Name Irelands Nanny State Laws

Stiffler2

As the title suggests please contribute which you consider to be a "Nanny State Law" or a silly law which shouldn't be in place.

This is preferably Ireland and no where else but we may as well also except EU Nanny State Law since we're also governed by their Laws.

I will attempt to kick this off. Instead of maybe arguing with eachother whether or not you do or do not agree with someone else's opinion please simpy state your opinion and a brief desription of why you consider it to me a "Nanny state law"

This can be for laws that are in place now or are in the pipeline.


My 2:
Banning smoking in cars while a child is present - in the pipeline

I agree with the concept but not with the law. It should be common sense not to smoke with a child in the car, however banning it won't stop the parents from smoking in their house while the child is present. It also takes away our civil liberties & rights to do as we please as adults. I'm sure many of you don't agree with me here but it's just my 2 cents. There is no need to make a law regarding commom sense or no need to make a law about everything.

Second

Dads don't have rights to their children after a split up if the wife is sane.


What in your opinion do you consider a "Nanny State Law" and why ?

Dravokivich

Shouldn't it be list, instead of Name?

I wanted to call one Rita after my nanny.

Suryavarman

Laws against recreational drug use.

The only person drugs hurt is the person taking them. I really can't think of a good reason for continuing to keep drugs illegal.

El Guapo!

Off Licences closing at 10pm.
The most idiotic law ever introduced.

davet82

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Second

Dads don't have rights to their children after a split up if the wife is sane.


What in your opinion do you consider a "Nanny State Law" and why ?

i dont want to be nit picking but the second one is not a law

Stiffler2

Dean09 wrote: »

Off Licences closing at 10pm.
The most idiotic law ever introduced.

agreed, it forces people to just go to the off license earlier and buy even larger quantities of cheaper alcohol.

It also forces everyone in town onto the street at the same time / closing times aftrer a night out

brilliant idea that was, whoever came up with it.

hardCopy

Dean09 wrote: »

Off Licences closing at 10pm.
The most idiotic law ever introduced.

And closing on Good Friday.
And clubs closing at 2:30.
And pubs not able to open first thing in the morning.

Basically most of our alcohol licensing laws.

admiralofthefleet

Stiffler2 wrote: »

agreed, it forces people to just go to the off license earlier and buy even larger quantities of cheaper alcohol.

It also forces everyone in town onto the street at the same time / closing times aftrer a night out

brilliant idea that was, whoever came up with it.

publicans in government

Stiffler2

davet82 wrote: »

i dont want to be nit picking but the second one is not a law

Okay - I was not aware of that. I just got caught up in papers & media over dads loosing their children to the wifes in court after a breakup so assumed it was law.

Please continue on..

Rew

davet82 wrote: »

i dont want to be nit picking but the second one is not a law

And if it was it wouldn't be a nanny state law it would be a bad law.

Here is my thinking on Nanny State laws. If they're common sense then why do people got worked up by them?

Penn

Some of the Building Regulations go too far. Every new house has to have a wheelchair ramp (or access for a wheelchair), even if you're building the house for yourself and don't know anyone in a wheelchair.

Public buildings, fair enough. Private houses? That's just nonsense.

mikemac1

15 year old lad and a 16 year old girl
They get it on

The lad is guilty and can be convicted and be a registered sex offender
The girl gets off scott free

bullvine

10 Cigs been banned, I dont even smoke but surely that just encourages more people to by 20 and smoke more!

DrumSteve

That blasphemy law. Idiots.

shopaholic01

Penn wrote: »

Some of the Building Regulations go too far. Every new house has to have a wheelchair ramp (or access for a wheelchair), even if you're building the house for yourself and don't know anyone in a wheelchair.

Public buildings, fair enough. Private houses? That's just nonsense.

I think that's local authourities trying to prevent giving people grants as they get older/have strokes etc. to convert their houses.

Same with hallways needing to be wider to accomodate a wheelchair, downstairs toilet needs to be wheelchair accessible and lower light switches etc.

mikemac1

upward only rent reviews

Who thought that was a good idea

admiralofthefleet

the obstacles and red tape put on front of a food business are destroying the sector

washman3

Dean09 wrote: »

Off Licences closing at 10pm.
The most idiotic law ever introduced.

vested interests lobbied a few gombeens in government to achieve this and some TDs are/were publicans themselves...;)

washman3

mikemac1 wrote: »

upward only rent reviews

Who thought that was a good idea

The people that gave brown envelopes to politicans...;)

KKkitty

mikemac1 wrote: »

15 year old lad and a 16 year old girl
They get it on

The lad is guilty and can be convicted and be a registered sex offender
The girl gets off scott free

Stupid archaic laws like this boil my blood. Same age for consensual sex should apply regardless of gender. I also second the pub and nightclubs closing at the hours they do. People drink more before closing which is great for the publican but if establishments were allowed close when they see fit it'd be great.

shopaholic01

washman3 wrote: »

The people that gave brown envelopes to politicans...;)

And the politicians who accepted them.......

mikemac1

You must hold a TV licence even if you have no cable connection, no satellite dish, no aerial and all your TV does is play xbox and watch DVDs

I used to live in a bedsit beside Croke Park and with no aerial my portable TV simply could not get a signal.
Not a problem out rural but it doesn't often work in cities

Mr TV licence inspector still wanted his money though

admiralofthefleet

mikemac1 wrote: »

upward only rent reviews

Who thought that was a good idea

washman3 wrote: »

The people that gave brown envelopes to politicans...;)

upward only rent is, i believe, the one reason why there are so many empty shops around the country.

Dr.Strange

Cyclists need to obey Red Lights as if they were the same as other vehicles.

What's all that about?

SafeSurfer

If someone litters or dumps on your land you can be convicted for it. Even though you are the victim. Polluter pays principle my arse.

mikemac1

NUCLEAR TEST BAN BILL 2006

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2006/4606/b4606.pdf

A person who carries out, or causes the carrying out of, a nuclear explosion in the State shall be guilty of an offence.

Upon conviction of a person by the District Court in respect of an offence under this section, the person shall be liable to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months

Harsh

Pat Mustard

Below is my favourite example of a Nanny State law. The Public Order Act. Under this law (s.5), you can be convicted of a criminal offence for being seriously annoying.

In the United States, they have freedom of expression (and yes, before anyone mentions it, Guantanamo Bay). In Ireland, we have this nonsense.

The Public Order Act created other offences (s.6) which seriously fall into the Nanny State category.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0005.html

5.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to engage in offensive conduct—
(a) between the hours of 12 o'clock midnight and 7 o'clock in the morning next following, or
(b) at any other time, after having been requested by a member of the Garda Síochána to desist.
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.
(3) In this section “offensive conduct” means any unreasonable behaviour which, having regard to all the circumstances, is likely to cause serious offence or serious annoyance to any person who is, or might reasonably be expected to be, aware of such behaviour.

Chuck Stone

Penn wrote: »

Some of the Building Regulations go too far. Every new house has to have a wheelchair ramp (or access for a wheelchair), even if you're building the house for yourself and don't know anyone in a wheelchair.

I thought that was quite progressive myself. First and foremost it makes it easier for everyone - not just people in wheelchairs. It benefits the ill, impaired, elderly, parents (buggies) etc.

From a purely financial perspective it will save the tax-payer money in retrospective alteration of private houses for the impaired people. The state was having to hand out millions in grants for downstairs bathrooms and ramps.

Dravokivich

The Mustard wrote: »

Below is my favourite example of a Nanny State law. The Public Order Act. Under this law (s.5), you can be convicted of a criminal offence for being seriously annoying.

In the United States, they have freedom of expression (and yes, before anyone mentions it, Guantanamo Bay). In Ireland, we have this nonsense.

The Public Order Act created other offences (s.6) which seriously fall into the Nanny State category.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0005.html

5.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to engage in offensive conduct—
(a) between the hours of 12 o'clock midnight and 7 o'clock in the morning next following, or
(b) at any other time, after having been requested by a member of the Garda Síochána to desist.
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.
(3) In this section “offensive conduct” means any unreasonable behaviour which, having regard to all the circumstances, is likely to cause serious offence or serious annoyance to any person who is, or might reasonably be expected to be, aware of such behaviour.

That's not nanny state nonsense. That refers to nuasance and trouble makers causing "offence or serious annoyance," between "12 o'clock midnight and 7 o'clock in the morning next following" or when not co-operating with a Garda.

I honestly can't see why you'd think it's fine if someone can go roaring down the street in the middle of the night making all sorts of noise.

ejmaztec

mikemac1 wrote: »

upward only rent reviews

Who thought that was a good idea

I wouldn't call that a nanny-state law, it just falls into the "fucking stupid crock o'sh1t" law variety.

Dr.Strange

mikemac1 wrote: »

upward only rent reviews

Who thought that was a good idea

Greedy Landlords.

Nothingbetter2d

Penn wrote: »

Some of the Building Regulations go too far. Every new house has to have a wheelchair ramp (or access for a wheelchair), even if you're building the house for yourself and don't know anyone in a wheelchair.

Public buildings, fair enough. Private houses? That's just nonsense.

actually it makes good sense... instead of having to pay out grants for disability refits forcing builders to build it in situ from the start is the best way.

you may not need a wheelchair now but there is no gaurentee that you might not need one in the future as a result of an accident or degenerative disease.

or if you have to sell your house the buyer could be or have someone disabled in their family.

Nothingbetter2d

someone breaks into your home and injures themselves and can sue you .... crime does pay :rolleyes:

Scioch

Stiffler2 wrote: »

My 2:
Banning smoking in cars while a child is present - in the pipeline

I agree with the concept but not with the law. It should be common sense not to smoke with a child in the car, however banning it won't stop the parents from smoking in their house while the child is present. It also takes away our civil liberties & rights to do as we please as adults. I'm sure many of you don't agree with me here but it's just my 2 cents. There is no need to make a law regarding commom sense or no need to make a law about everything.

Should be common sense not to punch a child in the face but you still need laws to protect kids who are abused. Banning it gives the state the ability to follow it up and prosecute to protect the child. Asking people please dont smoke wont work, same as asking people not to abuse kids wont work, the people who will do this need fear to stop them as they lack the common sense not to do it in the first place that comes from fear of prosecution. There is every need to create a law to protect people who cannot protect themselves such as children.

But who cares about any of that when the issue is "I cant do what I please regardless of how it affects other people". Grow up.

Second

Dads don't have rights to their children after a split up if the wife is sane.


What in your opinion do you consider a "Nanny State Law" and why ?

How is that a nanny state law

Its not even a law as far as I know.

Seanchai

Stiffler2 wrote: »

"Nanny State Law"

The British tabloids called; they want their rabble-rousing idiotic term back.

JustAddWater

Suryavarman wrote: »

Laws against recreational drug use.

The only person drugs hurt is the person taking them. I really can't think of a good reason for continuing to keep drugs illegal.

That really ranks as one of the most uneducated posts i've seen probably ever

That couldn't be any less true

JustAddWater

mikemac1 wrote: »

upward only rent reviews

Who thought that was a good idea

Not defending this at all but explaining the logic behind it

The building is only worth what it can take in rent. If you reduce the rent, you reduce the overall value of the building, meaning for a landlord to reduce the rent, he also reduces the value of properties on his portfolio

He'd be worth €000's less literally overnight

Consider the fact that you have pensions, loans and other things secured against property they could also lose their value overnight

So yes there is an element of greed but also consider that some peoples pension, mine, yours, and everyone elses, could have its valued reduced if reductions were applied to commercial rents left right and centre

Stiffler2

mikemac1 wrote: »

NUCLEAR TEST BAN BILL 2006

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2006/4606/b4606.pdf






Harsh

WTF ... LOL

SO if I let off an atomic bomb in Dublin I'll get a €5,000 fine and 1 year jail probably with 11 months suspended if the court house / prison is still standing.

Oh that has made me lol.

Couldn't agree more with the 15 / 16 yo boy girl sex thing, becoming a sexual offender and being put on the registrar, this is ridiculous.

Keep em coming AH, should be plently of ammo

Ray Palmer

ejmaztec wrote: »

mikemac1 wrote: »

upward only rent reviews

Who thought that was a good idea

I wouldn't call that a nanny-state law, it just falls into the "fucking stupid crock o'sh1t" law variety.

It isn't a law either way. People signed contracts. There are laws against the government interferring with the agreements.
Isn't a nanny state situation either.

Stiffler2

LordSmeg wrote: »

Should be common sense not to punch a child in the face but you still need laws to protect kids who are abused. Banning it gives the state the ability to follow it up and prosecute to protect the child. Asking people please dont smoke wont work, same as asking people not to abuse kids wont work, the people who will do this need fear to stop them as they lack the common sense not to do it in the first place that comes from fear of prosecution. There is every need to create a law to protect people who cannot protect themselves such as children.

But who cares about any of that when the issue is "I cant do what I please regardless of how it affects other people". Grow up.



How is that a nanny state law

Its not even a law as far as I know.

I see you read my post, you obviously didn't read it thoroughly.

Back on topic ppl, stop arguing with eachother, list your silly laws "In Your Opinion"

DB21

Suryavarman wrote: »

Laws against recreational drug use.

The only person drugs hurt is the person taking them. I really can't think of a good reason for continuing to keep drugs illegal.

Mhmmm, would you mind telling that to the guy who had half his face eaten off in Florida last month? Sure the perpetrator was only "recreationally" using PCP.

shopaholic01

JustAddWater wrote: »

Not defending this at all but explaining the logic behind it

The building is only worth what it can take in rent. If you reduce the rent, you reduce the overall value of the building, meaning for a landlord to reduce the rent, he also reduces the value of properties on his portfolio

He'd be worth €000's less literally overnight

Consider the fact that you have pensions, loans and other things secured against property they could also lose their value overnight

So yes there is an element of greed but also consider that some peoples pension, mine, yours, and everyone elses, could have its valued reduced if reductions were applied to commercial rents left right and centre

Regardless of rent achievable the property has already been significantly devalued. Would it not be better to rent it at a lower rate than have it idle? The vested interest of landlords means that a lot of small and medium size businesses have had to cease trading.

I'm not an expert btw, so am open to correction, nor am I a business owner. I just find it sad to see so many empty units in towns.

Scioch

Stiffler2 wrote: »

I see you read my post, you obviously didn't read it thoroughly.

Back on topic ppl, stop arguing with eachother, list your silly laws "In Your Opinion"

I did read it and I understood it. You dont agree with a law protecting children because it should be common sense not to expose them to risks from smoke but people should have the right to do it if they please.

It also takes away our civil liberties & rights to do as we please as adults.

You have a problem with banning exposing kids to second hand smoke in a confined space such as a car because you should be allowed to do whatever you want. That is what you have said. lol

BOHtox

DB21 wrote: »

Mhmmm, would you mind telling that to the guy who had half his face eaten off in Florida last month? Sure the perpetrator was only "recreationally" using PCP.

What about the 12 or so people who died in Donegal in a car accident involving alcohol?

As I said in another post.
Drug usage and alcohol usage are okay. Over usage is when problems exist. But that's down to stupidity!

If marijuana was legal, there would be several types of it. Some weak and some strong. The usage of other drugs would rall rapidly immediately and the money the gangs are making would fall!

pajunior

I think some people are struggling to understand the difference between a bad law and a 'nanny state' law.

Scioch

BOHtox wrote: »

What about the 12 or so people who died in Donegal in a car accident involving alcohol?

As I said in another post.
Drug usage and alcohol usage are okay. Over usage is when problems exist. But that's down to stupidity!

If marijuana was legal, there would be several types of it. Some weak and some strong. The usage of other drugs would rall rapidly immediately and the money the gangs are making would fall!

This was the post related to that one.

The only person drugs hurt is the person taking them. I really can't think of a good reason for continuing to keep drugs illegal.

This is entirely untrue and no amount of redirecting to the dangers of alcohol will make it true.

Pat Mustard

Dravokivich wrote: »

That's not nanny state nonsense. That refers to nuasance and trouble makers causing "offence or serious annoyance," between "12 o'clock midnight and 7 o'clock in the morning next following" or when not co-operating with a Garda.

I honestly can't see why you'd think it's fine if someone can go roaring down the street in the middle of the night making all sorts of noise.

The offence is not limited to causing noise. If it was, it would make sense, but that's not the case here.

If there is a person who does something which is likely to cause serious annoyance, irrespective of noise, it is an offence.

That goes far beyond what is required in relation to regulating personal behaviour, in my opinion.

Consider this: if an English rugby supporter started slagging off Irish rugby on Grafton Street, causing serious annoyance to the public, at a minute past midnight (even without raising his voice), he could be found guilty of an offence under this law.

I see what you write about the purpose for which the law may have been intended. The fact is that this law goes too far and it is a clear example of a resurgence in a Nanny State attitude in this country from the 1990s.

BOHtox

LordSmeg wrote: »

This was the post related to that one.



This is entirely untrue and no amount of redirecting to the dangers of alcohol will make it true.

I answered those questions already.

Currently, drug usage affects innocent people who are killed by drug cartels.

If it were legal, companies who grow and produce their own marijuana wouldn't go around ordering hit jobs!

A 600m euro industry would now go towards creating employment, generating tax etc.

Stronger drugs wouldn't exist. The only reasons stronger drugs exist is because drugs are illegal.

Currently, drugs are more potent and dangerous because they are illegal.

mikemac1

pajunior wrote: »

I think some people are struggling to understand the difference between a bad law and a 'nanny state' law.

Yeah but the OP said we can add what we want

Stiffler2 wrote: »

stop arguing with eachother, list your silly laws "In Your Opinion"

Scioch

BOHtox wrote: »

I answered those questions already.

Currently, drug usage affects innocent people who are killed by drug cartels.

If it were legal, companies who grow and produce their own marijuana wouldn't go around ordering hit jobs!

A 600m euro industry would now go towards creating employment, generating tax etc.

Stronger drugs wouldn't exist. The only reasons stronger drugs exist is because drugs are illegal.

Currently, drugs are more potent and dangerous because they are illegal.

I agree that if it were legal it would reduce the crime involved but stronger drugs dont exists because drugs are illegal, they exists because there is a market for them. And as long as you have people taking drugs for recreational use there will always be a market for them. Its certainly easier to push them given that there is no control over the supply though.

Jame Gumb

Having to wear a seatbelt when you're on your own in a car...