Upcoming Police State: New laws with e100 on the spot fines for being drunk in public

Boggle

Indeed. There ought to be a law against it.

Well played sir! Well played...

Guy:Incognito

Boggle wrote: »

Ever dealt with a cop on a powertrip??

.

Iv'e dealt with plenty of police, here, in Germany and in Spain. Apart from the one in Spain where i got a few smacks of a baton (I was drunk, doubt I said anythign too bad, ahh the joys of being young) I've never had a bad experience . i've always been courtious and not gotten smart or confrontational.

Plenty have been in bad moods at the time too.

From my own experiences and the experiences of a coupel fo little scumbags I know through work that have had dealings with police, the only times theres a problem is when you are up to soimething or get smart with them (or similar)

CiaranC

Come on now lads, all police are paragons of virtue and would never do anything wrong. If you think otherwise it must be because you are a 'scumbag' or an anarchist or something.

humanji

Nonsense, everyone knows that all cops are corrupt psychopaths who go around beating up the innocent and eating babies. If you think otherwise it must be because you're a right-wing loony or a Nazi or something.

CiaranC

This might seem insane, but bear with me. Perhaps, just perhaps, there are some cops that are assholes and some who arent. Crazy I know. Maybe I should have posted that over in conspiracy theories.

monument

brim4brim wrote: »

Yeah I don't get it. Define drunk!

There is no definition. So any level of intoxication will do. Thus the law is wide open to abuse.

bluto63

Tbh I don't think there's gonna be many fines given out for just being drunk. You're gonna have to do something to attract the police to come over to you. These are the people that need to be clamped down on.

Run_to_da_hills

monument wrote: »

There is no definition. So any level of intoxication will do. Thus the law is wide open to abuse.

This is my point. It is just another law for this upcoming police state. It is much more efficient for the law to be spitting out 50 e100 & e140 on the spot fines in one night than to be hauling 50 individuals up before the courts.

It is all about police enforcing new powers and has absolutely nothing about keeping our streets safer. As someone already posted, after these guys get fined they are going to have to stagger home and will more than likely be shouting and roaring more abuse after they have been done.

If anyone is caught drunk in public they are fined e100. If they try to dispute their case in front of the cops they will be automatically handed the additional e40 surcharge.

CiaranC

bluto63 wrote: »

Tbh I don't think there's gonna be many fines given out for just being drunk.

I think its safe to assume that we dont actually need a law allowing the Garda to give fines for just being drunk then. Case closed. Glad we cleared it up.

humanji

CiaranC wrote: »

This might seem insane, but bear with me. Perhaps, just perhaps, there are some cops that are assholes and some who arent. Crazy I know. Maybe I should have posted that over in conspiracy theories.

Now you're just talking nonsense. I've got my tarring brush and by god I'm going to use it one way or the other!!!

monument

I've always thought some mainland European states were bad for requiring state ID etc. But at least you can get a bit intoxication without (technically) breaking the law. You can drink on the streets -- you can't even drink in (some) corned off on-street smoking areas here! You can buy drink from off-licences with less time restrictions. You can go out until after 2am. Sundays don't have strange time restrictions. And to top it off we're taxed to the hilt for our drink here.

None of our restrictions have lowers the problem drinking and heavily affected people who are apparently not the targets of the laws (ie not problem drinkers, under-age drinkers, drink-fuelled trouble makers etc). As is already happening, the problem is more and more people drinking at home... and worse still the Government now have more people getting tanked up a bit at home so they don't have to break the piggy bank for a night out.

What next? More tax? The anti-drink lobby (Irish Medical Organisation etc) thinks so. They have already called for a tax rise.

But it doesn't help when Independent Newspaper's group business editor, Brendan Keenan, is leading the march and calling for a 100 percent increase of tax on drink...

If Mr Lenihan really wants to make a name for himself, though, he should double the tax on drink. It is another sign of the grip which alcohol has on the national psyche that it was one of the main beneficiaries of the boom, being spared virtually any tax increases.

A substance whose effects are almost entirely harmful has become ever cheaper in purchasing terms; unlike tobacco which gets clobbered every year. Yet most drinkers are not alcoholics, and can adjust their consumption to higher costs more easily than smokers, nearly all of whom are addicts.

Sounds like he doesn't drink (or at least not in pubs) or gets paid so much money he has lost grip with reality compared to the way most people see money and the cost of things.

bluto63 wrote: »

Tbh I don't think there's gonna be many fines given out for just being drunk. You're gonna have to do something to attract the police to come over to you. These are the people that need to be clamped down on.

Dragan wrote: »

Drunk = just that. Think of those few folk you see about town everynight who have trouble walking/standing etc. The cops need to get those guys home. As such, you have cops playing taxi driver to morons who can't control their intakes.

Drunk and disorderly = the type of dickheads who get in fights, break windows, throw **** about etc.

Fairly easy to distinguish the two and one would be more serious the other.

You're wrong there 'Drunk and disorderly' is both of those descriptions. Simply 'drunk' is intoxication in anyway, there is no definition of it. The law covering such left it vague has been criticised since before it was enacted and a number of times since. Creating fines for such is making it open to even more abuse.

javaboy

CiaranC wrote: »

Did I accidently join the UCD debating society? I didnt even know I had to win.

Why would you enter the realm of the internet warrior if not to win?

I was merely pointing out my irritation at people who insist on new laws for absolutley everything they view as a problem in society. More laws, more fines, close the off licences down at some retarded time, close the pubs and clubs early. We get more and more restrictive laws, but nothing changes, the crime rates stay the same, car safety doesnt change, people dont stop drinking as much as they want. So what do people say? We need even more laws!

Well why didn't you say that? Instead you likened this law to the idea that Gardai should be allowed to shoot people on sight and suggested that SteveC or other people who support the d&d law would automatically support such a crazy idea.

daveharnett

Ok, then. My summary of proceedings so far.

Side A: This is a breach of civil liberties of Orwellian proportions. What's to stop them fining everybody in the city centre after 1PM?

Side B: No, No. It's a convenient catch-all law which will be used with due discretion with the public's best interest in mind.

Side A: You guys are retards.

Side B: Yore Ma.




It's not a fine for having a few pints. It's a fine for
1: Being so drunk that the guards need to babysit you.
OR
2: Being drunk and acting the prick.

As others have said, it's defined pretty clearly as such. As long as you have the right to demand a trial, I can't see a problem.

Pete4779

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This is just another definite move towards a state run for the majority of citizens who don't get plastered every weekend, puke and piss all over every town centre in the country.

/fixed

kowloon

Shelflife wrote: »

should be a €500 fine and a night in the cells for D&D, too lenient on gob****es ruining everything for everyone else.

Id even bring back the stocks and the lash for petty criminals.

Am I the only person who had to think about this before they realised D&D, in this context, was in fact nothing to do with 10 sided dice?

Run_to_da_hills

Pete4779 wrote: »

/fixed

Please dont go around mucking with other peoples posts, I believe its against forum rules.

BaconZombie

They will just have to remember to shout "S/He's coming right for us...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE5pGeCUM-Y

CiaranC wrote: »

You could bring in a law letting the Garda shoot anyone they didnt like the look of dead and youd have the likes of SteKelly there saying 'so what? it'll only affect scumbags'.

Ah well. That whole concept of being able to live our lifes without interference from the state was overrated anyway.

Dave!

I for one welcome our new taser-wielding overlords...

andrewlownie101

Me and 2 mates are hitting the town on fri and saturday night.


The normal weekend is getting pissed, pulling some birds and going home to enjoy ourselves. No hassle caused to anyone.

This weekend the plan is to stay absolutely sober, but run around the town shouting, screaming, dancing, singing etc,. Generally making an absolute nuisance of ourselves, while hoping to attract the cops.

When the cops waddle along with their breathlyser and we refuse to 'blow', while we turn on the stone cold sober poise, they won't know what to do.

Its time to say NO to these crazy laws and taxes. And define drunk?

monument

daveharnett wrote: »

Ok, then. My summary of proceedings so far.

I don't think you read the thread in full...

daveharnett wrote: »

Side A: This is a breach of civil liberties of Orwellian proportions. What's to stop them fining everybody in the city centre after 1PM?

I'd adjust that from "everybody" to 'anybody'. There's quite a difference.

daveharnett wrote: »

It's not a fine for having a few pints. It's a fine for
1: Being so drunk that the guards need to babysit you.
OR
2: Being drunk and acting the prick.

As others have said, it's defined pretty clearly as such. As long as you have the right to demand a trial, I can't see a problem.

As with others, you're wrong here. 1 & 2 are covered by "drunk and disorderedly". Simply 'drunk' is intoxication in any way -- it's a catch all.

It is in no way "defined pretty clearly".

TheVan

That will never work in practice

Basically, alcohol is legal (ie the substance that makes you drunk), with no restriction on the amount one can purchase. Therefore if you're walking home from a pub and have had one too many, you're in public and drunk and therefore liable.

Also "drunk" is subjective and would probably fail a constitutional challenge for vagueness seeing as there doesn't seem to be a breathalyzer test or any kind of blood-alcohol limit.

In fairness, drunk and disorderly should be slapped with a huge fine, feckers try to ruin my night!

thelordofcheese

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Please dont go around mucking with other peoples posts, highlighting the silliness of my new world order obsession makes me cry

Fixed.

andrewlownie101

Dave! wrote: »

I for one welcome our new taser-wielding overlords...

Why stop with a taser? Just use hollow point bullets on anyway consider a pint. :eek:


Im surprised you have time to point here, im sure the non-drinkers forum is such good craic! :rolleyes:

monument

TheVan wrote: »

That will never work in practice

Basically, alcohol is legal (ie the substance that makes you drunk), with no restriction on the amount one can purchase. Therefore if you're walking home from a pub and have had one too many, you're in public and drunk and therefore liable.

Also "drunk" is subjective and would probably fail a constitutional challenge for vagueness seeing as there doesn't seem to be a breathalyzer test or any kind of blood-alcohol limit.

In fairness, drunk and disorderly should be slapped with a huge fine, feckers try to ruin my night!

The law outlawing of intoxication (ie drunk) in public is already in place within one of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Acts. It has also been heavily criticised for other elements of giving too much power to the Gardai where such can be easily open to abuse.

You might be correct about it not being able to withstand a constitutional challenge, but who is going to take it?

CiaranC

Maybe we could make it illegal to breathe in public and leave it up to the Gardai who they apply it to. Sure they'd only hassle scumbags anyway.

sdanseo

FANTASTIC idea. As said above, should be more.

Idiots who think they can wreck the place for we sober people, or indeed all us those who just want an enjoyable, pukefest-and-fistfighting-free night should be made to pay for it. End of.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid in Orwellian proportions, to steal a phrase from above.

andrewlownie101

sdonn_1 wrote: »

FANTASTIC idea. As said above, should be more.

Idiots who think they can wreck the place for we sober people, or indeed all us those who just want an enjoyable, pukefest-and-fistfighting-free night should be made to pay for it. End of.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid in Orwellian proportions, to steal a phrase from above.

You don't know what your asking for.

Your the stupid (to use your term) person who obviously hasen't thought this process through to its logical conclusion.

This is a democarcy right? Whatever that means.

The majority of irish like a drink, maybe even to get pissed at the weekend. Why dont 'good guys' like yourself stay at home and let the rest of us at it. The fact is there is very little trouble caused by drunks, and this new law is another infraction of our rights.

Run_to_da_hills

andrewlownie101 wrote: »

Why stop with a taser? Just use hollow point bullets on anyway consider a pint. :eek:


Im surprised you have time to point here, im sure the non-drinkers forum is such good craic! :rolleyes:

The OP is a non drinker.

javaboy

The fact is there is very little trouble caused by drunks, and this new law is another infraction of our rights.

Tell that to any Garda who has spent night after night separating drunken morons in fights. Or to the person who cleans up the puke or the glass or replaces the cones/road signs that are so irrestible to drunks on a Saturday night.

Or to someone like me or a good few people I know who have been attacked by drunks while minding their own business.

I mean I can accept that some people think this change is a violation of our liberties but to suggest that there is very little trouble caused by drunks is absolutely ridiculous.

gixerfixer

FFS. What's next. Soon you wont be able to have a good time without a licence.