Barry Cowen sacked

munsterlegend

joeguevara wrote: »

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

I never said erratic driving was an offence. It’s an ingredient in an offence which ultimately the inspector decides based on Garda statement. If Cowan didn’t pay his fine and accept his penalty the gardai could have added charges as well within time limit of 6 months to make a complaint which can be extended to 12.

joeguevara

munsterlegend wrote: »

I never said erratic driving was an offence. It’s an ingredient in an offence which ultimately the inspector decides based on Garda statement. If Cowan didn’t pay his fine and accept his penalty the gardai could have added charges as well within time limit of 6 months to make a complaint which can be extended to 12.

You said erratic driving would be added to his charge.

Here is the quote '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. '

McMurphy

Thomas Byrne on LMFM this morning, denying loads of stuff, but not very convincingly imo.


https://embed.acast.com/lmfm-michael-reade-show-podcasts/ministerthomasbyrneaddressesonlineallegationsagainsthim?bypass

His friendship is over with McFadden, but he's not going after him with defamation proceedings.

munsterlegend

joeguevara wrote: »

You said erratic driving would be added to his charge.

Here is the quote '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. '

You have obviously never read a Garda statement on drink driving. They have to have a reason to stop a car so usually say erratic driving, crossing white line..how serious the charge depends on the Circumstances and Garda. Drunk driver is not going to be believed anyway which is why they rarely if ever give evidence save for a drunken in charge.

Just like if I hit someone it’s an offence. How bad? Will it could be assault, assault causing harm, gbh, man slaughter or even murder.

The point is you have no idea what happened that evening nor do I. What we do know he was over the limit and was on a provisional license. The uturn is in dispute.

expectationlost

McMurphy wrote: »

Thomas Byrne on LMFM this morning, denying loads of stuff, but not very convincingly imo.


https://embed.acast.com/lmfm-michael-reade-show-podcasts/ministerthomasbyrneaddressesonlineallegationsagainsthim?bypass

His friendship is over with McFadden, but he's not going after him with defamation proceedings.

LMFM broadcaster being a bit overly cautious in his questions allowing Thomas Byrne room.

McMurphy

munsterlegend wrote: »

You have obviously never read a Garda statement on drink driving. They have to have a reason to stop a car so usually say erratic driving, crossing white line..how serious the charge depends on the Circumstances and Garda. Drunk driver is not going to be believed anyway which is why they rarely if ever give evidence save for a drunken in charge.

Just like if I hit someone it’s an offence. How bad? Will it could be assault, assault causing harm, gbh, man slaughter or even murder.

They had a reason, Barry did a U-turn upon approaching their checkpoint.

Ironically, considering the relatively low reading of alcohol in his system, it's possible he might have been waved on through the checkpoint had he not have arose suspicion by turning away.

Witcher

munsterlegend wrote: »

You have obviously never read a Garda statement on drink driving. They have to have a reason to stop a car so usually say erratic driving, crossing white line..how serious the charge depends on the Circumstances and Garda. Drunk driver is not going to be believed anyway which is why they rarely if ever give evidence save for a drunken in charge.

Just like if I hit someone it’s an offence. How bad? Will it could be assault, assault causing harm, gbh, man slaughter or even murder.

The point is you have no idea what happened that evening nor do I. What we do know he was over the limit and was on a provisional license. The uturn is in dispute.

Gardai do not need a reason to stop a car, please stop talking bollocks.

McMurphy

expectationlost wrote: »

LMFM broadcaster being a bit overly cautious in his questions allowing Thomas Byrne room.

He didn't sound impressed that Byrne threatened him with lawyers etc last week, also the constant "Michael, Michael, Michaels" coming from Thomas reminded me in another infamous radio interview, by a now ex TD.

joeguevara

munsterlegend wrote: »

You have obviously never read a Garda statement on drink driving. They have to have a reason to stop a car so usually say erratic driving, crossing white line..how serious the charge depends on the Circumstances and Garda. Drunk driver is not going to be believed anyway which is why they rarely if ever give evidence save for a drunken in charge.

Just like if I hit someone it’s an offence. How bad? Will it could be assault, assault causing harm, gbh, man slaughter or even murder.

The point is you have no idea what happened that evening nor do I. What we do know he was over the limit and was on a provisional license. The uturn is in dispute.

There is no offence in Ireland of grievous bodily harm. Listen, you have no clue on the law. You are making an absolute show of yourself.

Cute Hoor

munsterlegend wrote: »

They have to have a reason to stop a car

WTF, you obviously do not have a clue what you're talking about, the Garda most definitely do not have to have a reason to stop a car. I have been stopped a number of times at Garda checkpoints.

For your own sake, STOP

Floppybits

McMurphy wrote: »

He didn't sound impressed that Byrne threatened him with lawyers etc last week, also the constant "Michael, Michael, Michaels" coming from Thomas reminded me in another infamous radio interview, by a now ex TD.

Byrne has never struck me as a good politician, very rarely see him in his constituency unlike when Wallace was there.

Cute Hoor

Pure waffle from Byrne, fair play to the interviewer he kept after him, but ultimately got nowhere

munsterlegend

Cute Hoor wrote: »

WTF, you obviously do not have a clue what you're talking about, the Garda most definitely do not have to have a reason to stop a car. I have been stopped a number of times at Garda checkpoints.

For your own sake, STOP

Highest court in land has said they can’t just stop cars. They can stop cars once they have a reason for doing so but not in a ‘capricious’ manner.

Checkpoints are different.

Witcher

munsterlegend wrote: »

Highest court in land has said they can’t just stop cars. They can stop cars once they have a reason for doing so but not in a ‘capricious’ manner.

Checkpoints are different.

Again, stop talking bollocks.

joeguevara

munsterlegend wrote: »

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.

Why are you going back editing your previous posts? Talking sh1te and casting aspersions on posters knowledge and expertise.

ohnonotgmail

Cute Hoor wrote: »

WTF, you obviously do not have a clue what you're talking about, the Garda most definitely do not have to have a reason to stop a car. I have been stopped a number of times at Garda checkpoints.

For your own sake, STOP

the garda can stop a car at any time to check your tax and insurance are up to date.

FishOnABike

munsterlegend wrote: »

So if you are in a line of traffic at a busy checkpoint you can decide not to bother! I don’t think so.

No problem. I've done it. Heading home with a car full of hungry cranky children after a day out and about a quarter of a mile slowly moving tailback from a garda checkpoint at the end of a straight section of road.

I turned around at the first opportunity using the entrance to a business premises on the opposite side of the road to turn around and took a back road instead.

There was a checkpoint on the back road too but no queue and we were through it with practically no delay.

No problem with turning away from the first checkpoint.

munsterlegend

Witcher wrote: »

Again, stop talking bollocks.

I’ll let your learned self approach the high court and take issue with Judge Flaherty and tell him your views.

joeguevara

FishOnABike wrote: »

No problem. I've done it. Heading home with a car full of hungry cranky children after a day out and about a quarter of a mile slowly moving tailback from a garda checkpoint at the end of a straight section of road.

I turned around at the first opportunity using the entrance to a business premises on the opposite side of the road to turn around and took a back road instead.

There was a checkpoint on the back road too but no queue and we were through it with practically no delay.

No problem with turning away from the first checkpoint.

Be careful you don't end up charged with grievous bodily harm and erratic driving.

munsterlegend

joeguevara wrote: »

Why are you going back editing your previous posts? Talking sh1te and casting aspersions on posters knowledge and expertise.

You are the one casting aspersions. Telling us you know what happened on night in question with Cowan and not having a clue. Name calling like a child. Grow up.

Witcher

joeguevara wrote: »

Be careful you don't end up charged with grievous bodily harm and erratic driving.

They'll tack on a charge of Grand Theft Auto too just incase the first two don't stick:pac:

FishOnABike

Mortelaro wrote: »

As per the other thread, the times reported Cowen uturned,drove off and was chased by a Garda
That would be evasion in my book if true

I'd draw a parallel with tax avoidance / evasion one is perfectly legal, the other isn't. Nothing wrong/illegal with avoiding a checkpoint but once you are requested to stop you are legally required to do so.

joeguevara

munsterlegend wrote: »

You are the one casting aspersions. Telling us you know what happened on night in question with Cowan and not having a clue. Name calling like a child. Grow up.

I said I understood the charge of dangerous driving and careless driving unlike you. Namecalling, nah, you are doing well enough showing yourself up...and grievous bodily harm?

munsterlegend

FishOnABike wrote: »

No problem. I've done it. Heading home with a car full of hungry cranky children after a day out and about a quarter of a mile slowly moving tailback from a garda checkpoint at the end of a straight section of road.

I turned around at the first opportunity using the entrance to a business premises on the opposite side of the road to turn around and took a back road instead.

There was a checkpoint on the back road too but no queue and we were through it with practically no delay.

No problem with turning away from the first checkpoint.

So not getting caught means it’s ok? Of course people often avoid checkpoints. Get phone calls. We have no idea where Cowan was when he did his uturn or even if he did one.


If I speed up the motorway at 140 and no catches me so be it. I got away it. Doesn’t make it right.

munsterlegend

joeguevara wrote: »

I said I understood the charge of dangerous driving and careless driving unlike you. Namecalling, nah, you are doing well enough showing yourself up...and grievous bodily harm?

It was gbh up to 97. They changed wording. You are nitpicking to avoid your own complete lack of court knowledge and what happens in practice. It’s clear to me you have never read a Garda statement in your life.

joeguevara

munsterlegend wrote: »

It was gbh up to 97. They changed wording. You are nitpicking to avoid your own complete lack of court knowledge and what happens in practice.

Was doing my leaving in 97. That's how long ago it was. Qualified as a barrister in 2005. Yup Yup.

munsterlegend

joeguevara wrote: »

Was doing my leaving in 97. That's how long ago it was. Qualified as a barrister in 2005. Yup Yup.

So what. I know plenty barristers/solicitors and wouldn’t let them near criminal law. Solicitors do the vast majority of these driving type of cases anyway as district court level.

joeguevara

munsterlegend wrote: »

So what. I know plenty barristers/solicitors and wouldn’t let them near criminal law. Solicitors do the vast majority of these driving type of cases anyway as district court level.

Off with ya and your gbh and erratic driving. Give munster a bad name.

munsterlegend

joeguevara wrote: »

Off with ya and your gbh and erratic driving. Give munster a bad name.

And there you go again. Waffling on and not addressing the point that solicitors do the vast majority of these cases. I am sure you can enlighten us on what the high court said on the power to stop a vehicle outside a checkpoint.

Sunny Disposition

Seems like a clever, but maybe desperate, tactic to complain about the information being leaked. Makes poor oul Barry look like the victim.