Things you wish were common knowledge.... but aren't!

CharlieCroker

TheNog wrote: »

Standing in front of an approaching car is a big no-no. Its the biggest no-no of all time. If a driver wants to a run a checkpoint, believe me its more common than you think, the last place you want to be standing is in front if it!!!!!!

+1
Most guards stand at the offside to speak to the driver. Standing in the middle of a lane aint gonna happen.
If you can stay off the white line in the middle of the road, then you can avoid a person standing on it!!
Don't worry, I can see you when your driving towards me. If it looks like your going to hit me, I'll move!!!!!!

Daz1214

please dont call an ambulance at 6 in the mornin for a pain in the foot that has been there for over a week because you think the A&E mite be quieter at that time

dont think you'll be seen quicker by arriving by ambulance, you'd be quicker inyour GP's office

the same little ****heads that throw stones at us on the fire engines are the same clowns who'll scream at us to hurry and help their mammy when she has had a turn

also, if someone doesnt want to go to the hospital, dont ring an ambulance out in the misbelief that we'll force them to go, we cannot force anyone to go to hospital against their wishes

TheNog

ScubaDave wrote: »

And yes..... the handcuffs could be tighter!

You could also say "they are only new cuffs but they will stretch after awhile"

gdamedic

another one heard was "My dole pays your wages"

johnnyskeleton

hunnymonster wrote: »

I've wondered about this one a couple of times during conversations with FS drivers as they are still driving on their own licenses in the trucks. Could you provide a link if you have one?

s.27 of the Road Traffic Act, 2004 replaces the customary approach to exempting emergency vehicles. It's slightly more nuanced than I expressed it above, so have a read of the section. If it were to come up in reality (and I doubt it often does) it would be more a defence to be raised in court rather than a prohibition on prosecution.

vote4pedro

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

11) If you kill an off duty garda it's capital murder.

Didn't s.3 of the 1990 Criminal Justice Act repeal capital murder, and even when it did exist (and as it stands under s.3 in its modern day form) the garda had to either be on duty, or be acting in the course of their duty?

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

Dont call me sir i'm not a school teacher and dont call me officer I dont work in a prison, Garda is fine though.

Please when coming to a checkpoint have your window down cause if yor roll up to me with the window up i see this as being very rude and will check every aspect of your car and yourself

Are you for real? You demand people show you such deference that they must have their window rolled down in advance, and yet also complain if someone rather politely calls you sir? Talk about acting a Billy Big Bollokks...

deadwood

I can see this thread drifting.

How about locking it and maybe some non E.S. members can ask questions they have about some of the common myths the public hold as truth?

vote4pedro

deadwood wrote: »

I can see this thread drifting.

How about locking it and maybe some non E.S. members can ask questions they have about some of the common myths the public hold as truth?

Why? Because I was critical of one of the things posted by a Garda? I was hardly trolling, I was directly referring to one of the things he wished was common knowledge, can't see how its off topic?

Whitewater-AGS

vote4pedro wrote: »

Are you for real? You demand people show you such deference that they must have their window rolled down in advance, and yet also complain if someone rather politely calls you sir? Talk about acting a Billy Big Bollokks...

Read over the posts again and you'll see it was pointed out that I was talking about the type of people who when stopped at a checkpoint sit there with the window up until you knock on it.

TheNog

vote4pedro wrote: »

Are you for real? You demand people show you such deference that they must have their window rolled down in advance, and yet also complain if someone rather politely calls you sir? Talk about acting a Billy Big Bollokks...

vote4pedro wrote: »

Why? Because I was critical of one of the things posted by a Garda? I was hardly trolling, I was directly referring to one of the things he wished was common knowledge, can't see how its off topic?

Pedro calm down will ye. This is only a lighted hearted informative thread, nothing more. Dont be over analyzing whats posted here

deadwood wrote: »

I can see this thread drifting.

How about locking it and maybe some non E.S. members can ask questions they have about some of the common myths the public hold as truth?

I can see the potential to drift as well but my over optimistic character is telling me to keep it open for now.


Back on topic so please.

We can now take your car off you if the tax is out by 2 months not 3 months.

and

Yes we can drive while using a mobile phone. Its not recommended but we can if we need to

deadwood

vote4pedro wrote: »

Why? Because I was critical of one of the things posted by a Garda? I was hardly trolling, I was directly referring to one of the things he wished was common knowledge, can't see how its off topic?

Not one bit. You'll see from my posts I welcome any criticism of the Gardai. It's good healthy debate.

I wasn't referring to one poster. I would quote you directly if I was.

I appreciate the point you made, actually, but I think you misunderstood the "closed window" gripe, that's all.

mikemac

deadwood wrote: »

I can see this thread drifting.

How about locking it and maybe some non E.S. members can ask questions they have about some of the common myths the public hold as truth?

I've a question

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

A noisy party has nothing to do with the Gardai so please dont ring us about them (unless its your party and your inviting us to it;))

Nothing to do with you? Nothing at all?
Do gardai refuse to attend such calls from annoyed neighbours.
Because I've certainly had them show up at house parties I held regarding noise and music

So is a garda matter or isn't it?
I need this info the next time the neighbours complain

Whitewater-AGS

Like alot of other calls we'll attend a loud party is not a Garda matter, however depending on alot of things eg how busy we are, who's close to the location we may attend and ask them to keep it down but we are under No obligation to do so. Its actually a matter for your local authority.

cpstears

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

Like alot of other calls we'll attend a loud party is not a Garda matter, however depending on alot of things eg how busy we are, who's close to the location we may attend and ask them to keep it down but we are under No obligation to do so. Its actually a matter for your local authority.

I was running with this until recently when I was corrected and informed that that in fact Anti Social Behaviour Warnings and Orders should be used in such instances.

Anti-Social behaviour is when a person acts in a way that causes or, in the circumstances, is likely to cause someone harassment, significant or persistent alarm, distress, fear or intimidation, or impairs their use or enjoyment of their property in a significant or persistent way.

It does not apply if the person acting anti-socially is from the same household as the person affected by the behaviour.

Persistent noise from house parties would be considered an impariment of the use and enjoyment for their property.

deadwood

Sums it up pretty well.

You see, we're an accomodating bunch really . . .within reason. Then again, most people don't want to pi$$ the neighbours off either.

How many ASBOs have you seen issued though? The civil liberty groups will have a field day when a judge insists that Joe Soap turns the music down in his own home!

source

cpstears wrote: »

I was running with this until recently when I was corrected and informed that that in fact Anti Social Behaviour Warnings and Orders should be used in such instances.

Anti-Social behaviour is when a person acts in a way that causes or, in the circumstances, is likely to cause someone harassment, significant or persistent alarm, distress, fear or intimidation, or impairs their use or enjoyment of their property in a significant or persistent way.

It does not apply if the person acting anti-socially is from the same household as the person affected by the behaviour.

Persistent noise from house parties would be considered an impariment of the use and enjoyment for their property.

This is the main point, persistent, for a behaviour order to be put in place, parties would need to be pretty much every week, and they generally aren't.

bluecell99

I wish it was commom knowledge that every single prison sentence handed down immediately qualifies for 25 per cent remission.The criminal can also qualify for more time off when inside depending on how many family events are taking place outside.

I wish it was known that every single criminal,no matter how many previous convictions they have,will get free legal aid - at enormous public expense.The barristers and solicitors who specilaise in this are all millionaires on the back of the taxpayer and have as much morality as Al Capone.

Micky Dolenz

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

Like alot of other calls we'll attend a loud party is not a Garda matter, however depending on alot of things eg how busy we are, who's close to the location we may attend and ask them to keep it down but we are under No obligation to do so. Its actually a matter for your local authority.

Sweet...Roll on the weekend, party at my place :pac::pac:

Corega

bluecell99 wrote: »

I wish it was commom knowledge that every single prison sentence handed down immediately qualifies for 25 per cent remission.The criminal can also qualify for more time off when inside depending on how many family events are taking place outside.

I have a question, maybe Metman our one of the other lads working in the UK can answer this. I have a friend studying over in Cornwall who shares a house with two prison guards. According to her, it doesn't matter what the length of your sentence happens to be, if the prison authorities deem it necessary they can keep you inside for longer than the term that was given to you. Is there any validity to that?

deadwood

bluecell99 wrote: »

The barristers and solicitors who specilaise in this are all millionaires on the back of the taxpayer and have as much morality as Al Capone.

Barristers and solicitors have a vital role. Every citizen is entitled to representation. This is one of the things which makes us a civilized society.

Are doctors immoral because they accept medical cards? Am I immoral because I expect to get paid for my work?

bluecell99

Corega wrote: »

I have a question, maybe Metman our one of the other lads working in the UK can answer this. I have a friend studying over in Cornwall who shares a house with two prison guards. According to her, it doesn't matter what the length of your sentence happens to be, if the prison authorities deem it necessary they can keep you inside for longer than the term that was given to you. Is there any validity to that?

Impossible here.The Minister is allowed to have a big say in letting criminals out after they have been sent down.Dates back to the Criminal Justice Act,1960,which also allowed fines imposed by the courts be scrapped or mitigsated when the local TD "petioned" the Minister of the day.A district judge had to take High Court action to get this stopped.

The same act is responsible for modern day pleas by TD'S asking the Minister to release convicted sex offenders and other criminals.

Interestingly in this juristiction a judge cannot state a minimum sentence to be served when he imposes "life" - unlike the UK.

This is the reason why convicted murderers are sometimes seen on the streets a few short years after going inside.Amazing how nowadays the Department is saying how someone will do at least fifteen before being considered for parole.Despite the many amendments to the Justice Act's they still wont take this discretion away from the Minister/Civil Servants/Department of Justice.

They are simply playing to the gallery and the public's horror at massively increasing murder rates.Dont bet you house on any convicted murderer doing fifteen years!!

deadwood

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

6) You are not automatically entitled to remission of a prison sentence, it's only given for good behaviour.

bluecell99 wrote: »

I wish it was commom knowledge that every single prison sentence handed down immediately qualifies for 25 per cent remission.

So.

Which is it?

bluecell99

deadwood wrote: »

Barristers and solicitors have a vital role. Every citizen is entitled to representation. This is one of the things which makes us a civilized society.

Are doctors immoral because they accept medical cards? Am I immoral because I expect to get paid for my work?

Scum with dozens of convictions are bloody well not entitled to representation!Cop youself on and deal with the real issue.

Easy knowing you are not the victim of these feral scum who have long ago given up the right to live amongst normal people.

deadwood

bluecell99 wrote: »

Scum with dozens of convictions are bloody well not entitled to representation!Cop youself on and deal with the real issue.

Easy knowing you are not the victim of these feral scum who have long ago given up the right to live amongst normal people.

We'll just leave that one sit, shall we?

MarkR

What are you supposed to call a guard actually? I'm from the states, but it seems officer isn't appreciated here. Is it Guard? Garda? You in the hat?

Johnny Utah

bluecell99 wrote: »

I wish it was commom knowledge that every single prison sentence handed down immediately qualifies for 25 per cent remission.The criminal can also qualify for more time off when inside depending on how many family events are taking place outside.

I wish it was known that every single criminal,no matter how many previous convictions they have,will get free legal aid - at enormous public expense.The barristers and solicitors who specilaise in this are all millionaires on the back of the taxpayer and have as much morality as Al Capone.

An accused person is entitled to legal representation by virtue of Article 38.1 of the Irish Constitution - which guarantees a trial in due course of law. Furthermore, free legal aid is not always granted.

deadwood

happyhappy wrote: »

the best i have experienced is 7 remands for road traffic stuff when legal aid has been granted, yet when it has not been granted the same case can be dealt with on the first date and takes 3-4 mins of court time!!

I'm sure it's purely coincidental, though!

Putting the best case forward and all that!

deadwood

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Furthermore, free legal aid is not always granted.

Something else the public should know -
IT'S NOT FREE LEGAL AID!

We all pay for it - even the defendant with the revenue from his 20 johnnie blue.

cushtac

If a car has been legally parked on your road you can ring us with the reg, but if it's not on the stolen list we can do nothing about it no matter how long it's there. If there's no reg plates on an abandoned vehicle your local authority will remove it as rubbish.

TheNog

bluecell99 wrote: »

I wish it was commom knowledge that every single prison sentence handed down immediately qualifies for 25 per cent remission.The criminal can also qualify for more time off when inside depending on how many family events are taking place outside.

I wish it was known that every single criminal,no matter how many previous convictions they have,will get free legal aid - at enormous public expense.The barristers and solicitors who specilaise in this are all millionaires on the back of the taxpayer and have as much morality as Al Capone.

Infraction from me for this post

bluecell99 wrote: »

Scum with dozens of convictions are bloody well not entitled to representation!Cop youself on and deal with the real issue.

Easy knowing you are not the victim of these feral scum who have long ago given up the right to live amongst normal people.

Warning from CivDef for this one.


Any more outbursts and it will be temp ban.

timmywex

The garda overtime bill;

Most peple dont understand what a waste of garda resources the courts are!

Essential and all that but having over half of an areas cars parked outside the court isnt great usage, nor is having gardai on overtime sitting in court waiting for paddy zulu's case to be called knowing fully it will be adjurned.


Surely the court system shoudl say a rough time that a case will be dealt with so everyone doesnt have to be there at ten in the morning!

TheNog

timmywex wrote: »

The garda overtime bill;

Most peple dont understand what a waste of garda resources the courts are!

Essential and all that but having over half of an areas cars parked outside the court isnt great usage, nor is having gardai on overtime sitting in court waiting for paddy zulu's case to be called knowing fully it will be adjurned.


Surely the court system shoudl say a rough time that a case will be dealt with so everyone doesnt have to be there at ten in the morning!

Very true indeed. Any Garry Doyle orders should be requested directly to the Super before the first court date and a plea entered into the courts system again before the first date. Not entirely sure if its workable but hey its a suggestion.

Anyone know if it is doable?

johnnyskeleton

vote4pedro wrote: »

Didn't s.3 of the 1990 Criminal Justice Act repeal capital murder, and even when it did exist (and as it stands under s.3 in its modern day form) the garda had to either be on duty, or be acting in the course of their duty?

No, it just reduced the sentence from death to life with a minimum of 40 years and the garda doesn't have to be on duty, but the person who kills them has to know they are a garda. In DPP v. Murray, an off duty garda who tried to stop two armed robbers from fleeing was shot and killed, and the robbers were convicted of capital murder.

johnnyskeleton

TheNog wrote: »

Very true indeed. Any Garry Doyle orders should be requested directly to the Super before the first court date and a plea entered into the courts system again before the first date. Not entirely sure if its workable but hey its a suggestion.

Anyone know if it is doable?

How about if someone is charged and released on bail or summonsed they could go to a solicitor who could write to the district court office which had the power to:

1) assign legal aid;
2) make a gary dole order to be complied with by a certain date (or the case will be struck out); and
3) be informed whether the accused wants a plea date or a hearing date.

That way, the gardai, solicitors and accused only have to turn up in court on one date and the accused can either plead, fight it, or in very exceptional circumstances have the matter adjourned.

Same with the appeals procedure and a similar system in the circuit court.

That way, there would never be too long or too short a list, there would be less time hanging around for gardai, witnesses, accused and lawyers, it would save money and would be a lot less stressful for all concerned as there would be no element of surprize.

The main issues involved are:
1) co-operation from all sides (and the gardai can drag their feet as much as anybody); and
2) changing the system would be difficult.

Instead we are going the opposite direction thanks to politicians passing spurious legislation to appear tough on crime. For example, s.56 of the CJA 2006 means that most indictable offences have to appear before the circuit court at least once prior to trial/plea. The videotapes of interview should accompany the standard disclosure in all cases.

Shield

Wasn't this thread supposed to be light-hearted?

TheNog

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How about if someone is charged and released on bail or summonsed they could go to a solicitor who could write to the district court office which had the power to:

1) assign legal aid;
2) make a gary dole order to be complied with by a certain date (or the case will be struck out); and
3) be informed whether the accused wants a plea date or a hearing date.

That way, the gardai, solicitors and accused only have to turn up in court on one date and the accused can either plead, fight it, or in very exceptional circumstances have the matter adjourned.

Same with the appeals procedure and a similar system in the circuit court.

That way, there would never be too long or too short a list, there would be less time hanging around for gardai, witnesses, accused and lawyers, it would save money and would be a lot less stressful for all concerned as there would be no element of surprize.

The main issues involved are:
1) co-operation from all sides (and the gardai can drag their feet as much as anybody); and
2) changing the system would be difficult.

Instead we are going the opposite direction thanks to politicians passing spurious legislation to appear tough on crime. For example, s.56 of the CJA 2006 means that most indictable offences have to appear before the circuit court at least once prior to trial/plea. The videotapes of interview should accompany the standard disclosure in all cases.

sounds like a plan to me but would it or something similar ever be implemented???

The judicial is nearly like an old dog you cant teach new tricks to but it could be done. It would be hard but doable

psni wrote: »

Wasn't this thread supposed to be light-hearted?

yep sorry got carried away

jake59

this should definitely be common knowledge.... all banners have great arses... its just those feckin' trousers that make them look huge:pac::pac:

Whitewater-AGS

jake59 wrote: »

this should definitely be common knowledge.... all banners have great arses... its just those feckin' trousers that make them look huge:pac::pac:

Ha your a funny man!!:D

paul larry

TheNog wrote: »

Very true indeed. Any Garry Doyle orders should be requested directly to the Super before the first court date and a plea entered into the courts system again before the first date. Not entirely sure if its workable but hey its a suggestion.

Anyone know if it is doable?

Certainly not doable, Mr. Nog!!!! its way to much like common sense!!!!!! and how often do ya see common sense prevail in AGS of the Courts Service?!:pac:
also, it would cost the solictors a small killing on legal aid!!!!!!!!

paul larry

Donegal Gardai are NOT all corrupt. it was over 13 years ago that they were nailed bending the rules (we are not going to get into the intricisies in this thread) but that was a small minority.

And no, I DON'T KNOW FREDDIE MORRIS!!!!!!!
I MAY HAVE HEARD OF HIM, BUT WHAT HAPPENED THEN DID NOT CONCERN ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

paul larry

telling me that 'pal' shouldnt be arrested is not gonna change my mind. i'm not going to release him. when have u ever seen a garda turn round and say.....'oh ****, sorry, my bad!!!!!!!!'

oh and i can use reasonable force. especially to defend myself. If u assault or attempt to assault me or a colleauge, i will NOT just stand there and take it. expect to be sore!!!!!!!!!:mad:

seanybiker

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

We can use our phones while driving!

Just cause the lights and sirens aint on dont mean we aint responding to a call!

As long as its got to do with work. Not personal calls.

seanybiker

ClioV6 wrote: »

cos you end up 500feet away from where you parked the car?

sorry for going OT.

Ha ha ha good un.

If Im talking to a guard i dont call em officer,sir,guard or anything. I just talk to them the same way as any other stranger.
Well how ya keeping. Yeah me tax is there. No bother see ya again.
I always believe that people earn respect by showing respect. So just cos someone does a certain job doesnt automatically grant them respect. Same with teachers grr lol.

source

seanybiker wrote: »

Ha ha ha good un.

If Im talking to a guard i dont call em officer,sir,guard or anything. I just talk to them the same way as any other stranger.
Well how ya keeping. Yeah me tax is there. No bother see ya again.
I always believe that people earn respect by showing respect. So just cos someone does a certain job doesnt automatically grant them respect. Same with teachers grr lol.

You see the thing is, you're not showing respect to the person, you're showing respect to the uniform, the organisation and the job.

It's like saluting a senior officer, it's not the person you're saluting, it's the rank.

boogyboogy

Just reading a thread about having burgular protection in the home and it got me thinking....is it actually ok for a person to defend their property from scumbags trying to rob them????From what I know is that you can defend youself and not your belongings is that correct?

deadwood

jake59 wrote: »

this should definitely be common knowledge.... all banners have great arses... its just those feckin' trousers that make them look huge:pac::pac:

Many moons ago . . .

Female member bemoans the fact that the trousers make her arse look huge.

"No" pipes up the seasoned campaigner who doesn't even look up from his typewriter behind an aromatic fug of pipe tobacco smoke, "the fat makes your arse look huge."

DeVore

<off topic> Mate of mine and his wife are on holiday with me and some mates. Wifey says "Does my bum look big in this?". Mate replies without breaking stride "Darling, your bum would look big in Texas". Apparently he didnt get any for a week but claimed it was totally worth it

DeV.

daithip

Back on the subject.... Although mentioned before, in most country areas midweek, from the hours of 12am to 9am there may be one car covering a whole district, up to 400 sq miles, so be patient its not a chopper we have, we'll get there when we can. Suppose I better not mention Sunday mornings as well:rolleyes: when you have half of the unit working.

brayblue24

daithip wrote: »

Suppose I better not mention Sunday mornings as well:rolleyes: when you have half of the unit working.

No you'd better not;)

Esel

Also OT: Wife: Does my bum look big in this? Husband: In this what? In this room?