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

Run_to_da_hills

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Bring a cheque with ya,

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Bring a cheque with ya,

:pac:

Wagon

So if me and some mates went to a pub, had a few pints then left and walked up the road to the next pub, not causing any trouble at all just with a few drinks in us, chatting away and having a laugh, a guard stops us and asks us to blow into a bag. It shows that we've had some booze. And we're all fined 100 euro?

I can see a few holes in this law This is going to be badly abused by the guards.

Prof.Badass

Wagon wrote: »

So if me and some mates went to a pub, had a few pints then left and walked up the road to the next pub, not causing any trouble at all just with a few drinks in us, chatting away and having a laugh, a guard stops us and asks us to blow into a bag. It shows that we've had some booze. And we're all fined 100 euro?

I can see a few holes in this law This is going to be badly abused by the guards.

Ever since Brian Cowen came into the government have become more and more authoritarian. People are starting to get pissed off.

If they keep going at this rate alcohol will be illegal sometime next year.:mad:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

vinylmesh wrote: »

Ever since Brian Cowen came into the government have become more and more authoritarian. People are starting to get pissed off.

If they keep going at this rate alcohol will be illegal sometime next year.:mad:

.....and you gobsh1tes will cheerfully line up and vote them back in again come the next general election.

Dragan

vinylmesh wrote: »

If they keep going at this rate alcohol will be illegal sometime next year.:mad:

Well it does outrank some drugs on the danger list that are currently illegal.

Prof.Badass

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

.....and you gobsh1tes will cheerfully line up and vote them back in again come the next general election.

Hey in fairness to me, under bertie they weren't that bad. This stuff all seems to have come from nowhere.

Fine gael were definately more authoritarian than them last whenever the election was.

Trust me, i've learnt my lesson the hard way.:(

If we somehow got "the nanny state" to be one of the main issues in politics then they might get voted out. The only way we can do this is by constantly going on about it 24/7.

Wagon

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

.....and you gobsh1tes will cheerfully line up and vote them back in again come the next general election.

Didn't vote for them

But Cowen is a wanker for this ****e though. Did anyone ever consider just blocking the gates to Leinster House with a huge crowd of people and just refuse the poloticians to go home for the evening till they sort some crap out. I mean a crowd too big to arrest.

It's going to get worse lads. We need to do something, but I'm ****ed if i know how.

Prof.Badass

just rant about it 24/7 and more and more people will start talking about it. Suddenly it will become a major issue and stuff will start to get done!

javaboy

Wagon wrote: »

But Cowen is a wanker for this ****e though. Did anyone ever consider just blocking the gates to Leinster House with a huge crowd of people and just refuse the poloticians to go home for the evening till they sort some crap out. I mean a crowd too big to arrest.

They're bad enough at their job already without having them sleep deprived.

Wagon

javaboy wrote: »

They're bad enough at their job already without having them sleep deprived.

Well i dunno. What else do you suggest?

javaboy

Wagon wrote: »

Well i dunno. What else do you suggest?

Vote for different politicians maybe? I mean if you buy a ticket to a Busted concert, you can't complain when they don't play decent music. And locking the venue doors and keeping them there until they do won't work either.

Ponster

Wagon wrote: »

So if me and some mates went to a pub, had a few pints then left and walked up the road to the next pub, not causing any trouble at all just with a few drinks in us, chatting away and having a laugh, a guard stops us and asks us to blow into a bag. It shows that we've had some booze. And we're all fined 100 euro?

I can see a few holes in this law This is going to be badly abused by the guards.

No. You've understood very little.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Wagon wrote: »

Didn't vote for them

But Cowen is a wanker for this ****e though. Did anyone ever consider just blocking the gates to Leinster House with a huge crowd of people and just refuse the poloticians to go home for the evening till they sort some crap out. I mean a crowd too big to arrest.

It's going to get worse lads. We need to do something, but I'm ****ed if i know how.

They're a conservative party, Fine Gael are a conservative party. Which generally means keeping society in order, by any means possible.

I'm of the belief that Ireland is a prime example of Democracy not being all it's cracked up to be.

Wagon

Ponster wrote: »

No. You've understood very little.

"Anyone caught being drunk in public in the Republic of Ireland now faces an on-the-spot fine."

Okay, reckon you could explain it to me a little better then? Because that's the impression i got from the article.

javaboy wrote: »

Vote for different politicians maybe? I mean if you buy a ticket to a Busted concert, you can't complain when they don't play decent music. And locking the venue doors and keeping them there until they do won't work either.

It's not your spotting of the holes in my plan that have offended me, it's the fact that you'd assume ill go to a Busted concert. Fecker

javaboy

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

They're a conservative party, Fine Gael are a conservative party. Which generally means keeping society in order, by any means possible.

I would argue that FF are more populist than anything else now. Their ideology is based on getting the most votes. See Bertie's Socialist claim for example.

I'm of the belief that Ireland is a prime example of Democracy not being all it's cracked up to be.

Why not? People here routinely vote the one party into power. Democracy does exactly what it says on the tin. It's not democracy's fault if so many Irish voters have such low standards.

Ponster

Wagon wrote: »

"Anyone caught being drunk in public in the Republic of Ireland now faces an on-the-spot fine."

I'd suggest giving up on the article (they've tried to sex-up the story) and read the extracts from the actual law which have been posted in the thread.

Basically the Law has always had the power to arrest you if you were drunk as long as it was deemed that you were a threat to yourself or others. Even if you thought you were minding your own business, since 1994 the power to stop and arrest you has been there. The only thing that has changed is that now you can be fined rather than going to court.

If you and your mates are stopped and fined but decide that you are in the right then you don't have to pay the fine, you go to court and plead your case just as it has always been.

As already mentioned by some the people complaining about this law should have done so years ago when it was originally brought in rather than this amendment which just changes the way it's applied.

Now I could be very wrong and we'll see AH fill up with threads people being fined left, right and center but I doubt it really.

Run_to_da_hills

Wagon wrote: »

Didn't vote for them

But Cowen is a wanker for this ****e though. Did anyone ever consider just blocking the gates to Leinster House with a huge crowd of people and just refuse the poloticians to go home for the evening till they sort some crap out. I mean a crowd too big to arrest.

It's going to get worse lads. We need to do something, but I'm ****ed if i know how.

A gathering of that nature would be considered an "unlawful. illegal and against the interests of the state". One must be aware that outside leinster house and its surrounds are covered by CCTV.

The cops would be well able curtail the biggest of crowds and would have the equipment and manpower. They will also have word in advance before you or me about such an event from inside intelligence and would be prepared for it. They have learned from previous mistakes.

javaboy

Wagon wrote: »

It's not your spotting of the holes in my plan that have offended me, it's the fact that you'd assume ill go to a Busted concert. Fecker

I humbly apologise. Thanks for not reporting me btw. Accusing someone of going to a Busted concert is tantamount to personal abuse.

JackKelly

To be D&D you need to be posing a threat to yourself or others. Generally, people in this condition have spent all their money in getting there. If they do have 100E with them it's highly unlikely that they are going to hand over 100E to the cops. So in the end they are going to be hauled in anyway, getting rid of the entire point of the law.

D&D and "On the spot fine" are incompatible. Unfortunately, the only way of dealing with people in that state IS to haul them in.

Run_to_da_hills

TimAy wrote: »

To be D&D you need to be posing a threat to yourself or others. Generally, people in this condition have spent all their money in getting there. If they do have 100E with them it's highly unlikely that they are going to hand over 100E to the cops. So in the end they are going to be hauled in anyway, getting rid of the entire point of the law.

D&D and "On the spot fine" are incompatible. Unfortunately, the only way of dealing with people in that state IS to haul them in.

Most offenders of this nature are known to the law particularly in smaller towns like Ennis or Shannon. If the guys are caught D&D and doesn’t have the bread to pay the fine the cops would know where they live and will be on their back till such times as they cough up. I am sure this fine will increases substantially if let go out of hand or if it goes before the courts. (Just like the M50 Toll bridge plasa :mad: )

Prof.Badass

Ponster wrote: »

Now I could be very wrong and we'll see AH fill up with threads people being fined left, right and center but I doubt it really.

being the typical sneaky bastards they'll wait a year or two, then suddenly start fining people left right and centre. When people start complaining they'll say the law has been there for a while, thus adding extra futility to the campaign to change things.

OctavarIan

wrote:

This is 100 euro for being drunk in public or 140 euro for being drunk and disorderly.

So being drunk but not disturbing anyone is €100, and being disorderly and a threat to other people is only another €40 on top of that?

wrote:

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern said that the policy would hit offenders "in the pocket - where it will really hurt".

The pockets of Irish drinkers are sore enough as it is.

wrote:

The regulations, which Mr Ahern claims will allow gardaí to make more efficient and effective use of their resources, also enable them to direct a person to leave an area peacefully if they have become a nuisance.

Yes, because a little fine guarantees compliance from someone who is off their tits and causing a scene...

This country needs to cut the nannying and let the Gardaí use force.

TheNog

I have been following this thread for the past couple of days and can see that people are confusing being drunk in a public place and being drunk in a public place which gives rise to the possible apprehension you are a danger to yourself or others.

The fine on the spot or the current Section 4 of the Public Order Act does not relate to people who get drunk and are walking home happily. Section 4 relates to people who are drunk but are say falling out in front of traffic on the roads, walking on bridge walls, climbing scaffolding/poles etc. therefore giving rise they may hurt themselves or others through their drunken actions.

Also the on the spot does not mean the fine has to be paid there and then. It will be more like the on the spot fine you get for speeding. The money does not go to the Garda who stopped you.

There are a couple of problems I can see with this on the spot fine:

1. If someone is so drunk and falling in front of traffic does a Garda give them the on the spot and so continues on his/her way but is struck by a car down the road, who will get the blame? Your man who was so drunk he couldn't stand straight or the Garda who was sober and in his/her own opinion considered that person to be a danger to themselves.

2. second problem is identification. How does a Garda get the name or address from a person they wish to fine? Most people don't carry ID and those that do carry ID will probably not give it up. ID such as Passports and Driving Licences are usually good forms of ID but in alot of cases the address on them relates to a previous address.

The only solutions I can see is to leave the Section 4 POA as it is so the person is arrested and put in a cell for an hour or two to sober up. They can then be fined (on the spot) or if the Garda wishes dealt with via Adult Caution so the only benefactors of this is the Courts Service.

On the spot fines should be issued to people who urinate in public or cause a breach of the peace.

Zangetsu

^ never pissed in a bush ey? ya haven't lived mate...

Your saying the drunk in public fine is for people climbing the walls or falling out on the road, I think that would fall under drunkl and disorderly would it not?

Meh, makes no sence to me...

Wagon

Ponster wrote: »

I'd suggest giving up on the article (they've tried to sex-up the story) and read the extracts from the actual law which have been posted in the thread.

Basically the Law has always had the power to arrest you if you were drunk as long as it was deemed that you were a threat to yourself or others. Even if you thought you were minding your own business, since 1994 the power to stop and arrest you has been there. The only thing that has changed is that now you can be fined rather than going to court.

If you and your mates are stopped and fined but decide that you are in the right then you don't have to pay the fine, you go to court and plead your case just as it has always been.

As already mentioned by some the people complaining about this law should have done so years ago when it was originally brought in rather than this amendment which just changes the way it's applied.

Now I could be very wrong and we'll see AH fill up with threads people being fined left, right and center but I doubt it really.

Ah, wasn't arsed reading through 17 pages.
Makes sense then. Sure im a mess when im sober anyway. Once we don't get fined for bumping into someone.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

javaboy wrote: »

I would argue that FF are more populist than anything else now. Their ideology is based on getting the most votes. See Bertie's Socialist claim for example.

Why not? People here routinely vote the one party into power. Democracy does exactly what it says on the tin. It's not democracy's fault if so many Irish voters have such low standards.

This is the problem: the whole system is built on popularity. It's a bit like praising x-factor for bringing us artisitic musical talent.

javaboy

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

This is the problem: the whole system is built on popularity.

Well that's the electorate's fault really. Sometimes politicians need to have the balls to raise taxes but they know the short term thinking electorate won't vote them in again. Democracy's not perfect I'll admit but we get the government we deserve.

It's a bit like praising x-factor for bringing us artisitic musical talent.

This just backs up my point though really. People are stupid and will vote for stupid things.

ShooterSF

Dragan wrote: »

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.



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

I read as far as I could so apologies if someone else pointed this out but here's my problem with that. For someone who is giving out about people ignoring said part of the law you yourself ignored the point that it's not being "a danger to himself (also why is it always a man thats drunk) or others" it's the possibility that he MIGHT BE a danger. That's way too open for abuse.

Next we'll be given an on the spot fine if we're in a shop too long as we MIGHT BE casing out the place and MIGHT be about to rob it.

javaboy

ShooterSF wrote: »

Next we'll be given an on the spot fine if we're in a shop too long as we MIGHT BE casing out the place and MIGHT be about to rob it.

Hanging's too good for loiterers!