If you had the power to make/repeal one law, what would it be?

Quaver

I would get rid of the double jeopardy rule.

It really bothers me that people can appeal a conviction, but the State can't appeal an acquittal. Obviously I would still put some limitations on it, such as there has to be new evidence, or the acquittal would be on a technicality or something.

Anyone else have any ideas?

Sangre

Clubs/pubs closing hours. Forces everyone onto the streets at the exact same time pissed after downing their last drinks. Puts huge strain on taxis, food, buses and gardai.

Latchy

Sangre wrote: »

Clubs/pubs closing hours. Forces everyone onto the streets at the exact same time pissed after downing their last drinks. Puts huge strain on taxis, food, buses and gardai.

And casualty hospital staff who have to deal with the mess .

I think drunks and others who make a nuisance of themselfs in hospitals after closing time should be billed .

McCrack

Get rid of PIAB so the PIAB Acts and before anybody posts something cynical no it doesnt cut legal costs as the government would like people to think it actually adds both costs and time to a plaintiffs action.

But lawyers ultimately benefit from the additional costs it adds but the injured party suffers.

It's a farce.

Hooch

Close ever single little silly loophole in drink driving legislation. If you drive while drunk you dont deserve to get off on something stupid.

McCrack

nice guy always wrote: »

Close ever single little silly loophole in drink driving legislation. If you drive while drunk you dont deserve to get off on something stupid.

To be fair there are no 'silly loopholes' in the legislation, there are some Gardai that make silly mistakes that result in charges getting struck out.

Fighting Irish

A law that every law in the country should be reviewed every 4 or 5 years

Our man in Havana

Repeal the sections of the Road Traffic Act that allow the Gardaí to state a person was speeding without proof that can be questioned in court, ie the sections that say speed measurement devices cannot be challenged.

Hooch

McCrack wrote: »

To be fair there are no 'silly loopholes' in the legislation, there are some Gardai that make silly mistakes that result in charges getting struck out.

I take your point and i suppose i have no choice but agree with you (thankfully havint ever made a mistake big enough to get a 49 struck out). I should re phrase it, the law should be like France. If your caught and over the limit then your convicted. Simple. Over the limit is over the limit and driving is driving.

I really hope that no one would disagree that it is wrong to drink and drive.

Tom Young

I'd:

1. Reduce the duration for serious criminal offences to 12 months (disengaging the Bail Act 1991 from the current 5 year duration);

2. Re-introduce the vagrancy act as quickly as I could; and

3. Replace sentencing guidelines to cater for determinate sentencing policy which has recently been the subject of judicial review at the Court of Criminal Appeal - CCA, to cater foe what I believe to be suitable punishment to fit crimes of excessive depravity.

Tom

Sparks

I'm torn between a law that requires that all new legislation be required to provide restatements of all amended acts so that we only have one act to read for the primary legislation instead of a dozen or so; a law that requires that all SIs be published in at least one central publicly accessible place (in full); and a law that changes the burden of proof in defamation cases so that either the plaintiff has to prove defamation (or, failing that, that there at least be some form or protection from SLAPP cases).

Tom Young

Most if not all SI's and acts are all available on www.irishstatutebook.ie - Sometimes there is a delay in publication and if so they can be got from Irish Oifiguil - Irish Official Journal.

I don't get your point on Burden's of Proof in Defamation cases, can you explain please?

There is protection from SLAPP here too via rules of court.

Tom

Sparks

IrishStatuteBook.ie is great, but when the SI is initally published, it's sometimes awkward to find unless you go into the publications office physically (and not all of us can do that easily). We had some problems getting a hold of SIs (commencement orders to be exact) a year or three ago for new bits of the Firearms Acts over that.

By the burden of proof, what I mean is that it seems that all you have to do to intimidate with the libel laws is to merely threaten to sue for libel - most people don't have a war chest handy to mount a legal defence in court. If it was required that the plaintiff show that the alleged defamatory statements were in fact not fair comment or true statements, that would prevent that (though it does then raise the issue of people damaging other people's good names with relative impunity becuase most people don't have a war chest handy to mount a legal challange in court).
It just seems we're at one end of the pendulum swing at the moment, if that analogy makes sense.

As to the protection from SLAPP through rules of court, would you have any more specific references? Even just a pointer in the right direction?

Tom Young

Threats should be viewed as just that. On review, there freedoms of expression are widening quite a bit and have been doing so for a number of years and also on a legislative basis - ECHR and our ECHR Act 2003.

In relation to SLAPP there are a number of mechanisms: -

The main one is timelines - There are guidelines by which litigants should act in for filing papers, if these are not adhered to actions 'can be' dismissed for want of prosecution, this is just one aspect. Lodgments or payments into court can also deter impecunious litigants. There are a myriad of differing approaches, but most barristers will be fine tuned to deal with such items.

Discovery, particulars and interrogatories are becoming more widely used to get to the bottom of cases e.g., to prove or disprove the investigation of fact in a given case or story, say in defamation or any action.

darragh666

I thought it was held in O Shea that the state could appeal acquitals.

Quaver

darragh666 wrote: »

I thought it was held in O Shea that the state could appeal acquitals.

Only in Judge-directed acquittals, and even then it's highly unlikely for it to actually happen. They can also appeal the leniency of a sentence.

I'm open to correction though?

McCrack

There's no right to appeal acquittal either judge-directed or otherwise.
What O'Shea did was confirm that the Supreme Court cannot interfere with an acquital.

The power of the prosecution are very limited re appealing acquittal, really only limited to appeals on points of law stemming from the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 but whose determinations have no effect on the person acquitted.

Rabeile31

I would introduce something to stop people's social benefits if they committed a crime and were convicted for it.

i see it all the time the same people gettin their benefit money from the post office and heading straight to the off license to buy alcohol and that night would damage property or fight on the streets!

It really annoys me to see them get away with it, especially when other peole have to work hard for their money

Rashers

A mandatory 5 year custodial sentence for anyone found in possession of an unlicensed firearm.

Quaver

Rashers wrote: »

A mandatory 5 year custodial sentence for anyone found in possession of an unlicensed firearm.

Great idea, I'll second that! Why would anyone have an unlicenced firearm without intending to use it either to threaten or harm somebody.

freefromgov

Quaver wrote: »

Great idea, I'll second that! Why would anyone have an unlicenced firearm without intending to use it either to threaten or harm somebody.

Interesting Point you raise there Quaver!

Well you are making an assumption that anyone with an unlicenced firearm must be up to no good.
Man accross the globe for many, many years has been in such a state.

Quaver

freefromgov wrote: »

Interesting Point you raise there Quaver!

Well you are making an assumption that anyone with an unlicenced firearm must be up to no good.
Man accross the globe for many, many years has been in such a state.

In this country in today's society, there is no need for an unlicenced firearm.

Sparks

With the obvious allowances for genuine edge cases such as someone coming back from holiday with a toy gun in their possession that technically isn't in compliance with the firearms acts in this jurisdiction - ie, where it's a genuinely innocent mistake - then yes, please, mandatory sentencing for anyone holding an unlicenced firearm.

freefromgov

Quaver wrote: »

In this country in today's society, there is no need for an unlicenced firearm.

So what in your opinion does a licence do exactly?
I have looked at the S.I. in relation to firearms and I fail to see how they would prevent anyone that wishes to do harm to another from doing so.
They do not seem to be deterring criminals from getting firearms and using them in any way....... It could be argued that if that Plumber lad that was shot dead for being in the wrong place at the wrong time had a firearm perhaps he could have defended himself and not have been killed, in fact he may well could have saved the other man that was shot, and if he was found to be a criminal that hurts people then he could have recieved his just desert. Now I am not suggesting that the Plumber (I don't know his name) should have been carring an un-licenced firearm perhaps one with a licence, but I fail to see the reason you believe a licence will or would make a difference other than generate finance for the licencee.
Peace to you all

freefromgov

Quaver wrote: »

Great idea, I'll second that! Why would anyone have an unlicenced firearm without intending to use it either to threaten or harm somebody.

Oh another thing crossed my mind. Do you believe then that firearm licences should be difficult to obtain? or should anyone be able to have one over the age of eighteen as long as perhaps they have no Criminal record for Voilence.
I don't think bad parking should disqualify one do you?
Peace to you.

Sparks

freefromgov wrote: »

So what in your opinion does a licence do exactly?
I have looked at the S.I. in relation to firearms and I fail to see how they would prevent anyone that wishes to do harm to another from doing so.

Not that I want to discourage anyone from actually looking up what the firearms laws are, because I think that that's the kind of thing that we need to see more of, but there's more than one SI. There's six main Acts, two EU directives and their amendments, and I lost count of the SIs a while back.

That aside, the point of the licence is mainly to do two things as I understand it - firstly to assure the public that those with licenced firearms are not a threat; and secondly to allow the arrest of anyone caught with an unlicenced firearm by making it an offence to have one.

freefromgov

Rashers wrote: »

A mandatory 5 year custodial sentence for anyone found in possession of an unlicensed firearm.

Hi rashers, Do you have a particular reason for holding that opinion or have you not really thought it through.

Peace to you.

Sparks

freefromgov wrote: »

Oh another thing crossed my mind. Do you believe then that firearm licences should be difficult to obtain? or should anyone be able to have one over the age of eighteen as long as perhaps they have no Criminal record for Voilence.
I don't think bad parking should disqualify one do you?

Define "difficult"?
Right now, you have to have good reason to have one, have a secure place to store it, not be a danger to the public or the peace if you had the firearm you're looking for, and not be disqualified from applying (the list of those disqualified is how minimum ages and those with custodial sentences and so on are managed). There are a host of procedures to ensure these are complied with, ranging from home visits from the CPO to giving access to your medical records to the Superintendent.

The current age limit is 16, 14 with a training licence (whenever that's commenced, and it has a supervision requirement built in). Parking tickets do not disqualify you from owning a licence.

Rashers

freefromgov wrote: »

Hi rashers, Do you have a particular reason for holding that opinion or have you not really thought it through.

Peace to you.

Yes I have a particular reason. And yes of course I have thought it through.

I believe that if a person is found to be in possession/control of an unlicenced firearm then after arrest the Gardai do not need to prove whether it was/was not used in the committal of a crime. The crime would be the possession of the firearm. Sufficient to take this person out of society for the 5 years I propose.

The threat of removing that person from society would therefore, in my opinion, reduce the amount of offences involving the use or threat of firearms.

Demonique

I'd appeal the law that made begging legal

I'm sick of being harassed by beggers at the ATM be it Roma gypsies, that blonde cow that says "will ya gizza a euro" and then swears at you when you fail to comply or that "wah I'm pregnant, my boyfriend kicked me out, called me a b***h and my baby a b*****d, the cash machine is over there" bint who tried to guilt trip me with her prego sob story.

freefromgov

Sparks wrote: »

Define "difficult"? ( I would have thought the definition of difficult was farliy obvious when you read the rest of post ! anyone disagree? )
Right now, you have to have good reason to have one( I can't find that anywhere, where is that please. Oh and who gets to say the reason is good??), have a secure place to store it, not be a danger to the public or the peace if you had the firearm you're looking for ( I am not looking for a firearm......just to be clear, Im just having a discussion about them, that's all I am not exprssing beliefs just posing questions to find out the beliefs of others such as yourself, Thats all), and not be disqualified from applying (the list of those disqualified is how minimum ages (Sorry I'm not sure what you are saying here can you clarify, Thankyou) and those with custodial sentences and so on are managed). There are a host of procedures to ensure these are complied with, ranging from home visits from the CPO to giving access to your medical records ( why are medical records required???)to the Superintendent.

The current age limit is 16, 14 with a training licence (whenever that's commenced, and it has a supervision requirement built in). Parking tickets do not disqualify you from owning a licence.

Well I dont think they should, So I'm still waiting to find out why those posting believe a Licence to be necessary ? I have my own opinion but for the moment I'll hang on to it , but if you wish I'll give it.

Sparks

I can't find that anywhere, where is that please

Try Section 4, part 2:

(2) The conditions subject to which a firearm certificate may be granted are that, in the opinion of the issuing person, the applicant—

(a) has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for,

(b) can be permitted to possess, use and carry the firearm and ammunition without danger to the public safety or security or the peace,

(c) is not a person declared by this Act to be disentitled to hold a firearm certificate,

(d) has provided secure accommodation for the firearm and ammunition at the place where it is to be kept,

(e) where the firearm is a rifle or pistol to be used for target shooting, is a member of an authorised rifle or pistol club,

(f) has complied with subsection (3),

(g) complies with such other conditions (if any) specified in the firearm certificate, including any such conditions to be complied with before a specified date as the issuing person considers necessary in the interests of public safety or security, and

(h) in case the application is for a restricted firearm certificate—
(i) has a good and sufficient reason for requiring such a firearm, and
(ii) has demonstrated that the firearm is the only type of weapon that is appropriate for the purpose for which it is required.

I'm not sure what you are saying here can you clarify

I'm saying there's nothing in section 4 about ages; that that bit is in section 8 where it lists the people who can't apply for a licence:

( a ) any person under the age of sixteen years, and

( b ) any person of intemperate habits, and

( c ) any person of unsound mind, and

(d) any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for—
(i) an offence under the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2006, the Offences Against the State Acts 1939 to 1998 or the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, or
(ii) an offence under the law of another state involving the production or use of a firearm,
and the sentence has not expired or it expired within the previous 5 years,

(e) any person who is bound by a recognisance to keep the peace or be of good behaviour, a condition of which is that the person shall not possess, use or carry any firearm or ammunition, and

(f) any person not ordinarily resident in the State (except a person who is temporarily so resident) for a period of 6 months before applying for a firearm certificate.

why are medical records required?

To see if there's a history of mental health problems.

if you wish I'll give it

I wish, it seems only fair.

freefromgov

Sparks wrote: »

Not that I want to discourage anyone from actually looking up what the firearms laws are, because I think that that's the kind of thing that we need to see more of, but there's more than one SI. There's six main Acts, two EU directives and their amendments, and I lost count of the SIs a while back.

That aside, the point of the licence is mainly to do two things as I understand it - firstly to assure the public that those with licenced firearms are not a threat; and secondly to allow the arrest of anyone caught with an unlicenced firearm by making it an offence to have one.

Hi Sparks, Actually I have looked up most of the S.I.s and the Euro directives and i comprehend the language contained therein.
However, somehow you believe that a licence assures the public that those with licenced weapons are not a threat, well wouldn't that depend on the amount of people with them? I mean if everyone that could have a licenced firearm....Then what because that would be a very large part of the population....Also there is a difference between S.I.s and Law the former being of the Public and not the Private. I'll explain further, before there was a S.I. relating to Firearms it was Lawfull to have one, the statute made it illegal but my understanding is S.I. cannot make Lawful activity unlawful. So for ex. If tomorrow a S.I. made it legal to kill it would still be unlawful ( I know this wouldn't happen but do you get my drift? )

Sparks

wouldn't that depend on the amount of people with them

No, it would depend on what you had to do to get the licence. When people see what we have to do to get a firearms licence in Ireland, it generally tends to reassure them.

Also there is a difference between S.I.s and Law

Er, what now? You mean Constitution vs Act vs SI vs EU Directive or something?
Like I said, several Acts and directives and SIs:

[url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1231429131&view=ag-view&docrank=6&numhitsfound=9&query_rule=(($query3)):legtitle&query3=firearms&docid=2386&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
]1925 Act[/url]
[url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1231429131&view=ag-view&docrank=5&numhitsfound=9&query_rule=(($query3)):legtitle&query3=firearms&docid=29369&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
]1964 Act[/url]
[url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1231429026&view=ag-view&docrank=4&numhitsfound=9&query_rule=(($query3)):legtitle&query3=firearms&docid=32544&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
]1968 Act[/url]
[url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1231429131&view=ag-view&docrank=3&numhitsfound=9&query_rule=(($query3)):legtitle&query3=firearms&docid=33764&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
]1971 Act[/url]
[url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1231429131&view=ag-view&docrank=2&numhitsfound=9&query_rule=(($query3)):legtitle&query3=firearms&docid=45965&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
]1990 Act[/url]
[url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1231429265&view=ag-view&numhitsfound=1&query_rule=(($query3)):legtitle&query3=criminal justice act 2006&docid=69501&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&dbname=SIs&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
]2006 Act[/url]
[url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1231429272&view=ag-view&numhitsfound=1&query_rule=(($query3)):legtitle&query3=criminal justice act 2007&docid=71265&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&dbname=SIs&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
]2007 Act[/url]
[url=http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regulation/inst_sp/dir91477_en.htm
]EU Directive[/url]
[url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2006/0031
]Another EU Directive[/url]

(Oh, and prior to the 1925 Act, there was a 1924 temporary provisions Act, and prior to that, we weren't this state, we were part of the UK and that body of law goes back a few hundred years, so no, at no time in our history could you own an unlicenced firearm the way you're thinking).

freefromgov

Sparks wrote: »

No, it would depend on what you had to do to get the licence. When people see what we have to do to get a firearms licence in Ireland, it generally tends to reassure them. Er, what now? You mean Constitution vs Act vs SI vs EU Directive or something?
Like I said, several Acts and directives and SIs:

1925 Act
1964 Act
1968 Act
1971 Act
1990 Act
2006 Act
2007 Act
EU Directive
Another EU Directive

(Oh, and prior to the 1925 Act, there was a 1924 temporary provisions Act, and prior to that, we weren't this state, we were part of the UK and that body of law goes back a few hundred years, so no, at no time in our history could you own an unlicenced firearm the way you're thinking).

Ah I see now what you mean, however you don't seem to be able to distinguish between Private and Public. IMHO when governments are corporate entitys they are in the public they have shareholders and must make profit etc. So the Constitution of Ireland could be viewed as their opperating manual for all that are in that corporation, its a notice of understanding and intent and claim or right etc. So they can post as many S.I.s they wish to controll their corporately created persons as evidenced by Birth certificates etc. but there is another way to view things that many seem to be adopting but its off point here, Its on the freeman on the land thread if you are interested.
Ok I cant finish this comment gotta go do some stuff I'll get back later.
Kind regards and peace to all.

r14

freefromgov wrote: »

Ah I see now what you mean, however you don't seem to be able to distinguish between Private and Public. IMHO when governments are corporate entitys they are in the public they have shareholders and must make profit etc. So the Constitution of Ireland could be viewed as their opperating manual for all that are in that corporation, its a notice of understanding and intent and claim or right etc. So they can post as many S.I.s they wish to controll their corporately created persons as evidenced by Birth certificates etc. but there is another way to view things that many seem to be adopting but its off point here, Its on the freeman on the land thread if you are interested.
Ok I cant finish this comment gotta go do some stuff I'll get back later.
Kind regards and peace to all.

This stuff again? Your distinction between public and private law, law of the land and law of the sea... it just isn't how the law actually works. The government is not a private company and it has no shareholders. Birth certs do not indicate ownership of a person.

S.I.s are laws like any other law. They just fill in the blanks but of course they are subject to the constitution. If the government as representatives of the people of Ireland decide you need a licence to hold a firearm then you should be punished for not having a licence. You talked earlier about that plumber who was shot last year, I don;t see how his having a gun would have helped him. He was shot in the back of the head so he couldn't have fought back. If you allowed everyone to have a gun you would just be guaranteeing an increase in gun wounds.

For the record I would change the rule where someone convicted for life gets a parole review after 7 years. It should be much longer before they get a chance at getting out. I would also make much more use of consecutive sentences like they do in the US. It just sounds so much more serious when you hear Bernard Madoff facing 150 years in prison!

freefromgov

Quaver wrote: »

I would get rid of the double jeopardy rule.

It really bothers me that people can appeal a conviction, but the State can't appeal an acquittal. Obviously I would still put some limitations on it, such as there has to be new evidence, or the acquittal would be on a technicality or something.

Anyone else have any ideas?

Well why do you think the "double jepardy" rule exists in the first place...
I suppose you'll be voting yes for lisbon then because its in there.....
Oh and there are no controlls as to how often you can be re-tried. if it takes ten trials then they can have ten trials...Oh and they can do it in secret ...LOL
Oh and after Lisbon you could be arrested without charge and held for a year without knowing why....Please don't believe me READ fo yourself.....

r14

freefromgov wrote: »

Well why do you think the "double jepardy" rule exists in the first place...
I suppose you'll be voting yes for lisbon then because its in there.....
Oh and there are no controlls as to how often you can be re-tried. if it takes ten trials then they can have ten trials...Oh and they can do it in secret ...LOL
Oh and after Lisbon you could be arrested without charge and held for a year without knowing why....Please don't believe me READ fo yourself.....

Where doe it say this. The Lisbon Treaty does not deal with MS competences to determine their own criminal law. There's nothing in there about holding people without charge for a year. Anyway the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty would not allow this.

Maybe you should have another look at the Treaty yourself
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00014.en07.pdf

freefromgov

r14 wrote: »

This stuff again? Your distinction between public and private law, law of the land and law of the sea... ( eh! I didn't mention Law of the sea ) it just isn't how the law actually works. The government is not a private company ( So why then are they listed on Dunn & Bradsheet as such, along with Kompass dot com. ??) They are a company and can be sued in their Corporate Name they do not deny this.and it has no shareholders (well then purchase the report on this Company then, I did not have the Spondulics to but if you have Great ). Birth certs do not indicate ownership of a person. Really ! Because it appears that in a lot of other commonlaw jurisdictions it does, If you take the time to look up the original definitions of Person and see where the word came from it will become clear, there are many different deffinitions in use for Person, How many people ask in court which definition is in use at any particular time......Bill Clinton used an example.....He Said "It depends on your what your definition of is "is" .....LOL now when you apply this to person's you get the same thing So I'll ask you for your definition of the word Person and where are you getting that definition and why are you picking that one.????

S.I.s are laws like any other law No my friend they most deffinately are not
According to the Consitiution FOR Whoops I mean Of Ireland the president Promulgates statutes as a Law . That is not the same thing as common Law, not even close, Murder can never be made Lawful but it can be made Legal ( Abortion for ex. depending on your beliefs) They just fill in the blanks but of course they are subject to the constitution. If the government as representatives of the people of Ireland Not all of the People, They do not represent me. So I am not bound by their stautory instruments. I am me, and only I talk for me.decide you need a licence to hold a firearm then you should be punished for not having a licence. You talked earlier about that plumber who was shot last year, I don;t see how his having a gun would have helped him.( well Im not familliar with how this event went down but if either way you are failing to acknoweledge the point there could be other instances in which it would make the difference I suggested. If every home had a gun do you think there would be as many home invaisions by tealeafs ??? He was shot in the back of the head so he couldn't have fought back. If you allowed everyone to have a gun you would just be guaranteeing an increase in gun wounds. Thats possibly true but I have a feeling the ones with the gunshot wounds would have been up to no good.

For the record I would change the rule where someone convicted for life gets a parole review after 7 years. It should be much longer before they get a chance at getting out. I would also make much more use of consecutive sentences like they do in the US. It just sounds so much more serious when you hear Bernard Madoff facing 150 years in prison!

Well now Life usually means they Murdered is this what you mean?
If so I have no sympathy for anyone that murders I don't think putting them in Prison is any answer though. Eaiser to put them on an Island with basic survival gear and see how long they last or put them to work as a vassal slave to the benifit of the victim...JMHO...

Shield

I'd put an outright ban on wearing pajamas outdoors for any reason. Mandatory penalty of cleaning the Liffey every day for a year.

Tom Young

I am considering deleting this thread - If I don't get 5 replies as to why some of the comments (which are misleading) should not be deleted, I will remove same with apologies to the OP and those who have sanely and honestly posted their views.

Thanks,

Tom

O'Coonassa

Tom Young wrote: »

I am considering deleting this thread - If I don't get 5 replies as to why some of the comments (which are misleading) should not be deleted, I will remove same with apologies to the OP and those who have sanely and honestly posted their views.

Thanks,

Tom

I just read this thread without being misled in the slightest and am saddened and disheartened at the prospect of censorship. Free speech and exchange of ideas that's what I'm after, IMO you can't go deleting people whose ideas you don't like; you either have to just learn to ignore them or you have to engage with them.

Hooch

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I just read this thread without being misled in the slightest and am saddened and disheartened at the prospect of censorship. Free speech and exchange of ideas that's what I'm after, IMO you can't go deleting people whose ideas you don't like; you either have to just learn to ignore them or you have to engage with them.

Tom, I also just read through this thread but I have to disagree with O'Coonassa totally.

And why someone who have to ask ''do you think we should licence firearms'' is totally beyond me!!

And to add in my opinion 5 years for unlicenced firearms sounds great to me, as long as there is a hand in period for a month or so where firearms can be handed in, but are subject to examination etc. (like was done two years ago)

T-Square

McCrack wrote: »

Get rid of PIAB so the PIAB Acts and before anybody posts something cynical no it doesnt cut legal costs as the government would like people to think it actually adds both costs and time to a plaintiffs action.

There are no lawyers (actually there are no solicitors or barristers [the real legal cost]) involved in PIAB work.

Get your facts straight,
PIAB adds no costs,
it makes massive savings.

All PIAB activities are time limited,
therefore adds no delays.

Our man in Havana

All PIAB activities are time limited,
therefore adds no delays.

PIAB can add 9 months delay to an action.

McCrack

T-Square wrote: »

There are no lawyers (actually there are no solicitors or barristers [the real legal cost]) involved in PIAB work.

Get your facts straight,
PIAB adds no costs,
it makes massive savings.

All PIAB activities are time limited,
therefore adds no delays.

Right I'll explain..

Firstly there are lawyers involved as most people choose to be professionally represented, a figure I'd heard is 90% of Claimants/Respondants choose to do so.

Secondly the average PIAB application with professional representation is €2,000 plus VAT and Outlay. Who do you think pays this bearing in mind such costs are non-recoverable against the other side in the PIAB application stage?

Thirdly are you aware of the PIAB (A) Act 2007 and its import regarding costs? It effectively penalises a litigant unduly for exercising what is a very fundamental right...having a justiciable matter adjudicated in our courts.


Like I've stated before the kind of rhetoric you are saying is the kind of bull**** the government have and continue to spout out re PIAB.

In reality the vast majority of either Claimant/Respondants reject the PIAB Assessment so stating it speeds up the whole process is flawed. The time the matter gets into PIAB to getting an Authorisation is usually 6-12 months. This therefore adds 6-12 months extra upon the normal litigation time.
It's also additional legal costs added to the ultimate bill when the matter is settled not to mention the additional delay causing injured parties more distress.

Are you aware of all this yourself?

T-Square

All I hear is PIAB + solicitor.

It's not supposed to be like that,
there is to be no legal involvement at all.

The doctors examine, and say what's wrong,
then PIAB look into the book of quanta, and
determine the payout.

Sounds like you don't know how PIAB is supposed to work.

The people who involve a solicitor don't have a clue.

Our man in Havana

It is a fact that 90% plus of claimants to PIAB engage a solicitor.

brian ireland

My law would be simple. If you commit a crime in Ireland and you don't hold an Irish Passport, you are sent back to your country.. I suppose their are agreements between countries to stop us making this law. But it would save us a lot of money!

Hooch

brian ireland wrote: »

My law would be simple. If you commit a crime in Ireland and you don't hold an Irish Passport, you are sent back to your country.. I suppose their are agreements between countries to stop us making this law. But it would save us a lot of money!

Sorry now dont mean to be negative but let me get this straight, if you are not a citizen of the state and you commit a crime you are given a free ride home??

You think this is better than the present system of imprisonment and on release a deportation notice???

And before you say it would save money, punishment for crime should never be thought of a way of saving money. Remember the victim!

Hooch

T-Square wrote: »

All I hear is PIAB + solicitor.

It's not supposed to be like that,
there is to be no legal involvement at all.

The doctors examine, and say what's wrong,
then PIAB look into the book of quanta, and
determine the payout.

Sounds like you don't know how PIAB is supposed to work.

The people who involve a solicitor don't have a clue.

PIAB is great....in theory! In my experience PIAB give under estimates that force injuried parties to refuse there ruling and pursue it through the courts. The nine months of an assessment just delays the proceedings and delays the compensitation that the injuried party is due.

You might say the past posters dont know how PIAB is supposed to work but in my honest opinion you dont realise how it works on the ground!

Also your last comment is very unfair. To most people all the legal mombo jumbo and the run around PIAB is dawnting and they deserve legal guidance.

Bond-007 wrote: »

It is a fact that 90% plus of claimants to PIAB engage a solicitor.

+ 1 imo