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

javaboy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It will more than likely go towards the purchase of more state of the art surveillance equipment and the funding of the chipped National ID.

Source?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

THe real loosers will again be the poor, under the former court system the majority of offenders would be asked by the judge to put e20 into the poor box and be given the probation order.

Now in future all this money will go directly into the ar*e pocket of an Garda Siochain.

If they've enough money to get that hammered in Ireland, they aren't exactly 'poor'.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It will more than likely go towards the purchase of more state of the art surveillance equipment and the funding of the chipped National ID.

Which can only be a bad thing if you're involved in criminal activity.

CiaranC

marcsignal wrote: »

ye see this is the kind of subtle scaremongering that i have to roll my eyes at. what things Kayroo?? be specific here, are you making some reference to nazi germany or something, because someone always says something like that when a law like this is modernised.

Maybe someone always says it because its a valid point?

We are talking about a fine here, but the point stands.

The notion that you can pass laws that allow the government/security forces to technically pursue anyone they like thinking that sure its ok, they wont pursue YOU is a dangerous one.

Dont make such open legislation. Make it an offence to cause harm, not an offence to have a Garda think that you might cause harm as per the legislation quoted earlier in the thread. (Notice the distinction - its not a Garda thinking you will cause harm, but that you might, which means the Garda cant be wrong, ever.)

Ross_Mahon

Its getting like Equilibrium...Were going to be all on drugs controlling the way we live.

mike65

We are, its called Alcohol

Mike

javaboy

monument wrote: »

So what about the minority of "bad apple" garda and the few people who do come to their attention?

They are bad apples already and should be rooted out but that's a separate issue imo. There's plenty of legislation they could hit you with already should they feel so inclined. This new legislation doesn't change that.

As the amended saying goes: Only the rich and the (really) poor can afford to go to court.

Just because it's a neat saying, doesn't mean it's true. I know plenty of people rich, middle class, poor and very poor who have all been to court. It doesn't have to be an expensive process.

Just to be clear as has been said 100s times already: The law makes even the slightest bit of intoxication possible "criminal behaviour".

No a previous existing law made it criminal. This latest change just changes how it is policed and punished. You should direct your outrage at the earlier legislation.

Run_to_da_hills

javaboy wrote: »

No a previous existing law made it criminal. This latest change just changes how it is policed and punished. You should direct your outrage at the earlier legislation.

The latest change just made a former act pi*ss easy to enforce.

CiaranC

javaboy wrote: »

They are bad apples already and should be rooted out but that's a separate issue imo.

Its not a separate issue. You are right when you are say there are bad apples, thus giving police such sweeping powers will be abused. This system makes it easier for abuses to happen. The bad apple can be less reluctant to abuse the system if its less likely he'll have to stand in court in front of a judge.

Anyway, Im going to bed. Please dont turn the Gardai into the STASI while Im asleep. Thanks.

monument

javaboy wrote: »

They are bad apples already and should be rooted out but that's a separate issue imo. There's plenty of legislation they could hit you with already should they feel so inclined. This new legislation doesn't change that.

Please do give examples of legislation which vaguely defines what the crime is and has on-the-spot fines as punishment (and thus is open to abuse)?

Doesn't your argument comes down to: "there's already bad apples and bad laws, sure what's the harm in adding more vague laws"?

javaboy wrote: »

Just because it's a neat saying, doesn't mean it's true. I know plenty of people rich, middle class, poor and very poor who have all been to court. It doesn't have to be an expensive process.

So, please do tell me what a day in could would cost? A few €100? Around €1,000? More or less?

javaboy wrote: »

No a previous existing law made it criminal. This latest change just changes how it is policed and punished. You should direct your outrage at the earlier legislation.

I said "the law", not this new law.

EDIT: Just to add...

javaboy wrote: »

They are bad apples already and should be rooted out but that's a separate issue imo.

As has been said: no it's not a separate issue. If it wasn't for a large catalogue of abuses by our police force I don't think I'd feel strongly enough to post as many times as I have about this.

Run_to_da_hills

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Chipped? Can it play pirated games?

No, it will detect pirated games :eek:

120_Minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnZ3qzIwmlw

Four-Too

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

As i mentioned already It will more than likely go towards the purchase of more state of the art surveillance equipment and also the funding of the chipped National ID.

How do you know about this? Big Brother system, huh? The Gardai should be disbanded, I'm convinced, and all my supporters should be convinced likewise now also! Rally wit me! We should organise our own counter-protection force, the REAL police force for the people. It would mean everyone would report any crime, and it would be an offense not to report a crime, and everyone would look out for one another wherever they are. Bottom line is, we don't need the gardai in this country in the year 2008. But we should remain peaceful and don't give them, or the government any reason to be in place, or any good reason to arm themselves.

AtomicHorror

Four-Too wrote: »

How do you know about this? Big Brother system, huh? The Gardai should be disbanded, I'm convinced, and all my supporters should be convinced likewise now also! Rally wit me! We should organise our own counter-protection force, the REAL police force for the people. It would mean everyone would report any crime, and it would be an offense not to report a crime, and everyone would look out for one another wherever they are. Bottom line is, we don't need the gardai in this country in the year 2008. But we should remain peaceful and don't give them, or the government any reason to be in place, or any good reason to arm themselves.

If this is a joke, you are very funny. If it is not, you are still funny but in a very different way.

Run_to_da_hills

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Which can only be a bad thing if you're involved in criminal activity.

RIP Jean Charles de Menezes July 22 2005, A guy that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.


Or found guilty by association..

You are spotted by a Garda facial recognition CCTV cam attending an unauthorised civil rights demonstration off of O'Connel St. Your luas smart card records and a coffee you bought with the same card also proves you were in the exact same vicinity at the time of this "illegal gathering".

Not knowing to you the authorities in the US requested CCTV footage from this gathering from the Gardai as it was of interest to them with fighting this "war on terror".

A year later you decide to get work in the states but to your surprise you get hauled over by the FBI on entering JFK as soon as your chipped passport gets scanned, you are grilled about being involved in this "illegal gathering" in Ireland and are subsequently deported back on the next plane as being a "potential trouble maker".

thelordofcheese

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

RIP Jean Charles de Menezes July 22 2005, A guy that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.


Or found guilty by association..

You are spotted by a Garda facial recognition CCTV cam attending an unauthorised civil rights demonstration off of O'Connel St. Your luas smart card records and a coffee you bought with the same card also proves you were in the exact same vicinity at the time of this "illegal gathering".

Not knowing to you the authorities in the US requested CCTV footage from this gathering from the Gardai as it was of interest to them with fighting this "war on terror".

A year later you decide to get work in the states but to your surprise you get hauled over by the FBI on entering JFK as soon as your chipped passport gets scanned, you are grilled about being involved in this "illegal gathering" in Ireland and are subsequently deported back on the next plane as being a "potential trouble maker".

You have a very fertile imagination, have you considered writing fiction? The way you make this shit up is amazing.

Dragan

andrewlownie101 wrote: »

And why is it a fine? If the cops are so worried about our safety when drunk surley they would run us home in the squad car and tuck us into bed. No rip more hard earner money out of our already slim wallet!

Maybe the only thing retards fear is being hit in the pocket? And why the **** should the police force have to act as taxi service to **** who can't hold a skin full of beer?

At the end of the day, it this causes people to forgo a few extra drinks, or throwing a glass bottle down the street because it's funny then I am all for it.

I still haven't seen any of the people against this offer a valid reason as to why " a danger to himself or others" is a bad thing to be dealing with? Honestly, it seemed pretty clear to me as to when Gardai are or are not allowed to give fines.

4.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person to be present in any public place while intoxicated to such an extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he might endanger himself or any other person in his vicinity.

In fairness you would need to be pretty ****ed to draw the above kind of attention to yourself, no?

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

I think thats something you should keep to yourself.





Seriously though... Its like saying "I'm uncomfortable around women, can we have them fined too?

the ironing detection levels are weak in this one

If you're fining people just for making others uncomfortable then surely my irrational prejudice is as valid as anyone elses? As far as im concerned If you want to be steaming drunk at 2 pm on a wednesday then more power to ye, it aint a crime.

pirelli

Ponster wrote: »

How will drunkenness be proved by the garda ?

I think the €140 fine for drunk and disordely makes perfect sense. There's no need to tie up the courts with such petty matters, but the €100 fine for just being drunk does need closer attention IMO.

The €100 fine should only apply to someone who isn't being disorderly but who's drunken state may be a risk to their health and the health of others.


EDIT : I'll check the Intoxicating Liquor Act as soon as it's updated online.

LOl!

So take their taxi money and leave them penniless.
How is that going to improve their situation.

Wouldn't They will need breathylisers to prove someone is drunk,


They might start the State trooper tests; that they do to measure the inebriation of the drunkee. Citizens might be accosted by gardai and forced to say the alphabet backwards correctly or stand on your head, and if you slip up you have to pay 100 euro.


classic extortion

Ponster

pirelli wrote: »

Wouldn't They will need breathylisers to prove someone is drunk,

They might start the State trooper tests; that they do to measure the inebriation of the drunkee. Citizens might be accosted by gardai and forced to say the alphabet backwards correctly or stand on your head, and if you slip up you have to pay 100 euro.


classic extortion

Actually I see that as a much better solution to determine if someone is drunk. I doubt cops will get people to blow in a bag as that determines if you have drunk too much to drive, not if you're drunk or not.

Dragan

pirelli wrote: »

They might start the State trooper tests; that they do to measure the inebriation of the drunkee. Citizens might be accosted by gardai and forced to say the alphabet backwards correctly or stand on your head, and if you slip up you have to pay 100 euro.

It's walk a straight line, touch your nose from an arms outstretched positon or stand on one foot for a predetermined length of time.

javaboy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

RIP Jean Charles de Menezes July 22 2005, A guy that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Oh my God, I just held this new legislation up to the light and yes, there it is. The sneaky devils put it in a watermark and made it really small but yes, it does give Gardai powers to shoot on sight. :rolleyes:

Or found guilty by association..

You are spotted by a Garda facial recognition CCTV cam attending an unauthorised civil rights demonstration off of O'Connel St. Your luas smart card records and a coffee you bought with the same card also proves you were in the exact same vicinity at the time of this "illegal gathering".

Not knowing to you the authorities in the US requested CCTV footage from this gathering from the Gardai as it was of interest to them with fighting this "war on terror".

A year later you decide to get work in the states but to your surprise you get hauled over by the FBI on entering JFK as soon as your chipped passport gets scanned, you are grilled about being involved in this "illegal gathering" in Ireland and are subsequently deported back on the next plane as being a "potential trouble maker".

Is Matt Damon in that one?

monument wrote: »

Please do give examples of legislation which vaguely defines what the crime is and has on-the-spot fines as punishment (and thus is open to abuse)?

Well I didn't mention on the spot fines but I'm sure the bad apples can already charge you with being abusive to Gardai or attempted assault of a Garda or something similar where it would be their word against yours.

Doesn't your argument comes down to: "there's already bad apples and bad laws, sure what's the harm in adding more vague laws"?

No it doesn't. That is not my argument in favour of this law. It is my counter-argument to the idea that a few bad apples should prohibit Gardai from being granted new powers.

So, please do tell me what a day in could would cost? A few €100? Around €1,000? More or less?

Honestly I don't know.

humanji

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A year later you decide to get work in the states but to your surprise you get hauled over by the FBI on entering JFK as soon as your chipped passport gets scanned, you are grilled about being involved in this "illegal gathering" in Ireland and are subsequently deported back on the next plane as being a "potential trouble maker".

Actually, a new measure has been put in place that will have you checked before you get on a plane, so it'll save everyone a fortune.

Run_to_da_hills

humanji wrote: »

Actually, a new measure has been put in place that will have you checked before you get on a plane, so it'll save everyone a fortune.

Makes sense too, especially for those that have over stayed J1 visas.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

RIP Jean Charles de Menezes July 22 2005, A guy that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.


Or found guilty by association..

You are spotted by a Garda facial recognition CCTV cam attending an unauthorised civil rights demonstration off of O'Connel St. Your luas smart card records and a coffee you bought with the same card also proves you were in the exact same vicinity at the time of this "illegal gathering".

Not knowing to you the authorities in the US requested CCTV footage from this gathering from the Gardai as it was of interest to them with fighting this "war on terror".

A year later you decide to get work in the states but to your surprise you get hauled over by the FBI on entering JFK as soon as your chipped passport gets scanned, you are grilled about being involved in this "illegal gathering" in Ireland and are subsequently deported back on the next plane as being a "potential trouble maker".

Man told repeadly to stop by police at a time of hightened tnesions, runs, will be suspected of criminal activity.

Man gets on Luas, holds remote control in the air, shouts "Praise Allah" and gets shot. Defense, he was only having a laugh, your honour.

We don't have rights marches in Ireland. We're not allowed protest any more, or haven't you looked at the Rossport thread...?

Javaboy wrote:

Is Matt Damon in that one?

No. Most of his stuff has less plot holes.

monument

Dragan wrote: »

I still haven't seen any of the people against this offer a valid reason as to why " a danger to himself or others" is a bad thing to be dealing with? Honestly, it seemed pretty clear to me as to when Gardai are or are not allowed to give fines.

4.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person to be present in any public place while intoxicated to such an extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he might endanger himself or any other person in his vicinity.

In fairness you would need to be pretty ****ed to draw the above kind of attention to yourself, no?

You're wrong. Again.

As said before, the law was changed so that simply being intoxicated (drunk) in public can be an offence on its own right. And, as I said before, if it was not so vague I would not have posted here so much.

You've just become a victim of the saying "a little information is a dangerous thing".

thelordofcheese wrote: »

You have a very fertile imagination, have you considered writing fiction? The way you make this shit up is amazing.

javaboy wrote: »

Is Matt Damon in that one?

I'll ask this again: How much may articles about Garda abuse have you read in the last ten years and/or have you watched Prime Time or the news when they covered the same? And I'll add: What about the articles and programmes on "extraordinary rendition" by the US?

The stories in articles and programmes on both sound very much like fiction. But sadly they are not.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No. Most of his stuff has less plot holes.

Plot holes? Sounds like the one about the UK national who was accused of being at a terrorist training camp, only after been taken away and held (I think it was in a five star hotel, no, wait it wasn't) for a while it was proven he was working in a store in the UK at the same time. pretty big plot hole!

javaboy wrote: »

Well I didn't mention on the spot fines but I'm sure the bad apples can already charge you with being abusive to Gardai or attempted assault of a Garda or something similar where it would be their word against yours.

No, I mentioned on the spot fines (and remember, it's what this thread is about). You said:

"They are bad apples already and should be rooted out but that's a separate issue imo. There's plenty of legislation they could hit you with already should they feel so inclined. This new legislation doesn't change that."

Well the difference with "abusive to Gardai or attempted assault of a Garda" is such charges have to be brought up before a court. On the spot fines don't. So, there's quite a difference. And the legislation does change things.

And you might want to know Judges have ruled against garda officers in such cases. One Judge was quoted in the press last year or the year before saying that she can't take their word for it any more.

javaboy wrote: »

No it doesn't. That is not my argument in favour of this law. It is my counter-argument to the idea that a few bad apples should prohibit Gardai from being granted new powers.

Am I getting this correct?...

You agree with "there's already bad apples and bad laws, sure what's the harm in adding more vague laws"... could you explain why on earth are you in favour of vague laws which can be easily abused?

javaboy wrote: »

Honestly I don't know.

So, I take it you're retracting what you said? Because it's kind of meaningless now...

Just because it's a neat saying, doesn't mean it's true. I know plenty of people rich, middle class, poor and very poor who have all been to court. It doesn't have to be an expensive process.

javaboy

monument wrote: »

I'll ask this again: How much may articles about Garda abuse have you read in the last ten years and/or have you watched Prime Time or the news when they covered the same? And I'll add: What about the articles and programmes on "extraordinary rendition" by the US?

The stories in articles and programmes on both sound very much like fiction. But sadly they are not.

I've read a few definitely. In many of the cases I imagine the laws were bent if not outright broken. I'll admit that's a fair basis for an argument against vague laws which facilitate abuse. But I still say that it's the bad apples who are the problem and not really the laws.

Plot holes? Sounds like the one about the UK national who was accused of being at a terrorist training camp, only after been taken away and held (I think it was in a five star hotel, no, wait it wasn't) for a while it was proven he was working in a store in the UK at the same time. pretty big plot hole!

Fine whatever but it's not really related to this issue. It's hysterical scaremongering that has no place in a rational discussion which is why Run_to_da_hills fictional scenario was ridiculed.

No, I mentioned on the spot fines (and remember, it's what this thread is about). You said:

"They are bad apples already and should be rooted out but that's a separate issue imo. There's plenty of legislation they could hit you with already should they feel so inclined. This new legislation doesn't change that."

Well the difference with "abusive to Gardai or attempted assault of a Garda" is such charges have to be brought up before a court. On the spot fines don't. So, there's quite a difference. And the legislation does change things.

And you might want to know Judges have ruled against garda officers in such cases. One Judge was quoted in the press last year or the year before saying that she can't take their word for it any more.

I assume there will be the option of contesting the charge in court. If there is not, as I have already said, I will be thr first one down at the Dáil protesting.

Am I getting this correct?...

You agree with "there's already bad apples and bad laws, sure what's the harm in adding more vague laws"... could you explain why on earth are you in favour of vague laws which can be easily abused?

No you're not getting it correct. I'm not saying "what's the harm in adding more vague laws". What I am saying is that the existence of a few bad apples should not be an argument against granting additional powers to the Gardai.

So, I take it you're retracting what you said? Because it's kind of meaningless now...

Just because it's a neat saying, doesn't mean it's true. I know plenty of people rich, middle class, poor and very poor who have all been to court. It doesn't have to be an expensive process.

No I'm not retracting what I said. I do not have exact figures for what a day in court costs and I'm sure it varies from person to person and case to case. All I was saying was that it doesn't necessarily have to cost the earth to go to court.

monument

javaboy wrote: »

I've read a few definitely. In many of the cases I imagine the laws were bent if not outright broken. I'll admit that's a fair basis for an argument against vague laws which facilitate abuse. But I still say that it's the bad apples who are the problem and not really the laws.

The problem with poorly written laws is even good officers can quickly start to abuse them or they can be put under pressure to use them etc etc etc.

javaboy wrote: »

Fine whatever but it's not really related to this issue. It's hysterical scaremongering that has no place in a rational discussion which is why Run_to_da_hills fictional scenario was ridiculed.

I don't think it is "hysterical scaremongering" when these type of stories have been well documented and published in respected newspapers etc... did you think what happened in Donegal before it happened?

It was -- like many documented cases of police and state abuse -- pretty unreal. Very strange and messed up things were done by the Gardai. Fiction writers wouldn't be able to get away with it.

Why are the extream cases related to this? Simple really. These cases show just what the police and the State will get up to when the is not the proper checks and balances in place.

javaboy wrote: »

I assume there will be the option of contesting the charge in court. If there is not, as I have already said, I will be thr first one down at the Dáil protesting.

And...

javaboy wrote: »

No I'm not retracting what I said. I do not have exact figures for what a day in court costs and I'm sure it varies from person to person and case to case. All I was saying was that it doesn't necessarily have to cost the earth to go to court.

If you can't tell me how much a day in court would cost or give ranges of costs that's meaningless.

javaboy wrote: »

No you're not getting it correct. I'm not saying "what's the harm in adding more vague laws". What I am saying is that the existence of a few bad apples should not be an argument against granting additional powers to the Gardai.

If you don't deny that the law covering being just drunk in public is vague then you are by de facto saying "what's the harm in adding more vague laws".

Prof.Badass

togster wrote: »

If it stop some fcukwit smashing something or beating some innocent bystander to death then whats the fcuking problem.

because if i'm not commiting any crime i can get punished just for being drunk.

Like come on. If i go out at the weekend, of course i'm gonna get drunk.

This really is a huge step towards banning alcohol.

I hope a "certain person" dies a long and painfull death.

Well this is just ****ing great, isn't it ! Now I'll have to bring an extra €100 out to town :pac:

Dragan

**** it, i'm actually not bothered.