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

Driver (21) banned from driving for 45yrs

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Bazzy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,484 ✭✭✭Bazzy


    definitely thinking atari jaguar on this one!


  • Options
    #33
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Max Power1 wrote: »
    lets see how you feel if those "apples and oranges" crash into your brand new car and not insured - leaving you ti pick up the tab.
    You should be sent to prison for breaking the speed limit by 1km/hr... MURDERER!!!!!!

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #34
    cafecolour
    Registered Users Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭cafecolour


    I can't make up my mind TBH.

    On one hand, it's clear that increasing 'driving bans' aren't going to stop him from driving (and perhaps encourage him to drive more recklessly if he thinks he's going to be caught).

    On the other hand, putting someone in prison because they didn't buy insurance (even multiple times) seems sort of ridiculous, almost akin to debtor's prison. I mean, should someone go to jail since they keep not buying a television license but have a telly?

    This might even be more big brother-ish, but I'd almost say after the second offense, basically just 'force' him to buy insurance by taking it directly out of his wages (or his dole).


  • Options
    #35
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    MaybeLogic wrote: »
    Driving against the ban will result in a custodial sentence. Something that hangs over him for quite a while.

    :confused: He was driving against the initial 25 year ban this time and did'nt get a custodial sentence.




    EDIT, others got there first :-)


  • Options
    #36
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    cafecolour wrote: »
    I mean, should someone go to jail since they keep not buying a television license but have a telly?

    They do all the time.

    People are sitting in an overcrowded dirty cell in Mountjoy now for not paying for their TV licence.

    If you read some of the district court reporting in some of the regional papers it would shock you to see what people are imprisoned for.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    cafecolour wrote: »
    This might even be more big brother-ish, but I'd almost say after the second offense, basically just 'force' him to buy insurance by taking it directly out of his wages (or his dole).
    Now that's an interesting idea. They can and do garnish peoples wages to claw back child support, debt etc. But that's a case where the money is owed, whereas car insurance is a discretionary purchase.
    What I mean is, what to do if he just turns around and says he doesn't plan on driving anymore? That he won't even be buying a car (something that could be tracked).
    Do you force him to take out an open comp policy?


  • Options
    #38
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    They do all the time.

    People are sitting in an overcrowded dirty cell in Mountjoy now for not paying for their TV licence.

    If you read some of the district court reporting in some of the regional papers it would shock you to see what people are imprisoned for.
    The flipside of that is that it'd shock a lot of people to see what people aren't imprisoned for.
    Whether someone agrees or disagrees with this particular judgement, I think everyone agrees on the need for judicial/sentencing reform in general.


  • Options
    #39
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Ah come on! He's in prison right now, what's the point in keeping him there? When he get's out I'm sure he'll think twice about doing it again.

    Course he will :rolleyes:
    cafecolour wrote: »
    This might even be more big brother-ish, but I'd almost say after the second offense, basically just 'force' him to buy insurance by taking it directly out of his wages (or his dole).


    Force him to buy insurance for what? He doesnt officially drive. He'll just say he desnt drive anymore till he's caught again.


  • Options
    #40
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Stekelly wrote: »
    :confused: He was driving against the initial 25 year ban this time and did'nt get a custodial sentence.

    We critique judges here everyday but here I think the judge got it right.

    This is the man's first time being imprisoned for driving related offenses.

    The judge wants to see if being imprisoned has changed the man's behavior with reagards to driving.

    What it so wrong with that?


  • Options
    #41
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    They do all the time.

    People are sitting in an overcrowded dirty cell in Mountjoy now for not paying for their TV licence.

    If you read some of the district court reporting in some of the regional papers it would shock you to see what people are imprisoned for.

    No they're not. They are sitting in prison for refuseing to do as they were told by the court ie. go get a tv licence and pay the fine for not having one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    cafecolour
    Registered Users Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭cafecolour


    Nevore wrote: »
    What I mean is, what to do if he just turns around and says he doesn't plan on driving anymore? That he won't even be buying a car (something that could be tracked).
    Do you force him to take out an open comp policy?

    I wouldn't do it on the first offense, but if he's done it multiple times, then yes, I'd err on the side that he'll do it again.

    Or maybe just take the vehicle - ie 2nd or 3rd time caught driving uninsured, you permanently forfeit the vehicle you were driving.


  • Options
    #43
    cafecolour
    Registered Users Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭cafecolour


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    They do all the time.

    People are sitting in an overcrowded dirty cell in Mountjoy now for not paying for their TV licence.

    Wow. That's insane. I'd say either garnish their wages for it, or maybe take their telly.


  • Options
    #44
    cafecolour
    Registered Users Posts: 1,328 ✭✭✭cafecolour


    Stekelly wrote: »
    Force him to buy insurance for what? He doesnt officially drive. He'll just say he desnt drive anymore till he's caught again.

    I mean after a 2nd or 3rd offense, essentially assume he's going to drive and force him to buy insurance even if he claims he's not going to drive any more.


  • Options
    #45
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Stekelly wrote: »
    No they're not. They are sitting in prison for refuseing to do as they were told by the court ie. go get a tv licence and pay the fine for not having one.

    Their initial crime was not to have a TV licence.

    Usually people that don't have a license, have none because they can't afford one.

    If they end up in prison for not paying the fine it is even more of a disgrace.

    We are effectively locking up people for being in poverty.


  • Options
    #46
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Their initial crime was not to have a TV licence..

    That's not what they were locked up for. It's very black and white, you cant just say it and expect it to be true.
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Usually people that don't have a license, have none because they can't afford one.

    If they end up in prison for not paying the fine it is even more of a disgrace.

    We are effectively locking up people for being in poverty.

    Bull. Most people who dont have a licence d it because they either think they wont be caught, couldnt be arsed buying one or because hey are "fighting the system" by not buiying a licence for a tv and because " I dotn watch RTE , it's crap"

    Even if what you said was true, why do people in poverty need to watch tv so badly? and how are they paying for NTL or sky? (or are you goign to tell me every one of them uses rabbit ears and watches RTE?)


  • Options
    #47
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Stekelly wrote: »
    Most people who dont have a licence d it because they either think they wont be caught, couldnt be arsed buying one or because hey are "fighting the system" by not buiying a licence for a tv and because " I dotn watch RTE , it's crap"

    If what you say was true, then why don't they pay the fine???

    You really think people would rather go to jail than pay a fine.

    Wake up.
    Stekelly wrote: »
    Even if what you said was true, why do people in poverty need to watch tv so badly?

    And there was me thinking you were serious, guess not.
    Stekelly wrote: »
    and how are they paying for NTL or sky? (or are you goign to tell me every one of them uses rabbit ears and watches RTE?)

    Not all picking up the terrestrial signals maybe, I have a seven year old dish and receiver and I get Free To Air, perhaps they do the same.


  • Options
    #48
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    If what you say was true, then why don't they pay the fine???

    You really think people would rather go to jail than pay a fine.

    Wake up..

    TBH I'd say most dont think a judge would have the balls to send them to jail. Others have done it as a form of protest,

    You mae it sound like here are thousands of people rottign for years in jail.:rolleyes:


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    And there was me thinking you were serious, guess not.
    ..

    Nice. Throw in a little comment like that with no arguement. I guess you win.

    If peopel are in poverty and cant pay bills TV should be fairly low or their list of priorities.


  • Options
    #49
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Stekelly wrote: »
    You mae it sound like here are thousands of people rottign for years in jail.:rolleyes:

    By saying that they go to Jail, I'm making it sound like they are "rottign for years in jail".

    If you say so.
    Stekelly wrote: »
    Nice. Throw in a little comment like that with no arguement. I guess you win.

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

    It's a ridiculous question / comment.
    Stekelly wrote: »
    If peopel are in poverty and cant pay bills TV should be fairly low or their list of priorities.

    So they should just sit around the wireless should they?


  • Options
    #50
    PCPhoto
    Registered Users Posts: 6,584 ✭✭✭PCPhoto


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    We critique judges here everyday but here I think the judge got it right.

    This is the man's first time being imprisoned for driving related offenses.

    The judge wants to see if being imprisoned has changed the man's behavior with reagards to driving.

    What it so wrong with that?

    how do we know its his first time in jail for driving related offences ? in the story it says he had 10 previous convictions for no tax/insurance/failing to stop for garda etc (which to me means speeding away from them 'cos he knew he was driving illegally)

    I can see what you are saying that maybe a stint in prison will "open his eyes" but I think that given a previous 25yr ban - which he ignored - its more than likely he wont give 2 sh1ts, there will be no way of tracking him if he drives a car.


  • Options
    #51
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    PCPhoto wrote: »
    how do we know its his first time in jail for driving related offences ?

    We don't, but I don't think the judge would have worded his comments the way he did, were it not his first driving related custodial sentence.
    PCPhoto wrote: »
    I can see what you are saying that maybe a stint in prison will "open his eyes" but I think that given a previous 25yr ban - which he ignored - its more than likely he wont give 2 sh1ts, there will be no way of tracking him if he drives a car.

    Well, then he will deserve a further spell in prison.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [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?


  • Options
    #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?


  • Options
    #54
    orourkeda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,919 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [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..


  • Options
    #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.


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


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


  • Options
    #60
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #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


Advertisement