>Representing themselves, they claim the decision to allow the site to be converted into housing for refugees is unlawful and should be halted on grounds including there was, in breach of planning laws, a failure by the authorities to enter into a process of public consultation regarding the proposed development.
There’s explicit law meaning they don’t need to do this.
>Speaking on behalf of the women, Ms Kelly told the court she also believed the decision to develop the site into accommodation for international protection seekers was also unconstitutional.
I’d love to hear how she worked that out.
>She argued they were also entitled to an injunction because of the “public unrest” over the proposal and that it may cause “serious harm” to those living in the locality.
*You’re* the ones rioting! We (hopefully) don’t live in a country where we can riot to force court judgements in our favour.
No_Performance_6289 on
As Leo said no one gets a veto on who lives in their area.
Unless it’s of course it’s new housing in the area.
Alastor001 on
Hear me out.
How about instead of annoying locals, reduce the numbers of asylum seekers coming in if there is such a problem housing them?
originalface1 on
What sort of precedent would this set legally speaking if it were anyway entertained?
On my street there is several convicted violent criminals, can I request they are removed? Why do I have to live among actual known violent criminals and these lads can decide who lives among them based on racial bigotry?
Thin-Annual4373 on
Hopefully these fools will fail in their application and will get hit with huge legal costs.
RJMC5696 on
Is this the same Melissa Kelly of Irish Freedom Party?
Barilla3113 on
*Loyalists* seek injunction preventing.
Alarmed_Station6185 on
It’s baffling how it’s suddenly changed from IPAS accommodation to ‘500 modular units for ukrainians’. Roderic O’gorman literally said last month that the place was earmarked for an asylum centre but now they have an injunction, they decide to gaslight
8 Comments
>Representing themselves, they claim the decision to allow the site to be converted into housing for refugees is unlawful and should be halted on grounds including there was, in breach of planning laws, a failure by the authorities to enter into a process of public consultation regarding the proposed development.
There’s explicit law meaning they don’t need to do this.
>Speaking on behalf of the women, Ms Kelly told the court she also believed the decision to develop the site into accommodation for international protection seekers was also unconstitutional.
I’d love to hear how she worked that out.
>She argued they were also entitled to an injunction because of the “public unrest” over the proposal and that it may cause “serious harm” to those living in the locality.
*You’re* the ones rioting! We (hopefully) don’t live in a country where we can riot to force court judgements in our favour.
As Leo said no one gets a veto on who lives in their area.
Unless it’s of course it’s new housing in the area.
Hear me out.
How about instead of annoying locals, reduce the numbers of asylum seekers coming in if there is such a problem housing them?
What sort of precedent would this set legally speaking if it were anyway entertained?
On my street there is several convicted violent criminals, can I request they are removed? Why do I have to live among actual known violent criminals and these lads can decide who lives among them based on racial bigotry?
Hopefully these fools will fail in their application and will get hit with huge legal costs.
Is this the same Melissa Kelly of Irish Freedom Party?
*Loyalists* seek injunction preventing.
It’s baffling how it’s suddenly changed from IPAS accommodation to ‘500 modular units for ukrainians’. Roderic O’gorman literally said last month that the place was earmarked for an asylum centre but now they have an injunction, they decide to gaslight