Barry Cowen sacked

ax530

The person traveling with him may have had full licence.

I am annoyed that this it taking the headlines first week with new government. There should be pressure on them to get work done but this is distracting from real work they should do. At the current time there is a LOT of work done to keep the country going.

News 'scoops' like this week drive people away from politics we will be left with very little options over who will be running the country.

Bass Reeves

expectationlost wrote: »

Im sceptical too but it said that it takes 4 hours to process 2 pints. https://www.drinkaware.ie/tools-resources/drinks-calculator-results

You have to remember he had to be below 20 limit as opposed to the 50 limit

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Which might inadvertently open up a whole new can of worms for him.

How long was he on a learners permit?
Was he accompanied by a full license holder at the time?

I would imagine that it was all sorted at the time. There was no mention of him driving unaccompanied.

James Brown

ruwithme wrote: »

Fianna fail party handbook of rules?? doubt such a thing exists.

 "Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut." - Jimmy Conway, Goodfellas.

Philo62

eviltwin wrote: »

It was 4 years ago. People make mistakes and if he has learnt from it and changed his behaviour then it’s time to move on.

That’s it, 4 years ago, paid the fine, got the ban, move on, he got the job of minister not the ministers driver!

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

I would imagine that it was all sorted at the time. There was no mention of him driving unaccompanied.

No mention from whom?

I know some people said the details were reported at the time in newspapers, but no-one seems to know what newspaper(s) it was reported in, further - Michaél said he knew nothing about it until it was reported yesterday.

expectationlost

Garibaldi? wrote: »

It said on rte radio that he was on a learner permit at the time

is that a joke? how does a person who lives in the countryside not have a license?

Gooey Looey

Bass Reeves wrote: »

You have to remember he had to be below 20 limit as opposed to the 50 limit

Which means he definitively shouldn't have had any drinks!

expectationlost

McMurphy wrote: »

No mention from whom?

I know some people said the details were reported at the time in newspapers,

did they or did they say they heard about it...

Zebra3

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Do not have too much time for FF they have broke the country twice in my lifetime so far and may do it again sometime. However here are the facts

He was on a learner/ new driver permit it seems limit is 20milligrams not 50. He was at a match and had two pints before match. He had a bite to eat after match. I do know professional drivers( truck and taxi drivers) are very wary of this limit.

However he may not have been as aware of it as they are. He was driving home and was caught. Most people who had 2 pints before a match would presume they be below the limit for driving and any alcohol would be gone out of there system. As well if he had a full licence he be deemed on to drive. Even if the facts were not as above it was four years ago he served his sentence for what is a penalty point violation actually.

Can you give us a source for these "facts"?

Bass Reeves

Zebra3 wrote: »

Can you give us a source for these "facts"?

It all in the public domain at present I have just posted the facts as I have seen them published.

McMurphy

expectationlost wrote: »

did they or did they say they heard about it...

Yep.

manonboard wrote: »

It was in the paper at the time. Nobody cared because it doesn't matter.

He was done 4 years ago? How long should someone who did drink driving at the lower end of the scale be barred from serving their country? What if they are good at their job? Does society gain or lose?

What if they are a normal human being who makes mistakes and also are punished equally like the rest of us? Is that not a wonderful example of our society? Being treated equally even when you have power is a good thing, not a bad thing.

expectationlost

manonboard wrote: »

It was in the paper at the time.

which paper?

Zebra3

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It all in the public domain at present I have just posted the facts as I have seen them published.

Are these "facts" provided by AGS or Cowen the law breaker?

Bass Reeves

McMurphy wrote: »

Because the virus gives a shIt the cause of, or the reason for either of the two mass gatherings?

Both the mourners at the Garda funeral and that of Storey's funeral were wrong in breaking the health guidelines. Trying to excuse one over the other is a load of nonsense tbh.

There wasn't a word about Horkans funeral until certain politicians and the media tried to score points of the mourners at the Sinn Fein funeral though.

There are a few different issues here, first was it right to hold a state funeral for Garda Horken and the answer is yes. Did the states politicians try to minimise there attendance yes they did. In the he process and carrying out a state funeral social distancing is not totally possible.

The next question were ordinary people incorrect in the way they attended yes. But that is outside the scope of the government and politicians. That is totally different to a deputy first minister and the leader of the party attending along with a large portion of the elected party members and former elected members going to a funeral of a former terrorist who died s natural death

Cal4567 wrote: »

Both were wrong. Social distancing was not evident in both situations. To separate the two, is just blatant hypocrisy. We need to look at both, without emotion, with a clinical detachment.

That may be tough for some but may be easier for me. I have an audit background.

I think there is a suttle difference between the funeral of a member of a police force murdered in the line of duty and the funeral of a former terrorist who live ended naturally. That difference is further highlighted by the fact that the terrorist was a member of an organisation that was directly involved in the murder of over 10 members of that police force.

It was interesting that the SF members taught it necessary to attend the funeral of this terrorist but none taught it necessary to attend the funeral of a member of the police force who duty it is to protect them as citizens of the state.

So you can audit that now

expectationlost

can we not turn this into another thread about funerals and social distancing and SF?

Bass Reeves

expectationlost wrote: »

can we not discuss the funeral in here?

Fair enough I will comment on it no further but I am fair annoyed by SF apologists making a comparison with it to excuse the misbehaviour of there politicians

James Brown

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Fair enough I will comment on it no further but I am fair annoyed by SF apologists making a comparison with it to excuse the misbehaviour of there politicians

You just posted a long winded apologist post on behalf of the Garda. Both wrong for the same reasons. No social distancing.
To bring it back to Cowen, another example of a biased media IMO when you compare Clare Daly's treatment to Cowen's lack of reporting

Whestsidestory

Interesting to see all the media coverage about this and not a word about the new Minister for Children's endorsement of Peter Thatchell

lawrencesummers

ruwithme wrote: »

Fianna fail party handbook of rules?? doubt such a thing exists.

If it did it wouldn’t be a book.
Maybe the back of a stamp.
At most.

Gregor Samsa

When you do a Google search for “Barry Cowen Drink Drive”, aside from the numerous media results from today and yesterday, it says

“Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.”

Any chance the media reporting from the time has been removed from Google’s search results?

That said, as he was punished by the law for his actions, I don’t see why any other action should be taken against him, unless he’s broken a FF party rule by not reporting it.

McMurphy

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Fair enough I will comment on it no further but I am fair annoyed by SF apologists making a comparison with it to excuse the misbehaviour of there politicians

"SF apologists" are dam right to make comparisons, I have already explained to you that the health measures that were put in place was due to a pandemic, a virus that spreads extraordinarily easily between humans.

This virus doesn't care if you are a FF voter, FG voter or SF voter, it only wants fresh human hosts to attach itself to, multiply itself and try and spread to others via fresh hosts.

Garda Horkans funeral had a sizeable congregation of aforementioned human hosts who were not socially distancing, therefore not following the govt and health experts guidelines, and potentially putting themselves at risk to catching and further spreading the virus.

In the days afterwards there was not a mention of the protocol being broken, by politicians from any party, not from the media, and not on these boards. A blind eye was essentially turned.

Bobby Storey's funeral also had the same protocols being broken, people weren't socially distancing at times, and therefore as human hosts, potentially contracting and spreading the virus.

Immediately afterwards this was seized upon by rival politician (especially FG and the DUP) Whom lacked the gumption and hindsight to realise their hypocrisy in failing to recognise that both sets of mourners had broke protocol, both were wrong and had the potential to catch and further spread the virus.

You have once again tried to do what others have also tried to do before you, and that is to politicise the funerals, and in doing so politicise a virus.

Which brings me back full circle. The virus doesn't give a shyte where it's human hosts politcal allegiance lies, hence why it is monumentally stupid and ludicrous to try and ridicule one set of rule breakers and go on to excuse the other.

It's really not hard to grasp.

Hurrache

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Where did you get the “few pints”? He had 2 DRINKS BEFORE the match. A meal afterwards. How many hours had elapsed between last drink and him sitting into his car?

Not excusing drinking and driving, but let’s get a grip. It was FOUR years ago. He took his punishment. He’s learned a lesson. End of story.

He had enough alcohol to push him over the limit hours later, I'm a lightweight and 2 pints wouldn't push me over the limit

It took him until well into his 40s to learn a lesson about drink driving? He's a bit slow isn't he.

lawrencesummers

I think the worst part of the story is that he was at the All Ireland final and a ticket for a Dublin - Mayo game was wasted on a lad from Offaly.


Well, that’s not true, the fact that an Supposedly intelligent Adult who has responsibility for a large government portfolio doesn’t know the dangers of driving after alcohol is the worst part, but it’s still a waste of an all Ireland ticket.

Jimi H

A few people talking about the 20 mg limit as if it's an excuse. Here he is agreeing to the reduction.

The key to maintaining the emphasis on driver behaviour is to continuously seek to change and improve that behaviour. Part 2 of the Road Traffic Act 2010, which was signed into law last year, reduces the blood alcohol concentration levels for drivers from 80 mg to 50 mg and to 20 mg for learner drivers. There is provision for mandatory breath testing on the basis of an opinion being formed by the garda at the scene. As other Members have mentioned, in the case of an accident such mandatory breath testing is paramount. Even in a hospital a consent to that being carried out can be given by the doctor in charge, which is to be commended. These sections 9 and 14 now come into play but, due to testing, the equipment involved will not be ready until later this year. I commend the Minister for coming forward at this early stage to provide the legal basis for such testing of drivers.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2011-03-23/27/?highlight%5B0%5D=barry&highlight%5B1%5D=cowen&highlight%5B2%5D=drive

Jim Root

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Something about this is not sitting quite right with me. He's a public representative, he should be held to a higher standard than the average Joe working a 9-5. He put himself on the road in a condition where he was more likely to kill people and the electorate never had an opportunity at the time to have their say, because it was seemingly brushed under the rug. Personally, someone who has just been done for drink driving isn't fit to be a councillor or a TD.

Totally agree. Public officials should leading by example, not breaking laws.

TheRiverman

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Common enough where he's from no doubt he's been at it for years. Lucky now he has a driver to chauffeur him around while he can sup away in the back.

I am open to correction,but I think only the Taoiseach and Tanaiste have chauffeur driven cars.

marieholmfan

eviltwin wrote: »

I think you might has misread my post. I have no desire to see him lose his job and think he’s entitled to move on from this

No one who has a learners permit at 48 should be a government minister. He is clearly the idiot brother (well maybe not any more ).

marieholmfan

Hurrache wrote: »

He had enough alcohol to push him over the limit hours later, I'm a lightweight and 2 pints wouldn't push me over the limit

It took him until well into his 40s to learn a lesson about drink driving? He's a bit slow isn't he.

He used to be the family idiot!

Water John

marieholmfan wrote: »

No one who has a learners permit at 48 should be a government minister. He is clearly the idiot brother (well maybe not any more ).

This sort of comment is just stupid or smart alec. No opinion on Barry Cowen but I know a few people who never learned to drive. some due to nervousness, others because of some negative experience whilst they were learning.