Barry Cowen sacked

So FF attack SF over lack of social distancing, but Cowen breaking the law and putting people's lives at risk isn't an issue?

Zebra3 wrote: »

So FF attack SF over lack of social distancing, but Cowen breaking the law and putting people's lives at risk isn't an issue?

Of course it's an issue but he was arrested, charged and dealt with at the time.

SF said its grand because it was a friends funeral.

Zebra3 wrote: »

So FF attack SF over lack of social distancing, but Cowen breaking the law and putting people's lives at risk isn't an issue?

Cowan story - 2016 and he was punished accordingly, SF story this week apparently flouting health guidelines in the middle of a pandemic.

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.

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.

It was 4 years ago and dealt with at the time. It wasn't brushed under the rug.

Of the media are sitting on it since then it shows how s**ty the media have gone.

While I am completely against anyone who drink drives I think Barry Cowen and FF in general have given plenty of reasons for the public to have had their say.

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

There's that word "entitled" again.

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.

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.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If he was that unfit to drive, his reading would have been higher and he’d have had to gone to court. As it was, the reading was too low for a court case.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

If you go on the road after drinking, you're increasing the likelihood of killing someone. Suggesting that I'm moralising by having an issue with this is a little bizarre. A lot of drink driving apologists out in force today it seems.

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

If you go on the road after drinking, you're increasing the likelihood of killing someone. Suggesting that I'm moralising by having an issue with this is a little bizarre. A lot of drink driving apologists out in force today it seems.

Don't think anyone has disagreed with the fact he was wrong and it is not the right thing to do.

That's why he was dealt with at the time and dealt with in line with what he had consumed.

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.

It wasn't widely reported at the time, hence why it's now become a story. A front bench spokesman being caught drink driving is actually a big story, that people should care about. He should have lost his seat at the following election, that would been the appropriate remedy in my opinion.

People for years have been saying "treat politicians like the rest of us" and while there's alot to be done in the broader sense, Barry Cowan was treated like the rest of us, yet people still complain.

He was breathalysed like the rest of us, he was arrested like the rest of us, he paid the price the rest of us would have paid. If anything it's a good sign and shows he had no privelege because he was a TD.

Don't forget, there are thousands of people on permanent contracts, who had no convictions when hired, who have been done for drink driving, assault, theft. Are their employers aware? Hell no.

Barry Cowan is entitled to the same rights as Joe Soap, yet doesn't have the benefit of managing to keep it secret from everyone, as a lot of Joe Soaps have. Many people are human and have been convicted of minor offences. It doesn't define them. He's not a repeat criminal.