Would you be in favor of covid-19 fines in Ireland?

weldoninhio

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes there are exemptions, but again, the onus is on the disabled person to show they are exempt.

Given my example before of my blue badge already.

I can't park in a wheelchair space without displaying my badge and them claim I'm being discriminated against on grounds of disability, if I am clamped.

I'd love to see someone try to take that case to court!

They'd be laughed out of it.

That is because it is illegal to park in a disabled bay without a blue badge. Whether you are disabled or not.

Strumms

weldoninhio wrote: »

What are you talking about? How is obeying the same traffic laws, the same larceny laws discrimination?? A disabled person is EXEMPT BY LAW from wearing a mask.

Yes, but only if meeting certain criteria, a nerve issue in your foot, no, and... ....Unless that could be verifiable as in a doctors note. Signed on hospital letterhead and in color. I’d simply be saying no.

Otherwise you’ll have every lazy knack bag lazy, self centered non masker thicko putting us back to square one.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

A disabled person is EXEMPT BY LAW from wearing a mask.

No, they are not.

There are several grounds laid out for exemption from wearing a mask - including difficulty breathing, inability to remove mask unaided among them - but being "a disabled person" does not infer a blanket exemption on wearing a mask.

AUDI20

pjohnson wrote: »

Repeating it doesnt make it true.

Agree, I thought the law applied to all citizens, but this poster thinks if your disabled your exempt!!

weldoninhio

"Some shop owners had expressed fear they may be sued for defamation, or under disabilities legislation, if they refuse service to people who have legitimate reasons not to wear a face covering, said Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association chief executive Vincent Jennings"


I'm guessing the Boards Brain Trust knows better than the chief exec of the stores and newsagent association.

xhomelezz

weldoninhio wrote: »

"Some shop owners had expressed fear they may be sued for defamation, or under disabilities legislation, if they refuse service to people who have legitimate reasons not to wear a face covering, said Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association chief executive Vincent Jennings"


I'm guessing the Boards Brain Trust knows better than the chief exec of the stores and newsagent association.

It says LEGITIMATE REASONS not to wear a face covering

Strumms

weldoninhio wrote: »

"Some shop owners had expressed fear they may be sued for defamation, or under disabilities legislation, if they refuse service to people who have legitimate reasons not to wear a face covering, said Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association chief executive Vincent Jennings"


I'm guessing the Boards Brain Trust knows better than the chief exec of the stores and newsagent association.

The guy with ‘chief exec’ of a newsagents or shop association is clearly more learned and agenda proof then us mere boards ‘brain trust’ mortals... jesus you are nothing if not entertaining,

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

"Some shop owners had expressed fear they may be sued for defamation, or under disabilities legislation, if they refuse service to people who have legitimate reasons not to wear a face covering, said Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association chief executive Vincent Jennings"


I'm guessing the Boards Brain Trust knows better than the chief exec of the stores and newsagent association.

I believe Vincent Jennings / shop owners need to get some better legal advice then a discussion forum too.

Both on what constitutes defamation, and what constitutes discrimination.

pjohnson

xhomelezz wrote: »

It says LEGITIMATE REASONS not to wear a face covering

He's providing sources AGAINST his own viewpoint.


Its a bold strategy.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

The law has exemptions. Discrimination against people due to a disability is against the law.

Let them prove it then.

If a person with a disability parks in a disabled space without a badge they will be clamped - this is not discrimination nor would it ever be considered it.

A person with a disability tries to claim a grant for adapting their vehicle with no evidence they will be turned down - this is not discrimination

A person with a disability that can't wear a mask shows up at a shop and tries to enter with no documentary evidence but is stopped - this is not discrimination

xhomelezz

pjohnson wrote: »

He's providing sources AGAINST his own viewpoint.


Its a bold strategy.

Think he's well known for it, since the covid shīt storm started. Endless source of entertainment, comes handy at these strange times.

Beasty

OK, let's drop this "disabled" issues. Posters are getting their knickers in a twist over it and its just escalating tensions

It's all in the fine print of what you are all posting, you are simply failing to appreciate the nuances of the way you are arguing your cases

No one is saying the disabled are not entitled to an exemption

No one is saying you can turn away disabled people for not wearing a mask

It appears you are all failing to appreciate this is down to how people show they are disabled. All it needs is reasonableness of the parties involved and indeed the posters in this thread

Now drop the point as it's going round in circles

paw patrol

Strumms wrote: »

Nope. Not in this case. They are not being discriminated against. . Look up the legal definition of discrimination. Also by that logic, YOUR logic somebody with a genuine disability shouldn’t have to or be expected to stop at red lights, shouldn’t have to or be expected not to steal, shouldn’t have to be or expected not to assault somebody.
.

If you say you have a disability and can't wear a mask and then they refuse you service they are in breach of the equal status act


there are 9 grounds , one of which is disability and that includes hidden disabilities.
And you aren't obliged to tell them your private health business.
They could take a stand but , they could be sued...Nphet won't pay their fine...

weldoninhio wrote: »

"Some shop owners had expressed fear they may be sued for defamation, or under disabilities legislation, if they refuse service to people who have legitimate reasons not to wear a face covering, said Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association chief executive Vincent Jennings"


I'm guessing the Boards Brain Trust knows better than the chief exec of the stores and newsagent association.

Equal Status Act baby....not just a money making scheme for travellers you know :pac:

Hopefully someone will bring a test case. The sooner the better. I'd love to see it happen, so that this could be put to bed once and for all.

Because as long as there is this lack of clarity (for some) we will continue to have the the hardshaw types giving shop staff a difficult time over wearing masks and making spurious threats of legal action for some imaginary discrimination - versus the rest of us who are trying to just get on with things and stay healthy iin the midst of a pandemic, with as little fuss as possible.

MOH

Deleted User wrote: »

Asking a customer to show proof of exemption to wear a mask in that setting is not so different to asking them to show proof of age to buy alcohol or cigarettes.

If someone employed to work in a shop is not up to the task of doing what is needed to remain within the law (i.e. not selling cigarettes or alcohol to minors) then maybe their employer needs to re-consider who they are hiring more carefully - and hire security.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because as long as there is this lack of clarity (for some) we will continue to have the the hardshaw types giving shop staff a difficult time over wearing masks and making spurious threats of legal action for some imaginary discrimination - versus the rest of us who are trying to just get on with things and stay healthy iin the midst of a pandemic, with as little fuss as possible.

You're the one suggesting that shop staff should be fired for not policing something that's not the responsibility of the shop to do.

Maybe those shop staff are trying to "just get on with things and stay healthy in the midst of a pandemic, with as little fuss as possible". While in a job that requires interaction with a large number of people every day.

Has it occurred to you that by directly confronting people not wearing a mask, they're actually increasing their chances of contracting covid?

Rubberchikken

They've never figured a collect on the spot done for driving offences which could clear up a lot of the backups in court cases so how. They'd manage one for non compliance of mask wearing etc would be interesting.

If they could then maybe they should start to achieve more important things than this.

MOH

MOH wrote: »

You're the one suggesting that shop staff should be fired for not policing something that's not the responsibility of the shop to do.

Maybe those shop staff are trying to "just get on with things and stay healthy in the midst of a pandemic, with as little fuss as possible". While in a job that requires interaction with a large number of people every day.

Has it occurred to you that by directly confronting people not wearing a mask, they're actually increasing their chances of contracting covid?

Only if those being "confronted" react unreasonably to what is a very reasonable question in the current circumstances.

But, given the level of affront being taken by some to even the suggestion that a member of staff deign to ask them why they are not wearing a mask (given the current mandatory requirement to wear one) - I suppose it is not beyond the realm of possibility that some will respond like assholes.

But as I posted earlier, any I've actually seen been confronted, usually just grumble for a little bit and then put their masks on.

MOH

MOH wrote: »

Has it occurred to you that by directly confronting people not wearing a mask, they're actually increasing their chances of contracting covid?

I'm sure if anyone tried to make that claim on any thread other then this, then someone, probably yourself, would come back quoting some statistic about the unlikelihood of shop staff contracting covid19 from customers and the lack of clusters in supermarkets.

its called talking out of both sides of your mouth.

JP Liz V1

https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1314658274935889921

DaSilva

I'm really annoyed by the idea of fines. I take every precaution as my parents are in the vulnerable category, but now I will actually be fined if I attempt to visit them because they live just over a heavily policed border.

I do genuinely feel sorry for your predicament, DaSilva. With the earlier lockdowns it was considered essential travel if you had to look after vulnerable people. I don't know if that would still be allowed.

But I do agree with bringing in fines. Something has to be done to try and make people sit up and take this seriously again.

617 new cases today, and 8 admissions to ICU. 5 Deaths. How many ICU beds left in the country now? Under 30? And its only October.

Hard to believe with these kind of numbers there are still fools arguing about wearing masks in shops.

(eta) Level 3:

people should remain in their county (they must not leave to travel either domestically or internationally), with the exception of those who must travel for work, education and other essential purposes

jk23

I would be in favour but unfortunately the powers will go after the easy targets! ...
and the usual suspects who they are scared of will be let off Scot free while the working Joe will be made an example of....

pgj2015

Deleted User wrote: »

I do genuinely feel sorry for your predicament, DaSilva. With the earlier lockdowns it was considered essential travel if you had to look after vulnerable people. I don't know if that would still be allowed.

But I do agree with bringing in fines. Something has to be done to try and make people sit up and take this seriously again.

617 new cases today, and 8 admissions to ICU. 5 Deaths. How many ICU beds left in the country now? Under 30? And its only October.

Hard to believe with these kind of numbers there are still fools arguing about wearing masks in shops.

(eta) Level 3:

people should remain in their county (they must not leave to travel either domestically or internationally), with the exception of those who must travel for work, education and other essential purposes

I agree. I went on a 6 hour round trip today, the roads were very busy, i doubt they were all essential journeys. I didnt see one garda checkpoint either. i work in an essential service btw so can leave my county.

AUDI20

DaSilva wrote: »

I'm really annoyed by the idea of fines. I take every precaution as my parents are in the vulnerable category, but now I will actually be fined if I attempt to visit them because they live just over a heavily policed border.

I am in the same position, my Mother is still alive and well Thank God and about I hour away in an neighbouring County. I hope the Garda use common sense in applying the rules as I feel going the check on my elderly mother is an essential journey. I do agree with the fines in principle though.

MOH

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure if anyone tried to make that claim on any thread other then this, then someone, probably yourself, would come back quoting some statistic about the unlikelihood of shop staff contracting covid19 from customers and the lack of clusters in supermarkets.

its called talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Eh, nope, that's called putting words in someone else's mouth.

I can understand your confusion though, based on your own actual posts here rather than hypotheticals in a non-existent alternate thread, you seem to be simultaneously: concerned for shop staff; demanding they enforce something they're in no way responsible for; and insisting they should be fired.

Your poor mouth must be quite contorted trying to speak out of all those different sides. No wonder you're grimacing.

ExoPolitic

The real crime is the government not investing anything in the HSE to deal with this. All other countries in Europe invested in additional capacity.... Apart from us. Absolutely no more ICU beds are currently available compared to before this episode.

The_Brood

Fines? I am absolutely in favor of mass arrests, taking people's houses, and ruining them financially if they are having house parties. No welfare, no support - throw them out on the streets.

But same for the government. They opened the schools in defiance of all health logic. They shouldn't just be allowed to walk out when they get voted out. They need to be in prison for this choice.

Those of us who are adhering by all the rules but just getting door after door slammed in our faces and suffering because of cowardly government and house partying folks shouldn't just sit back and take this. There need to be consequences.

milli milli

ExoPolitic wrote: »

The real crime is the government not investing anything in the HSE to deal with this. All other countries in Europe invested in additional capacity.... Apart from us. Absolutely no more ICU beds are currently available compared to before this episode.

This is not true.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/icu-bed-numbers-5217685-Sep2020/%3famp=1

Wanderer78

ExoPolitic wrote:

The real crime is the government not investing anything in the HSE to deal with this. All other countries in Europe invested in additional capacity.... Apart from us. Absolutely no more ICU beds are currently available compared to before this episode.

As others have pointed out, we invest heavily in our health services, but due to the inefficiencies in both the public and private entities in the system, we get really sh1tty return

d15ude

Wanderer78 wrote: »

As others have pointed out, we invest heavily in our health services, but due to the inefficiencies in both the public and private entities in the system, we get really sh1tty return

So the system needs to be changed.

Start now, no better time!
People expecting the health system to deliver, the government can only win
if they start disrupting this money pit.