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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Driver (21) banned from driving for 45yrs

2»

Comments

  • #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Some ridiculous Pc posts in here.. He's clearly a dangerous driver and will reoffend within days of being released.
    If he broke his 25yr ban, he should be back in jail for 5 years minimum. Otherwise, why do any of us have insurance or licenses?
    There's a special fund built out of all our premiums that pays for the crashes these guys get into. If we don't lock them up when they reoffend, why wouldn't he keep driving?


  • #53
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Some ridiculous Pc posts in here..

    I don't think you know what "Politically correct" means.

    Which posts are you referring too?


  • #54
    orourkeda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,918 ✭✭✭✭orourkeda


    Interestingly, the judge banned him even though the previous ban was ignored.

    He wouldnt imprison him because he said it didnt work the first time.

    The opposite outcome in two different circumstances even though the same logic appears to have been used. Bizarre


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    I don't think you know what "Politically correct" means.

    Which posts are you referring too?

    Yours and I know what it means.. I have a "burn them at the stake" attitude and you have a "let's see if prison reforms the scumbags" attitude.

    Both fair except that he will re-offend and could hurt someone innocent.


  • #56
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Deleted User wrote: »
    you have a "let's see if prison reforms the scumbags" attitude.

    I don't have a "reforms the scumbags attitude" because I feel that he is serving a sentence and should be giving the chance to see if it has had an effect on his behavior.

    That is NOT "Politically correct" attitude.


  • #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    I don't have a "reforms the scumbags attitude" because I feel that he is serving a sentence and should be giving the chance to see if it has had an effect on his behavior.

    That is NOT "Politically correct" attitude.

    Can you explain the difference? Maybe I don't actually know then..


  • #58
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can you explain the difference? Maybe I don't actually know then..

    When someone is 'Political Correct' it means that what they say conforms to a set thinking that's main goal is not offend political sensibilities.

    Saying someone has been sentenced, let's see if that has the desired effect is a far cry from trying not offend political sensibilities.


  • #59
    Bonito
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,399 ✭✭✭Bonito


    They should crush the next car he's caught driving in.
    With him inside.


  • #60
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    OutlawPete wrote: »


    What do you expect by asking: "Why do people in poverty need to watch tv so badly?"

    It's a ridiculous question / comment.



    So they should just sit around the wireless should they?

    Well what other activities that cost money for everyone else shoul they be allowed to do for free?

    Why do you feel free access to tv for poverty stricken families is such an important thing and should be some sort of focal point to their lives?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Stekelly wrote: »
    Well what other activities that cost money for everyone else shoul they be allowed to do for free?

    yawn


  • #62
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    yawn

    See you just keep throwign in comments like that without any actual answer or reason for saying what you do.

    What about the guy in the article, maybe he's poverty stricken. Should we allow him to drive without insurance?


  • #63
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Stekelly wrote: »
    See you just keep throwign in comments like that without any actual answer or reason for saying what you do.

    What do expect?

    You ask: "Well what other activities that cost money for everyone else shoul they be allowed to do for free?"

    If you don't want trite answers, don't ask trite questions.
    Stekelly wrote: »
    What about the guy in the article, maybe he's poverty stricken. Should we allow him to drive without insurance?

    The guy is in JAIL for that.

    Did I once say he shouldn't be??

    No.


  • #64
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    What do expect?

    You ask: "Well what other activities that cost money for everyone else shoul they be allowed to do for free?"

    If you don't want trite answers, don't ask trite questions.

    Your dragging it along these lines on your own.

    Your the one saying poverty stricken people cant afford tv licences. All I did was counter that with how can they afford the tv's and services so. You then went off on your childish snipeing.

    Forget your opinion on what I was doing and give a reason why someone who can afford a TV and the services to show the stations they want should then be able to clam they cant afford the licence required and should be alowed carry on regardless.

    The simpl fact is, if you want to own a tv you need a licence. Just like you need a licence for many other things. If you cant afford a licence for something, dont try avail of the services the licence allows.


  • #65
    thetonynator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭thetonynator


    would i be right in thinking that tv licences and the cost of them has very little to do with the state of the irish judicial system, which was the original topic??? :rolleyes:

    Obviously extending his sentence isn't goingt ot do anything because he just ignored the last one, so yes, the courts need to man up a bit and put people in jail. Speaking of which, our jails are way too nice for criminals . . .


  • #66
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    thetonynator wrote: »
    Obviously extending his sentence isn't goingt ot do anything because he just ignored the last one, so yes, the courts need to man up a bit and put people in jail. Speaking of which, our jails are way too nice for criminals . . .

    Extending his sentence will keep him off the roads.. The entire point of a judicial system is to try stop people re-offending. ie. Re-habilitate.
    If they continue re-offending, taking away their freedom is the only way to do this.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Extending his sentence will keep him off the roads.. The entire point of a judicial system is to try stop people re-offending. ie. Re-habilitate.
    If they continue re-offending, taking away their freedom is the only way to do this.

    I think he meant extendign the ban wont keep him off the road.

    Obviously extending his jail time would.:)


  • #68
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Stekelly wrote: »
    Your dragging it along these lines on your own.

    Your asking the questions, how am I to blame for your questions.
    Stekelly wrote: »
    Your the one saying poverty stricken people cant afford tv licences. All I did was counter that with how can they afford the tv's and services so.

    That's NOT "all you did".

    You said:
    Stekelly wrote: »
    Well what other activities that cost money for everyone else shoul they be allowed to do for free?

    A far cry from what you said above.

    It's a trite thing to say.

    The vast majority of people that get jailed for non-payment of fines are on welfare.

    People live hand to mouth and it is hard to find money for utility bills, rent, food. The TV licence is natually the one bill people will put to the side.
    Stekelly wrote: »
    give a reason why someone who can afford a TV and the services to show the stations they want should then be able to clam they cant afford the licence required and should be alowed carry on regardless.

    You're presuming these people have Sky Subscriptions and NTL packages, I have addressed this point, read the thread.
    Stekelly wrote: »
    Just like you need a licence for many other things..

    And they would be?
    Stekelly wrote: »
    If you cant afford a licence for something, dont try avail of the services the licence allows.

    So someone with a family full of kids should just sell the TV should they hit tough financial times?


  • #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stekelly wrote: »
    I think he meant extendign the ban wont keep him off the road.

    Obviously extending his jail time would.:)

    I was a bit confused by his post but ran ahead with my own point anyway :cool:


  • #70
    crossmolinalad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 837 ✭✭✭crossmolinalad


    Maybe an idea
    imposible to buy or have a car on your name if u dont have a driverslicence??
    And if u have one on your name u automaticly get your roadtax bill at home
    Its the way it works in the Netherlands

    and have to prove that u pay your car insurance
    drivers licence+car papers+car insurance= paying and getting roadtaxdisc
    Not paying them = loosing your car


  • #71
    Stench Blossoms
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,390 ✭✭✭Stench Blossoms


    crossmolinalad wrote: »
    Maybe an idea
    imposible to buy or have a car on your name if u dont have a driverslicence??
    And if u have one on your name u automaticly get your roadtax bill at home
    Its the way it works in the Netherlands

    I think thats a really good idea.

    I like the idea of insurance being taken out of his dole money but at the same time that would mean that he'd still be allowed on the road, and with his previous convictions I'd say he wouldn't be able to get a quote off any insurance company.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yours and I know what it means.. I have a "burn them at the stake" attitude and you have a "let's see if prison reforms the scumbags" attitude.

    Both fair except that he will re-offend and could hurt someone innocent.
    Exactly. Which is why he shouldnt have not been given a custodial sentence instead he was given a ,laughable imo, driving ban. He probably drove home from the hearing FFS
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Extending his sentence will keep him off the roads.. The entire point of a judicial system is to try stop people re-offending. ie. Re-habilitate.
    If they continue re-offending, taking away their freedom is the only way to do this.
    +1
    Stekelly wrote: »
    I think he meant extendign the ban wont keep him off the road.

    Obviously extending his jail time would.:)
    +1 again


  • #73
    recylingbin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭recylingbin


    It's a pity he didn't play rugby. He could have gotten a pat on the back for himself and a free character reference from Mick Galwey.


  • #74
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    I think this is stupid tbh, What use is banning him for 45 years going to do? I think that surely is a breach of human rights for free movement considering that there is no effective public transport in Ireland. All the Judicary have done is wasted money on court cases and should have just sentenced him to prison for a maximum of 5 years and when released force him to sit a driving test and if caught in breach again jail him for another 5.

    I was hit by an uninsured driver before and I never got a penny and had to repair my own car, and the offending driver wasn't even prosecuted.

    Motor Insurance in Ireland is mandatory but it is done all wrong, firstly it is far too expensive and what needs to be done here is for there to be a National Insurance company state owned which levies a minimum of third party insurance on the Motor tax and blend the two into one.

    If you have private motor insurance you can waive a percentage of the tax then. This way Motortax and Insurance are better linked and there should be the ability for wage garnishing to pay for this instead of lumping up a grand once a year. The tolls should also be changed into a vignette system for our Motorways where a driver who regularly uses the Motorways buys an Electronic Vignette for say €250/year with monthly and lesser period available.

    The current PAYG system could also exist for tourists and daytrippers to All-Ireland finals etc. The current PAYG system for commuters is a total ripoff and the M3 will be a white elephant due to the two tolls.

    Sorry for going OT but these are the sort of motoring reforms needed here.


  • #75
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Considering the crime, it's not that serious really. It's serious in the states eyes. The things we get worked up over.. :rolleyes:

    Before somebody loses it, I mean no tax insurance nct... Dangerous driving (however they define that one on the day) is something he should go to jail for.


  • #76
    El Siglo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭El Siglo


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo


  • #77
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    recylingbin wrote: »
    It's a pity he didn't play rugby. He could have gotten a pat on the back for himself and a free character reference from Mick Galwey.
    Ahh, it's all so clear now. It's a class thing, and the judiciary are keeping the lower classes under the thumb through driving bans etc. Right? :rolleyes:


  • #78
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,723 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    In before Eddie Halvey. Because you know, you can run over a kid, drunk off your face, and still walk around, with your freedom to use the internet. So yeah, I hope he does come in here and have a say. Eddie? Eddie?


  • #79
    recylingbin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,001 ✭✭✭recylingbin


    Nevore wrote: »
    Ahh, it's all so clear now. It's a class thing, and the judiciary are keeping the lower classes under the thumb through driving bans etc. Right? :rolleyes:

    You've confused wealth with class.

    If you doubt the veracity of my claims, ask the families of Kevin Walsh and Senan Waters about the blindness of our justice system.

    http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/Eddie-Halvey-receives-suspended-sentence.5258819.jp

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/undertaker-71-gets-two-years-for-causing-crash-that-killed-teen-2057968.html


  • #80
    PCPhoto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,584 ✭✭✭PCPhoto


    guys (and ladies) .... can we get back on topic ?

    or has this thread run its course ? the guy was given a further ban after he ignored a 25yr ban - a serious misjudgement on the behalf of the judge in my opinion.

    @I am Xavier : "Considering the crime, it's not that serious really. It's serious in the states eyes. The things we get worked up over..

    Before somebody loses it, I mean no tax insurance nct... Dangerous driving (however they define that one on the day) is something he should go to jail for."

    If you read the story correctly its not just no tax/insurance/nct - this guy has plenty of opportunity to change his ways (minimum 10 previous convictions for road traffic offences - which also include failing to stop for gardai - which in my mind means he drove past/through a checkpoint in an attempt to avoid being caught as he knew he was driving illegally at the time)

    Lets face it you dont get a 25yr ban without committing some SERIOUS road offences .... and if you ignore it ...you just get the ban extended....judicial system in my mind if seriously flawed - where is the logic ...guy breaks the law, gets a punishment...ignores punishment....gets similar punishment for ignoring first punishment - he should have gotten a jail sentence for breaking ignoring the court order of a 25yr ban.

    one question : where is the incentive not to re-offend ? he didnt get punished properly, at 21yrs of age to have 10 previous convictions for road offences means he is ignorant of the rules of the road and a high risk of re-offending, the best punishment is to take him off the roads and protect those that actually pay to be on the roads and obide by the rules.


  • #81
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    PCPhoto wrote: »
    guys (and ladies) .... can we get back on topic ?

    or has this thread run its course ? the guy was given a further ban after he ignored a 25yr ban - a serious misjudgement on the behalf of the judge in my opinion.

    @I am Xavier : "Considering the crime, it's not that serious really. It's serious in the states eyes. The things we get worked up over..

    Before somebody loses it, I mean no tax insurance nct... Dangerous driving (however they define that one on the day) is something he should go to jail for."

    If you read the story correctly its not just no tax/insurance/nct - this guy has plenty of opportunity to change his ways (minimum 10 previous convictions for road traffic offences - which also include failing to stop for gardai - which in my mind means he drove past/through a checkpoint in an attempt to avoid being caught as he knew he was driving illegally at the time)

    Lets face it you dont get a 25yr ban without committing some SERIOUS road offences .... and if you ignore it ...you just get the ban extended....judicial system in my mind if seriously flawed - where is the logic ...guy breaks the law, gets a punishment...ignores punishment....gets similar punishment for ignoring first punishment - he should have gotten a jail sentence for breaking ignoring the court order of a 25yr ban.

    one question : where is the incentive not to re-offend ? he didnt get punished properly, at 21yrs of age to have 10 previous convictions for road offences means he is ignorant of the rules of the road and a high risk of re-offending, the best punishment is to take him off the roads and protect those that actually pay to be on the roads and obide by the rules.

    I know, that's why I said this:

    "Before somebody loses it, I mean no tax insurance nct... Dangerous driving (however they define that one on the day) is something he should go to jail for."

    :P Going to jail for no tax or insurances or nct = crazy in my opinion, but I said he should definately be sent to jail for dangerous driving (Which includes failing to stop for Gardai)

    I don't like some of these laws though, they lack detail.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    positron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,426 ✭✭✭positron


    Why would the state want to waste tax payers money on people like this is beyond me. He is a serial offender with no respect for law, and he has been an adult for a few years, and I am guessing he doesn't have any mental disorders that he need help with. So here we have a man who just want to break the rules and deny other people the right to live peacefully. Why spend our money and resources on a person who surely doesn't have even the basic understanding of values and responsibility to us?

    Soylent green! :pac:


  • #83
    PCPhoto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,584 ✭✭✭PCPhoto


    Esme Immense Wall wrote: »
    I know, that's why I said this:

    "Before somebody loses it, I mean no tax insurance nct... Dangerous driving (however they define that one on the day) is something he should go to jail for."

    :P Going to jail for no tax or insurances or nct = crazy in my opinion, but I said he should definately be sent to jail for dangerous driving (Which includes failing to stop for Gardai)

    I don't like some of these laws though, they lack detail.

    I think theres a bit of confusion between our posts - what I'm saying is that since this guy is repeatedly breaking the laws (no tax, insurance, nct) he deserves jail time, if it was a once off I would have no problem (no jail allowed) but blatantly ignoring them after previous court appearances when you receive a 25yr driving ban....the guy should be put away so he cant drive illegally.

    if someone cant afford tax/insurance or if the NCT is out of date - there is ALWAYS a period of grace to allow them to make amends, ignoring this REPEATEDLY should definately result in jail time.


  • #84
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    PCPhoto wrote: »
    I think theres a bit of confusion between our posts - what I'm saying is that since this guy is repeatedly breaking the laws (no tax, insurance, nct) he deserves jail time, if it was a once off I would have no problem (no jail allowed) but blatantly ignoring them after previous court appearances when you receive a 25yr driving ban....the guy should be put away so he cant drive illegally.

    if someone cant afford tax/insurance or if the NCT is out of date - there is ALWAYS a period of grace to allow them to make amends, ignoring this REPEATEDLY should definately result in jail time.

    Oh yes, I understood you mate. I personally just think it's nuts going to jail for it. Well community time (which he wont do anyway) or something else. I dunno, jail is probably the best place for him but I just think it's a bit harsh. Sorry :P


  • #85
    Seloth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,039 ✭✭✭Seloth


    Ya it does in some cases but This fella deserved the 45 years if hes cocky or stupid enough to do that.

    My friends been pulled over several times and he's only been driving just over a month...Allot of times asking and searching for drugs which we dont do or have yet fellas speed past there Barracks at 250 million miles an hour(no exaduration :p)) and all through out the town as well as a straight country lane where my house is located and they seldom stop them :mad:


Advertisement