The idiots behind sulky racing

Ri_Nollaig

Deleted User wrote: »

He said "them". Meaning travellers. If you want to introduce qualifications and limitations that were not there and cannot be inferred, that is your choice.

Once again, you are the one making that connection! Clearly you wont let it go so fine, think what you want. You clearly have your own agenda.

As for the numbers thing, I appreciate lots of posters hate travellers and will bend the English language to defend their characterisation as subhuman. That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. If a poster gave the "sterilise them and stick them on some island" point I guarantee you it would be the most liked post on the thread.

I'd like to point out you are the one saying this.
You are laterally using every card in the deck at this point.
You have managed to get the 'racist' card in there, the "wont someone think of the children" and now mentioning internment!?!? Something no one but you has said.

You are using these terms to derail the real issue here.

That there criminals above the law to the point that they are recording their escapades and nothing is done.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Or "them", meaning the specific people in the video. You're the one expanding it to mean "all travellers". You're the one inferring something that wasn't said.

We'll agree a compromise. He hates all travellers, young, old, whether they do wrong or not, it really doesn't matter...as long as they appear on that video, he thinks they are "sh!te people". If you say that makes sense to you, we'll run with it.

Ri_Nollaig

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

I'd like to point out you are the one saying this.

And I'd like to point out that you are one of the biggest defenders of their characterisation as subhuman.

Where does that get us?

Klinkhammer

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

Quicker to defend them than the poor people who got involved in accidents/damage to their cars over this. Nah, sure they have insurance be grand. Victimless crime!

The pregnant women will most likely claim off the driver who hit her but what about that driver? Where does that leave them but a nice [massive] renewal.

As for these clowns racing on a busy public road? Pavee Point and others will most likely divert the attention away and say "The Government [i.e. someone else] should pay to build purpose built race tracks and stables for them".

It is you that is assuming the people involved in the incident were travellers when they might very well have not been. You're trying to change tact now but you know what you are.

Ri_Nollaig

Deleted User wrote: »

We'll agree a compromise. He hates all travellers, young, old, whether they do wrong or not, it really doesn't matter...as long as they appear on that video, he thinks they are "sh!te people". If you say that makes sense to you, we'll run with it.

WOW!
That's all I can say to that.

Deleted User wrote: »

And I'd like to point out that you are one of the biggest defenders of their characterisation as subhuman.

Where does that get us?

Who is "their" here?
I am referring to the criminals running this "race"!

who are you referring to exactly?

lawred2

Klinkhammer wrote: »

What's laughable is that the thread is about people racing sulkys on public roads. It has been established that it is members of the settled and travelling community that engage in this practice yet the vast majority of post are insulting or blaming travellers exclusively. Tells you all you need to know really.

The settled community...

That contrivance always gets a chuckle out of me

Klinkhammer

lawred2 wrote: »

The settled community...

That contrivance always gets a chuckle out of me

Hahaha...

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

We'll agree a compromise. He hates all travellers, young, old, whether they do wrong or not, it really doesn't matter...as long as they appear on that video, he thinks they are "sh!te people". If you say that makes sense to you, we'll run with it.

You're being completely and purposefully backwards, and attributing something to him that was not even remotely said. He was specifically referencing the people in the video. That does not automatically extend his comments to all travellers in the world in the same way that calling a group of Frenchmen featured in a video where they beat up a woman "sh1te people" does not automatically extend those comments to all French people.

Answer me this; what is your opinion of the two specific people who were sulky racing in that video?

Ri_Nollaig

Klinkhammer wrote: »

It is you that is assuming the people involved in the incident were travellers when they might very well have not been. You're trying to change tact now but you know what you are.

and what is that exactly?

Also
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sulky-racing-travellers-should-have-been-consulted-244134.html
http://www.thejournal.ie/dont-do-it-again-warning-for-travellers-after-horse-race-on-cork-road-446122-May2012/
https://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0510/320347-horse-road-racing/
FYI It was Pavee Point themselves who made comments following similar events in the past.

Where is the back tracking?
We all know they were most likely travellers, but that does not matter!!!

Those individuals in that videos are criminals and any comments made are about them and them alone and not the wider community.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We'll agree a compromise. He hates all travellers, young, old, whether they do wrong or not, it really doesn't matter...as long as they appear on that video, he thinks they are "sh!te people". If you say that makes sense to you, we'll run with it.

Yet again you're ignoring facts and ascribing xenophobic vitriol to anyone who's opinion differs with yours.

Realistically the post you made this morning goading a poster to refer to people as sub human should have earned to a ban, it would be nice to see the moderation staff here deal with it at this stage as your behaviour is becoming less acceptable with each post.

Klinkhammer

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

and what is the exactly?

Also
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sulky-racing-travellers-should-have-been-consulted-244134.html
http://www.thejournal.ie/dont-do-it-again-warning-for-travellers-after-horse-race-on-cork-road-446122-May2012/
https://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0510/320347-horse-road-racing/
FYI It was Pavee Point themselves who made comments following similar events in the past.

Where is the back tracking?
We all know they were most likely travellers, but that does not matter!!!

Those individuals in that videos are criminals and any comments made are about them and them alone and not the wider community.

I have no problem condemning the guys in the video when there is evidence. There is absolutely no reason for you and the majority of other posters to assume the people involved in the incident this thread is about are travellers. There are loads of settled lads racing sulkys in Limerick. It is your prejudice leading you to assume they are travellers.

Then you say it doesn't matter if they are or not but you're first post in this thread is talking about travellers.

smurgen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And I'd like to point out that you are one of the biggest defenders of their characterisation as subhuman.

Where does that get us?

Listen, you're the one trying to differentiate these people from the rest of us.trying to make them sounds different.it suits they to be different because they get away with more.we want equality.we want the rules of the road and the laws of the land applied to them equally as it does every other citizen.

knipex

Deleted User wrote: »

He said "them". Meaning travellers. If you want to introduce qualifications and limitations that were not there and cannot be inferred, that is your choice.

As for the numbers thing, I appreciate lots of posters hate travellers and will bend the English language to defend their characterisation as subhuman. That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. If a poster gave the "sterilise them and stick them on some island" point I guarantee you it would be the most liked post on the thread.

Sweet Jebus

A conversation about a video but when he referring to "them" he obviously meant all travelers are "subhuman" ??

Get a grip.. You are actively trying to find a reason to get upset on someone else behalf..

I am not for a second saying that discrimination against travelers does not occur but in this case your grasping.. badly.. and coming across as the perpetually offended..

Deleted User wrote: »

We'll agree a compromise. He hates all travellers, young, old, whether they do wrong or not, it really doesn't matter...as long as they appear on that video, he thinks they are "sh!te people". If you say that makes sense to you, we'll run with it.

Look at the title of the thread, look at the video, look at what was actually posted and look at who is equating scumbags and travelers.

Deleted User wrote: »

And I'd like to point out that you are one of the biggest defenders of their characterisation as subhuman.

Where does that get us?

Only one poster on this entire thread has used the phrase subhuman. Only one poster has assigned the term to travellers.

The initial comment was to describe the people refereed to in the thread title and those shown in the video racing sulkeys on open roads and ignoring the Gardai as ****e people..

Only one poster inferred anything else

Irish Guitarist

You can't even treat a horse like shite and endanger a pregnant woman as well as other members of the public now without someone calling you a nasty name. It's shocking. :mad:

Ri_Nollaig

Klinkhammer wrote: »

I have no problem condemning the guys in the video when there is evidence. There is absolutely no reason for you and the majority of other posters to assume the people involved in the incident this thread is about are travellers. There are loads of settled lads racing sulkys in Limerick. It is your prejudice leading you to assume they are travellers.

Then you say it doesn't matter if they are or not but you're first post in this thread is talking about travellers.

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

...
As for these clowns racing on a busy public road? Pavee Point and others will most likely divert the attention away and say "The Government [i.e. someone else] should pay to build purpose built race tracks and stables for them".

Never actually said if the criminals involved in the latest incident were travellers either I just said Pavee Point.

Which was a tongue in cheek comment because of this gem, from a few years ago


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/fury-as-sulkyracing-stunt-causes-chaos-on-the-n7-34629587.html

If there were safe facilities available it would prevent people taking to busy public roads and posing a risk to drivers and themselves, Mr Collins said.

"If there were suitable locations developed, I have no doubt in my mind that both Travellers and non-Travellers who are involved - because it is not just a tradition for Travellers - I have no doubt that these would be used," he added

Kimbot

Deleted User wrote: »

We'll agree a compromise. He hates all travellers, young, old, whether they do wrong or not, it really doesn't matter...as long as they appear on that video, he thinks they are "sh!te people". If you say that makes sense to you, we'll run with it.

MOD Conor, don't post in this thread again.

Discodog

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You say that but the article linked earlier about the boy killed on the sulky had the coroners court recommending legislation be introduced to cover sulkies. The fact is there are a lack of relevant laws to cover it. You're trying to fit it into other laws. Animal cruelty would be difficult to prove and is rarely punished by courts. Endangerment would also be a difficult prosecution. Are two horses going fast on a road to be considered endangerment? The endangerment comes from those around them. It's the races themselves that need to be stopped though.

And that's putting aside the resource issue. It's not like these races are advertised outside the community so how do you arrange for enough Gardao be on duty and in the right area to stop a race?

It's very easy. You just need a Vet to give an opinion & agree to appear in Court. The legislation is there.

Galwayguy35

marklazarcovic wrote: »

had the pleasure one sunday morning of driving up carnmore road near galway airport about 11am, 'whats that yoke up ahead' i says to myself .. could not believe what i was seeing .. both lanes had lads in cars and jeeps in a line across,lads standing in pickups,lads with cameras hanging from every window.. all moving towards me,no hazard lights, no notice to slow down ..nothing.. all i could do was stop in my lane whilst they jeered at me for not pulling into the verge out of their way.. two sulkys racing.. more lads in vans and cars behind them .

the sheer fcking nerve of it.

Yeah that would be an ideal road for sulky racing all right.

Only a matter of time before an innocent person is killed.

I'd feel sorry for the poor horses if they died as well.

smurgen

Discodog wrote: »

It's very easy. You just need a Vet to give an opinion & agree to appear in Court. The legislation is there.

They could be nailed a lot of ways if the will was there.i'm pretty sure not disposing of an animals body in an appropriate way is illegal.i'm fairly sure abandoning a horses body at the side of a road would break a couple of laws.

BillyBobBS

Gardai are more interested in standing behind bushes with speed guns or making up stuff about their fellow Gardai than addressing this problem. Must be too much like work.

baylah17

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Gardai are more interested in standing behind bushes with speed guns or making up stuff about their fellow Gardai i than addressing this problem. Must be too much like work.

making up stuff about their fellow Garda

I call bull**** on that post!
Another cheap shot at Sgt McCabe, how low will some posters go!

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Friendly reminder. Don't reply to posters that are banned as they are unable to defend themselves.

Discodog

baylah17 wrote: »

making up stuff about their fellow Garda

I call bull**** on that post!
Another cheap shot at Sgt McCabe, how low will some posters go!

McCabe had plenty made up about him. The rest of the post is totally true. The Gardai have no interest in animal welfare law. They will tell you to report it to your local SPCA or the ISPCA - neither have powers of enforcement.

Captain Obvious

Discodog wrote: »

It's very easy. You just need a Vet to give an opinion & agree to appear in Court. The legislation is there.

I don't think you've really thought this true practically. Are you saying a vet should be asked to testify that on the basis of a short video clip of a sulky race that a horse is being caused to suffer? Animal cruelty prosecutions are far from easy. Can I ask how many you've been involved in?

And you're right, the legislation is there. And the local authorities are supposed to appoint people to enforce it. People with training, expertise and equipment for the job. Unfortunately they generally leave it up to the Gardaí who have none of these things.

Discodog wrote: »

The Gardai have no interest in animal welfare law. They will tell you to report it to your local SPCA or the ISPCA - neither have powers of enforcement.

Not true in my experience.

Discodog

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I don't think you've really thought this true practically. Are you saying a vet should be asked to testify that on the basis of a short video clip of a sulky race that a horse is being caused to suffer? Animal cruelty prosecutions are far from easy. Can I ask how many you've been involved in?

And you're right, the legislation is there. And the local authorities are supposed to appoint people to enforce it. People with training, expertise and equipment for the job. Unfortunately they generally leave it up to the Gardaho have none of these things.

Not true in my experience.

I have been actively involved in around 20 with the RSPCA when I lived in the UK. The argument here always was that the old legislation made it difficult to prosecute but it never stopped the RSPCA.

The relatively new legislation here makes it really easy because it's non specific. For example a vet could look at a video, or examine an animal & then give a professional opinion in Court as to whether any of the following apply:

(a) the animal is kept and treated in a manner that—

(i) safeguards the health and welfare of the animal, and

(ii) does not threaten the health or welfare of the animal or another animal,


Naturally the owner could get a vet or expert to testify in their defense - they usually don't. But one of the problems with the legislation is that some Vets are unwilling to testify - in this case one uses the County Vet. So the process is pretty easy.

The Guards are the primary Authorised Officers:

“authorised officer” means—

(a) a member of the Garda Sh,

(b) an officer of Customs and Excise, or

(c) a person appointed under section 37 during the period of his or her appointment

The Guards have the authority to:

29.—(1) An authorised person or a member of the Garda Sh may inspect and examine any horse.

(2) Any person who is apparently in charge or control of a horse the subject of an inspection or examination under subsection (1) shall give to the authorised person or member of the Garda Sh making the inspection or examination such reasonable assistance as the authorised person or member may request.

(3) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a request under subsection (2) shall be guilty of an offence


Then there is this which clearly applies in Sulky racing:

45.—(1) The owner, keeper or person in charge or control of a horse who wilfully or recklessly permits the horse to pose a danger to a person or property or to cause injury to a person or damage to any property shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who wilfully or recklessly causes a horse to pose a danger to a person or property or to injure a person or damage any property shall be guilty of an offence.


The SPCA's have no legal authority. Can you state any examples of where the Guards have acted regarding animal cruelty because I don't know of a single case ?

The incident where a foal was beaten to death, in front of witnesses, in Galway the Guards said the the GSPCA were investigating & the GSPCA said that it was a matter for the Guards. AFAIK no one was ever prosecuted.

Specific to the Headford Road Horses & all the others found straying loose.

8.—(1) A person who has in his or her possession or under his or her control a farm animal shall, having regard to the animal’s nature, type, species, breed, development and environment, take all reasonable measures to ensure that—

(a) the animal is unable to stray from the land or premises where it is kept, and

(b) all buildings, gates, fences, hedges, boundary walls and other structures used to contain the animal are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimises—

(i) the risk that the animal will stray,

(ii) the risk, or spread, of disease onto or from the land or premises on which the animal is kept, and

(iii) the risk that the animal will damage the flora and fauna of the surrounding environment where the animal is contained,

chicorytip

Klinkhammer wrote:

RTE had Brian O'Connell in Limerick to talk to people involved in sulky racing last week. None of them were travellers.

There are two main groups involved. Settled travellers who are involved in criminal activity (burglaries mainly) and drug dealers. Sulky racing is an expensive "pastime" and large sums of money are wagered at these events.

Captain Obvious

Discodog wrote: »

I have been actively involved in around 20 with the RSPCA when I lived in the UK. The argument here always was that the old legislation made it difficult to prosecute but it never stopped the RSPCA.

So none in Ireland then?

Discodog wrote: »

The relatively new legislation here makes it really easy because it's non specific. For example a vet could look at a video, or examine an animal & then give a professional opinion in Court as to whether any of the following apply:

(a) the animal is kept and treated in a manner that—

(i) safeguards the health and welfare of the animal, and

(ii) does not threaten the health or welfare of the animal or another animal,

You are confusing simple and easy.

Discodog wrote: »

Naturally the owner could get a vet or expert to testify in their defense - they usually don't. But one of the problems with the legislation is that some Vets are unwilling to testify - in this case one uses the County Vet. So the process is pretty easy.

The Guards are the primary Authorised Officers:

“authorised officer” means—

(a) a member of the Garda Sh,

(b) an officer of Customs and Excise, or

(c) a person appointed under section 37 during the period of his or her appointment

Again simple does not equal easy in this.

Discodog wrote: »

The Guards have the authority to:

29.—(1) An authorised person or a member of the Garda Sh may inspect and examine any horse.

(2) Any person who is apparently in charge or control of a horse the subject of an inspection or examination under subsection (1) shall give to the authorised person or member of the Garda Sh making the inspection or examination such reasonable assistance as the authorised person or member may request.

(3) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a request under subsection (2) shall be guilty of an offence

Which brings me to my point about training and expertise. Gardaí don't have it. That is why the local authority are supposed to appoint people who do.

Discodog wrote: »

Then there is this which clearly applies in Sulky racing:

45.—(1) The owner, keeper or person in charge or control of a horse who wilfully or recklessly permits the horse to pose a danger to a person or property or to cause injury to a person or damage to any property shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who wilfully or recklessly causes a horse to pose a danger to a person or property or to injure a person or damage any property shall be guilty of an offence.

But riding a horse and cart isn't dangerous is it?

Discodog wrote: »

The SPCA's have no legal authority. Can you state any examples of where the Guards have acted regarding animal cruelty because I don't know of a single case ?

I know of quite a few. Seizures and prosecutions. They regularly seize horses around places such as Ballyfermot and Finglas. There's a lot of dogs handed over to the warden from Garda stations. There's also these guys. Perhaps you should write to the DSPCA and demand their awards be taken back because you don't believe Gardaí do anything for animal welfare.

Discodog wrote: »

The incident where a foal was beaten to death, in front of witnesses, in Galway the Guards said the the GSPCA were investigating & the GSPCA said that it was a matter for the Guards. AFAIK no one was ever prosecuted.

How many of those witnesses were prepared to testify in court?

Discodog wrote: »

Specific to the Headford Road Horses & all the others found straying loose.

8.—(1) A person who has in his or her possession or under his or her control a farm animal shall, having regard to the animal’s nature, type, species, breed, development and environment, take all reasonable measures to ensure that—

(a) the animal is unable to stray from the land or premises where it is kept, and

(b) all buildings, gates, fences, hedges, boundary walls and other structures used to contain the animal are constructed and maintained in a manner that minimises—

(i) the risk that the animal will stray,

(ii) the risk, or spread, of disease onto or from the land or premises on which the animal is kept, and

(iii) the risk that the animal will damage the flora and fauna of the surrounding environment where the animal is contained,

Like I said, Gardaí across Dublin regularly seize horses from public lands. There's footage on Youtube of it and the hostile reaction they get.

byhookorbycrook

Horse owner here, so might have some insights to add.
All horses must legally be chipped, have a passport and as an owner who doesn't have land, I have to declare where the horse is kept.Horses are in " my culture" having grown up in the area that gave us Napoleon's horse Marengo, the first ever steeplechase, Vincent O'Brien and John Jo O'Neill. i didn't buy a horse until I could pay - a lot of money- for somewhere to look after my horse properly; I'd bet my saddle that most of those conditions are not filled by those horses and owners.

Trotting a horse at that speed on tarmac will destroy their joints as well as leaving them open for other injuries when they slip and fall. (Road pins give some grip, but not at that speed)

20 years ago, a friend and I used to hack out (walk, slow trot, no cars/vans following, no racing) on public roads -all R roads, very early on a Sunday morning with very little traffic. Now, we wouldn't dream of it, never mind on an N road or dual carriageway, because we respect our horses and realise that many drivers don't.

12 year old children should never be in charge of a racing horse and a tiny metal frame on a public road.

If people want to race, cough up for the money to take it off road.

My horse, an aged fat cob, is described as "bombproof"- that means that a bomb could go off and it wouldn't bother him, but guess what, he is an animal and animals can and do panic,especially those highly strung animals used to being lashed down the public road with vans behind them, blowing horns and flashing lights.

So, to sum up, follow the laws for horse ownership and road safety. If you want to race, do like the owners of racehorses and pay to race off road.

trellheim

For information : The Dail has introduced via Mattie McGrath a Private Members Bill to ban Sulky Racing without a permit

see http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2018013100019?opendocument#R00800


Talk to your TD !

mloc123

trellheim wrote: »

For information : The Dail has introduced via Mattie McGrath a Private Members Bill to ban Sulky Racing without a permit

see http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2018013100019?opendocument#R00800


Talk to your TD !

Oh great, a law to ban it... That will help. Isn't there a law already to cover driving 5 wide across both lanes of a road... Did the guards enforce that?

wexie

mloc123 wrote: »

Oh great, a law to ban it... That will help. Isn't there a law already to cover driving 5 wide across both lanes of a road... Did the guards enforce that?

Be grand, these guys are all law abiding citizens and will stop as soon as the law is passed.:rolleyes:

Captain Obvious

trellheim wrote: »

For information : The Dail has introduced via Mattie McGrath a Private Members Bill to ban Sulky Racing without a permit

see http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2018013100019?opendocument#R00800


Talk to your TD !

Good step forward if it passes.

Beechwoodspark

Cops should enforce the laws already there and that would mean an end to sully racing. I would advocate severe sentences for anyone guilty of being involved with sulky racing.

wexie

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Cops should enforce the laws already there and that would mean an end to sully racing.

that's the thing. Honestly I think a law banning it would be great.

But a law that's not going to be enforced is worth sweet FA to no bugger.
If they really wanted to go actually enforce something like this then there wouldn't have been a problem to check each and every car present at each and every one of these events the gards are aware of for tax, insurance, NCT, license, outstanding warrants etc. etc. etc.

Once that starts happening on a regular basis there won't be a law banning sulky racing on public roads cause it wouldn't be happening anymore

Discodog

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So none in Ireland then?

[/B][/I]

You are confusing simple and easy.



Again simple does not equal easy in this.

[/I]

Which brings me to my point about training and expertise. Gardaon't have it. That is why the local authority are supposed to appoint people who do.

[/I]
[/B]
But riding a horse and cart isn't dangerous is it?



I know of quite a few. Seizures and prosecutions. They regularly seize horses around places such as Ballyfermot and Finglas. There's a lot of dogs handed over to the warden from Garda stations. There's also these guys. Perhaps you should write to the DSPCA and demand their awards be taken back because you don't believe Gardao anything for animal welfare.



How many of those witnesses were prepared to testify in court?



Like I said, Gardacross Dublin regularly seize horses from public lands. There's footage on Youtube of it and the hostile reaction they get.

Then maybe it's a Galway problem as they rarely get involved here. If you report a case of cruelty you will be referred to the GSPCA.

Yesterday a car was driving with an open trailer & two very large dogs in it. They could of jumped out at any minute or been injured if the vehicle had to brake suddenly. A Garda car actually passed slowly the other way & didn't stop.

Discodog

wexie wrote: »

that's the thing. Honestly I think a law banning it would be great.

But a law that's not going to be enforced is worth sweet FA to no bugger.
If they really wanted to go actually enforce something like this then there wouldn't have been a problem to check each and every car present at each and every one of these events the gards are aware of for tax, insurance, NCT, license, outstanding warrants etc. etc. etc.

Once that starts happening on a regular basis there won't be a law banning sulky racing on public roads cause it wouldn't be happening anymore

Totally agree. The Guards aren't going to stop them & ask to see permits. Plus they could have permits & still drive recklessly.

Captain Obvious

Discodog wrote: »

Then maybe it's a Galway problem as they rarely get involved here. If you report a case of cruelty you will be referred to the GSPCA.

Yes our experiences obviously differ.

Discodog wrote: »

Yesterday a car was driving with an open trailer & two very large dogs in it. They could of jumped out at any minute or been injured if the vehicle had to brake suddenly. A Garda car actually passed slowly the other way & didn't stop.

Stop them for what?

Discodog

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yes our experiences obviously differ.



Stop them for what?

A word about how irresponsible it is. The dogs weren't under effective control.

Captain Obvious

Discodog wrote: »

A word about how irresponsible it is. The dogs weren't under effective control.

Again, I don't think the law works how you think it should.

Discodog

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Again, I don't think the law works how you think it should.

The law should work as it is written & not how a Guard decides to interpret it.

9.—(1) The owner or any other person in charge of a dog shall not permit the dog to be in any place other than—

(a) the premises of the owner, or

(b) the premises of such other person in charge of the dog, or

(c) the premises of any other person, with the consent of that person,

unless such owner or such other person in charge of the dog accompanies it and keeps it under effectual control.

If a dog can jump off an open trailer it isn't under effectual control.

Captain Obvious

Discodog wrote: »

The law should work as it is written & not how a Guard decides to interpret it.

9.—(1) The owner or any other person in charge of a dog shall not permit the dog to be in any place other than—

(a) the premises of the owner, or

(b) the premises of such other person in charge of the dog, or

(c) the premises of any other person, with the consent of that person,

unless such owner or such other person in charge of the dog accompanies it and keeps it under effectual control.

If a dog can jump off an open trailer it isn't under effectual control.

But you've put your own interpretation on the phrase effectual control there.

Discodog

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But you've put your own interpretation on the phrase effectual control there.

If your dog is off lead & you can effectively recall it, you could argue that it's under effectual control. If it can jump off a trailer, possibly without you even noticing, & with possible serious implication for the following traffic, it isn't under any control - effectual or not.

A professional police officer would stop the vehicle & advise the owner.

wexie

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But you've put your own interpretation on the phrase effectual control there.

Effectual control is indeed wide open to interpretation. Some people seem to take it to mean 'restrained' or on a lead.

Have a look at this and tell me if these dogs are under 'effectual control'.

Discodog

wexie wrote: »

Effectual control is indeed wide open to interpretation. Some people seem to take it to mean 'restrained' or on a lead.

Have a look at this and tell me if these dogs are under 'effectual control'.

No they aren't because the owner isn't allowing for distractions. Even the best sheepdogs in the world mess up, so do the best police dogs etc. You have to allow for the unexpected. No training is 100%.

Also it was irresponsible & inconsiderate because it causes concern & worry to others. Say you or your child was scared of dogs & you see three big dogs off lead.

wexie

Discodog wrote: »

No they aren't because the owner isn't allowing for distractions.

You mean like a busy carpark?

Discodog wrote: »

If your dog is off lead & you can effectively recall it, you could argue that it's under effectual control.

You're kinda contradicting yourself now.

Anyways this is going well off thread. I think I'll just agree to disagree.

Captain Obvious

Discodog wrote: »

If your dog is off lead & you can effectively recall it, you could argue that it's under effectual control. If it can jump off a trailer, possibly without you even noticing, & with possible serious implication for the following traffic, it isn't under any control - effectual or not.

A professional police officer would stop the vehicle & advise the owner.

You're saying the Gardaí should go by how the law is written and not by their interpretation of it. You then interpret the law yourself. What makes you more qualified to interpret it? Is your interpretation backed up by any legal precedent?

Hans Bricks

Insert bubonic plague here please.

Doing what they do best and then jeering an innocent and injured pregnant woman. Icing on the cake. Traveller style. Utterly ****e people is putting it mildly.

Although It is amusing seeing traveller apologists reminding us of the meaningless ethnic minority status. As if the rest of civilized society even cares.

Gwynplaine

A real candidate for ethnic cleansing. I absolutely hate them. Never met or heard of a good one yet. A scourge on society and a burden on the taxpayer.