Barry Cowen sacked

quinnd6

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Backintheday when I was on a provisional there was no need to have a proper driver with you, that is relatively recent

It was in 2016, that's only 4 years ago.
Earlier in the year you had the government trying to stop people from having learner permits for years.
Basically trying to penalise learner drivers for just holding a learner permit for too long.
Not breaking any rules at all just didn't get around to getting enough lessons to get the full licence and they want to penalise you.
Then you have politicians doing whatever the heck they want driving unsupervised with a learner permit and a blind eye is turned.
Some loada crap that is.
Like learning to drive these days has been made fecking impossible.
It's a load of double standard crap.
I've nothing against Cowen (well apart from his puppy farm support which I also hate but all Fianna Fail have that same stance on animal cruelty anyway) I just think maybe it could be made easier for learner drivers to actually learn to drive.
Maybe cheaper insurance or something.
Instead the government want to fleece learners and make it impossible for them to actually learn to drive at all.
Anyway time to forget about it anyway I suppose as I said with fear of covid19 you just can't learn to drive at all.

dundalkfc10

Cute Hoor wrote: »

2 pints - 0 alcohol reading after 4 hours
3 pints - 0 alcohol reading after 6 hours
4 pints - some alcohol reading after 6 hours, enough to fail test?
5 pints - some alcohol reading after 6 hours, enough to fail test, possibly

Then add in the larger frame
Do you accept the science?

Nonsense every individual is different

Snickers Man

walshb wrote: »

Responsible drink drivers.......FFS!!!!

Yes. There is such a thing. You can have a drink (or two) without being drunk. Or even impaired.

I know the law is very strict on this, and I am NOT suggesting anyone should break it, but the "two will do" rule of thumb was perfectly reasonable and there was little justification to bring the legal limits down.

It only seeks to bolster prigs' outrage and piss off the rest of us, especially of the older generation, who behaved perfectly reasonably (and legally) for years only to be told now that we were irresponsible murderers (or at least manslaughterers) for making the effort.

Someone runs in my constituency saying he or she will campaign to put the limits back up; I'll vote for them.

Cute Hoor

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Nonsense every individual is different

No sh1t!

https://www.drinkaware.ie/facts/drink-driving

lalababa

Of course apart from other physiological traits one's tolerance is different depending on how much drink is consumed on a regular basis.
If Barry drinks 40 units a week instead of 20 his body would process alcohol quicker.
I'd believe Barry's 'two pints' story if he was a 60kg school girl who doesn't drink!

lalababa

I suggest a new nickname for the minister for Agri......."two pints Barry" ðŸ˜

Zebra3

smelly sock wrote: »

but i don't think he or his family deserve thos kind of hassle.

Ah, his family.

How nice of you to bring them into it.

Nobody else has.

Of course if Cowen actually cared about his family, he wouldn't have made the decision he did. :rolleyes:

Pedro K

Snickers Man wrote: »

He didn't have a full licence and he WAS breaking the law. I never denied that.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Yes you do. This is from the Irish Times. It has a paywall so I'll just post it for you

"Mr Cowen was banned from driving for three months and fined €200 in 2016 when he was found to have been over the limit after attending the All-Ireland football final.

It subsequently emerged that he would have been under the limit had he been driving on a full licence rather than a provisional one."

So, if he had a full licence, he wouldn't have been breaking the law. On either count.

What's the relevance of this post, then?

BonnieSituation

BattleCorp wrote: »

My point is that it's not at the Kinihan end of the criminal scale by any stretch yet holier than thou people are calling for him to be hung, drawn and quartered when he has already served his punishment for breaking the law.

Like his defenders on Liveline today said, "...well at least he didn't kill anyone..."!

Such a low bar set for Fianna Fáil TDs and ministers.

Shefwedfan

Cute Hoor wrote: »

2 pints - 0 alcohol reading after 4 hours
3 pints - 0 alcohol reading after 6 hours
4 pints - some alcohol reading after 6 hours, enough to fail test?
5 pints - some alcohol reading after 6 hours, enough to fail test, possibly

Then add in the larger frame
Do you accept the science?

What science? the only thing that has been proved over time is no two people have the same reaction to alcohol.

silver2020

Cute Hoor wrote: »

I'm totally with you Marie, he wasn't baloobas, and he probably didn't have much more than the 4/5 pints during the day, but why come out with the pure and utter sh1te that he only had 2 pints and that was before the game. If you're going to publish a story make it at least look somewhat credible.

exactly - it this type of utter BS and that he didn't have a licence for years because he couldn't be bothered smacks of old smarmy FF and frankly he should never have got a ministerial position.

A fine and short ban for a low level alcohol stop that is entirely his fault because he's such a fool for not having a full licence is neither here nor there in my book

If his reading was over 100mg, then that would be a different story.

Shefwedfan

Auguste Comte wrote: »

The least qualification for a minister of state should be that they are of good repute. A serial law breaker doesn't meet the standard and shouldn't be a minister.

How is he a serial law breaker?

Shefwedfan

Cute Hoor wrote: »

I'm totally with you Marie, he wasn't baloobas, and he probably didn't have much more than the 4/5 pints during the day, but why come out with the pure and utter sh1te that he only had 2 pints and that was before the game. If you're going to publish a story make it at least look somewhat credible.

It doesn't really matter what you think, it is what you or anhone can prove. At the moment this is just idle gossip and not even good gossip at that.....

JP Liz V1

He had speeding offences also on a Learner Permit prior to this

kerry cow

this is all bull****, he has made a mistake ,got the rap ,time to move on .
there are far more important things to br worring about .

who hasn't made a mistake .

small minded people looking for a DIG.

and I am not a FF supporter either.

Cute Hoor

Shefwedfan wrote: »

It doesn't really matter what you think, it is what you or anhone can prove. At the moment this is just idle gossip and not even good gossip at that.....

Of course it doesn't matter what I think, I'm not a player here, Brian's problem is that nobody (well almost nobody) believes his bullsh1t.

Cute Hoor

Shefwedfan wrote: »

What science? the only thing that has been proved over time is no two people have the same reaction to alcohol.

True, do you believe that all he had to drink that day was 2 pints (only 2 possible answers) and that he had those 2 pints before the match started at 3:30.

Auguste Comte

Shefwedfan wrote: »

How is he a serial law breaker?

Drink driving=Breaking the law.

Speeding=Breaking the law.

Driving unaccompanied on a learner permit=Breaking the law.


And not to mention his various other fines.

BonnieSituation

quinnd6 wrote: »

It was in 2016, that's only 4 years ago.
Earlier in the year you had the government trying to stop people from having learner permits for years.
Basically trying to penalise learner drivers for just holding a learner permit for too long.

As is only right. If you haven't managed to learn to drive and DO a test in the two year period of your first learner permit then why should you be on the road at all?

The problem aren't those who fail tests* it's those who don't bother turning up and continue to drove unaccompanied. These are the people are who are being targeted by the more stringent regime. When I was learning to drive it was just a free for all.

*If you're sitting multiple tests over multiple learner permits and failing well then that's another story and maybe driving isn't for you

Not breaking any rules at all just didn't get around to getting enough lessons to get the full licence and they want to penalise you.

What do you mean "didn't get around to it"?

If you want to drive on the road then learn to drive and follow the rules. It's not the State's fault you can't be bothered to follow the regulations as they stand. TBH, even at that they're too lax tbh.

Then you have politicians doing whatever the heck they want driving unsupervised with a learner permit and a blind eye is turned.
Some loada crap that is.

Absolutely. and you know yourself, if he was arsed back in the day I'm sure Daddy or the brudder could have gotten Offaly County Council to issue him with schnakey licence. The system was a shambles right up until the noughties.

Like learning to drive these days has been made fecking impossible.
It's a load of double standard crap.

I can understand your frustrations but sans-Covid19 it really isn't impossible to learn to drive.

The hypocrisy is an issue though.

I've nothing against Cowen (well apart from his puppy farm support which I also hate but all Fianna Fail have that same stance on animal cruelty anyway) I just think maybe it could be made easier for learner drivers to actually learn to drive.

I'm not sure what barriers you are facing, but it really isn't that difficult.

Maybe cheaper insurance or something.

You having a laugh? Driving is privilege. It is not a right.

How about rewarding fully-licenced safe drivers with cheaper insurance?
I've worked in the insurance industry as an analyst, learners are the bottom of the rung when it comes to "reductions" and rightly.

Instead the government want to fleece learners and make it impossible for them to actually learn to drive at all.

How are the government fleecing you?

Have you failed multiple tests and resent paying for more? That's on you, it's not on the State.

Anyway time to forget about it anyway I suppose as I said with fear of covid19 you just can't learn to drive at all.

You can learn. I'm not sure how Covid has stopped you with the recent lifting of restrictions.

BonnieSituation

Shefwedfan wrote: »

It doesn't really matter what you think, it is what you or anhone can prove. At the moment this is just idle gossip and not even good gossip at that.....

We know for a fact that he broke the law

And you're defending his breaking of the law.

James Brown

Is it possible he had his licence revoked and needed to start from scratch? Do they do that as a penalty?

Snickers Man

Pedro K wrote: »

What's the relevance of this post, then?

To show that his offence wasn't primarily "drunk driving". It was not having the proper licence.

We can argue this back and forward all day if you like. My initial understanding was that the amount of alcohol he had in his system at the time would NOT have merited a ban AT THAT TIME, although it might have earned a fine and penalty points.

Now it appears, from reading multiple reports, that the limit for learner drivers was (and probably still is) lower than for full licence holders. And that therefore, if he had a full licence he would not have incurred a penalty for ANY offence. Driving unaccompanied without a full licence, even if perfectly sober, is an offence in itself. The Times says, (see quote and link) "he would have been UNDER THE LIMIT if he had had a full licence".

So he would not have incurred ANY penalty if he had had such a licence. That's not "if me auntie had a bollox..." argument. It's more like "Because he has a bollox, he's my uncle."

Do I need to write these more slowly...?

BonnieSituation

kerry cow wrote: »

this is all bull****, he has made a mistake ,got the rap ,time to move on .
there are far more important things to br worring about .

who hasn't made a mistake .

small minded people looking for a DIG.

and I am not a FF supporter either.

Sure you're not.

Username checks out anyway.

---

So you're okay with a minster being done for drink driving then and keeping it under wraps and then when confronted about it makes up a convoluted bullshít story to "deftly" cover his tracks?

BonnieSituation

Snickers Man wrote: »

To show that his offence wasn't primarily "drunk driving". It was not having the proper licence.

We can argue this back and forward all day if you like. My initial understanding was that the amount of alcohol he had in his system at the time would NOT have merited a ban AT THAT TIME, although it might have earned a fine and penalty points.

Now it appears, from reading multiple reports, that the limit for learner drivers was (and probably still is) lower than for full licence holders. And that therefore, if he had a full licence he would not have incurred a penalty for ANY offence. Driving unaccompanied without a full licence, even if perfectly sober, is an offence in itself. The Times says, (see quote and link) "he would have been UNDER THE LIMIT if he had had a full licence".

So he would not have incurred ANY penalty if he had had such a licence. That's not "if me auntie had a bollox..." argument. It's more like "Because he has a bollox, he's my uncle."

Do I need to write these more slowly...?

So you're saying he's in the clear because the regulations shouldn't apply to him in a hypothetical scenario where he has a full licence he would have been okay?

So if you're okay with that then you have to ask yourself why do we have differing standards?

Since we're talking in hypotheticals, can my 18yo brother use the "I wouldn't be over the limit guard if I had a full licence" defence?

Acosta

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So you're okay with a minster being done for drink driving then and keeping it under wraps and then when confronted about it makes up a convoluted bullshít story to "deftly" cover his tracks?

Too many Irish people are happy with low grade gutter used car salesmen running our affairs. We get what we vote for. And we vote for it every time.

BonnieSituation

Bowie wrote: »

Is it possible he had his licence revoked and needed to start from scratch? Do they do that as a penalty?

I wouldn't want to guess now because we know that that is frowned upon. But it would be interesting to see a full breakdown of his licence/testing history.

I mean, if there's nothing to hide he should release it. These are the new standards we have to adhere to as per the FFers on this thread.

Auguste Comte

Snickers Man wrote: »

So he would not have incurred ANY penalty if he had had such a licence. That's not "if me auntie had a bollox..." argument. It's more like "Because he has a bollox, he's my uncle."

Do I need to write these more slowly...?

He would not have incurred any penalty if he hadn't broken the law.

kerry cow

BonnieSituation wrote:

So you're okay with a minster being done for drink driving then and keeping it under wraps and then when confronted about it makes up a convoluted bullshít story to "deftly" cover his tracks?

look there are skeletons in most political backrounds , so it does not faze me to hear such a story , I really could give a damn .
it's about get on with running the country and keep the wheels on the bus .
it's all this hyper ****e that sells papers .

James Brown

kerry cow wrote: »

look there are skeletons in most political backrounds , so it does not faze me to hear such a story , I really could give a damn .
it's about get on with running the country and keep the wheels on the bus .
it's all this hyper ****e that sells papers .

Would be a fair point but when this laxed rule breaking spills over into running the country the bus crashes the country and the tax payer gets the bill. I know we are use to cute hoors but we deserve better IMO.

ohnonotgmail

Snickers Man wrote: »

To show that his offence wasn't primarily "drunk driving". It was not having the proper licence.

We can argue this back and forward all day if you like. My initial understanding was that the amount of alcohol he had in his system at the time would NOT have merited a ban AT THAT TIME, although it might have earned a fine and penalty points.

Now it appears, from reading multiple reports, that the limit for learner drivers was (and probably still is) lower than for full licence holders. And that therefore, if he had a full licence he would not have incurred a penalty for ANY offence. Driving unaccompanied without a full licence, even if perfectly sober, is an offence in itself. The Times says, (see quote and link) "he would have been UNDER THE LIMIT if he had had a full licence".

So he would not have incurred ANY penalty if he had had such a licence. That's not "if me auntie had a bollox..." argument. It's more like "Because he has a bollox, he's my uncle."

Do I need to write these more slowly...?

that is exactly what that argument is. he was banned for exceeding the alcohol limit for the class of licence he had.