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

Barry Cowen sacked

Options
1…5455575960…108

Comments

  • Options
    #1682
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Mortelaro wrote: »
    I'm sure you've looked it up yourself
    I'm happy to link to Cowen stating that it is in his statement
    The language, the more I read it is very carefully worded
    I'd expect if he gets the record changed or its reported wrong,he is staying in his job until at least Dec 22

    very hard to look up an offence that doesnt exist. you, and others, seem determined that it does exist hence the request to link to it. his statement that he wasnt charged with a non-existent office is a distraction that you and others have fallen for.


  • Options
    #1683
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    joeguevara wrote: »
    The issue is that there is no offence so even if a judge doesn't believe you then there is nothing that they can do. Does that make sense?

    Right you obviously have never been in court. The Gardaí would do him for careless/dangerous driving in any event which they usually add on to any drink drinking charge. . Judges have discretion in penalties that’s where they can put the boot in.


  • Options
    #1684
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Right you obviously have never been in court. The Gardaí would do him for careless/dangerous driving in any event which they usually add on to any drink drinking charge. . Judges have discretion in penalties that’s where they can put the boot in.

    i assume you have a source to backup this nonsense?


  • Options
    #1685
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Right you obviously have never been in court. The Gardaí would do him for careless/dangerous driving in any event which they usually add on to any drink drinking charge. . Judges have discretion in penalties that’s where they can put the boot in.

    I have been in court. A lot more than you it would seem.


  • Options
    #1686
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Right you obviously have never been in court. The Gardaí would do him for careless/dangerous driving in any event which they usually add on to any drink drinking charge. . Judges have discretion in penalties that’s where they can put the boot in.

    Bloody hell, what careless/dangerous driving, where did that come from.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1687
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    Bloody hell, what careless/dangerous driving, where did that come from.

    Came from someone who doesn't have a clue.


  • Options
    #1688
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i assume you have a source to backup this nonsense?

    Due to a lot of people getting off drink driving cases on a technicality, a dangerous driving charge is often added which also carries a disqualification. That way Gardaí both angles covered. Who is a judge going to believe a Garda or a defendant with alcohol on his driving? Most people under influence are driving erratically to say the least.


  • Options
    #1689
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,943 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    would you actually see the entire garda record of your offence? , at the time of prosecuting it?


    Paul Murphy on RTE radio said Cowen knew the contenst of the garda record last week how does he know he knew because the Sunday Times contacted him about it?


  • Options
    #1690
    Sunny Disposition
    Registered Users Posts: 2,779 ✭✭✭Sunny Disposition


    KaneToad wrote: »
    This has been the issue throughout.

    He was chancing his arm driving on a provisional for decades.
    He was chancing his arm driving unaccompanied for decades.
    He was chancing his arm driving on motorways for decades.
    He was chancing his arm having a few (number unknown) pints and driving.
    He was chancing his arm not saying it to FF back in 2016 when he was caught.
    He was chancing his arm not mentioning the provisional licence when coming clean in the first instance.
    He was chancing his arm by not mentioning the checkpoint incident and is focusing on insisting that he wasn't charged with turning away from a checkpoint.

    The guy is a chancer and thinks he's smarter than everyone else. Ironically he's showing himself to be quite dim and can't see that the slow drip of his half truths is going to be his downfall.

    The cover up is often what sinks you, not the crime.


    It's a bit like Brian, he was exposed as the worst Minister for Finance since independence but kept trying to argue his decisions had been based on the best advice available at the time, which everyone knew wasn't true.



    I don't think it's believable the Gardai made a false record of the incident, when there was no potential upside for them in doing so. By lying about it they would be putting their jobs at risk for literally no gain.


  • Options
    #1691
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Right you obviously have never been in court. The Gardaí would do him for careless/dangerous driving in any event which they usually add on to any drink drinking charge. . Judges have discretion in penalties that’s where they can put the boot in.

    Careless or dangerous driving for performing a three point turn up the road from a Garda checkpoint:confused:

    Unless his turnaround from the checkpoint actually was careless/dangerous driving, why would the Gardai charge him with it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1692
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 15,111 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Due to a lot of people getting off drink driving cases on a technicality, a dangerous driving charge is also added which also carries a disqualification. That way Gardaí both angles covered. Who is a judge going to believe a Garda or a defendant with alcohol on his driving? Most people under influence are driving erratically to say the least.

    You're talking bollocks


  • Options
    #1693
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I have been in court. A lot more than you it would seem.

    Right then you will have seen in the vast majority of drink driving cases ancillary driving offence except for maybe drunken in charge as vehicle is stationary.


  • Options
    #1694
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Due to a lot of people getting off drink driving cases on a technicality, a dangerous driving charge is often added which also carries a disqualification. That way Gardaí both angles covered. Who is a judge going to believe a Garda or a defendant with alcohol on his driving? Most people under influence are driving erratically to say the least.

    I'd stop making a show of yourself. Have a look at the offences (yes there are two) of careless and dangerous driving if you want to know why you are talking rubbish.


  • Options
    #1695
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Right then you will have seen in the vast majority of drink driving cases ancillary driving offence except for maybe drunken in charge as vehicle is stationary.

    Not from a doing a uturn at a checkpoint.


  • Options
    #1696
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Due to a lot of people getting off drink driving cases on a technicality, a dangerous driving charge is also added which also carries a disqualification. That way Gardaí both angles covered. Who is a judge going to believe a Garda or a defendant with alcohol on his driving?

    you are just talking absolute horse**** now. on the ignore list.


  • Options
    #1697
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Careless or dangerous driving for performing a three point turn up the road from a Garda checkpoint:confused:

    Unless his turnaround from the checkpoint actually was careless/dangerous driving, why would the Gardai charge him with it?

    The naivety here about what happens in court is quite astonishing. This is the same Gardaí who were making up drink driving test numbers. Most drunk driving charges also have erratic driving. What driving charge is subjective and up to a Garda.


  • Options
    #1698
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    The naivety here about what happens in court is quite astonishing. This is the same Gardaí who were making up drink driving test numbers. Most drunk driving charges also have erratic driving. What driving charge is subjective and up to a Garda.

    Big conspiracy theory here now. Sounds like you don't have any actual experience and are just picking things at random and coming up with pure bs.


  • Options
    #1699
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Most drunk driving charges also have erratic driving. What driving charge is subjective and up to a Garda.
    Even if this is the case, it's not relevant to your initial claim, which is that the Gardai would slap a dangerous driving charge on him for turning back from a checkpoint.

    All charges require some level of evidence. A dangerous driving charge requires more than just a Garda stating, "I saw him driving dangerously judge".


  • Options
    #1700
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Not from a doing a uturn at a checkpoint.

    You have no idea as you weren’t there. It could be construed as careless or dangerous depending on circumstances. How busy road was, driving conditions etc The fact the Gardaí it appears went after him suggests it was noticed. The point is a general one anyway. In the vast majority of drunk driving cases there is also an ancillary charge such as careless or dangerous driving.


  • Options
    #1701
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    The naivety here about what happens in court is quite astonishing. This is the same Gardaí who were making up drink driving test numbers. Most drunk driving charges also have erratic driving. What driving charge is subjective and up to a Garda.

    Can you also show me the offence of erratic driving, seeing as most charges have it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1702
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    You have no idea as you weren’t there. It could be construed as careless or dangerous depending on circumstances. How busy road was, driving conditions etc The fact the Gardaí it appears went after him suggests it was noticed. The point is a general one anyway. In the vast majority of drunk driving cases there is also an ancillary charge such as careless or dangerous driving.

    I do have an idea, as I know and understand the charge. You don't.


  • Options
    #1703
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I do have an idea, as I know and understand the charge. You don't.

    you're wasting your time.


  • Options
    #1704
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    seamus wrote: »
    Even if this is the case, it's not relevant to your initial claim, which is that the Gardai would slap a dangerous driving charge on him for turning back from a checkpoint.

    All charges require some level of evidence. A dangerous driving charge requires more than just a Garda stating, "I saw him driving dangerously judge".

    Sure Gardaí stop people with drink driving outside of a mandatory checkpoint due to their driving on the day/night in question. This is basic stuff. Most people now get convicted of drink driving as loopholes have been closed off and other charges taken into consideration.


  • Options
    #1705
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I do have an idea, as I know and understand the charge. You don't.

    What charge do you know? Here he accepted his penalty so it didn’t go to court. If it went to court the Gardaí could have added charges. You have no idea what happened on night in question


  • Options
    #1706
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    What charge do you know? Here he accepted his penalty so it didn’t go to court. If it went to court the Gardaí could have added charges. You have no idea what happened on night in question

    Just read that back to yourself and stop digging. You probably make up a charge for digging in public anyway.


  • Options
    #1707
    Jimi H
    Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭Jimi H


    expectationlost wrote: »
    what year did the lower 20ml limit for learner drivers come in? 2007/2008 (it wasn't 2018 that just changed the punishment)

    2011 https://www.rsa.ie/en/utility/news/2012/review-of-lower-drink-driving-limits/

    This is Cowen speaking in the Dail in 2011

    The key to maintaining the emphasis on driver behaviour is to continuously seek to change and improve that behaviour. Part 2 of the Road Traffic Act 2010, which was signed into law last year, reduces the blood alcohol concentration levels for drivers from 80 mg to 50 mg and to 20 mg for learner drivers. There is provision for mandatory breath testing on the basis of an opinion being formed by the garda at the scene. As other Members have mentioned, in the case of an accident such mandatory breath testing is paramount. Even in a hospital a consent to that being carried out can be given by the doctor in charge, which is to be commended. These sections 9 and 14 now come into play but, due to testing, the equipment involved will not be ready until later this year. I commend the Minister for coming forward at this early stage to provide the legal basis for such testing of drivers.

    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2011-03-23/27/?highlight[0]=barry&highlight[1]=cowen&highlight[2]=drive


  • Options
    #1708
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Just read that back to yourself and stop digging. You probably make up a charge for digging in public anyway.

    Right so you accept you haven’t a clue what happened on night in question. The level of naivety here with regards court and what happens is laughable. Look at Cahir o Higgins top criminal solicitor who has his own troubles latest tweet.


  • Options
    #1709
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Right so you accept you haven’t a clue what happened on night in question.

    Oh Miss Marple, you are amazing. I know he wasn't charged with erratic driving (no offence) and dangerous/careless driving.


  • Options
    #1710
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Oh Miss Marple, you are amazing. I know he wasn't charged with erratic driving (no offence) and dangerous/careless driving.

    inspector clouseau more like.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1711
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,943 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Jimi H wrote: »
    This is Cowen speaking in the Dail in 2011

    The key to maintaining the emphasis on driver behaviour is to continuously seek to change and improve that behaviour. Part 2 of the Road Traffic Act 2010, which was signed into law last year, reduces the blood alcohol concentration levels for drivers from 80 mg to 50 mg and to 20 mg for learner drivers. There is provision for mandatory breath testing on the basis of an opinion being formed by the garda at the scene. As other Members have mentioned, in the case of an accident such mandatory breath testing is paramount. Even in a hospital a consent to that being carried out can be given by the doctor in charge, which is to be commended. These sections 9 and 14 now come into play but, due to testing, the equipment involved will not be ready until later this year. I commend the Minister for coming forward at this early stage to provide the legal basis for such testing of drivers.

    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2011-03-23/27/?highlight%5B0%5D=barry&highlight%5B1%5D=cowen&highlight%5B2%5D=drive




    he can't say he wasn't aware of this lower limit, which wouldn't have caught out people with full license?


Advertisement