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…5657596162…108

Comments

  • Options
    #1742
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    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.

    Did you say previously that the high court is the highest court in the land...ah yes you did. Here it is ' 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.'.

    And a Garda can stop any car for the purpose of road tax and insurance. No other reason required.


  • Options
    #1743
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Did you say previously that the high court is the highest court in the land...ah yes you did. Here it is ' 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.'.

    Oh learned counsel had it been overturned by the Supreme Court? Or are you just not going to impart your legal wisdom?


  • Options
    #1744
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Oh learned counsel had it been overturned by the Supreme Court? Or are you just not going to impart your legal wisdom?

    See above. And you said it was the highest court. Not me.


  • Options
    #1745
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Did you say previously that the high court is the highest court in the land...ah yes you did. Here it is ' 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.'.

    And a Garda can stop any car for the purpose of road tax and insurance. No other reason required.

    So what was judge Flaherty a learned counsel like yourself on about?


  • Options
    #1746
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    So what was judge Flaherty a learned counsel like yourself on about?

    Hes not counsel. You are not learned.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1747
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    So if a Garda car is driving behind you and just pulls you over only to satisfy his/her desire that’s ok. Sounds a bit ‘capricious’ to me.


  • Options
    #1748
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    So if a Garda car is driving behind you and just pulls you over only to satisfy his/her desire that’s ok. Sounds a bit ‘capricious’ to me.

    Doesn't matter what you think. The Law is the Law.

    And here it is...see I back up what I say.

    Obligation to stop.
    109.—(1) A person driving a vehicle in a public place shall stop the vehicle on being so required by a member of the Garda Síochána.


    (2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.


  • Options
    #1749
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    So if a Garda car is driving behind you and just pulls you over only to satisfy his/her desire that’s ok. Sounds a bit ‘capricious’ to me.

    tenor.gif


  • Options
    #1750
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 56,380 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    So if a Garda car is driving behind you and just pulls you over only to satisfy his/her desire that’s ok. Sounds a bit ‘capricious’ to me.

    Yes, that is the law...and should be the law....

    They don't pull people over for the fun of it......


  • Options
    #1751
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Doesn't matter what you think. The Law is the Law.

    And here it is...see I back up what I say.

    Obligation to stop.
    109.—(1) A person driving a vehicle in a public place shall stop the vehicle on being so required by a member of the Garda Síochána.


    (2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

    So whatever was judge Flaherty talking about which you conveniently choose to just ignore and he addressed that point exactly!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1752
    seligehgit
    Registered Users Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭seligehgit


    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.


    For the time being.

    Quite a poor interview,very uneasy/evasive when put under scrutiny re the phone call on the night of the cabinet appointments.

    He spent up a large portion of the interview bigging up his European Affairs portfolio ( admittedly it is same in the current context )


  • Options
    #1753
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    So whatever was judge Flaherty talking about which you conveniently choose to just ignore and he addressed that point exactly!

    I am at no behest to you. But to go through everything:

    You said that doing a U-turn before reaching a checkpoint is an offence - its not.
    You said that erratic driving is an offence. Its not.
    You said that gbh is an offence. Its not.
    You said that Gardaí cannot stop a car at any time. They can.

    Would you ever just jog on.


  • Options
    #1754
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,489 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry m'lord. I have to come clean and confirm I was in charge of a car full of cranky children (with a seriously stressed spouse taken into consideration) on the sunny summer's day in question. What's the charge?

    Driving a vehicle while over the legal alcohol limit or driving a vehicle in excess of the designated speed limit are both offences, whether caught or not. No offence has a 100% detection and 100% conviction rate. Not being caught doesn't make it a non-offense or make it alright though.

    Diverting to avoid a checkpoint is not, in itself, an offense or wrong, no more than driving within the speed limit to avoid a fixed penalty.

    However if already engaged in something illegal, turning around within view of a checkpoint might draw closer scrutiny as appears to have been the case in the topic of this thread.


  • Options
    #1755
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    So if a Garda car is driving behind you and just pulls you over only to satisfy his/her desire that’s ok. Sounds a bit ‘capricious’ to me.
    What you're probably getting confused on here is the ability of a Garda to stop someone for a random breath test.

    It used to be the case that Gardai could not breath test you at checkpoints unless they had formed an opinion that you were impaired.

    Then the law changed to allow MAT checkpoints, so Gardai could just breathalyse any driver without reard to their capability.

    However, this only applies at MAT checkpoints. Gardai cannot pull you over randomly and demand a breath sample.

    Of course, they can pull you over to check tax & insurance, especially if you've turned around from a checkpoint. From there it's a very short hop to, "have you had anything to drink today?".
    FishOnABike wrote: »
    However if already engaged in something illegal, turning around within view of a checkpoint might draw closer scrutiny as appears to have been the case in the topic of this thread.
    They will usually take the reg of any car that has turned away and/or have secondary checkpoints set up on side roads. If it's a quiet day though and there's a spare car at the checkpoint, it's not unheard of for them to go down and see why the car turned around.


  • Options
    #1756
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    walshb wrote: »
    Yes, that is the law...and should be the law....

    They don't pull people over for the fun of it......

    Well I suggest you read what Judge Flaherty said about it. Used by virtually every defence lawyer in a drink driving case in such a situation. Of course Gardaí cover this point as they know they just can’t pull over people for no reason by commenting on their driving such as being over the white line.


  • Options
    #1757
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    Well I suggest you read what Judge Flaherty said about it. Used by virtually every defence lawyer in a drink driving case in such a situation. Of course Gardaí cover this point as they know they just can’t pull over people for no reason by commenting on their driving such as being over the white line.

    Why don't you post what Judge Flaherty said since you're the one spouting about it.


  • Options
    #1758
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I am at no behest to you. But to go through everything:

    You said that doing a U-turn before reaching a checkpoint is an offence - its not.
    You said that erratic driving is an offence. Its not.
    You said that gbh is an offence. Its not.
    You said that Gardaí cannot stop a car at any time. They can.

    Would you ever just jog on.[/

    What absolute nonsense. The high court judgment which you convenient ignore as it rips your points to shreds. Back to kings inn for you.


  • Options
    #1759
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Barry has now been advised to stfu and stop making things worse for himself apparently.

    Personally, I reckon he's a goner.


    https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1282637365408923650?s=09


  • Options
    #1760
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Witcher wrote: »
    Why don't you post what Judge Flaherty said since you're the one spouting about it.

    There is no need as immediately after the poster said that stopping a car for a road traffic offence such as 'tax and insurance' makes it moot. Like as if they can't understand what they are saying.


  • Options
    #1761
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    joeguevara wrote: »
    I am at no behest to you. But to go through everything:

    You said that doing a U-turn before reaching a checkpoint is an offence - its not.
    You said that erratic driving is an offence. Its not.
    You said that gbh is an offence. Its not.
    You said that Gardaí cannot stop a car at any time. They can.

    Would you ever just jog on.[/

    What absolute nonsense. The high court judgment which you convenient ignore as it rips your points to shreds. Back to kings inn for you.

    What is nonsense at what I said. Go on I dare you to show me. Back to the armchair for you I reckon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1762
    munsterlegend
    Registered Users Posts: 6,186 ✭✭✭munsterlegend


    Witcher wrote: »
    Why don't you post what Judge Flaherty said since you're the one spouting about it.

    I did. It’s a high court judgment. Every legal person in Ireland knows it.


    I’m off anyway. Enjoy your day.


  • Options
    #1763
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 15,110 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    I did. It’s a high court judgment. Every legal person in Ireland knows it.

    Grand, post the text of it and a link to it.


  • Options
    #1764
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Barry has now been advised to stfu and stop making things worse for himself apparently.

    Personally, I reckon he's a goner.
    I wonder what's next for FF. Nine years of journalists sitting on stories just waiting for FF to get back into power.

    Cowen was a bad move by Martin even before this IMHO. The Cowen family name is badly tainted, Martin should have aimed for newer blood in his cabinet.


  • Options
    #1765
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,489 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    I wonder if the accompanying qualified driver was also breathalysed and found to be under the limit on this occasion?

    Would I be right in presuming that they would have to be as there is no mention of any driving unaccompanied charge for Barry Cowen or alternatively a second associated 'drink driving' charge for anyone else.


  • Options
    #1766
    thebaz
    Registered Users Posts: 13,692 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    as stated before no fan of Fianna Fail , but the Independent and its editor seam to be on a personal crusade to destroy Cowen - we all make mistakes and should be forgiven - if Cowen ****s up in Government - hammer him - like his brother did - but this nasty crusade by a National paper , does not seam right to me, people have commited far worse crimes and been forgiven.


  • Options
    #1767
    Auguste Comte
    Registered Users Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭Auguste Comte


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    So if a Garda car is driving behind you and just pulls you over only to satisfy his/her desire that’s ok. Sounds a bit ‘capricious’ to me.
    Here.
    The Gardaí have a common law power to stop motorists at random in order to detect and prevent crime. This power can be used, for example, to stop cars near pubs to identify drunk drivers or in order to check cars passing through an area where a lot of crime had been committed.


  • Options
    #1768
    Snow Garden
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Snow Garden


    munsterlegend wrote: »
    I did. It’s a high court judgment. Every legal person in Ireland knows it.

    I’m off anyway. Enjoy your day.

    Thankfully! You were floundering :)


  • Options
    #1769
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    FishOnABike wrote: »
    I wonder if the accompanying qualified driver was also breathalysed and found to be under the limit on this occasion?

    Would I be right in presuming that they would have to be as there is no mention of any driving unaccompanied charge for Barry Cowen or alternatively a second associated 'drink driving' charge for anyone else.

    the gardai have no power to breathalyse the accompanying driver, assuming there is one.


  • Options
    #1770
    Sunny Disposition
    Registered Users Posts: 2,779 ✭✭✭Sunny Disposition


    Cowen would have been forgiven the drink driving quite easily if he'd just owned up to it without trying to explain it away, but the two pints before the match excuse wasn't believable.
    Doing a U-turn to avoid a check point while over the limit and then claiming the Gardai are lying, surely he can't be allowed to continue in Cabinet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1771
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    thebaz wrote: »
    as stated before no fan of Fianna Fail , but the Independent and its editor seam to be on a personal crusade to destroy Cowen - we all make mistakes and should be forgiven - if Cowen ****s up in Government - hammer him - like his brother did - but this nasty crusade by a National paper , does not seam right to me, people have commited far worse crimes and been forgiven.

    The developments in this story was published by the times, and they have said they were going to release it last week only they had received legal threats about doing so.


Advertisement