Barry Cowen sacked

Floppybits

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.

Any Garda worth their salt would stop anyone if the were driving erratic or if they did a U-turn at a checkpoint. They may not be offences but they are not exactly signs of someone who not under the influence when driving. Maybe when they are stopped there is a valid reason for the action but I would say more often than not it is someone under the influence.

Snow Garden

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.

Ah stop. He has tried to prevent the newspapers revealing certain details about this story and refuses to answers question on it. He is trying to shut it down using bullyboy tactics.

Have a look at this.

https://www.facebook.com/RTEOne/videos/susan-gray-on-barry-cowen/588701991786912/

Last week he promised to answer questions from a road safety group and then did not answer a single question later that day.

There are so many unanswered questions.

ohnonotgmail

Floppybits wrote: »

Any Garda worth their salt would stop anyone if the were driving erratic or if they did a U-turn at a checkpoint. They may not be offences but they are not exactly signs of someone who not under the influence when driving. Maybe when they are stopped there is a valid reason for the action but I would say more often than not it is someone under the influence.

i'm sure a garda would stop a driver in those circumstances but that does not mean they are offences in themselves. they aren't

joeguevara

Floppybits wrote: »

Any Garda worth their salt would stop anyone if the were driving erratic or if they did a U-turn at a checkpoint. They may not be offences but they are not exactly signs of someone who not under the influence when driving. Maybe when they are stopped there is a valid reason for the action but I would say more often than not it is someone under the influence.

No issue with any of that and am in full agreement.

Auguste Comte

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

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.

It's more what his behaviour over time says about his character and suitability for high office rather than any individual event. Although attempting a runner from a checkpoint probably crossed that line no matter what else happened.

Jinglejangle69

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.

Maria Bailey?

Floppybits

Auguste Comte wrote: »

It's more what his behaviour over time says about his character and suitability for high office rather than any individual event. Although attempting a runner from a checkpoint probably crossed that line no matter what else happened.

Ah he may have had a legitimate excuse to do a U-turn, he could have been bursting for a leak and decided he would do a U-turn and find somewhere to go.

Cute Hoor

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.

If he had come out last week with his hands up, no bullsh1t stories about 2 pints 6 hours earlier, precisely and factually answering all the unanswered questions, then this would have been yesterday's news. The fact that he didn't and it appears still won't is ensuring that the rag and others will keep delving. This is all self-inflicted.

Auguste Comte

Floppybits wrote: »

Ah he may have had a legitimate excuse to do a U-turn, he could have been bursting for a leak and decided he would do a U-turn and find somewhere to go.

Someone said he decided to go for pizza in Woking but it might be just gossip.

JeffKenna

I don't know about this two pints. I mean I know it's a lower level for a provisional driver but if I had two pints a few hours earlier and a meal I'd be inclined to drive into the checkpoint and take my chances as opposed to doing a U turn and making it obvious.

expectationlost

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.

its was the Sunday Times who got and found a way to publish the garda record

Sunny Disposition

There was a post on the Garda twitter account that was a clear dig at Cowen, about a driver on a provisional licence having their car seized due to driving unaccompanied and them having been on a learner permit for 15 years.

If the U turn can’t be shown to be a mistake, and at the very least he needa his passenger to agree it didn’t happen, then he’ll surely be fired or Martin and FF have no credibility.

McMurphy

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

There was a post on the Garda twitter account that was a clear dig at Cowen, about a driver on a provisional licence having their car seized due to driving unaccompanied and them having been on a learner permit for 15 years.

If the U turn can’t be shown to be a mistake, and at the very least he needa his passenger to agree it didn’t happen, then he’ll surely be fired or Martin and FF have no credibility.

Imagine if the gards have dashcam footage of the uturn.......

McMurphy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Maria Bailey?

https://twitter.com/Corr2009/status/1282624615370625025?s=19

FishOnABike

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

It seems so.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showthread.php?t=2056925159
though it might pose additional problems for the learner if the accompanying driver was considered to be incapable of exercising their supervisory responsibility
https://www.clareecho.ie/simple-rule-of-thumb-dont-drink-drive-supt-warns-jpc-members/
A second question from Cllr O’Callaghan was in relation to learner drivers and what procedure was followed when their required accompanied qualified driver was drunk. “The accompanied driver cannot be breathalysed but we can give level of his intoxication from observation which would say he is not capable of being responsible for the learner driver,” Galvin outlined.

“There’s no clarity in that, it’s one word against the other,” O’Callaghan observed. “In the courts, a Garda giving evidence of intoxication due to his/her training and experience is deemed a first class witness,” Supt Galvin replied.

He added, “The learner driver isn’t covered to drive then, they are not insured if they don’t have an accompanied driver. An asleep person is deemed to be competent but a drunk person is not, if they were to be woke they could drive the person home whereas a drunk person can’t”.

FishOnABike

McMurphy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Corr2009/status/1282624615370625025?s=19

It's a carcrash waiting to happen.

expectationlost

FishOnABike wrote: »

It seems so.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showthread.php?t=2056925159
though it might pose additional problems for the learner if the accompanying driver was considered to be incapable of exercising their supervisory responsibility
https://www.clareecho.ie/simple-rule-of-thumb-dont-drink-drive-supt-warns-jpc-members/
A second question from Cllr O’Callaghan was in relation to learner drivers and what procedure was followed when their required accompanied qualified driver was drunk. “The accompanied driver cannot be breathalysed but we can give level of his intoxication from observation which would say he is not capable of being responsible for the learner driver,” Galvin outlined.

“There’s no clarity in that, it’s one word against the other,” O’Callaghan observed. “In the courts, a Garda giving evidence of intoxication due to his/her training and experience is deemed a first class witness,” Supt Galvin replied.

He added, “The learner driver isn’t covered to drive then, they are not insured if they don’t have an accompanied driver. An asleep person is deemed to be competent but a drunk person is not, if they were to be woke they could drive the person home whereas a drunk person can’t”.

the law isn't easy to read https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/act/2018/18/eng/enacted/a1818.pdf

hotmail.com

Catherine Martin wants some answers.

Cowen is saying no more about it, apparently upon legal advice.

This is dragging on into a second week of controversy for the government and for the new Taoiseach. Difficult to see how Cowen will survive now.

StackSteevens

hotmail.com wrote: »

Catherine Martin wants some answers.

Cowen is saying no more about it, apparently upon legal advice.

This is dragging on into a second week of controversy for the government and for the new Taoiseach. Difficult to see how Cowen will survive now.

Cunning of her to use the Cowen cockup as a vote-winner. Especially when one remembers Ryan's hapless and hamfisted Dail support for Willie O'Dea back in the Biffo days. (O'Dea resigned 24 hours later!)

alias no.9

dinneenp wrote: »

It's not an offence but doesn't look good. The garda may remember it but I don't know if it's something he/she would officially make a a record of as it's not an offence.

If no record of it, Cowen can contest it but I'd take the word of the garda over him at this stage.

If it wasn't a specific random breath test checkpoint, as far as I know the Garda needs to 'form an opinion that the driver may be intoxicated' before they breathalyse and this is the first thing that will be challenged by a solicitor in court so its very possible that the Garda documented that he turned away from the checkpoint to support their opinion of possible intoxication.

Muahahaha

In Cowens statement yesterday he said that the information given to the Sunday Times could only have come about as the result of a criminal act and he directly needled the Gardai as the suspects. But thats simply not true, his passenger could easily have gone home and told the wife what happened, all about being caught doing a u turn, etc and she then tells someone else and the secret then spreads locally. Equally Barry himself likely told his wife and it could have spread from there, loose lips sink ships and all that.

Anyway Cowen should produce his witness to clear all this up. Instead he is pointing the finger at Gardai who have no good reason to make up lies on their report and put their careers on the line. Im also wondering might his passenger be known to us and the Sunday Times are keeping their powder dry (for now)

SeaFields

Was there definitely a passenger? Has he said that?

expectationlost

SeaFields wrote: »

Was there definitely a passenger? Has he said that?

yes

expectationlost

Muahahaha wrote: »

In Cowens statement yesterday he said that the information given to the Sunday Times could only have come about as the result of a criminal act and he directly needled the Gardai as the suspects. But thats simply not true, his passenger could easily have gone home and told the wife what happened, all about being caught doing a u turn, etc and she then tells someone else and the secret then spreads locally. Equally Barry himself likely told his wife and it could have spread from there, loose lips sink ships and all that.

the ST said they had they Garda record

ronivek

Muahahaha wrote: »

In Cowens statement yesterday he said that the information given to the Sunday Times could only have come about as the result of a criminal act and he directly needled the Gardai as the suspects. But thats simply not true, his passenger could easily have gone home and told the wife what happened, all about being caught doing a u turn, etc and she then tells someone else and the secret then spreads locally. Equally Barry himself likely told his wife and it could have spread from there, loose lips sink ships and all that.

Unless as he contests there was in fact no u-turn; and that the Garda record is incorrect. In which case how would anyone other than the Gardai know about any supposed u-turn?

McMurphy

ronivek wrote: »

Unless as he contests there was in fact no u-turn; and that the Garda record is incorrect. In which case how would anyone other than the Gardai know about any supposed u-turn?

That's not what he is contesting though, Cowen used fairly well crafted words and terminology.

Barry Cowen wrote:

I did not evade, or attempt to evade, a Garda. Such an act would constitute a serious criminal offence and I was not charged with such an offence. On being informed of its existence I sought a copy of this incorrect record and am taking steps under the Data Protection Act to have it corrected.

He's not saying he did not perform a U-turn/turnaround from the checkpoint, he's saying he didn't evade a checkpoint, fairly carefully chosen words I suspect.

The only problem with it would be this part.

Such an act would constitute a serious criminal offence and I was not charged with such an offence.

as I don't believe it to be correct, is there a specific law about evading a checkpoint? How do you prove something like that in court?

I'm guessing Barry released that statement of his own bat, ie not via a lawyer.

Mortelaro

Muahahaha wrote: »

In Cowens statement yesterday he said that the information given to the Sunday Times could only have come about as the result of a criminal act and he directly needled the Gardai as the suspects. But thats simply not true, his passenger could easily have gone home and told the wife what happened, all about being caught doing a u turn, etc and she then tells someone else and the secret then spreads locally. Equally Barry himself likely told his wife and it could have spread from there, loose lips sink ships and all that.

Anyway Cowen should produce his witness to clear all this up. Instead he is pointing the finger at Gardai who have no good reason to make up lies on their report and put their careers on the line. Im also wondering might his passenger be known to us and the Sunday Times are keeping their powder dry (for now)

I don't think the Times would go to press on the likes of that
They must in my opinion either have a direct witness or the pulse document
If its the latter and its been accessed recently, then its pretty easy to see who accessed it
I'm thinking recent access is likely to show up as its a 4 year old record
In the Claire Daly arrest,the leak was on the day of her arrest
Big difference

Mortelaro

McMurphy wrote: »

He's not saying he did not perform a U-turn/turnaround from the checkpoint, he's saying he didn't evade a checkpoint, fairly carefully chosen words I suspect.

.

The words used Could also be the words someone or their solicitor who hadn't yet seen a copy of whats on pulse would use

Auguste Comte

McMurphy wrote: »

He's not saying he did not perform a U-turn/turnaround from the checkpoint, he's saying he didn't evade a checkpoint, fairly carefully chosen words I suspect.

He's not even saying that he didn't evade a checkpoint, in fact he never mentioned a checkpoint.

He said that

"I did not evade, or attempt to evade, a Garda"

And as you said, these guys chose their words very carefully.

So he still has the option of claiming to have turned back from the checkpoint for XYX reason, definitely not because he knew that he was sailing close to the wind in relation to the drink and when persued by the guards he stopped and so didn't attempt to evade them.

I'd like at hear him answer the following question "were you pursued by the Guards before you were brethalised?

Because he is attempting to put out the story that he didn't turn back from the checkpoint.

padd b1975

Muahahaha wrote: »

Anyway Cowen should produce his witness to clear all this up. Instead he is pointing the finger at Gardai who have no good reason to make up lies on their report and put their careers on the line. Im also wondering might his passenger be known to us and the Sunday Times are keeping their powder dry (for now)

Was the brother.....eh.....compus mentis in September 2016?

If he was, what are the chances of him being sober on the way home from an AI final....

Id say the pair of them were steaming.