

Away With The Fairies

b0nk1e wrote: »

No personal interest in the case at all. Just a frustration with curtain-twitchers losing the run of themselves and thinking they're internet detectives.

Would you actually look at yourself, look at the state you have yourself in.

Far too many people in this country are far too interested in other people's business.

Wash your hands.

Wear your mask.

Mind your business.

Hardly curtain twitchers when their actions affect others and we all end up with longer restrictions. Did you want them to go home and self isolate? Not hardly self isolating collecting kids from the granny and taking their kids home and passing on any infections to the granny and kids.

Away With The Fairies

Sono Topolino wrote: »

The problem here is that the crime is committed at the point at which you leave the country. Therefore, your intention at the point at which you leave the country is what matters. If you intend to fly to Dubai for breast enhancement surgery, and upon arriving in Dubai you decide that you no longer want that surgery, no crime has been committed. It's only a crime if you lied about your intentions.

It would be immensely hard to prove that the intention was never sincerely held. I mean, maybe having arrived in Dubai you decided for one reason or another that you don't want the surgery - the doctor didn't seem trustworthy, the clinic didn't seem sanitary, or your friends convinced you that it was a bad idea...

All of this means that as a cover story, breast enhancement surgery is a good option - as a lot of women decide at the last minute not to go through with it.

I'm guessing the purpose of the first trip is to meet the doctors and see if you're a suitable for a boob job... Surely it's at that point you should be deciding not to go ahead with it and not fly across the world a second time?

Red Silurian

Red Silurian wrote: »

Small difference - seeing a dentist is an essential medical procedure... Can the same be said for silicone implants?

Seeing a dentist is not essential. The law was changed for this exact reason. A scale and polish is not essential and your dentist will tell you that themselves.

standardg60 wrote: »

Not so, the letters contain a code which lets travellers book the hotel without paying. Otherwise they can't board the flight. So in essence the waiver is already given.
The DFA has stated that it's then a matter for the justice and health depts. to decide whether payment should be made upon arrival.

How can another dept. decide something that another dept. has already decided?

There is clearly an inter-departmental spat going on here between Coveney and Donnelly.

So how is that "not so"? They booked them in but they never said they didn't have to pay and they still haven't.

b0nk1e wrote: »

There's absolutely nothing in the legislation which says it has to be an essential medical procedure.

It's very clearly included. It's in large letters. The act was amended and now states 'essential' very clearly

Away With The Fairies

Away With The Fairies wrote: »

I'm guessing the purpose of the first trip is to meet the doctors and see if you're a suitable for a boob job... Surely it's at that point you should be deciding not to go ahead with it and not fly across the world a second time?

Nope, decisions made before flying. Let's be clear here, the surgery was a lie to avoid the fine

standardg60

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Seeing a dentist is not essential. The law was changed for this exact reason. A scale and polish is not essential and your dentist will tell you that themselves.



So how is that "not so"? They booked them in but they never said they didn't have to pay and they still haven't.



It's very clearly included. It's in large letters. The act was amended and now states 'essential' very clearly

Booking them in the first place essentially removed any legal requirement for them to pay. I imagine that is why the bail requirements were dismissed by the high court.

I agree with your other posts

saabsaab

standardg60 wrote: »

So the B117 variant currently consists of 1.87% of all cases?

Sure isn't more like 95% now. Mass air travel may be affected by the crisis for a long time to come.