(SIX!) Gardai sent to arrest mother of unpaid fine at 3.30AM

MaxSteele

Cleeo wrote: »

Delighted! Too right! You think because she "disguised" her use of the phone, the copper should of turned a blind eye?! I really hate people using their phone while driving. There's never an excuse for it. I'd love to be a Garda. I'd hand out fines and points for mobile phone use like there was no tomorrow.

As do I. I would never use the phone driving. She was stationary in a line of traffic.

Some of the nit picking people do is laughable.

gozunda

snubbleste wrote: »

Maybe it was a women only caravan site?

Is it a somewhat strange coincidence that nearly all documentaries concerning travellers only show footage of female members of families. The men strangely appear to make themselves scare or are not willing to have their faces on national TV.....

Dodge

Ghandee wrote: »

When the Gard's stop following basic guidelines and protocols, it could lead the country down a slippery slope.

WHEN?!?!? ahaha haahahah ahahahahahhaaha

joydivision

MaxSteele wrote: »

As do I. I would never use the phone driving. She was stationary in a line of traffic.

Some of the nit picking people do is laughable.

My driving instructor told me the most crashes are starting off from stationary . You should be sat checking your mirrors for cyclists cruising into your blindspots or pedestrians and stuff .

laoch na mona

archer22 wrote: »

She needs to learn how the system works..ie get some family and friends to get their leaving cert and into the Gardai,then all those problems will be deleted and no danger of 3am raids.In fact she can do whatever she likes worry free then.

not needed to be a garda

MaxSteele

Cleeo wrote: »

This is actually only one of 2 topics that I will saddle up on that high horse of mine, and ride it into the sunset. I don't give a flying fart if it's harmless. The law is the law, sonny boy!

Were you bullied or something ?

Dodge

laoch na mona wrote: »

not needed to be a garda

Yes it is

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=332&Lang=1&PersistList=1&PersistPage=213

YFlyer

Dodge wrote: »

I'd imagine the 2.30 am time is related to that too. It seems the women were awake, but there were no men in the house.

Usually its the animals that be in the house.

laoch na mona

Dodge wrote: »

Yes it is

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=332&Lang=1&PersistList=1&PersistPage=213

apologies:P

MagicSean

This thread is pretty amusing. It's hard to pick out the people suffering from terminal naievity from those feigning outrage and shock.

Ghandee

Dodge wrote: »

WHEN?!?!? ahaha haahahah ahahahahahhaaha

When what?

Boombastic

MagicSean wrote: »

This thread is pretty amusing. It's hard to pick out the people suffering from terminal naievity from those feigning outrage and shock.

We have to pretend to be naive or we could be sanctioned;):pac:

Amirani

MaxSteele wrote: »

What the f*ck do you mean by "good riddance" ? Off the road with you? You could be spending up to five minutes waiting at the lights at newlands cross. A quick text stopped at traffic isn't affecting fellow drivers.

It's against the law, regardless of what degree of severity. It had the potential to affect other drivers.

Presumably she'll be hesitant about doing it again, which is a good thing.

cruiser178

MagicMarker wrote: »

She is a traveler living in a halting site, would you go on your lonesome?

Thought not.

I delivered food to a halting site on my own last week sometime, and it was after dark, so whats your point?

6 gob****es calling to a womans home at 3 in the morning, how fúcking big of them

Zulu

laoch na mona wrote: »

hostile not necessarily dangerous

You seem to be implying that ordinary people doing their jobs should risk the difference. Which, frankly, is idiotic in the extreme.

seamus

cruiser178 wrote: »

I delivered food to a halting site on my own last week sometime, and it was after dark, so whats your point?

Try it in squad car with a luminous jacket and see if they're so delighted to see you.

laoch na mona

Zulu wrote: »

You seem to be implying that ordinary people doing their jobs should risk the difference. Which, frankly, is idiotic in the extreme.

based on it being a halting site is not grounds to assume there is a risk

use other factors to make that distinction by all means

MagicMarker

cruiser178 wrote: »

I delivered food to a halting site on my own last week sometime, and it was after dark, so whats your point?

Because that's the same thing...

Anyhoo, do you really need my point explained to you? Are you really unable to comprehend my meaning? Like, for cereal?

PizzamanIRL

MagicMarker wrote: »

She is a traveler living in a halting site, would you go on your lonesome?

Thought not.

Sigh.

There must be more to this story than we're hearing. But, of course, given the Irish Independents now-love of tabloid-esque stories, we're likely not going to hear them.

It's perfectly understandable that they would want to send six Gardaí in to arrest her, given her location and, unfortunately, who she is. While not all Travelers are scumbags, a large portion of them are.

Zulu

laoch na mona wrote: »

based on it being a halting site is not grounds to assume there is a risk

You said it was hostile. Not me. :rolleyes:

cruiser178

seamus wrote: »

Try it in squad car with a luminous jacket and see if they're so delighted to see you.

so if you arrive on a halting in luminous jacket and a squad car...what ??

did anything happen the 6 gob****es that night ? no nothing happened, and it dosen't matter if there was 6 or 20 of them they would be still out numbered, thats why i was asking the other poster what was his point.

end of the road

lanomist wrote: »

We all know what they were at,
really? we do? your never serious surely? funnily enough i don't, nor care either, i have a life.

lanomist wrote: »

its not rocket science.

no, of course it isn't, travelers being out is travelers being out and rocket science is rocket science.

MagicMarker

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

Sigh.

onara

laoch na mona

Zulu wrote: »

You said it was hostile. Not me. :rolleyes:

i was replying to a person who said it was hostile 1st

read the thread

MagicSean

cruiser178 wrote: »

so if you arrive on a halting in luminous jacket and a squad car...what ??

did anything happen the 6 gob****es that night ? no nothing happened, and it dosen't matter if there was 6 or 20 of them they would be still out numbered, thats why i was asking the other poster what was his point.

Nothing happened. Was it because there were six of them? We'll never know.

Good luck in your dangerous food delivery career.

AudreyHepburn

Ghandee wrote: »

Was this a bit heavy handed by the Gardai?

Its not like they were going after a murderer, the woman in question had a €250 fine for using her phone whilst driving outstanding.



http://www.independent.ie/national-news/six-gardai-sent-to-arrest-mum-for-unpaid-fine-at-3am-3323199.html


Bit OTT by the Gards, or completely justified?

In all fairness they were walking into a halting site in the dead of night.

What would you have done OP?

magma69 wrote: »

And the scumbags that are responsible for inflicting hardship and poverty on ordinary people for years to come get big fat pensions.

Good to see we have our priorities right.

This kind of post is starting to get old.

Does everything have to come back to this? Move on.

Madam_X

laoch na mona wrote: »

based on it being a halting site is not grounds to assume there is a risk

you're being disingenuous. It's not just due to it being a random halting site, it's due to it being one that's well known to the guards for violence. Kess, who is familiar with the area, has already made this point.

I also wouldn't agree with decent travellers experiencing hostility from settled people, but there's no need to deny reality either.

cruiser178

MagicMarker wrote: »

Because that's the same thing...

Anyhoo, do you really need my point explained to you? Are you really unable to comprehend my meaning? Like, for cereal?

you dont/are unable to point anything out to me magicmarker im from these areas. I just see your posts as painting everyone with the same brush/thanks whoring.

Zulu

laoch na mona wrote: »

i was replying to a person who said it was hostile 1st

read the thread

Your issue, at the time, didn't include referring to the site as hostile. In fact, your post appeared to accept that point.

Of course you now seem to imply that halting sites are NOT hostile to guards who show up to make arrests.

Care to clarify? Are you saying it wasn't a potentially hostile environment requiring more than 1 arresting guard?

laoch na mona

Madam_X wrote: »

you're being disingenuous. It's not just due to it being a random halting site, it's due to it being one that's well known to the guards for violence. Kess, who is familiar with the area, has already made this point.

I also wouldn't agree with decent travellers experiencing hostility from settled people, but there's no need to deny reality either.

i dont have a problem with them use other criteria such as crime in the ares ect
in fact i said that a few posts ago

Madam_X

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

Sigh.

Would you be interested in elaborating?

MagicMarker

cruiser178 wrote: »

you dont/are unable to point anything out to me magicmarker im from these areas. I just see your posts as painting everyone with the same brush/thanks whoring.

I'm not painting everyone with the same brush, I'm dealing in realities. And the reality is that these Guards, who would likely be familiar with the halting site, decided that it would be in their best interests to execute the warrant in this way. Their reason for doing so is as clear as day to most of us.

cruiser178

MagicSean wrote: »

Nothing happened. Was it because there were six of them? We'll never know.

Good luck in your dangerous food delivery career.

Are you aware of the size of these halting sites 6 would be nothing. but they didnt need them in the first place did they, the guards were calling to a woman's home.

Thanks for your concern on my first choise of career btw, i know you really mean it

Zulu

Madam_X wrote: »

Would you be interested in elaborating?

Would you be interested in the elaboration? I know I wouldn't be.

Zulu

cruiser178 wrote: »

... but they didnt need them in the first place did they, the guards were calling to a woman's home.

...and women can't be dangerous. :rolleyes:

laoch na mona

Zulu wrote: »

Your issue, at the time, didn't include referring to the site as hostile. In fact, your post appeared to accept that point.

Of course you now seem to imply that halting sites are NOT hostile to guards who show up to make arrests.

Care to clarify? Are you saying it wasn't a potentially hostile environment requiring more than 1 arresting guard?

hostile in the way most working class (can't think of a better description) areas would be towards garda yes but that "hostility" is more unwelcoming then anything else
kinda like how I would be hostile to any current minister I don't pose a physical risk to them

Zulu

laoch na mona wrote: »

hostile in the way...

And around the merry wheel we go:
"You seem to be implying that ordinary people doing their jobs should risk the difference. Which, frankly, is idiotic in the extreme."

end of the road

Cleeo wrote: »

This is actually only one of 2 topics that I will saddle up on that high horse of mine, and ride it into the sunset. I don't give a flying fart if it's harmless.

get over it. she was stopped, no problem there, it didn't effect you and even if it did, no biggy.

Cleeo wrote: »

The law is the law, sonny boy!

and its there to be broken, as long as its nothing serious, which sending a quick text while being held up isn't.

cruiser178

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm not painting everyone with the same brush, I'm dealing in realities. And the reality is that these Guards, who would likely be familiar with the halting site, decided that it would be in their best interests to execute the warrant in this way. Their reason for doing so is as clear as day to most of us.

You wouldn't know reality if it jumped up and bit you on the arse. The reality is, 6 men called to a womans home (where she has a young child in bed) at 3 in the morning (which is illegal) trying to bring her to prison for a 250 unpaid fine. they must have being really busy that night musn't they. 6 men calling to a womans home, they should be ashamed of themselves.

cruiser178

Zulu wrote: »

...and women can't be dangerous. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Zulu

cruiser178 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You don't hide your bigotry too well.

cruiser178

Zulu wrote: »

You don't hide your bigotry too well.

your post was just too stupid to give an ans to

Madam_X

cruiser178 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

What? If I were confronted by a violent woman I would sh1t myself! Of course women can be violent - how is it "stupid" to say that...?

On the surface it appears dodgy - six men calling to a house in the middle of the night (I really can't see the logic of the time they called) but you're not bothering to scratch the surface or consider there may have been reasons for this.

seamus

cruiser178 wrote: »

You wouldn't know reality if it jumped up and bit you on the arse. The reality is, 6 men called to a womans home (where she has a young child in bed) at 3 in the morning (which is illegal) trying to bring her to prison for a 250 unpaid fine. they must have being really busy that night musn't they. 6 men calling to a womans home, they should be ashamed of themselves.

3am isn't illegal.

And why are you being sexist about it? Should they have sent 6 women Gardai instead? What does it matter that she had a young child in bed?

laoch na mona

Zulu wrote: »

And around the merry wheel we go:
"You seem to be implying that ordinary people doing their jobs should risk the difference. Which, frankly, is idiotic in the extreme."

no im saying you cant judge a traveler based on being a traveler
I know guards who have gone in to halting sites alone or in pairs they had no trouble just were not made fell welcome is all

Madam_X

seamus wrote: »

What does it matter that she had a young child in bed?

Ah in fairness, why wake people at that hour? It's bad manners for starters.

laoch na mona wrote: »

no im saying you cant judge a traveler based on being a traveler
I know guards who have gone in to halting sites alone or in pairs they had no trouble just were not made fell welcome is all

Jeez...

It's been made clear this site has a reputation, travellers or not. The woman is known to the guards. It's not simply due to her being a traveller. Why must you ignore these important points?

cruiser178

Madam_X wrote: »

What? If I were confronted by a violent woman I would sh1t myself!

On the surface it appears dodgy - six men calling to a house in the middle of the night (I really can't see the logic of the time they called) but you're not bothering to scratch the surface or consider there may have been reasons for this.

Gaurds call to haulting sites the whole time with warrants and what ever, they dont call in there 6's during the day time so why at 3 in the morning? I'll tell you why, because they had nothing else to do. They knew what they were doing was illegal so It was pure intimidation.

MagicMarker

cruiser178 wrote: »

You wouldn't know reality if it jumped up and bit you on the arse. The reality is, 6 men called to a womans home (where she has a young child in bed) at 3 in the morning (which is illegal) trying to bring her to prison for a 250 unpaid fine. they must have being really busy that night musn't they. 6 men calling to a womans home, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Was this a woman only halting site or something? I don't see the relevance of her being a woman tbh.

seamus

Madam_X wrote: »

Ah in fairness, why wake people at that hour? It's bad manners for starters.

It's a three month old, it could be sleeping at any time of the day to be fair.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that they were well aware that their 3:30am call would require explanations in court, so I doubt they just thought, "Hey look, there's a warrant here for her, let's go give her hassle for the craic".