Messages

Been using blink about 6 months and have very few complaints. Occasionally a camera will take a while to access but I suspect that's more to do with my internet connection.

Amazon doing a big sale today and tomorrow on their cameras. 55% off some of the Blink stuff

I see Liz Kimmins has indicated that there will be an appeal.  Always possible that McAlinden J got the law wrong but given the content of the Judgement I am surprised by this course of action.  Particularly as they have started to return the land and remove all the equipment/

Could an appeal delay the return of land etc?
As someone has pointed out above, that process is going to cost a fortune ... a process that is then going to be reversed again in the future (hopefully) when DfI get their application sorted?

I'm not sure why the return of lands happened that wasn't the focus or an outcome of the original decision (unless I missed it)

The original decision struck out the vesting orders, therefore DFI, in the eyes of the law, are trespassing on land they don't own.

I misunderstood the position on vesting. The vesting was contingent on the decision to proceed with the road being lawful so whilst the vesting themselves weren't unlawful per se, the quashing of the original decision has in effect voided them ab initio. Hence why the land is being returned. Had missed that bit which in my defence was early on in the Judgement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwnxdx723o

This relatively new hospital to be used as nothing more than a health centre now. Some waste of money.

Yeah but if suitably qualified staff don't want to live and work in the area what's the alternative?

I don't think this would change the legal position. I think the correct legal position is basically just ignored as is and no one usually wants to enforce their rights. I'd imagine RG is being told he kind of has to in order to make the defamation element of his claim a runner

I see Liz Kimmins has indicated that there will be an appeal.  Always possible that McAlinden J got the law wrong but given the content of the Judgement I am surprised by this course of action.  Particularly as they have started to return the land and remove all the equipment/

Could an appeal delay the return of land etc?
As someone has pointed out above, that process is going to cost a fortune ... a process that is then going to be reversed again in the future (hopefully) when DfI get their application sorted?

I'm not sure why the return of lands happened that wasn't the focus or an outcome of the original decision (unless I missed it)

I see Liz Kimmins has indicated that there will be an appeal.  Always possible that McAlinden J got the law wrong but given the content of the Judgement I am surprised by this course of action.  Particularly as they have started to return the land and remove all the equipment/

Gallagher isn't flying by the seat of his pants here.
Every nook and cranny of this will have been looked at by his legal team before deciding to proceed. It'll be very interesting to see how it works out.

He didn't take Stephen Maguire's wife for defamation?

This has been chosen as a winner.

As I've said previously defamation isn't just as simple as you said something untrue about me I'm going to sue. Similarly if multiple people say things about you, you may choose not to sue everyone. That doesn't mean you accept the content of what some say.

So I don't think much store can be placed on not suing some individuals.

[Any case against the GAA will mean that they (GAA) will present all of the his court case details on his alleged domestic abuse.]

It's a silly move by Gallagher. Any case against the GAA will mean that they (GAA) will present all of the his court case details on his alleged domestic abuse. From what I hear that will not be pretty!
The reality is that is there was no contract with Naas and if he goes down that route he'll have to declare what he was promised. There is no case to answer here and Gallagher is on a hiding to nothing.

I'd hope the GAA would think twice before doing this, they need to engage proactively with the case and not the jackboot approach taken so far

I also don't know how they'd legally do that.

When it refers to breach of contract I don't think it means any form of management contract.

I think from what I'm reading there that the contract being referred to is the contractual relationship that occurs when two sides agree go to arbitration. In essence in order to take a case to arbitration both sides have to bind themselves to be contractually obligated to respect the outcome of same.

I think the breach of contract being referred to is that by sending the email in question the GAA through their servant or agent Jarlath Burns have undermined that contractual obligation to bound by the DRA decision.

Fair play to Kerry. A sensational performance. Armagh didn't do themselves justice but Kerry didn't let them. The end of a good Armagh team I fear. Fair play to all involved they've given us some great times.

Is the following correct

If Meath and Armagh win then it's basically an open draw.

If Galway and either Armagh or Kerry win then Galway will play either Donegal or Tyrone and Armagh/Kerry winner will play the other.

If Meath and Kerry win then Meath will play either Tyrone or Donegal and Kerry will play the other?

David. Relax. We've plenty to be getting on with tomorrow.

Fair point well made

Is the following correct

If Meath and Armagh win then it's basically an open draw.

If Galway and either Armagh or Kerry win then Galway will play either Donegal or Tyrone and Armagh/Kerry winner will play the other.

If Meath and Kerry win then Meath will play either Tyrone or Donegal and Kerry will play the other?

[If]

That was an entertaining afternoon.

If Armagh beat Kerry then I wouldn't fear anyone.

Would anyone fear anyone who is left. All at a very similar level for me.

If and I stress if Galway and Armagh were to win tomorrow then they couldn't meet.