Meanwhile, In The High Court


Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 12.37.08Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 12.20.02Screen Shot 2014-11-14 at 12.21.30

UCD law lecturer Dr Liam Thornton tweets from the High Court as Judge Colm MacEochaidh delivers his judgement on the challenge taken by a family of two against the direct provision system.  

The family of two, a mother and child, took the action, arguing that the direct provision system is unconstitutional.

The family have been in direct provision centres for more than four years. They claimed the system was unlawfully established, has no legal basis, continues to operate unlawfully, violating the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. They also claimed the work ban and blanket ban on receiving social welfare payments breaches personal, family and equality rights under the Constitution.

Liam Thornton

Background: Direct Provision System Challenged Before the Irish High Court: Day 1 (Human Rights in Ireland blog)

Sponsored Link

53 thoughts on “Meanwhile, In The High Court

  1. Eamonn Clancy

    Why would they continue to have kids? Surely a little cop on would prevail as it does with the rest of us who want more kids but can’t afford them.

    1. Sidewinder

      Do you know how much birth control costs? I know I couldn’t afford it on €19 a week and they’re entitled to a sex life. I around around €280 on birth control annually, that’s €5 a week.

        1. Sidewinder

          I dunno, it has a failure rate of 22%. So basically it costs about the same amount as raising child every 1 in 5 times you do it. I reckon that’s pretty expensive.

          1. Sidewinder

            Oh look, on the very link you’ve chosen, a one out of five typical use failure rate.

            Don’t hit your head when you come crashing off your high horse you obnoxious arsehole.

          2. Jock

            Too ashamed to admit you’re wrong or to stupid to realise it? Not great outcomes either way.

            Will I give you a hand? Cheap to the bit on effectiveness of various methods. Read the first sentence. It’s not per ride, it’s per year per 100 women. Chances of conceiving in a single session is miniscule. Done correctly it’s about 0.04%.

            So are you too pig headed or too stupid?

          3. Sidewinder

            Incorrect. 4% with “perfect use”.

            So tell us, were you born a complete and utter male genital or did you work at it? Do you touch yourself while writing the comments or after?

            Just trying to get some insight into why anyone would needlessly be such an enormous member.

          4. Jock

            Still wrong! It’s per year. So 100 rides on average would make this 0.04%.

            You have lost. This is my job and you will always lose in verbal and numerical reasoning with me.

            You actually think that you have a 20% chance of conceiving every time you have sex and pull out. Have you any idea how stupid that is? Haha.

          5. Sidewinder

            I think either you or your parents should be studied. Like extensively with psych tests and little mazes. Except instead of cheese at the end of the maze there’s the happy little feeling of being a fupping awful human being (consequence free) that appeals to people who lack friends, the respect of their peers, a significant other and any sense of reality.

            That would surely produce a prize winning “How to Not” style parenting guide.

          6. Sidewinder

            That would be hard for me as I’m not a man. Yet somehow I think that, despite my lack of penis, I’m still the bigger man than you.

            Funny ol’ world ain’t it?

            (Can’t speak for Don mind)

    2. inotherwords

      Everyone has a right to have kids. Although their lifestyle is very much at the mercy of the state, it’s not the place of anyone to interfere with their family planning decisions.

    3. Mark Dennehy

      Why would they continue to have kids?

      Yeah, it’s not like human beings have some sort of expiration date after which it’s either medically inadvisable or downright impossible to have children.
      And if they did, it’s not like people would actually want or have a biological urge to pass on their genes and see a new generation continue on, is it?
      No, they’re obviously just one of those sex-loving perverts, Father. Maybe this new Pope isn’t praying hard enough for them…

    1. Padi

      No, the case has not been dealt with to the finality that they are seeking. There is no necessity for ever case to go through the full finality of multiple appeals. Could they not have accepted the initial rejection of their application and thus ended their stay in Ireland and in direct provision? This makes it their choice to me.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        No, how I see it is….

        1. They are already given 7 levels of appeal. That needs to be reduced.
        2. The time given to prepare appeals will need to be reduced.

        Whatever happens, no one should be in direct provision for more than 2 to 3 years at the very most, IMO. If a case of asylum cannot be established by then, it is likely not going to be, IMO.

        3. An amnesty MUST be given for all people in long term direct provision. As much as that will piss some Irish citizens off, it is the right thing to do, IMO.
        Wipe the slate clean, sort out the provision centres and sort out the asylum processing with a faster moire efficient system with better checks on entry and immediate turn around for those with incorrect papers on arrival.

        Harsh but… better than locking them up like cattle for up to ten years so that private companies and individuals can profit off of a badly run, complete joke, of a system.

        1. Padi

          Why an amnesty? If they are long term in direct provision they have at the very least been denied asylum once and likely a few times, thus they have been unable to substantiate the bona fides of their claim or their personal background. It may only be minor but on this basis they pose a risk to the rest of the population, we simply cannot have people in the country who we do not know who they are or what their backgrounds are.

          The logical solution to me is as follows:

          Step 1 – land in Ireland and make asylum case
          Step 2 – if this fails one appeal
          Step 3 – deportation if appeal is also unsuccessful or a period of 2 years has elapsed from Step 1.

          For this to work we need to give over a fair and reasonable amount of time and resources to deal with step 1 and 2, however it has to be a defined level of resources and not infinite or growing incrementally. The reason is being is that I would wager that if this was implemented properly you would see the rate of asylum seekers entering Ireland plummet, the vast majority are economic migrants. I absolutely don’t blame them for that but we need to stop this nonsense talk that they are all fleeing persecution. This is really affecting the few genuine asylum seekers from getting help. If you are an economic migrant and can support yourself or the country needs your skills then great welcome in. If not, we cannot take this on.

          1. Banotti

            You think a person has a 20% chance of getting pregnant each time they have sex and pull out. How’s your probability skills? Say I have sex 3 times over the space of a weekend what is the % change now?

  2. Kieran NYC

    Linking with another story in the news today…

    Can you imagine the outrage in Ireland if the ‘undocumented’ (note we don’t call them illegal immigrants when they’re Irish) in America were rounded up and kept like this?

    1. Jock

      Nobody is rounded up. They are free to live whenever the want. Your Irish comparison is meaningless and idiotic.

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        Free to live wherever the State pays for them to live. Your understanding of this seems meaningless and idiotic

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          I read the paper and couldn’t find anything about average number of sexual encounters in the model. So either you are misinterpreting the results or I missed it. I am happy to be corrected by the research.

          1. Banotti

            Is this statement correct?
            “I dunno, it has a failure rate of 22%. So basically it costs about the same amount as raising child every 1 in 5 times you do it”

            Is this following response correct?
            “You don’t understand the meaning of failure rate.”

            This is really simple stuff.

          2. Banotti

            This is Jock btw.

            I’d rather you didn’t answer a question with a question. His statement is either correct or incorrect. Please tell me which it is.

          3. Don Pidgeoni

            You don’t want me to reply with a question but you are allowed to about mine? You switch user names? As they say in Lahdan town, you can do one mate. Good luck interpreting GLM models in the future. You need it.

            Oh and yes, that paper shows sidewinder is pretty right – about a12 month predicted probability of pregnancy using withdrawal.

          4. Banotti

            Another one taking their ball and crying. I have a lovely answer for you ready to go once you ansered mine. I love your weasel words. He was pretty right was he? Then you completely misread what he says to suit. He never mentioned 12 months did he. That was me.

            PS- My figure of 100 times per year was bang on based on numerous studies.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link