What Covid laws were broken in Clifden?

Infernal Racket

leanin2019 wrote: »

Statutory Instruments related to the COVID-19 pandemic

The above are the laws. Most recent ones are the three counties legislation.

Infernal Racket the OP is right tho. Some stuff is law other things are just guidance

I combined the above linked documents into one file. See attached

And having looked through some of the other statutory instruments which are in effect, they have no penalties attached so what are the Guards to do if somebody breaches the laws?

leanin2019

Infernal Racket wrote: »

On page 6 of that document it states that the regulations will only be in effect until the 12th of April 2020. To my knowledge, they haven't been renewed and are therefore null and void. It's all so unclear what can actually be enforced and what cant.

Thats a combined file of all the legislation from the link I posted.

Scroll down and you'll see the legislation is extended I think by the replacement of the date, remember it was extended to after May Bank Holiday and then after June Bank Holiday.

But it might be null and void now havent checked.

I haven't analysed it all but from memory the Face covering legislation is still valid I think and the three counties was at least until last night, probably an update due to that in order to extend the Kildare restrictions...?

Infernal Racket

leanin2019 wrote: »

Thats a combined file of all the legislation from the link I posted.

Scroll down and you'll see the legislation is extended I think by the replacement of the date, remember it was extended to after May Bank Holiday and then after June Bank Holiday.

But it might be null and void now havent checked.

I haven't analysed it all but from memory the Face covering legislation is still valid I think and the three counties was at least until last night, probably an update due to that in order to extend the Kildare restrictions...?

Yeah, I see some of them are extended alright but without any penalties attached I just don't see how any of the legislation can be enforced. It's all just a big ****in mess that nobody seems able to tackle

Concretejungle

It's not about breaking the law it's about a politician who is paid by us to advise us what to do and then he goes and does the opposite himself. So how can we have confidence in him again and if we can't have confidence in him then he should not be holding that position.

paddy19

The likely potential offence is organising an event which is a penal provision for the purposes of section 31A of the Act of 1947.

Restriction on events
5. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person shall not organise, or cause to be organised, an event for cultural, entertainment, recreational, sporting, social, community or educational reasons in a relevant geographical location other than where one or more of the following applies:
(a) in the case of an indoor event, the maximum number of persons attending, or proposed to attend, the event (for whatever reason) does not exceed 50 persons;
(b) in the case of an outdoor event, the maximum number of persons attending, or proposed to attend, the event (for whatever reason) does not exceed 200 persons;
(c) the person so organising, or so causing to be organised, the event takes all reasonable steps to ensure that the number of persons attending, or proposed to attend, the event (for whatever reason) does not exceed, in the case of an indoor event, 50 persons, and in the case of an outdoor event, 200 persons.

It is difficult to see how splitting the event in two rooms has an legitimacy as defence under the act.
It is hard to see how this was not one single event under the act.
If the hotel had two weddings it could make a case.

Water John

Big Phil is asked to consider his position by MM & LV. He will, like fcuk.

PhilOssophy

Water John wrote: »

Big Phil is asked to consider his position by MM & LV. He will, like fcuk.

I laugh at people saying how crucial he is to the Brexit negotiations. If he wasn't clever enough to not go to that event, I want him nowhere near the Brexit negotiations!

Infernal Racket

Water John wrote: »

Big Phil is asked to consider his position by MM & LV. He will, like fcuk.

Big Phil has a neck like a jockeys bollix, he will not step aside no way no how..

Geuze

Mysterypunter wrote: »

The 81 people exceeded the limit of 50, and they tried to pass it off as two gatherings, one of 45 and one of 36, divided by a partition, which is like you living in a kitchen, and me living in a sitting room, but claiming we are in separate accommodation because of the dividing wall.

So it's the limit of 50 that is the rule that was broken?

Does that mean that there should not be more than 50 in any outlet serving food?

Does that mean that large food-led pubs like the King's Head / Busker Brownes, etc. in Galway, or other large pubs, all face a max customers of 50?

SweetCaliber

Geuze wrote: »

So it's the limit of 50 that is the rule that was broken?

Does that mean that there should not be more than 50 in any outlet serving food?

Does that mean that large food-led pubs like the King's Head / Busker Brownes, etc. in Galway, or other large pubs, all face a max customers of 50?

I don't think a restaurant serving food to the general public would be classed as an event. Just like retail stores don't have to limit customers to 50.

This however was a planned event.

in the case of an indoor event, the maximum number of persons attending, or proposed to attend, the event (for whatever reason) does not exceed 50 persons;

In fact its covered here that in restaurants there can be no more than 6 at a table and that events, parties, gatherings of more than 6 people indoor or 15 outdoor are not allowed in such settings:

Restaurants and cafes can remain open but must follow additional public health measures:

they must close to the public by 11.30pm

face coverings must be worn by staff in customer facing roles where no other protective measures are in place e.g. protective screens and where physical distancing of 2 metres is not possible. They must also be worn by customers when arriving to and leaving their table

businesses should keep contact details of all customers to help with contact tracing should a customer be confirmed as having COVID-19

table service must be provided and customers should not be allowed sit at the bar

there should be a maximum of six people from no more than 3 households allowed at a table

events, parties or gatherings of more than 6 people indoors or 15 people outdoors are not allowed in these settings

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/cf9b0d-new-public-health-measures-effective-now-to-prevent-further-spread-o/

When you think about it, the 50 people limit is for weddings only, so in reality there should have been a maximum of 6 people at the golf gala, or if they held it outdoors 15 people maximum.

A lot of people seem to forget that its not about if they broke the laws or not. Nobody wants to see them in prison. But these are the people that are supposed to be leading us, and they blatantly disregarded the guidelines that they knew well.

How can they expect us to continue to support and trust them if they cant follow their own bloody guidelines?

Geuze

Thanks.

So 60 people made up of say 20 tables can be in a regular pub/restaurant, in one single large room, and that's ok.

But 60 people can't sit down for a meal in a function room, as that would be defined as "an event".

Is my interpretation correct?

is_that_so

Infernal Racket wrote: »

Big Phil has a neck like a jockeys bollix, he will not step aside no way no how..

A more extended and "heartfelt" apology at most. So far he seems just annoyed at the probing by people here. Had it been a commissioner from Latvia or Greece there wouldn't be such a storm.

paddy19

Geuze wrote: »

Thanks.

So 60 people made up of say 20 tables can be in a regular pub/restaurant, in one single large room, and that's ok.

But 60 people can't sit down for a meal in a function room, as that would be defined as "an event".

Is my interpretation correct?

I think that this interpretation is correct.

60 people in one event are more likely to have a higher degree of interaction
that 20 disparate groups who don't know each other.

Obviously a pub is somewhere in the middle.

Van.Bosch

is_that_so wrote: »

A more extended and "heartfelt" apology at most. So far he seems just annoyed at the probing by people here. Had it been a commissioner from Latvia or Greece there wouldn't be such a storm.

Spot on with your prediction

Rew

Mysterypunter wrote: »

The 81 people exceeded the limit of 50, and they tried to pass it off as two gatherings, one of 45 and one of 36, divided by a partition, which is like you living in a kitchen, and me living in a sitting room, but claiming we are in separate accommodation because of the dividing wall.

Its been going on with hotels since the end of lockdown, hence the references to the IHF giving guidance. Hotels that have 2 rooms, 2 sets of toilets and 2 set of bars have been holding weddings and events for 50+ all over the country.