Read on Twitter
There's a separate (and very interesting) legal angle to this which I've been chasing up this afternoon … more details on @VirginMediaNews at 8pm … https://twitter.com/aoifegracemoore/status/1296508121452613636
THREAD:
Further to @ZaraKing's report on the News at 8…
The 'tightened' restrictions announced earlier this week don't yet have any force of law. The Department of Health says no regulations have been signed (yet) to lower the number of people who can attend gatherings.
But…
Further to @ZaraKing's report on the News at 8…
The 'tightened' restrictions announced earlier this week don't yet have any force of law. The Department of Health says no regulations have been signed (yet) to lower the number of people who can attend gatherings.
But…
…that means the existing Phase 3 regulations still have the force of law.
Those regulations prohibit any "event for cultural, entertainment, recreational, sporting, social, community or educational reasons" which intends to accommodate 50 people indoors, unless it's in a home.
Those regulations prohibit any "event for cultural, entertainment, recreational, sporting, social, community or educational reasons" which intends to accommodate 50 people indoors, unless it's in a home.
But more than that: it specifically makes it a penal offence to organise such an event. A person who organises such an event for over 50 people could face a fine of €2,500 and even, prospectively, six months in prison.
Note: This applies only to the organisers, not attendees.
Note: This applies only to the organisers, not attendees.
So: organising an indoor event for 50 people is legally a Big Deal. (Especially so, perhaps, when the organiser is the Oireachtas Golf Society.)
But: here's the rub. The organisers, and hotel, believe they were in compliance with the rules - because they split the party in two.
But: here's the rub. The organisers, and hotel, believe they were in compliance with the rules - because they split the party in two.
The two parallel rooms were placed in a hotel function room with a partition (the standard hotel ballroom variety), which was not drawn fully across.
Attendees have told me the partition was left partly open so that hotel staff could go between rooms to serve food, and so on.
Attendees have told me the partition was left partly open so that hotel staff could go between rooms to serve food, and so on.
The hotel's stance is that it wasn't one function, it was two - with 45 in one room and 36 in the next.
But I also understand that, not only was there a single table plan presented to accommodate the 81 attendees, speeches were given in one room, addressed to those in the other.
But I also understand that, not only was there a single table plan presented to accommodate the 81 attendees, speeches were given in one room, addressed to those in the other.
So was it one event or two?
That's probably subjective - but if you think it was all one event (which the organisers and venue clearly don't) it would seem an evident breach of the law which carries not only a possible fine, but also a threat of jail, for its organisers.
That's probably subjective - but if you think it was all one event (which the organisers and venue clearly don't) it would seem an evident breach of the law which carries not only a possible fine, but also a threat of jail, for its organisers.
Final thought: how many weddings have been called off for the last few months because people didn't want to go ahead with the attendance capped at 50?
And how many of them would have gone ahead if they thought they could roll out a partition and put more in the room nextdoor?
And how many of them would have gone ahead if they thought they could roll out a partition and put more in the room nextdoor?
Incidentally: some of the attendees and purported organisers approached by @VirginMediaNews earlier were… cagey… about the event and privately very uneasy about it having gone ahead.
The venue's confidence is not matched by some of those who attended, to say the least.
The venue's confidence is not matched by some of those who attended, to say the least.
Long story short: you can literally be jailed for organising an indoor event for over 50 people, so if drawing a partition across the middle of the room is a legally robust workaround, there are quite a lot of people who'd like to know it
(And, of course, this is just the legalistic angle - for most people it'll also be a total breach of the spirit of the 'gatherings of six' guideline that the Government issued only two days ago.)
NEW: Dara Calleary 'apologises unreservedly' for having attended the Oireachtas Golf Society dinner, attended by 81 people across two rooms.
"In light of the updated public health guidance this week I should not have attended the event." (1/2)
"In light of the updated public health guidance this week I should not have attended the event." (1/2)
"I wish to apologise unreservedly to the public, from whom we are asking quite a lot at this difficult time. I also offer this apology and my sincere regret to my government colleagues.”
A barrister has offered their thoughts:
"Their suggestion that splitting the party in two saves it is transparently wrong. There is no even discussion to be had from a legal point of view… there’s just no debate here: It’s not a workaround, it could never be a workaround."
"Their suggestion that splitting the party in two saves it is transparently wrong. There is no even discussion to be had from a legal point of view… there’s just no debate here: It’s not a workaround, it could never be a workaround."
There's me drafting a whole thread when a single tweet could have explained it quite well https://twitter.com/keithwebs/status/1296538193840541697
