Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What is happening to this country?

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    CaptainInsano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 457 ✭✭CaptainInsano


    Denny_Crane wrote: »
    Not really one is being jailed for one thing, one is being jailed for another.

    I think we all know what everyone means as being jailed as a result of no TV licence. Needlessly pedantic.


  • Options
    #33
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Busyness1 wrote: »
    What caused them to have the fine? No tv licence, a fine was imposed and was unpaid. The fine stemmed from no tv licence. It was a sequence of events. Try to be less pedantic.


    perhaps you might try to be more correct. this is legal discussion not AH.


  • Options
    #34
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I think this says more about the Country we inhabit more so than the F1 Doctor or the Entrepreneurial Taxi driver!
    People can be jailed for not paying a licence to a state own owned broadcasting company.
    We have the technology to stop people viewing it, like Sky or Netflix, RTE could easily have it set up that you pay to watch.... But RTE are too clever to do something as fair as that!


    except they werent jailed for not having a licence.
    last poster was correct you are being pedantic or deliberately obtuse, take your pick!


  • Options
    #35
    Denny_Crane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭Denny_Crane


    Busyness1 wrote: »
    What caused them to have the fine? No tv licence, a fine was imposed and was unpaid. The fine stemmed from no tv licence. It was a sequence of events. Try to be less pedantic.

    Again one is jailed for something, the other is being jailed for being in default. Once someone doesn't pay the fine imposed it's a standard mechanism. It's hardly pedantic to correct someone on the punshment given in a discussion about punishments given.


  • Options
    #36
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,539 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kimbot


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I think this says more about the Country we inhabit more so than the F1 Doctor or the Entrepreneurial Taxi driver!
    People can be jailed for not paying a licence to a state owned broadcasting company.
    We have the technology to stop people viewing it, like Sky or Netflix, RTE could easily have it set up that you pay to watch.... But RTE are too clever to do something as fair as that!

    No, you mean to say "People can get jailed for not paying the fine for not having a TV licence".
    Its simple, you dont pay your license you get fined, dont pay your fine then go to jail. (A judge would hardly hand you another fine since you didnt pay the first one so jail is the only option left)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    1st dalkey dalkey
    Registered Users Posts: 241 ✭✭1st dalkey dalkey


    Denny_Crane wrote: »
    There are reams of studies, commentaries and jurisprudental musings on the subject. It's not really fair for me to comment as I'm hugely in the camp of, for all it's faults, judicial dicreation in liberal democracies is the way to go. Mandatory sentances create certanity but huge issues with injustice.

    The US is aprim example of a jutice system ran by public opinion and it's generally considered to be in a right state.

    Agree that the US system has it's flaws.

    Don't agree that our current form of judicial discretion can't be improved upon.

    Most laws currently outline a range of possible penalties, whether monetary or custodial. Yet even these are regularly flouted by some judges.

    In the mentioned case it appears the Judge refrained from imposing a conviction not because of lack of evidence, but because of the impact of the conviction i.e. the taxi driver might lose his licence. If there is legislation passed by government preventing such convicted drivers from having a taxi licence, it is not the place of a Judge to circumvent that legislation.


  • Options
    #38
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    jonnycivic wrote: »
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I think this says more about the Country we inhabit more so than the F1 Doctor or the Entrepreneurial Taxi driver!
    People can be jailed for not paying a licence to a state owned broadcasting company.
    We have the technology to stop people viewing it, like Sky or Netflix, RTE could easily have it set up that you pay to watch.... But RTE are too clever to do something as fair as that!

    No, you mean to say "People can get jailed for not paying the fine for not having a TV licence".
    Its simple, you dont pay your license you get fined, dont pay your fine then go to jail. (A judge would hardly hand you another fine since you didnt pay the first one so jail is the only option left)
    I have no idea what point you are trying to make?


  • Options
    #39
    Busyness1
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭Busyness1


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    perhaps you might try to be more correct. this is legal discussion not AH.

    This is boards, not the law society. Try to be a bit less pedantic.


  • Options
    #40
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    We truly are living in a post-truth society.


  • Options
    #41
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,539 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kimbot


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I have no idea what point you are trying to make?

    The point is it has nothing to do with RTE, these people were locked up for not paying a fine (The courts decided this, RTE are not the judiciary)!

    A fine can be occured from numerous sources and failure to pay a court fine will result in jail time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Denny_Crane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭Denny_Crane


    This has got a bit too juniour infants even for me.


  • Options
    #43
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,561 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    Busyness1 wrote: »
    This is boards, not the law society. Try to be a bit less pedantic.
    Moderation: ...and this is Legal Discussion where the charter applies and we expect a higher standard of discourse than on AH.


  • Options
    #44
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    jonnycivic wrote: »
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I think this says more about the Country we inhabit more so than the F1 Doctor or the Entrepreneurial Taxi driver!
    People can be jailed for not paying a licence to a state owned broadcasting company.
    We have the technology to stop people viewing it, like Sky or Netflix, RTE could easily have it set up that you pay to watch.... But RTE are too clever to do something as fair as that!

    No, you mean to say "People can get jailed for not paying the fine for not having a TV licence".
    Its simple, you dont pay your license you get fined, dont pay your fine then go to jail. (A judge would hardly hand you another fine since you didnt pay the first one so jail is the only option left)
    Let me explain the point I was making.
    A TV licence is just a another way for the government to tax you on something under the guise of something else.
    The idea being, if you own a TV you need to pay the state owned broadcasting company a fee. It used to be the case people would say "Well I do not watch RTE so why should I pay the licence??" Or even in some cases where there there was no signal in an area and again people would ask "Why should I pay the fee??", but there was no way to stop the broadcast so the law was put in place if you owned a device that can pick up on the signal you need to pay the licence regardless if you watch RTE or even regardless if there was a signal in your area.
    Point I was making even today, with today's technology, the idea of enforcing a TV licence fine or jail time to enforce the fine is criminal.


  • Options
    #45
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    jonnycivic wrote: »
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I have no idea what point you are trying to make?

    The point is it has nothing to do with RTE, these people were locked up for not paying a fine (The courts decided this, RTE are not the judiciary)!

    A fine can be occured from numerous sources and failure to pay a court fine will result in jail time.
    You think RTE have nothing to do with the laws around the licence fee?
    Let me take you back to the theme of this thread...


  • Options
    #46
    1st dalkey dalkey
    Registered Users Posts: 241 ✭✭1st dalkey dalkey


    Apologies to all for mentioning the TV licence.

    Must be more mindful in the future


  • Options
    #47
    Busyness1
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭Busyness1


    1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »
    Apologies to all for mentioning the TV licence.

    Must be more mindful in the future

    Yeah, the whole point has been lost in translation by those in the law society.:(


  • Options
    #48
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    We truly are living in a post-truth society.
    Can I ask what is your point? Do you have one?
    Jailed for not paying a fine, fined for not paying something that some may argue as dubious... What is your point?


  • Options
    #49
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Can I ask what is your point? Do you have one?
    Jailed for not paying a fine, fined for not paying something that some may argue as dubious... What is your point?

    My point is that one is not the same as the other. How is that not clear?


  • Options
    #50
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »
    Apologies to all for mentioning the TV licence.

    Must be more mindful in the future
    I think the TV licence is actually a better example. The OP I guess was trying to draw attention to the duplicitous nature of your legal system, but upon exception the example given was perhaps a little more gray than black and white. The TV Licence example however I think is something that warrants the question "What is happening to this country?"


  • Options
    #51
    1st dalkey dalkey
    Registered Users Posts: 241 ✭✭1st dalkey dalkey


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    My point is that one is not the same as the other. How is that not clear?

    It is quite clearly off topic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    CaptainInsano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 457 ✭✭CaptainInsano


    Anyway, saying that the surgeon was a "massive" risk to human life for going 100km at night time is quite sensational. Probably worthy of a fine but you'd swear he drove a rocket ship through he place. I wonder if it's non drivers thinking that 100km is faster than it is.


  • Options
    #53
    1st dalkey dalkey
    Registered Users Posts: 241 ✭✭1st dalkey dalkey


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    I think the TV licence is actually a better example. The OP I guess was trying to draw attention to the duplicitous nature of your legal system, but upon exception the example given was perhaps a little more gray than black and white. The TV Licence example however I think is something that warrants the question "What is happening to this country?"

    But it dragged the whole discussion off topic.

    It is also no longer the case. As far as I know there was new legislation authorising deduction of some fines directly from wages or welfare payments.


  • Options
    #54
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »
    It is quite clearly off topic.

    I would have thought it was very much on topic. It is brought up every time one of these "omg the courts are terrible" threads start. and somebody always claims that people are jailed for not having a tv licence. and we have the same dance we have just had.


  • Options
    #55
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,539 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kimbot


    CaptainInsano wrote: »
    Anyway, saying that the surgeon was a "massive" risk to human life for going 100km at night time is quite sensational. Probably worthy of a fine but you'd swear he drove a rocket ship through he place. I wonder if it's non drivers thinking that 100km is faster than it is.

    He was a mssive risk tho, he was driving at 110km, in a build up area that is very fast. He is putting other road users lives at risk by been so reckless, and his own life for that matter. It only takes a small bump in the road for him to lose control and cause a massive accident.


  • Options
    #56
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    Can I ask what is your point? Do you have one?
    Jailed for not paying a fine, fined for not paying something that some may argue as dubious... What is your point?

    My point is that one is not the same as the other.  How is that not clear?
    The thread is to do with "what is happening to this country" you have derailed the conversation over systematic that everyone is aware of, you have not educated anyone and literally no one cares, jailed for not paying the fine, fined for not having a licence. So your point was to point out this distinction?


  • Options
    #57
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    CaptainInsano wrote: »
    Anyway, saying that the surgeon was a "massive" risk to human life for going 100km at night time is quite sensational. Probably worthy of a fine but you'd swear he drove a rocket ship through he place. I wonder if it's non drivers thinking that 100km is faster than it is.


    he doing at least 100kmh down this road. at night. https://www.google.ie/maps/place/O'Connell+Ave,+Limerick/@52.6536673,-8.6353166,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNQPh9L4R8RxBb-1GHk-bEg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x485b5c7d7b149c83:0x19dca555ada7f71b!8m2!3d52.6538891!4d-8.6352526 i would have thought that was pretty dangerous.


  • Options
    #58
    CaptainInsano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 457 ✭✭CaptainInsano


    jonnycivic wrote: »
    He was a mssive risk tho, he was driving at 110km, in a build up area that is very fast. He is putting other road users lives at risk by been so reckless, and his own life for that matter. It only takes a small bump in the road for him to lose control and cause a massive accident.

    A small bump to lose control? Jesus how are there any cars left on the roads in Ireland.


  • Options
    #59
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,411 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
    The thread is to do with "what is happening to this country" you have derailed the conversation over systematic that everyone is aware of, you have not educated anyone and literally no one cares, jailed for not paying the fine, fined for not having a licence. So your point was to point out this distinction?


    clearly some people are not interested in an education.


  • Options
    #60
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    CaptainInsano wrote: »
    Anyway, saying that the surgeon was a "massive" risk to human life for going 100km at night time is quite sensational. Probably worthy of a fine but you'd swear he drove a rocket ship through he place. I wonder if it's non drivers thinking that 100km is faster than it is.
    O'Connell Avenue

    If you think doing in excess of 100km/h through here any time of the day or night is acceptable, then you shouldn't be on the road.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,539 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kimbot


    CaptainInsano wrote: »
    A small bump to lose control? Jesus how are there any cars left on the roads in Ireland.

    Ok then forget about your small bump!! How about if someone was crossing the road and he ran them over?? Either way what he done was against the law and he got done for it. You cannot choose which laws apply to you and which dont!!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement