Off Topic Thread 4.0

irishbucsfan

I enjoyed this

https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1017666158084882432

Unfortunately they don't have a Prime Minister with the balls to make such a statement.

Britain is crying out for someone as good as Hugh Grant's incredibly portrayed character in the all-time great piece of cinematic craftmanship that was Love Actually.

sullivlo

Buer wrote: »

If you were Teresa May, you wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry this morning. Invite Trump, he completely shafts you in the media behind your back. Trump backs Brexit, then adopts as hard a negotiating stance as possible for any trade deal.

Whenever you think Brexit may take a step forward, they take two steps back. If they progress the Chequers proposal now, America apparently doesn't want to know them (and there are elements that the EU will probably reject outright anyway). If they go down the other route of a completely hard Brexit, it is likely to be a disaster.

His “speech” to the media was... interesting. You could easily mistake it for a bad lip sync version because it lacks any semblance of coherence. Like when asked about Brexit he rambles on about how Reagan lost Wisconsin?!

I have never been more content to live on this lovely little island, given what is surrounding us. I’m due to graduate as a teacher next year and will need to do an NQT year and lots of agencies are trying to recruit graduates to go to the UK to do their year. It was tempting (decent-ish pay, no distractions when trying to get your extra courses done, different experiences). Until Brexit happened.

prawnsambo

Buer wrote: »

If you were Teresa May, you wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry this morning. Invite Trump, he completely shafts you in the media behind your back. Trump backs Brexit, then adopts as hard a negotiating stance as possible for any trade deal.

Whenever you think Brexit may take a step forward, they take two steps back. If they progress the Chequers proposal now, America apparently doesn't want to know them (and there are elements that the EU will probably reject outright anyway). If they go down the other route of a completely hard Brexit, it is likely to be a disaster.

And he endorses "his great friend" Boris Johnson for PM.

irishbucsfan

sullivlo wrote: »

I have never been more content to live on this lovely little island, given what is surrounding us. I’m due to graduate as a teacher next year and will need to do an NQT year and lots of agencies are trying to recruit graduates to go to the UK to do their year. It was tempting (decent-ish pay, no distractions when trying to get your extra courses done, different experiences). Until Brexit happened.

When I was living in the UK I had multiple housemates (as well as other friends elsewhere around the area) who did that. I think of all of them, I know one who was happy!

Buer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I enjoyed this

https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1017666158084882432

She really is appearing quite weak and sycophantic towards the US as this point. She's in an impossible position right now though. She is going to be absolutely hammered regardless of her response or actions now.

I do feel sorry for her, to a point. She supported remaining in the EU and now, when the sh*t is hitting the fan, the Brexit leaders are running for the hills and watching her crash and burn attempting to negotiate the results of their campaign.

thomond2006

Is another GE on the cards in the UK?

prawnsambo

Buer wrote: »

She really is appearing quite weak and sycophantic towards the US as this point. She's in an impossible position right now though. She is going to be absolutely hammered regardless of her response or actions now.

I do feel sorry for her, to a point. She supported remaining in the EU and now, when the sh*t is hitting the fan, the Brexit leaders are running for the hills and watching her crash and burn attempting to negotiate the results of their campaign.

I suspect she took a pro-Europe stance at the NATO talks and Trump is getting his revenge now.

Buer

thomond2006 wrote: »

Is another GE on the cards in the UK?

I'd be shocked. The Brexit deadline for an agreement with the EU is mid-October and the departure is official on March 29th. There may be a slight chance of a change of PM due to an internal coup but I cannot see any election taking place.

But I don't even think there would be an internal coup. Nobody in their right mind will consider stepping into May's role right now. They'll trip over themselves to change things next year but right now they've little to gain by getting into power. Let May take the fall for the nation.

prawnsambo

So Trump is trolling May and Melania is trolling Trump?

Some men just want to watch the world burn. Trump advocates what would cause maximum damage to the UK and EU and threatens trade off the back of it.

This will embolden Brexiteers in the UK when it really should seriously alarm them.

Mad, mad world.

sullivlo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

When I was living in the UK I had multiple housemates (as well as other friends elsewhere around the area) who did that. I think of all of them, I know one who was happy!

I think a lot depends on your subject and the school. My CV would be considered very competitive, so the agencies want to send me to public schools in affluent areas, so ofsted would be less of an issue/concern. I know there is a huge dropout rate from the NQT year in the UK though.

b.gud

This answer reminds me of the leaving cert when one the questions you've prepared for hasn't come up you prepared hadn't come up so in your answer you start writing anything you know about the question then start rambling about the stuff that you prepared for your other questions and then get to a point where you realise that you aren't answering the question that was asked at all so in the last paragraph you try to steer it back around to the question in some way

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1017396690326884352

Buer

Absolutely tragic and heartbreaking case in Naas courthouse this week but I can't help but feel a little uneasy with the not guilty verdict.

A girl drove a 13 year old car with deflated tyres, overloaded, without L plates, with no qualified driver and no NCT on a 100km round trip in the middle of winter and lost control, leading to the deaths of all 4 passengers. She will do a life sentence for this issue and her life is ruined. I don't imagine she will ever get over this incident.

But to fully acquit her is incorrect, to my mind. There needs to be some level of deterrent from the legal system. I don't believe a custodial sentence should apply given the circumstances but I believe a significant driving ban or some level of punishment should have been applied.

errlloyd

Buer wrote: »

But to fully acquit her is incorrect, to my mind. There needs to be some level of deterrent from the legal system. I don't believe a custodial sentence should apply given the circumstances but I believe a significant driving ban or some level of punishment should have been applied.

I haven't processed this fully so I'm not disagreeing with you. But what stronger deterrent is there than risk of killing yourself and all your friends.

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

Absolutely tragic and heartbreaking case in Naas courthouse this week but I can't help but feel a little uneasy with the not guilty verdict.

A girl drove a 13 year old car with deflated tyres, overloaded, without L plates, with no qualified driver and no NCT on a 100km round trip in the middle of winter and lost control, leading to the deaths of all 4 passengers. She will do a life sentence for this issue and her life is ruined. I don't imagine she will ever get over this incident.

But to fully acquit her is incorrect, to my mind. There needs to be some level of deterrent from the legal system. I don't believe a custodial sentence should apply given the circumstances but I believe a significant driving ban or some level of punishment should have been applied.

Going down the middle ground would probably satisfy no-one. I think erring on the side of harshness is probably the right call but it's a tough one to make.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Some men just want to watch the world burn. Trump advocates what would cause maximum damage to the UK and EU and threatens trade off the back of it.

This will embolden Brexiteers in the UK when it really should seriously alarm them.

Mad, mad world.

Nah. I'm convinced that Trump is a headline seeker. He needs to keep his base happy and so he looks for the most controversial thing he can say or do and which has a #MAGA implication. It doesn't matter if there are long term consequences, his base isn't interested in far away and nebulous ramifications. So he gets a summit with Kim Jong Un and hails himself as a peacemaker even if NK have no intention of doing anything he's promised they will do. Those issues will be lost in the noise of his latest outburst.

Same with the NATO summit, same with Brexit, the lies about Germany's dependance on Russian oil and gas. He looks tough to his base and 'saying it like it is'. :rolleyes:

It all helps to drown out the bad press if #FakeNews doesn't work.

Buer

errlloyd wrote: »

I haven't processed this fully so I'm not disagreeing with you. But what stronger deterrent is there than risk of killing yourself and all your friends.

I completely get what you're saying but the laws are there for a reason. I just cannot get on board with the "suffered enough" rationale though. There needs to be a follow through and I think regardless of her suffering, it would be very wrong for her to be behind the wheel of a car again anytime soon.

She was grossly negligent and knowingly broke multiple rules of the road leading to multiple deaths. To me, that needs to have some sort of acknowledgement by our legal system.

Rigor Mortis

Buer wrote: »

Absolutely tragic and heartbreaking case in Naas courthouse this week but I can't help but feel a little uneasy with the not guilty verdict.

A girl drove a 13 year old car with deflated tyres, overloaded, without L plates, with no qualified driver and no NCT on a 100km round trip in the middle of winter and lost control, leading to the deaths of all 4 passengers. She will do a life sentence for this issue and her life is ruined. I don't imagine she will ever get over this incident.

But to fully acquit her is incorrect, to my mind. There needs to be some level of deterrent from the legal system. I don't believe a custodial sentence should apply given the circumstances but I believe a significant driving ban or some level of punishment should have been applied.

I have to say having read the newspapers, i honestly think a short custodial sentence and a lifetime ban was warranted. Regardless of how the damage was caused to the tyres. The person in question should not have been driving that car.

Buer

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

I have to say having read the newspapers, i honestly think a short custodial sentence and a lifetime ban was warranted. Regardless of how the damage was caused to the tyres. The person in question should not have been driving that car.

Personally, I was expecting a suspended sentence and driving ban. I'm bewildered that the jury elected to acquit her entirely in less than half an hour.

I sense this is letting emotion preside over the actual law itself.

Bazzo

b.gud wrote: »

This answer reminds me of the leaving cert when one the questions you've prepared for hasn't come up you prepared hadn't come up so in your answer you start writing anything you know about the question then start rambling about the stuff that you prepared for your other questions and then get to a point where you realise that you aren't answering the question that was asked at all so in the last paragraph you try to steer it back around to the question in some way

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1017396690326884352

Does that balloon think Ireland is in the UK?

prawnsambo

Buer wrote: »

Personally, I was expecting a suspended sentence and driving ban. I'm bewildered that the jury elected to acquit her entirely in less than half an hour.

I sense this is letting emotion preside over the actual law itself.

I haven't read up on it in detail, but it really depends on what the actual charge was. I suspect from what I've read is that it was dangerous driving and that would kind of tie the jury's hands a bit. By all accounts, it's more a case of careless driving, but if that charge wasn't made, the jury would have probably felt that they had to acquit.

A couple of years back, I saw a car on the M50 with four young ladies in it, barrelling along with an almost flat back tyre. I beeped, flashed and tried everything I could to draw their attention, but they carried on blithely.

Zzippy

Buer wrote: »

I completely get what you're saying but the laws are there for a reason. I just cannot get on board with the "suffered enough" rationale though. There needs to be a follow through and I think regardless of her suffering, it would be very wrong for her to be behind the wheel of a car again anytime soon.

She was grossly negligent and knowingly broke multiple rules of the road leading to multiple deaths. To me, that needs to have some sort of acknowledgement by our legal system.

She was found not guilty though, and we have no idea what was said in court that persuaded the jury to reach that verdict. I agree on the controversy over the verdict, but once a not guilty verdict was reached, the argument above that there should be some form of punishment is null and void.

Buer

Zzippy wrote: »

She was found not guilty though, and we have no idea what was said in court that persuaded the jury to reach that verdict. I agree on the controversy over the verdict, but once a not guilty verdict was reached, the argument above that there should be some form of punishment is null and void.

Of course. As I posted above though, they were acquitted by the jury within 25 minutes. My confusion is more with a blanket not guilty rather than whatever specific punishment she may have faced.

I suppose the specific charges may play a part which were for dangerous driving which makes it more of a grey area. With that said, the Road Traffic Acts descriptions of same are vague enough to allow for conviction of such an incident.

Zzippy

Buer wrote: »

Of course. As I posted above though, they were acquitted by the jury within 25 minutes. My confusion is more with a blanket not guilty rather than whatever specific punishment she may have faced.

I suppose the specific charges may play a part which were for dangerous driving which makes it more of a grey area. With that said, the Road Traffic Acts descriptions of same are vague enough to allow for conviction of such an incident.

I didn't keep fully up to speed with the case, but I think the prosecution case was that she was driving on under-inflated tyres and that caused the accident. From my experience, most drivers check their tyres so infrequently, that I wouldn't be surprised if the general feeling among the jury was "Jesus, that could have been me" and that led to the verdict.
The RSA do loads of ad campaigns about speeding, drink driving, awareness of other road users, but I don't recall any about checking tyres, brakes, etc. I know people who wouldn't have a clue what a bald tyre looked like til their mechanic told them their car wouldn't pass the NCT because of it.

errlloyd

Buer wrote: »

A girl drove a 13 year old car with deflated tyres, overloaded, without L plates, with no qualified driver and no NCT on a 100km round trip in the middle of winter and lost control, leading to the deaths of all 4 passengers. She will do a life sentence for this issue and her life is ruined. I don't imagine she will ever get over this incident.

Okay I read the case and I want to extrapolate some facts here.

1: The car was a 13 yr old VW Polo. 2001 model in 2015 - but it was January. I drive a 13 year old Seat Leon. I don't think it is any way reckless to drive that Polo at that age.

2: Would we call the car overloaded? A VW Polo has 5 seats, 5 girls in their twenties probably aren't heavy. They had no luggage. If that car was overloaded I've definitely driven cars that are more overloaded. (4 heavy lads, and gear).

3: It had no NCT - BUT she didn't know. The car had been sold to her advertised as having a valid NCT, but the disk was fake. Yeah it was foolish to not check, but really not unreasonable for a girl buying her first car.

4: One tyre was slightly under inflated, and one tyre deflated shortly before the crash. It had been driven on a flat for a very short time according to the inspection.

5: While it was the middle of winter, the road was very good, and the weather was dry, clear and not particularly cold. No one thinks the weather was a contributor.

6: There is no suggestion either vehicle was speeding.


It appears the deflation in the faulty tyre caused the car to veer out of control and she crashed. The presence of a licensed driver in the car wouldn't have saved anyone, the analysis said the presence of a trained stunt driver behind the wheel probably wouldn't have saved anybody. If a licensed driver had driven the car they might have felt the deflation sooner, but they wouldn't have noticed from the passenger seat.

She was accused of dangerous driving and knowingly driving a faulty vehicle. I assume she already had the correct penalty points applied and fine for driving without a licensed driver, and failing to display L plates and did not contest them. Tbh I'd be surprised if she's done any driving in the 3 year it took the PP to expire.

So do we think she was driving dangerously? All reports say she was driving safely within the speed limit and there was a deflation?

Do we think she was knowingly driving a faulty car? She thought she had 8 months left on the NCT, so she thought the car had been tested 4 months before.

The case is an absolute tragedy, but I think the jury got this one right. People get less for worse.

bilston

Buer wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I enjoyed this

https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1017666158084882432

She really is appearing quite weak and sycophantic towards the US as this point. She's in an impossible position right now though. She is going to be absolutely hammered regardless of her response or actions now.

I do feel sorry for her, to a point. She supported remaining in the EU and now, when the sh*t is hitting the fan, the Brexit leaders are running for the hills and watching her crash and burn attempting to negotiate the results of their campaign.

She hasn't actually responded yet so let's see how the press conference goes down later before condemning her as weak.

That said I'll be amazed if she doesn't come across as weak.

Brexit is just such a f*****g disaster it's almost funny. Millions of people duoed by the agenda of media barons with self interest at play and this is what they get. It still enrages me to think we (I'm a UK national) are in this mess.

Buer

errlloyd wrote: »

The case is an absolute tragedy, but I think the jury got this one right. People get less for worse.

Fair points and good research. I suppose if they treated all the failures under her learner's permit as separate issues, it's fair enough. I imagine they had some leeway on how they brought this case forward though and did so delicately.

I would wonder about some of the details but we can only take them at face value just as the jury would have had to.

I would like to see harsher penalties for some of those items and some more consistency. The amendment on unaccompanied driver's was passed last week by the Dail. The learner in the case leading to that amendment crashed into another vehicle, leading to the drowning of the two occupants, received a 3 year suspended sentence for dangerous driving and a 4 year driving ban (she did fail to yield at a junction, however).

I suppose the new legislation brought in following that incident will tighten things somewhat on learner's driving unaccompanied.

arsebiscuits1

Buer wrote: »

Absolutely tragic and heartbreaking case in Naas courthouse this week but I can't help but feel a little uneasy with the not guilty verdict.

A girl drove a 13 year old car with deflated tyres, overloaded, without L plates, with no qualified driver and no NCT on a 100km round trip in the middle of winter and lost control, leading to the deaths of all 4 passengers. She will do a life sentence for this issue and her life is ruined. I don't imagine she will ever get over this incident.

But to fully acquit her is incorrect, to my mind. There needs to be some level of deterrent from the legal system. I don't believe a custodial sentence should apply given the circumstances but I believe a significant driving ban or some level of punishment should have been applied.

I completely get you. This girl lost 4 of her best friends and likely feels incredibly, or fully, responsible. That punishment is far worse than the courts could give her.

I haven't read any articles today relating to it, but am I correct in saying she purchased the car on Done Deal under the impression the NCT was fine until May of that year? Where in actual fact it expired the previous June? Surely there is criminal culpability on the seller if that is the case?

arsebiscuits1

Zzippy wrote: »

I didn't keep fully up to speed with the case, but I think the prosecution case was that she was driving on under-inflated tyres and that caused the accident. From my experience, most drivers check their tyres so infrequently, that I wouldn't be surprised if the general feeling among the jury was "Jesus, that could have been me" and that led to the verdict.
The RSA do loads of ad campaigns about speeding, drink driving, awareness of other road users, but I don't recall any about checking tyres, brakes, etc. I know people who wouldn't have a clue what a bald tyre looked like til their mechanic told them their car wouldn't pass the NCT because of it.

I have been thinking of this exact thing.

I do remember seeing an ad on the telly with an overturned car with some obviously bald tires spinning and the warning of tyre safety etc etc etc.

The fact I can't remember it that well I think says all you need to know. Given I can recite drink driving ads still 15 years later.

Overall I think the RSA has been positive in their ads and focus on speed and drink driving. They are 2 of the leading causes of road deaths, especially in Ireland. And the culture around drink driving has completely changed over the last 20 years.

But with the insistence of slowing down and not drinking, has the focus of other fundamentals such as tyre and brake checks gone completely under the radar? I never, ever give it much thought, I might inflate the tyres 1-2 times a year and I know how much I should inflate them based on the diagram in the door and from my driving test but overall I just assume the NCT will be sufficient.

At least it's not the states. I've driven a bit over there and the lack of standardised car testing over there is concerning. There is blown out tires every few metres on some freeways

errlloyd

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

I completely get you. This girl lost 4 of her best friends and likely feels incredibly, or fully, responsible. That punishment is far worse than the courts could give her.

I haven't read any articles today relating to it, but am I correct in saying she purchased the car on Done Deal under the impression the NCT was fine until May of that year? Where in actual fact it expired the previous June? Surely there is criminal culpability on the seller if that is the case?

I'd hope so.

I bought a car from Carzone, previous owner had rewired the warning lights to hide the fact the airbag control module was missing. Until the NCT I didn't know the airbags didn't work. What's even worse is the waiting list for the repair was more than a month, so I chanced throwing the car into the "visual" follow up examination to avoid paying for another NCT. It passed, despite having not fixed the airbags. (They've sinced been fixed).

I guess if I had crashed and killed a passenger I'd have been culpable for driving a vehicle I knew to be faulty - but I'd been fooled by a seller who also managed to trick at least one NCT inspector.