Barry Cowen sacked

Shefwedfan

RandomViewer wrote: »

The video of him getting out of the Opel, when was that filmed ?

Which video? Did he have or have not a license at the time ?

Auguste Comte

BattleCorp wrote: »

The same level that is acceptable for me and you.

If you started a new job today, would you expect to be fired because your employer found out that you had penalty points or had a drink driving ban four years ago? Nope, you would not.

I would definitely be shown the door.

I suppose everyone is entitled to representation. The criminal class now have Barry and FF to support their needs.

Shefwedfan

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I would definitely be shown the door.

I suppose everyone is entitled to representation. The criminal class now have Barry and FF to support their needs.

The criminal class always had FF to support them, that’s the whole point of the government, did you not understand how it works?

BattleCorp

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I would definitely be shown the door.

I suppose everyone is entitled to representation. The criminal class now have Barry and FF to support their needs.

If you were shown the door, you would have grounds for unfair dismissal.

Anyway, I've no interest in FF/FG/SF etc. politics so I'm out. Have fun guys and gals.

smelly sock

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?

Im saying that it could vary from person to person. That is all. Are you doubting that?

BonnieSituation

quinnd6 wrote: »

I never did anything wrong.
I never broke any regulations.
I don't know what you're on about.
Cmon really do you think driving lessons are feasible now
when we're all supposed to stay 2 metres from each other.
Defend bs all you want anyway I don't care.
People like you are part of the problem.
You're stuck in your own little bubble only thinking of yourself.
You'd like to make it impossible for anyone to learn to drive.
When you were learning it was a free for all so you've some bloody cheek saying insurance should be maxed out for learners.
Shame on people like you.
Get back to your bubble.

It's really hard to follow your angry response given you can't use the quote feature correctly. But I'll try.

For starters, I don't think you understood the phrase "free-for-all". You see in the early noughties there were very lax regulations regarding provisional licences. You didn't need to do any lessons to get one and on your second one you could drive unaccompanied. At no point did you have to do a test to get a renewed second provisional.

I never made it to a third provisional though, because having a provisional was a bit below me. Insurance premia were so high so I don't know why people would drive without a full licence.

I did a shít tonne of lessons so I could learn and even when I was leading up to do my test I did a load of mock tests because as a car obsessive I really "needed" get a full licence.

Now granted, that's not everyone's story. But at no point was this taken as a right or as an entitlement.

It seems to me that you believe driving is an entitlement. It's not. It's not up to society to make things easier and as I said, I would have preferred if the current regime was brought in decades ago.

What I want to make impossible is for unaccompanied unlicenced drivers to be on the road. I don't know why anyone wouldn't be in favour of that.

---

Regarding your own personal issues with driving. Your insurance idea is beyond laughable and that is literally coming from a point of expertise.

Also, the Covid crisis hit in March, so I'm guessing you had ample time to learn before that? I mean you're hardly complaining about something you just decided to do during pandemic restrictions.

BonnieSituation

BattleCorp wrote: »

You don't know that for sure, do you?

I don't know for sure that his bullshít story is bullshít?

I dunno. What sort of evidence do I need to form my opinion that would be acceptable to you?

Auguste Comte

BattleCorp wrote: »

If you were shown the door, you would have grounds for unfair dismissal.

I don't think so. Every potential employee is asked about previous convictions and some of us have to be Garda vetted.

Shefwedfan

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I don't know for sure that his bullshít story is bullshít?

I dunno. What sort of evidence do I need to form my opinion that would be acceptable to you?

Any evidence at all would be a start?

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But the issue is the "cover-up" and mealy mouth contrition.

I'm glad you have such a black and white attitude for past wrongdoings. Surprising then that you never shut up about SFs past.

You wouldn't want to be accused of hypocrisy then Shef would ya?

Shefwedfan wrote: »

What cover up?

Now now Shef... You're holding everyone to the same standard now right? So no more bringing up the past. Ya hear?

Shefwedfan

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Now now Shef... You're holding everyone to the same standard now right? So now more bringing up the past. Ya hear?

So the cover up???

SouthWesterly

Auguste Comte wrote: »

I

A government minister should at the very least be able demonstrate that they are of good repute.

The problem is that his behavior is a clear demonstration that he is not of good repute and so shouldn't be a minister.

That disqualifies most of our politicians

Shefwedfan

SouthWesterly wrote: »

That disqualifies most of our politicians

I think it’s more along the lines of all of our politicians

BonnieSituation

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Any evidence at all would be a start?

I want to get this straight now so there's no confusion.

So the standard now to be used to form an "opinion" is what? Do we need photographic evidence? Do we need receipts?

Or as adults who have been to many matches in Croker and on some occasions have driven after a match in Croker, can establish that his story seems a bit "off"?

Is that the level I can use here. I mean, real-life experience counts for something right?

If you have set the bar impossibly high though, then theres no real point in engaging with you is there?

Or, we could, as you said yourself, not bring up the past and let's all move on. Let's apply that to all politicians and political parties then. Fair is fair.

BonnieSituation

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So the cover up???

Ah the classic Shef play.

The cover up I suppose would be shorthand for him not divulging it to Mícheal, coupled with the details of the story he spun to wriggle out of it.

We can call it something else if that would make you and the rest of your Cumann happier?

Shefwedfan

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I want to get this straight now so there's no confusion.

So the standard now to be used to form an "opinion" is what? Do we need photographic evidence? Do we need receipts?

Or as adults who have been to many matches in Croker and on some occasions have driven after a match in Croker, can establish that his story seems a bit "off"?

Is that the level I can use here. I mean, real-life experience counts for something right?

If you have set the bar impossibly high though, then theres no real point in engaging with you is there?

Or, we could, as you said yourself, not brig up the past and let's all move on. Let's apply that to all politicians and political parties then. Fair is fair.

So you have no evidence?

You brought up the past and all I pointed out was that if you want to point the finger at FF/FG and hold them up to high standard the you need to do it to all parties.

You just went off on a rant when it was pointed out to you your post had a few flaws in it

Muahahaha

Bowie wrote: »

Especially Heather Humphreys writing a letter to get animal cruelty charges against a man dropped. A man already banned from keeping animals.

That story is just bubbling away in the background and has yet to get to the boil. If it does and Humphrey is shown to have interfered with the judicial process then her position will become untenable. John Mooney of the Sunday Times is on it so I expect to see another article this weekend. There is a whitsleblower too who is saying that Humphreys got the farmer off a conviction

sdanseo

I would rarely call for heads to roll and if the man was 22 and not 49 I probably would have got over the drink driving/provisional, he was only over because the learner limit is lower and any driver on their full licence would have been waved on because the limit is 0.08. If you go any higher, you can't get the lower punishment he got.

But the 4 parking tickets, speeding within 3 months, the fact that he most likely spent decades on a provisional and told MM about none of it; all point to the fact that he's a chancer who doesn't give a fiddler's about the rules and makes him look like he's up to FF's old tricks.

For those reasons, he needs to go. And Dara Calleary needs the spot. I don't subscribe to the FF TDs throwing their toys out of the pram over positions, MM can and should appoint who he sees fit, but I have met Dara and he appears infinitely more appropriate than some of the others chosen.

Shefwedfan

sdanseo wrote: »

I would rarely call for heads to roll and if the man was 22 and not 49 I probably would have got over the drink driving/provisional, he was only over because the learner limit is lower and any driver on their full licence would have been waved on because the limit is 0.08. If you go any higher, you can't get the lower punishment he got.

But the 4 parking tickets, speeding within 3 months, the fact that he most likely spent decades on a provisional and told MM about none of it; all point to the fact that he's a chancer who doesn't give a fiddler's about the rules and makes him look like he's up to FF's old tricks.

For those reasons, he needs to go. And Dara Calleary needs the spot. I don't subscribe to the FF TDs throwing their toys out of the pram over positions, MM can and should appoint who he sees fit, but I have met Dara and he appears infinitely more appropriate than some of the others chosen.

So you think younger people should be allowed drink and driver? Just once they get older they can’t?

Strange logic to me personally I would say any age should be treated the same for the offence

BonnieSituation

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So you have no evidence?

You brought up the past and all I pointed out was that if you want to point the finger at FF/FG and hold them up to high standard the you need to do it to all parties.

You just went off on a rant when it was pointed out to you your post had a few flaws in it

I asked you a question of what level of evidence you would find acceptable. You didn't answer. It's almost like you're not willing to discuss this in good faith. That wouldn't be like you all now would it?

And now you're accusing me of going on a rant again. Now now, I must have touched a nerve.

Tokyo

Mod: @Bobtheman - don't post in the thread again.

eagle eye

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.

Also, which is worse, a guy with a few driving offenses or one who let billions get burned on a children's hospital?

I'd certainly take the guy with a few driving offenses so long as he can do his job.

*I've no clue if Barry Cowen can do his job.

BonnieSituation

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So you think younger people should be allowed drink and driver? Just once they get older they can’t?

Strange logic to me personally I would say any age should be treated the same for the offence

You're a pro at this game. You know exactly the point he was making and yet you can't help yourself trying to spin it.

---

But yeah, let's not forget about holding "everyone to the same standards" in future. You wouldn't want to be accused of being biased or hypocritical going forward.

sdanseo

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So you think younger people should be allowed drink and driver? Just once they get older they can’t?

Strange logic to me personally I would say any age should be treated the same for the offence

A person driving for a year or two on a learner is normal enough, and I've yet to meet anyone who never drove alone on one. If he'd done his test or been stopped 4 years previously, as I mentioned, he'd have been waved on. He would have been barely impaired. This dual standard just screws people, it doesn't make driving any safer. If it did, then apply the 0.05 limit to everyone equally.

Don't get me wrong I still have a strong darwinist stance on drink driving, it's never worth it, and if you get caught you get the consequences. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time etc. But he was prosecuted on a technicality that shouldn't exist, paid his debt.

It's the combination of this with all the other tomfoolery - including decades of not being arsed to get a licence despite comfortably having the means to do so -that makes him a complete eejit and not worth of such a senior leadership position where he is a role model for rural Ireland where the drink driving issue is most a problem.

Shefwedfan

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Ah the classic Shef play.

The cover up I suppose would be shorthand for him not divulging it to Mícheal, coupled with the details of the story he spun to wriggle out of it.

We can call it something else if that would make you and the rest of your Cumann happier?

Finally you confirm it wasn’t covered up, thanks

worded

FF cant just paint over it like Ivor Callely house

The Eleventh Hour 19th Minute: DAA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JPT3feipJ8

Original Ad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdjLBXlieI0

Shefwedfan

worded wrote: »

FF cant just paint over it like Ivor Callely house

The Eleventh Hour 19th Minute: DAA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JPT3feipJ8

Original Ad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdjLBXlieI0

9 years ago, relevant how?

Plus the DAA and terminal two has been a huge success prior to covid

Spanish Eyes

Well that didn't take long, I mean for FF to get up to their usual tricks.

I don't for a minute think that ABFF are squeaky clean either in lots of ways, but honestly to have this happen within a week of taking office is deja vu.

But I'd say he will survive this, MM won't sack him I don't think, and he sure as hell won't resign either. As you were.

If he is gone next week I will be very surprised, but doubt it really.

BonnieSituation

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Finally you confirm it wasn’t covered up, thanks

You're such a tiresome tiresome poster.

They'll be striking medals for ya down in the cumann. You've done the Soldiers of Destiny proud.

Shefwedfan

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You're such a tiresome tiresome poster.

They'll be striking medals for ya down in the cumann. You've done the Soldiers of Destiny proud.

Thank you