Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

McAuliffe Trucking Co

Options
1…89111314…18

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,638 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    The Gardai will have to investigate these crazy and dangerous stunts.


  • Options
    #303
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    MCMLXXV wrote: »
    I'm more than happy to see them pulled up for this but do I think they should be put out of business for it - no I don't.
    You're jumping the gun a bit, aren't you? "put out of business"?!?, as far as we know, there has been zero impact!


  • Options
    #304
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    MCMLXXV wrote: »
    I'm more than happy to see them pulled up for this but do I think they should be put out of business for it - no I don't.

    They shouldn't go out of business but the brand should be damaged that of the trucking company and the truly Irish.

    In ways it is a shame as they really are pushing the PR for the truly Irish brand at the moment but the minute the started putting lives at risk they were opening themselves up for allot of bother.

    The best thing for them to do would be to accept full responsibility and apologies.


  • Options
    #305
    Chuck_Norris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭Chuck_Norris


    mrsoundie wrote: »

    Just read that Cryogens E90 thread, fantastic reading.

    And this one is just getting started, quickly popcorn :D

    No, I think we're about half, if not slightly more through this one.

    Check in the charter for the "How fuel efficient is an Evo". More good reading.


  • Options
    #306
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    guttenberg wrote: »
    Are you a disgruntled ex-employee/customer MadsL? you seem to be vying for someones blood/scalp as punishment:D

    Nope. No connection. Have you?

    I do get a tad annoyed when people lie to the internet, then delete pictures and comments and then refuse to answer questions. Very silly.

    I get very annoyed when I see idiots almost kill someone as a result of some bizarre "marketing".

    I'm pretty good with google, and most people leave a paper trail. Nothing I have posted is not already on the internet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    MCMLXXV wrote: »
    I'm more than happy to see them pulled up for this but do I think they should be put out of business for it - no I don't.

    There is one main reason I'd love to see them both get into serious trouble and its to hurt the shared director. He is likely the reason the companies work together and given that thay are fairly small companies he knew what was going on. He deserves to be hurt financially.

    IMO McAuliffe Trucking should recieve a lengthy ban from having its trucks on the road. From a Health and Safety point of view I think the company should be shut down.


  • Options
    #308
    Yawns
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭Yawns


    I'd be happy enough with the truck drivers getting a ban from the roads for a good while tbh. They are ultimately responsible for what they do with the trucks they are driving for a living.


  • Options
    #309
    DylanII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,102 ✭✭✭DylanII


    Yawns wrote: »
    I'd be happy enough with the truck drivers getting a ban from the roads for a good while tbh. They are ultimately responsible for what they do with the trucks they are driving for a living.

    Actually, they have no responsibility while driving for work. You cant be charged with something if your employeer instructed you to do it.


  • Options
    #310
    dgt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,985 ✭✭✭✭dgt


    I think this thread deserves a link in this thread :)


  • Options
    #311
    Big Nasty
    Registered Users Posts: 22,080 ✭✭✭✭Big Nasty


    mrsoundie wrote: »
    Just read that Cryogens E90 thread, fantastic reading.

    Missed that one as I was away on hols - looks epic, will have a proper read later. :)
    Zulu wrote: »
    You're jumping the gun a bit, aren't you? "put out of business"?!?, as far as we know, there has been zero impact!

    Maybe I am but RTE report and all that will more than likely end up with them losing contracts.
    Calhoun wrote: »
    They shouldn't go out of business but the brand should be damaged that of the trucking company and the truly Irish.

    In ways it is a shame as they really are pushing the PR for the truly Irish brand at the moment but the minute the started putting lives at risk they were opening themselves up for allot of bother.

    The best thing for them to do would be to accept full responsibility and apologies.

    Agree with most of your points, they should be made realise their mistakes and I think they already have. The transport industry is cut throat at the moment though - ever hear of Eddie Stobart?

    Loosing a couple of contracts could put the trucking company under and if the same happened to the food co by one or two of the multiple dropping them the same could happen there.

    They've fcuked up royally but I don't want to see them go out of business because of it - that is all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    testicle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,430 ✭✭✭testicle


    DylanII wrote: »
    Actually, they have no responsibility while driving for work. You cant be charged with something if your employeer instructed you to do it.

    Of course you can. The Hitler made me do it defence is no defence.


  • Options
    #313
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    DylanII wrote: »
    Actually, they have no responsibility while driving for work. You cant be charged with something if your employeer instructed you to do it.


    Eh?


  • Options
    #314
    Yawns
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭Yawns


    DylanII wrote: »
    Actually, they have no responsibility while driving for work. You cant be charged with something if your employeer instructed you to do it.

    If you can show me proof of this I will believe you wholeheartedly.


  • Options
    #315
    johnson901
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭johnson901


    I'm appalled that so many posters are getting such great enjoyment and entertainment out of this, fair enough these lads took a risk on the road and shouldn't have done so, but as they said it was all for a good cause and no harm was meant, in my opinion this is all blown out of porportion, so many jobs and livelihoods could be put at risk just because some people on this wanted to create a bit of entertainment for themselves, fair play lads it wouldn't do much harm to get the facts right before you all post such harsh accusations


  • Options
    #316
    Chuck_Norris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭Chuck_Norris


    DylanII wrote: »

    Actually, they have no responsibility while driving for work. You cant be charged with something if your employeer instructed you to do it.

    Oh man. In this you're completely wrong.

    Boss tells you to speed, you get caught speeding, who takes the points? You or your boss?


  • Options
    #317
    Big Nasty
    Registered Users Posts: 22,080 ✭✭✭✭Big Nasty


    dgt wrote: »
    I think this thread deserves a link in this thread :)

    I've already done that - truly epic thread for sure but I stand by my recent comments too. ;)


  • Options
    #318
    ahyeahok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 743 ✭✭✭ahyeahok


    Truly Irish Country Foods wrote: »

    Unfortunately, this was captured by someone on a phone, uploaded on YouTube and has since gone viral. As soon as we heard about it, we got the video taken down immediately but then someone uploaded it again and titled it “McAuliffe Trucking Dangerous Driving”.


    Kind and Very Best Regards
    Davy Corkery
    McAuliffe Trucking."

    Calling bull on this bit. The angle of that video is the same angle of the Photoshoot pics by McAuliffe Trucking themselves. You can hear them go OH FECK on the video!!!


  • Options
    #319
    DylanII
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,102 ✭✭✭DylanII


    testicle wrote: »
    Of course you can. The Hitler made me do it defence is no defence.
    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    Eh?

    (6) Where a person charged with an offence under this section was the servant of the owner of the vehicle, it shall be a good defence to the charge for the person to show that he was using the vehicle in obedience to the express orders of the owner.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/...056.html#sec56


  • Options
    #320
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    johnson901 wrote: »
    I'm appalled that so many posters are getting such great enjoyment and entertainment out of this, fair enough these lads took a risk on the road and shouldn't have done so, but as they said it was all for a good cause and no harm was meant, in my opinion this is all blown out of porportion, so many jobs and livelihoods could be put at risk just because some people on this wanted to create a bit of entertainment for themselves, fair play lads it wouldn't do much harm to get the facts right before you all post such harsh accusations

    What facts are incorrect?

    Both companies know about this thread. Let them correct anything they like.

    Truly Irish were a bit economical with the truth about their CEO though.


  • Options
    #321
    MugMugs
    Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    I certainly hope prosecutions will come from this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    For Forks Sake
    Registered Users Posts: 11,487 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    RoundyMooney wrote: »
    Whatever about RTE, tJ.ie will most likely wait until someone else writes it first (as indeed did Broadsheet, who only got involved when the story had got legs here). Their (theJournal's) own articles and homegrown stories are altogether too rare, because they're often quite good when they do pop up.

    You'll be a while waiting for thejournal to report anything, only thing they're able to do is Ctrl-C ... Ctrl-V content from other sites.


  • Options
    #323
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,067 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Does anyone know if the director of these two companies is any relation to Xavier McAuliffe, the guy behind the GoSafe speed camera consortium?


  • Options
    #324
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    DylanII wrote: »
    (6) Where a person charged with an offence under this section was the servant of the owner of the vehicle, it shall be a good defence to the charge for the person to show that he was using the vehicle in obedience to the express orders of the owner.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/...056.html#sec56

    Did you read the section you quoted, that exemption only applies to DOE cert and insurance offences. It doesn't exempt the driver from other traffic offences


  • Options
    #325
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    johnson901 wrote: »
    ... fair enough these lads took a risk on the road and shouldn't have done so, but as they said it was all for a good cause and no harm was meant,
    Having a 3way with trucks; a rolling roadblock with tonnes of metal taking up both lanes and a hard shoulder is inexcusable.


  • Options
    #326
    Yawns
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭Yawns


    DylanII wrote: »
    (6) Where a person charged with an offence under this section was the servant of the owner of the vehicle, it shall be a good defence to the charge for the person to show that he was using the vehicle in obedience to the express orders of the owner.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/...056.html#sec56

    Link not working.


  • Options
    #327
    -Corkie-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,025 ✭✭✭✭-Corkie-


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Does anyone know if the director of these two companies is any relation to Xavier McAuliffe, the guy behind the GoSafe speed camera consortium?

    Ask Madsl, he should know where he sh1t last....:pac:

    I see seinas1 has deleted all his posts...


  • Options
    #328
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    Yawns wrote: »
    Link not working.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0056.html#sec56


  • Options
    #329
    Rascasse
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭Rascasse


    DylanII wrote: »
    (6) Where a person charged with an offence under this section was the servant of the owner of the vehicle, it shall be a good defence to the charge for the person to show that he was using the vehicle in obedience to the express orders of the owner.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/...056.html#sec56

    That is in relation to insurance, Perry Mason.

    Dangerous driving has no such get out clauses and, with any luck, those drivers going three abreast down the road will be prosecuted and banned from driving.


  • Options
    #330
    ahyeahok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 743 ✭✭✭ahyeahok


    -Corkie- wrote: »
    Ask Madsl, he should know where he sh1t last....:pac:

    I see seinas1 has deleted all his posts...

    And I bet every one of his posts was quoted on here so that wont make much difference.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    -Corkie- wrote: »
    I see seinas1 has deleted all his posts...
    It's like watching damage limitation on the Kursk!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement