72 Previous Convictions!!!

mynamejeff

pablo128 wrote: »

Could you please stop making assumptions about me. I produced everything in the Garda station apart from the tax, which could have been dealt with at the roadside with a fixed charge penalty. I then back taxed the car. Imagine my surprise then when I get 14 summonses.

In court it was my word against the garda's. Luckily the judge believed me and just got me on the tax. Otherwise I'd have a heap of convictions, with me being the only victim.

Aw jasas poor you the victim of the fascist irish state :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I think the only one making assumptions here is you pablo

Did they take the car off you as the could have or did they let you on ? this "dickhead" garda ?

Did you not have your insurance displayed as mandated by law ?

Did you not have your driving licence with you as mandated by law ?

Are you sure you produced your licence as you were ment to ?

Do you know that TIC as discussed and as you claimed to have benefited from here is a conviction also ? It just means no punishment was placed upon you ? Its the same as a court order facts proven no order , you know that right ?

might be you need to ring the courts office and check exactly what convictions you have . dont want to invalidate your insurance by not informing them of all your convictions

Giacomo McGubbin

pablo128 wrote: »

I endangered no-one.

sure, tell it to the judge, i'm sure he's heard all that crap before.

pablo128

mynamejeff wrote: »

Aw jasas poor you the victim of the fascist irish state :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I think the only one making assumptions here is you pablo

Did they take the car off you as the could have or did they let you on ? this "dickhead" garda ?

Did you not have your insurance displayed as mandated by law ?

Did you not have your driving licence with you as mandated by law ?

Are you sure you produced your licence as you were ment to ?

Do you know that TIC as discussed and as you claimed to have benefited from here is a conviction also ? It just means no punishment was placed upon you ? Its the same as a court order facts proven no order , you know that right ?

might be you need to ring the courts office and check exactly what convictions you have . dont want to invalidate your insurance by not informing them of all your convictions

Again, stop making assumptions. I had everything with me at the roadside apart from a valid tax disc. If I didn't, then the garda certainly would have seized the car.

You seem to think the gardai and the court system are absolutely infallible. Not so, buddy.

Giacomo McGubbin

pablo128 wrote: »

I endangered no-one.

sure, tell it to the judge, i'm sure he's heard all that crap before.

Why do you think the rules of the public road only apply to other people and not you ?

pablo128

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

sure, tell it to the judge, i'm sure he's heard all that crap before.

I did tell it to the judge, and he believed me. Did you have a point to make?

mynamejeff

pablo128 wrote: »

Again, stop making assumptions. I had everything with me at the roadside apart from a valid tax disc. If I didn't, then the garda certainly would have seized the car.

You seem to think the gardai and the court system are absolutely infallible. Not so, buddy.

you seem again mistaken .

the only reason that the car would be seized is for no tax ,

no insurance wont result in the car being seized unless you are already banned.

I dont believe everything that Im told by anyone pablo .......

mynamejeff

pablo128 wrote: »

I did tell it to the judge, and he believed me. Did you have a point to make?

I ll refer you back to my point that TIC is a conviction without a punishment , best check that up .....

pablo128

mynamejeff wrote: »

you seem again mistaken .

the only reason that the car would be seized is for no tax ,

no insurance wont result in the car being seized unless you are already banned.

I dont believe everything that Im told by anyone pablo .......

The car would have to be more than 2 months out of tax to be seized. At the time it wasn't more than 2 months out.

I'm done talking about this incident. It was over 16 years ago, and if I haven't answered all your questions about it by now, well I won't be answering any more.

mynamejeff

pablo128 wrote: »

The car would have to be more than 2 months out of tax to be seized. At the time it wasn't more than 2 months out.

I'm done talking about this incident. It was over 16 years ago, and if I haven't answered all your questions about it by now, well I won't be answering any more.

well no a car doesn't have to be 2 months out of tax to be seized . even 16 years ago.

your right you haven't answered any relevant questions and ignored my point repeatedly made the TIC is a conviction and that you didn't " get off " because the garda wasn't believed by the judge.

Nice to see youve still got the grudge 16 years later :pac::pac:

pablo128

mynamejeff wrote: »

Nice to see youve still got the grudge 16 years later :pac::pac:

Lord almighty.:rolleyes: I made my original post in this thread as it was relevant, not because of any grudge. Now I have a MotoGp race to watch so forgive me if I don't reply to any more of your posts.

cart man

[/QUOTE]
As far a clogging prison, so be it. Prison should be a miserable horrifying place![/quote]

After two visits to prison at a huge cost to the state we should be trying to achieve the next visit at lowest cost possible - further prison stays should be put out to tender, if a Polish, Romanian, Estonian etc prison can do it cheaper then that's where the term should be served.
Whilst saving money it would also serve as a deterrent.

sunny2004

pablo128 wrote: »

You can have 100 convictions for road traffic offences. Who is the victim in that case?

Stupid statement, to any logical mind it would depend on the convictions..
Try drinking and driving, driving without due care and attention, or just not having a road worthy car.. if you are going to have a point at least try making it sensible

Wanderer78

cart man wrote: »

As far a clogging prison, so be it. Prison should be a miserable horrifying place![/quote]

After two visits to prison at a huge cost to the state we should be trying to achieve the next visit at lowest cost possible - further prison stays should be put out to tender, if a Polish, Romanian, Estonian etc prison can do it cheaper then that's where the term should be served.
Whilst saving money it would also serve as a deterrent.[/QUOTE]

yup, privatisation, that works, doesnt it!

sunny2004

pablo128 wrote: »

Not having a licence, not producing a licence, not having insurance, not displaying insurance, not producing insurance, and there's 3 I can't think of as it was so long ago.

They would only have been mickey mouse summonses anyway.

I think this simply makes my pervious point

FortySeven

sunny2004 wrote: »

I think this simply makes my pervious point

He was told to produce. He produced. Garda on desk didn't record it right or original garda didn't follow up and issued summons for not producing.

If garda didn't like the guy he could issue all the summons for a day in court. Judge throws out summons as licence is produced, insurance is produced etc.

Garda can be crooked enough if they don't like you. They can be crooked enough if they do like you. How many friends and family got points quashed again?

sunny2004

FortySeven wrote: »

He was told to produce. He produced. Garda on desk didn't record it right or original garda didn't follow up and issued summons for not producing.

If garda didn't like the guy he could issue all the summons for a day in court. Judge throws out summons as licence is produced, insurance is produced etc.

Garda can be crooked enough if they don't like you. They can be crooked enough if they do like you. How many friends and family got points quashed again?

Extremely few, getting points squashed is not easy anymore..

As for the rest, I think its out of context regarding the quote from the same guy at the top of this page

FortySeven

sunny2004 wrote: »

Extremely few, getting points squashed is not easy anymore..

As for the rest, I think its out of context regarding the quote from the same guy at the top of this page

Extremely few? I remember them admitting it was quite a lot. Made the evening news and everything.

Context is not important. He said he was summoned and the judge threw them out. This happens on a daily basis.

sunny2004

FortySeven wrote: »

Extremely few? I remember them admitting it was quite a lot. Made the evening news and everything.

Context is not important. He said he was summoned and the judge threw them out. This happens on a daily basis.

and it is extremely few.. the system has been changed.. not sure how long back you are referring to.


Context is everything..

He also said
Originally Posted by pablo128 View Post

You can have 100 convictions for road traffic offences. Who is the victim in that case?

so as I said, he proved my point..

FortySeven

sunny2004 wrote: »

and it is extremely few.. the system has been changed.. not sure how long back you are referring to.


Context is everything..

He also said
Originally Posted by pablo128 View Post

You can have 100 convictions for road traffic offences. Who is the victim in that case?

so as I said, he proved my point..

What point?

He was talking about 16 years ago. The garda have quashed a few penalty points in that time. You can downplay it all you like but it was a national scandal.

sunny2004

FortySeven wrote: »

What point?

He was talking about 16 years ago. The garda have quashed a few penalty points in that time. You can downplay it all you like but it was a national scandal.

I'm not down playing lol

I told you few, as few was the answer, if you had asked about the past then I would have replied regarding the past..

This is silly, obviously Pablo is completely right... there are no victims if you have 100 road traffic convictions..

lol

I'm out and unfollowed, my time is far to important to me for this stupidity, I will leave you with it.

ziggyman17

FortySeven wrote: »

I have more convictions than that. Probably 100+

All before 2001. Should I be locked up? I've been a model citizen since.

Yes you should be locked up.. 100 convictions is taking the piss..

FortySeven

ziggyman17 wrote: »

Yes you should be locked up.. 100 convictions is taking the piss..

Even though I aam fully rehabilitated and a decent member of society?

You think we would have no crime then? Or would we have more crime due to a lack of prison spaces?

steddyeddy

FortySeven wrote: »

Yes. Been in jail a few times. Spent a few years there. I hate crime now. I was a gob****e. Jail didn't work, community service didn't work, probation finally sent me to addiction treatment and after getting clean it was discovered I was bipolar. Treatment worked.

Good for you dude!

Sue Pa Key Pa

pablo128 wrote: »

Not having a licence, not producing a licence, not having insurance, not displaying insurance, not producing insurance, and there's 3 I can't think of as it was so long ago.

They would only have been mickey mouse summonses anyway.

You don't get to choose which laws you like and will abide by.

pablo128

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

You don't get to choose which laws you like and will abide by.

I know.

Clonmel1000

http://www.nationalist.ie/news/home/287809/two-men-duebeforecourt-this-morning-charged-in-relation-to-anaggravated-burglary-in-clonmel.html

enricoh

Give him another 8 years, the penny might drop someday!

Kermit.de.frog

hooradiation wrote: »

The three strike rule is stupid because all it's done is clog prisons in various US states with people who've done misdemeanors and pander to people who think it constitutes "being tough on crime".

then again this



is even more fucking stupid - but seeing the irony in advocating a permanent punishment while at the same time lamenting how fallible the justice system is undoubtedly makes me some kind of liberal-PC-leftist-bleeding heart or whatever the current mindless retort du jour is.

And now back to our regularly scheduled rabble.

What's the answer then because soft touch has not worked in this country?

So cleary a harder line is needed. Where is that line for you?

If your loved one was beaten to death by a thug with so many convictions I guarantee you as sure as night follows day that your attitude would change in short order.

So tell us what needs to be done?

Ralf and Florian

This waste of skin has no less than three different FB accounts.

Samuel T. Cogley

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What's the answer then because soft touch has not worked in this country?

So cleary a harder line is needed. Where is that line for you?

If your loved one was beaten to death by a thug with so many convictions I guarantee you as sure as night follows day that your attitude would change in short order.

So tell us what needs to be done?

Soft touch works reasonably well, the US model is a huge failure. Why are you advocating a failed system replace a 'pretty bad' one. Surely the answer is a working system?