Name Irelands Nanny State Laws

NegativeCreep

DB21 wrote: »

Mhmmm, would you mind telling that to the guy who had half his face eaten off in Florida last month? Sure the perpetrator was only "recreationally" using PCP.

think I read yesterday that it was proven there were no Bath Salts in his system.
He was just a nutter! :L

Scioch

NegativeCreep wrote: »

think I read yesterday that it was proven there were no Bath Salts in his system.
He was just a nutter! :L

Probably hepped up on goofballs.

KKkitty

At the moment I have two boys. One has just turned 6 and the other is 2. If the oldest has a cough I can get a cough bottle for him but not if his 2 year old brother has one I can forget about it. Medicating kids should be up to the parents not anyone else.

Scioch

KKkitty wrote: »

At the moment I have two boys. One has just turned 6 and the other is 2. If the oldest has a cough I can get a cough bottle for him but not if his 2 year old brother has one I can forget about it. Medicating kids should be up to the parents not anyone else.

It depends on the medication, certain drugs should only be given after consultation with a medical professional. A parent with little knowledge of these things should not be the one in charge of medicating kids as they please.

Pretty sure there is OTC cough medicine for 2 year olds anyway.

Chuck Stone

Penn wrote: »

I can see the benefits in it, but to force people to HAVE to have a wheelchair ramp goes too far. Make it a planning condition that by not designing the house with a wheelchair ramp, they forego the right to claim any grant for such.

If someone doesn't want a wheelchair ramp, they shouldn't be made to have one. Making everyone have a wheelchair ramp so they don't have to give grants for the few people who may end up needing one is too OTT

Did you completely ignore the bit where I said that it benefits more than just wheelchair users?

It's accessability legislation - not persecution of the majority by a vicious cabal of wheelchair users who are encroaching on our freedoms for their own dastardly designs on world domin... you don't think... DALEKS!

:pac:

kumate_champ07

if this(Ireland) is a democracy and the majority of people want off licences to stay open later, how can the law be changed?

Scioch

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

if this(Ireland) is a democracy and the majority of people want off licences to stay open later, how can the law be changed?

Petition the elected representatives to bring about a change I suppose.

SomethingElse

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

if this(Ireland) is a democracy and the majority of people want off licences to stay open later, how can the law be changed?

Revolution. I have a rusty pike in the hayshed.

marcsignal

mikemac1 wrote: »

NUCLEAR TEST BAN BILL 2006

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2006/4606/b4606.pdf

Harsh

hats off, that's pure gold

KKkitty

LordSmeg wrote: »

KKkitty wrote: »

At the moment I have two boys. One has just turned 6 and the other is 2. If the oldest has a cough I can get a cough bottle for him but not if his 2 year old brother has one I can forget about it. Medicating kids should be up to the parents not anyone else.

It depends on the medication, certain drugs should only be given after consultation with a medical professional. A parent with little knowledge of these things should not be the one in charge of medicating kids as they please.

Pretty sure there is OTC cough medicine for 2 year olds anyway.

If either of my kids are unwell OTC medication is my first port of call. I know what my children can handle medication wise and would not administer any strong medication without seeking doctors approval first and obviously getting my kids examined beforehand. From the ages of 2 and 6 cough medicine is not given by any pharmacy. The nearest thing is a throat syrup which my kids will not take.

Scioch

KKkitty wrote: »

If either of my kids are unwell OTC medication is my first port of call. I know what my children can handle medication wise and would not administer any strong medication without seeking doctors approval first and obviously getting my kids examined beforehand. From the ages of 2 and 6 cough medicine is not given by any pharmacy. The nearest thing is a throat syrup which my kids will not take.

What do you mean not given ? You mean there is no such cough medicine or they are legally obliged not to give it to you for a 2 year old ?

Owen_S

LordSmeg wrote: »

Petition the elected representatives to bring about a change I suppose.

Would there be enough people in AH to make this happen? :cool:

Smidge

KKkitty wrote: »

If either of my kids are unwell OTC medication is my first port of call. I know what my children can handle medication wise and would not administer any strong medication without seeking doctors approval first and obviously getting my kids examined beforehand. From the ages of 2 and 6 cough medicine is not given by any pharmacy. The nearest thing is a throat syrup which my kids will not take.

Just to let you know.......

The cough meds for kids that are sold over the counter here,

Useless

And everyone in the pharm industry know it.

The only one that works and can be bought OTC is Exputex

The rest is sugary syrup

KKkitty

LordSmeg wrote: »

KKkitty wrote: »

If either of my kids are unwell OTC medication is my first port of call. I know what my children can handle medication wise and would not administer any strong medication without seeking doctors approval first and obviously getting my kids examined beforehand. From the ages of 2 and 6 cough medicine is not given by any pharmacy. The nearest thing is a throat syrup which my kids will not take.

What do you mean not given ? You mean there is no such cough medicine or they are legally obliged not to give it to you for a 2 year old ?

It's a new directive by the government stating that from the ages of 2 to 6 any chemists will not give out a cough bottle. The chemists have to ask the childs age and all. As mischalucy has said there is exputex thankfully but it's just another part of parenting that has been taken away.

Penn

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Did you completely ignore the bit where I said that it benefits more than just wheelchair users?

It's accessability legislation - not persecution of the majority by a vicious cabal of wheelchair users who are encroaching on our freedoms for their own dastardly designs on world domin... you don't think... DALEKS!

:pac:

Didn't ignore your point, just that my point covers all those as well as wheelchair users. If you don't want a ramp on your house, whether for wheelchairs, buggies, the elderly etc, then you shouldn't be made to have one. You should be able to choose not to have one, and if you end up needing one, you pay for it yourself.

shopaholic01

Penn wrote: »

Didn't ignore your point, just that my point covers all those as well as wheelchair users. If you don't want a ramp on your house, whether for wheelchairs, buggies, the elderly etc, then you shouldn't be made to have one. You should be able to choose not to have one, and if you end up needing one, you pay for it yourself.

It is probably a case of avoiding a situation where someone needs a wheelchair and is unable to pay for it. I'm sure local authourities would rather avoid negative publicity in a situation where someone is trapped inside their home. Makes very little difference when building the house initially, so I can't really see a problem with it.

While there aren't many wheelchair users, I'm sure they are relieved when they can visit a private home without having to be carried over the threshhold. It's undignified and unnecessary, so on that point alone it should be welcomed.

suicide_circus

MaxSteele wrote: »

Pub and club licensing laws. F*** me ... what utter backward regulation.

I go abroad (even to Britain) and can stay out til 6, even 8 in the morning. Yet because of a few clueless biddies and ultra conservatives lobbying to the govt who have the gaul to dictate an industry's working hours, I have to spill out onto the street with everyone else due to our "drinking culture".

Great strategy ... make everyone drink as much as humanly possible within a shorter time period and starting even earlier in the day. :rolleyes:

i do agree with you however there is actually one advantage to our early starting/finishing clubbing which was pointed out to me by a Spanish friend ; if you wanna go clubbing in Spain, things don't really kick off til 2am and don't finish til 6am or later so its basically impossible to go for a bit of a disco dance and go to work the next day. In Ireland you can head out early and go mad and be in bed by 3am and get up and go to do a days work, albeit with a sore head.

GastroBoy

#1 Off-Licence closing at 10pm (I'll just buy double the amount I need in case)

#2 Banning 10 pack cigarettes (People will smoke more, youths will find a way to buy them regardless of price)

#3 Only one pack of paracetamol per customer (In the highly unlikly chance that I wish to off myself using paracetamol, I'll visit more then one place then)

#4 The NCT ()

Nothingbetter2d

Penn wrote: »

Didn't ignore your point, just that my point covers all those as well as wheelchair users. If you don't want a ramp on your house, whether for wheelchairs, buggies, the elderly etc, then you shouldn't be made to have one. You should be able to choose not to have one, and if you end up needing one, you pay for it yourself.

you do realise all ya need is one entrance thats wheelchair accessable... it can be the back door too or even patio doors. you could even have the surface of the footpath around your house gradually slope up towards the level of one of your external doors. it doesnt have to be an actual disabled ramp like you see on public buildings.


i have designed many houses over the past 18 years... ive never had to design an actual disabled ramp like you see on public buildings for a private house. by cleverly sloping footpaths around the house upto the level of one entrance is the preferred way to do it. you get disabled accessability without having to have an ugly ramp on your house. usually i'll use a patio door to do this. or back door if there is no patio door requested.

spoofilyj

:rolleyes:

Stiffler2 wrote: »

WTF ... LOL

SO if I let off an atomic bomb in Dublin I'll get a €5,000 fine and 1 year jail probably with 11 months suspended if the court house / prison is still standing.

Oh that has made me lol.

Couldn't agree more with the 15 / 16 yo boy girl sex thing, becoming a sexual offender and being put on the registrar, this is ridiculous.

Keep em coming AH, should be plently of ammo

Well ya you would be done for the atomic bomb but you would also be charged with mass murder, property destructions, cunduct likely to breach the peace, so as well as 12 months and a 5 grand fine you would get life for mass murder...

shopaholic01

spoofilyj wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Well ya you would be done for the atomic bomb but you would also be charged with mass murder, property destructions, cunduct likely to breach the peace, so as well as 12 months and a 5 grand fine you would get life for mass murder...

Would anyone be left to prosecute you though if you did? Would you even survive?

Perfect crime imo.

Nothingbetter2d

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Would anyone be left to prosecute you though if you did? Would you even survive?

Perfect crime imo.

yes there would be.

the mutant council would prosecute ya... then dip ya in to toxic waste to mutantify ya as punishment.

Penn

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

you do realise all ya need is one entrance thats wheelchair accessable... it can be the back door too or even patio doors. you could even have the surface of the footpath around your house gradually slope up towards the level of one of your external doors. it doesnt have to be an actual disabled ramp like you see on public buildings.


i have designed many houses over the past 18 years... ive never had to design an actual disabled ramp like you see on public buildings for a private house. by cleverly sloping footpaths around the house upto the level of one entrance is the preferred way to do it. you get disabled accessability without having to have an ugly ramp on your house. usually i'll use a patio door to do this. or back door if there is no patio door requested.

I've designed many houses too. And the access for the disabled is typically supposed to be located at the main entrance to the house. Plus, your suggestions for gradually sloping footpaths etc don't always apply when just extending a house. Plus, some people just prefer steps to the front door. But now they're supposed to have handrails on both sides too.

My grandfather lives with us, and occasionally, if he has to leave to go to the doctors or something, he might need the wheelchair. We only have steps to our house. So we built a wheelchair ramp out of timber to suit the steps which can be moved when not in use. And a friend of the family is in a wheelchair. If she comes down, she can easily use it too.

All I'm saying is, the regulations have gone too far, and are too restrictive on design for everyone's houses. Should houses have access for the disabled? Of course, and when designing a house it's something which should always be kept in mind. But to HAVE to have it even in cases where you might not want it.... it's just an unnecessary law.

mikemac1

If you ignore the councils requirements now then you should lose the right to apply for grant money if you want to adapt the house at a later date

Nothingbetter2d

Penn wrote: »

I've designed many houses too. And the access for the disabled is typically supposed to be located at the main entrance to the house. Plus, your suggestions for gradually sloping footpaths etc don't always apply when just extending a house. Plus, some people just prefer steps to the front door. But now they're supposed to have handrails on both sides too.

there is no law stating it has to be on the front door. Just that it has to be at least one entrance to the home.

you can easily slope paths with extensions too.

Penn

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

there is no law stating it has to be on the front door. Just that it has to be at least one entrance to the home.

you can easily slope paths with extensions too.

According to the building regs, it should be at the main entrance. If it can't go there, then the entrance it is at still has to be accessible with regards people who aren't familiar with the property, so it can't be a utility room for example, it would have to be into maybe a conservatory or general living area. Again, this affects design.

As for sloping paths for extensions, again, this doesn't apply as easily to every house. What about a semi-detached house in a housing estate? Taking 150mm level difference between ground level and internal floor level, you'd still need a 1.8m long ramp at the maximum gradient of 1:12. That might not be practical in a small rear garden to easily incorporate it into the design so it doesn't stand out

Nothingbetter2d

Penn wrote: »

According to the building regs, it should be at the main entrance. If it can't go there, then the entrance it is at still has to be accessible with regards people who aren't familiar with the property, so it can't be a utility room for example, it would have to be into maybe a conservatory or general living area. Again, this affects design.

As for sloping paths for extensions, again, this doesn't apply as easily to every house. What about a semi-detached house in a housing estate? Taking 150mm level difference between ground level and internal floor level, you'd still need a 1.8m long ramp at the maximum gradient of 1:12. That might not be practical in a small rear garden to easily incorporate it into the design so it doesn't stand out

Irish Building regs part m wrote:

0.5 The requirements of Part M apply to works in
connection with new buildings, extensions to existing
buildings and material alterations of existing
buildings. However, in the case of existing dwellings,
the requirements only apply to works in connection
with extensions and material alterations where such
works create a new additional dwelling.


1.3 The main entrance or entrances should be
accessible to people with disabilities, including
wheelchair users. Where this is not practicable, an
alternative entrance, intended for general access,
should be accessible.

extensions that are not considered a new seperate dwelling are not subject to PART M

as stated is is only a recommendation that the front entrance is used for access but you can use an alterative entrance

GastroBoy

This thread has gone WAY off topic.....:rolleyes:

Nothingbetter2d

GastroBoy wrote: »

This thread has gone WAY off topic.....:rolleyes:

how? building regs are in a sort way nanny state laws

flutterflye

The codeine one pi$$es me off no end.
One stupid pharmacist down the country blank refused to sell me n+ when I was in desperate need of it and I was caught off guard as I was away from home for the day.
This was after I offered him my doctors phone number so he could give him a call.

Seriously, if I have a horrendous tooth ache, or period pain or whatever - I do not need the third fcking degree - I do not need the massive spiel, and the judging whether or not I'm a fukcing codeine junkie!!
I'm just in fukcing pain, and need some fukcing pain killers!!!

You could get your hands on any amount of recreational drugs quicker and easier half the time ffs!

Nothingbetter2d

flutterflye wrote: »

The codeine one pi$$es me off no end.
One stupid pharmacist down the country blank refused to sell me n+ when I was in desperate need of it and I was caught off guard as I was away from home for the day.
This was after I offered him my doctors phone number so he could give him a call.

Seriously, if I have a horrendous tooth ache, or period pain or whatever - I do not need the third fcking degree - I do not need the massive spiel, and the judging whether or not I'm a fukcing codeine junkie!!
I'm just in fukcing pain, and need some fukcing pain killers!!!

You could get your hands on any amount of recreational drugs quicker and easier half the time ffs!

i hate that one too... as a photo sensitive migraine sufferer codiene is the only painkiller that works

CamperMan

Dr.Strange wrote: »

Cyclists need to obey Red Lights as if they were the same as other vehicles.

What's all that about?

because if you went through on red and didn't watch where you were going you could be squashed by a 40 ton truck.. if you don't want to abide by the traffic laws as a cyclist... WALK!

Owen_S

Stiffler2 wrote: »

WTF ... LOL

SO if I let off an atomic bomb in Dublin I'll get a €5,000 fine and 1 year jail probably with 11 months suspended if the court house / prison is still standing.

Out of curiosity, what is the fine/sentence for evading the TV license inspector? :pac:

Stiffler2

Owen_S wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what is the fine/sentence for evading the TV license inspector? :pac:

Dunno