# "Traffic Blues" TV on RTE: Lady prov licence, 5 kids not strapped in.



## DeeFox (15 Jun 2009)

This programme is currently running on Sunday evenings at 8.30pm. It follows the traffic Corp. and shows various situations they have to deal with - I think it is very interesting and balanced. 
However, I was watching it last night and it showed a woman being pulled over for poor driving. She was on a provisional licence and the person with her didn't have a full licence either. 

She had five children in the back seat - none of which were wearing seat belts and at least two of which should have been in a child safety seat according to the Guard.

 She was given an €80 fine and two penalty points and was allowed to drive away. 

I thought this was far too lenient - what do others think?


----------



## RonanC (15 Jun 2009)

*Re: Traffic Blues on RTE*

Totally agree with you. I couldnt believe he let the woman drive away with the 5 children still in the back of the car with no seatbelts. 

It was the same two weeks ago where two young women crossed 6 lanes on the M50 by foot as their can had run out of pertol in heavy rain to find a pertol station. I wonder if this was two young men would they have been as easy on them ???


----------



## jhegarty (15 Jun 2009)

*Re: Traffic Blues on RTE*

+1 Would have looked great if that car crashed 5 minutes down the road.


----------



## csirl (15 Jun 2009)

*Re: Traffic Blues on RTE*

Agree.

Leniency seems to be the theme of the programme. If the reason the Garda are involved in the programme is to show that they take road safety seriously, then sadly they have failed miserably. I think the programme will encourage more people to break the law as they can see that even on front of the cameras, the Gardai are not willing to tackle the problem.

There is no way the woman in the car with the kids should have been allowed drive away. Should have been made to park up, make alternative arrangements to get the kids home and wait for a licensed driver to drive the car - and should have been hit with more than an €80 fine. 

A couple of weeks ago, they stopped a motorcyclist with no insurance and allowed him to drive off with only a warning!!! And the guy with the overloaded truck was also allowed to drive off.


----------



## starlite68 (15 Jun 2009)

*Re: Traffic Blues on RTE*

its just garda propagnda....the guards get an easy ride in this series,they know how to act whe the camera is running.....pity rte could,nt do something better with our licence money,no wonder they are going broke!


----------



## thedaras (15 Jun 2009)

It should not be up to an individual guard as to whom is breaking the law or not!
They are there to IMPLEMENT the law not DETERMINE it!

Thats what the law makers are for,the guards are law enforcers so in effect they did not do their job,the job which we are paying them to do.

By them choosing whether or not to enforce the law gives them way too much power and absolute power leads to .....

On another note on the news tonight a 25 yr old guard has been accused of making false statements,.

This is how Guards use their position to their own advantage,and my belief is that as long as they have the power to charge someone or not they will contuinue to do so.

Finally my sister had to have passport applications signed for her 3 children tonight and there were 3..yes 3 guards there all signing these forms.
Where are the reserve guards? 

Why are they not doing this type of work?

Why are we paying guards to enforce laws and yet they stand behind counters signing forms when any idiot could do it.


----------



## MrMan (16 Jun 2009)

thedaras said:


> It should not be up to an individual guard as to whom is breaking the law or not!
> They are there to IMPLEMENT the law not DETERMINE it!
> 
> Thats what the law makers are for,the guards are law enforcers so in effect they did not do their job,the job which we are paying them to do.
> ...


 
Well any idiot can't do it as I presume it has to be signed by an actual Guard. I'm sure they are not spending the whole day signing forms, but there is plenty of paperwork to be done I would imagine.
I do think it is right that they show leniency at times and common sense otherwise we may need to turn to robocop.


----------



## thedaras (16 Jun 2009)

MrMan said:


> Well any idiot can't do it as I presume it has to be signed by an actual Guard. I'm sure they are not spending the whole day signing forms, but there is plenty of paperwork to be done I would imagine.
> I
> 
> 
> ...


 
So you think the leniency shown on the RTE programme should be allowed?
Five kids not strapped in ,in a car and the driver is allowed to contuinue on,thats not leniency .....thats stupidity.

And yes any idiot can sign a form, the fact that its stipulated on the passport application that a guard/Doctor etc means that they have to do so if asked.

That does not make it brain surgery.

You missed the point . The reserve guards or Civilians should be doing the paper work ,and the guards should be out doing their jobs.


----------



## DeeFox (16 Jun 2009)

thedaras said:


> Finally my sister had to have passport applications signed for her 3 children tonight and there were 3..yes 3 guards there all signing these forms.
> Where are the reserve guards?
> 
> Why are they not doing this type of work?
> ...


 
This is way too harsh. I can imagine how much people would give out if they went into a station and there was no "real" Guard available to deal with their issue. These forms are supposed to be signed by a Guard - not a reserve who is helping out in the station every couple of weeks.

Guards have a huge amount of paperwork to do - it is part of the job and, for court purposes, every i has to be dotted and every t crossed. By the nature of this work it will mean that there may often be a number of Guards in a station instead of out on the roads.


----------



## RonanC (16 Jun 2009)

thedaras said:


> On another note on the news tonight a 25 yr old guard has been accused of making false statements


 
And this same Garda is currently suspended from the force but she managed to jump straight into a waiting unmarked Garda car outside the court.


----------



## Complainer (16 Jun 2009)

RonanC said:


> And this same Garda is currently suspended from the force but she managed to jump straight into a waiting unmarked Garda car outside the court.


How do you know it was a Garda car?


----------



## RonanC (16 Jun 2009)

Complainer said:


> How do you know it was a Garda car?


 
Trust me I know


----------



## JQ2002 (16 Jun 2009)

Yup, it was defo an unmarked car....I've seen it around Dublin with uniformed guards in it. The Mondeos and Focus seem to be the car of choice when it comes to un marked cars.

Why was this guard allowed use a state vehicle to do a run away from the Courts anyway?


----------



## Smashbox (16 Jun 2009)

I couldnt believe that he let that woman drive off with the 5 kids still unrestrained in the car. Way too lenient.


----------



## Latrade (16 Jun 2009)

Smashbox said:


> I couldnt believe that he let that woman drive off with the 5 kids still unrestrained in the car. Way too lenient.


 
While I'd tend to agree on it being too lenient, I do wonder whether it would have been appropriate to stop the travel and leave the woman with five kids at the side of the road, or drag her (and the kids) off to the local station?

I know it's not really the Gardai's fault, but I think the alternatives for taking more serious immediate action could have opened a can of worms. However, the final punishment was totally inappropriate to the risk involved in that case.


----------



## Bronte (16 Jun 2009)

I can't believe anyone thinks it would be better to let the lady and her 5 kids out of the car on to the side of the road.  80€ is probably a large fine to a women with 5 children so presumable the lesson is learnt.  

I don't understand the point about only 2 kids having to be strapped in?  Don't all cars have 3 seatbelts in the back and 1 in the passenger seat.  

In relation to the unmarked Garda car at the courthouse, how can you tell an unmarked Garda car? JQ2002 you say you've seen the car around Dublin, did you take down the registration plate or what?


----------



## RonanC (16 Jun 2009)

Bronte said:


> I can't believe anyone thinks it would be better to let the lady and her 5 kids out of the car on to the side of the road. 80€ is probably a large fine to a women with 5 children so presumable the lesson is learnt.
> 
> I don't understand the point about only 2 kids having to be strapped in? Don't all cars have 3 seatbelts in the back and 1 in the passenger seat.
> 
> In relation to the unmarked Garda car at the courthouse, how can you tell an unmarked Garda car? JQ2002 you say you've seen the car around Dublin, did you take down the registration plate or what?


 
The car *was* an unmarked Garda car, a Silver Ford Focus with the ariel on the roof which all unmarked Garda cars have. If a member of the force was suspended he or she should not have been using a state vehicle unless he or she was in the back of the car after being arrested of course.


As for the woman with the 5 children in the back of the car, the car itself was an old Toyota Starlet, probably mid 90's as the newer shape Starlet came out in '97 i think. Anyway, that older model Starlet only has two seatbelts in the back of the car afaik. But in this case none of the children had any seatbelts on which is seriously dangerous, if the driver had to make an emergancy stop, all of the children could have gone through the windscreen and killed the driver on the way. 

This programme is meant to show us about the dangers of our roads and what the Garda Traffic Corp are doing about it... 

It doesnt paint a good picture of road safety in my opinion.


----------



## DeeFox (16 Jun 2009)

Bronte said:


> I don't understand the point about only 2 kids having to be strapped in? Don't all cars have 3 seatbelts in the back and 1 in the passenger seat.


 
She had five children in the back seat - none of them were wearing seatbelts.  The Guard observed that at least two of them were so young that they should have been in child safety seats.


----------



## csirl (16 Jun 2009)

> In relation to the unmarked Garda car at the courthouse, how can you tell an unmarked Garda car?


 
The uniformed Garda in the drivers seat can be a bit of a giveaway. 

One easy way to tell unmarked Garda cars is that they are taxed, but not insured by a private insurance company (as the State carries its own insurance). So tax disc & no insurance disc on the windscreen. 

Of course no insurance disc could be a member of the public driving uninsured, but when you couple the above with other information such as the make of the car, presence of aerials and other devices, they are very easy to spot. 

Kind of defeats the purpose of an unmarked Garda car if everyone knows that its a Garda car. Always thought they should use immitation insurance discs etc.


----------



## Smashbox (16 Jun 2009)

Surely there is a way of removing the kids from the back of a car in which further down the road could cause a fatal accident. They shouldnt have let her drive off.

Lets say a driver was drink driving. They had five kids in the back of the car, restrained or not. What do they do with those kids? 

Surely the same situation could have been applied here.


----------



## starlite68 (16 Jun 2009)

as i said..its all a set-up for the benefit of the cameras....showbiz ect..


----------



## sam h (16 Jun 2009)

starlite68 said:


> as i said..its all a set-up for the benefit of the cameras....showbiz ect..



If that's the case, surely they would want to be seen to be upholding the law?

I didn't see the program, but I really don't understand the officer letting her drive off (regardless of the fine & points and the likelihood of her not doing it again).  Surely by doing so, he is knowingly allowing her to continue breaking the law by driving unaccompanied and with the kids unrestrained??  Is that not aiding and abetting (or something like that !!)


----------



## JQ2002 (16 Jun 2009)

csirl said:


> The uniformed Garda in the drivers seat can be a bit of a giveaway.
> 
> One easy way to tell unmarked Garda cars is that they are taxed, but not insured by a private insurance company (as the State carries its own insurance). So tax disc & no insurance disc on the windscreen.
> 
> ...


 

They also have no dealership details (i.e JOE Motors Limited), the numbers on the reg plates tend to be spaced out more than a private car, the brake light mounted on the rear window is modified, sometimes you may see extra lights mounted on the bumpers...just my observations...


----------



## starlite68 (16 Jun 2009)

you are missing the point,the programme is designed to show the guards in a humane light...cops with a heart..if you like. the dont want the public to think they are like "robocops" tearing around the country.Enter RTE and get those cameras rolling.


----------



## Latrade (16 Jun 2009)

sam h said:


> If that's the case, surely they would want to be seen to be upholding the law?
> 
> I didn't see the program, but I really don't understand the officer letting her drive off (regardless of the fine & points and the likelihood of her not doing it again). Surely by doing so, he is knowingly allowing her to continue breaking the law by driving unaccompanied and with the kids unrestrained?? Is that not aiding and abetting (or something like that !!)


 

I didn't see it either and I too am offended and outraged by whatever I'm told to be offended and outraged by.


----------



## sam h (16 Jun 2009)

Latrade said:


> I didn't see it either and I too am offended and outraged by whatever I'm told to be offended and outraged by.



Eh, where is I say I was offended and outraged?  

I heard it discussed on the radio before I saw the forum.  I am quite capable of forming my own view, so please do not tell me what my emotions are and certain do not imply that I am just going along with the crowd.  In fact if you look back, I would say the majority of people were of the opinion that the officer should have let her continue.  

My point was that I do not understand how he could allow her to drive away while she was still in breech of the law.


----------



## csirl (16 Jun 2009)

Latrade said:


> While I'd tend to agree on it being too lenient, I do wonder whether it would have been appropriate to stop the travel and leave the woman with five kids at the side of the road, or drag her (and the kids) off to the local station?
> 
> I know it's not really the Gardai's fault, but I think the alternatives for taking more serious immediate action could have opened a can of worms. However, the final punishment was totally inappropriate to the risk involved in that case.


 
The incident appeared to have happened in an urban area. It was daytime, the weather was ok, there was a footpath at the side of the road. Therefore issue of being stranded on the side of a road is not relevant. There is no reason why the woman couldnt have been asked to get out of the car and either call someone to make arrangements to take the children or taken the bus. 

The woman also showed total contempt for the Gardai. She spat some chewing gum on the ground at the Garda's feet and was asked to pick it up. As soon as the Garda turned his back, she spat it out again at his feet. In most countries in the developed world, she'd have ended up in handcuffs and got a lot more than an €80 fine.

Remember, in addition to the lack of seatbelts, overloading and her contempt, SHE DID NOT HAVE A DRIVING LICENSE. What idiot would permit a woman with no driving license to drive away with 5 unrestrained kids in a small car that was falling to bits.


----------



## starlite68 (16 Jun 2009)

csirl said:


> What idiot would permit a woman with no driving license to drive away with 5 unrestrained kids in a small car that was falling to bits.


 maybe the idiot who was making the film,and therefor would have to have got the womans permission to be shown on tv in the first place.


----------



## csirl (16 Jun 2009)

starlite68 said:


> maybe the idiot who was making the film,and therefor would have to have got the womans permission to be shown on tv in the first place.


 
Womans identity wasnt revealed - face obscured.


----------



## thedaras (16 Jun 2009)

DeeFox said:


> > This is way too harsh. I can imagine how much people would give out if they went into a station and there was no "real" Guard available to deal with their issue
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You just made my point ,thanks!

Pity how so many people get off on technicalitys then isnt it.
HOw much training does it require to cross a "t" and dot an "i"..any idiot could do it.

So lets get real and let the guards implement the law and not push pens.
Im aware that the older members of the guards are resentfull of the reserve guards for the very reason that they dont want to be out on the streets they would rather be in the office pushing pens,waiting for pension day.


----------



## thedaras (16 Jun 2009)

Bronte said:


> > I can't believe anyone thinks it would be better to let the lady and her 5 kids out of the car on to the side of the road. 80€ is probably a large fine to a women with 5 children so presumable the lesson is learnt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Smashbox (16 Jun 2009)

I forgot about the licence. She didnt have her licence, she was on a provisional. She didn't have any other adult in the car with her, and there were no L plates on the car either.


----------



## MrMan (17 Jun 2009)

thedaras said:


> So you think the leniency shown on the RTE programme should be allowed?
> Five kids not strapped in ,in a car and the driver is allowed to contuinue on,thats not leniency .....thats stupidity.
> 
> And yes any idiot can sign a form, the fact that its stipulated on the passport application that a guard/Doctor etc means that they have to do so if asked.
> ...


 
I think you may have missed my point as well as twisted my words. I said leniency is good at times to counter your view that the law is black and white with no grey areas, not that the guards on some tv program were right or wrong.
And yes i'm sure that idiots have the ability to sign forms, but seeing as guards are required to carry out this duty they will have to do so until further notice. It hardly takes up serious time. Reserve guards may be easier to influence to sign forms for people that shouldn't have them and if it is official business then leave it to the officials.


----------



## Bronte (17 Jun 2009)

I know exactly why the cops didn't make the lady get out of the car.  The truth is they didn't want to deal with even more hassle and bureaucracy to themselves that this would cause.  I've noticed when there is a police checkpoint pulling in cars and I come along with my kids they always wave me through.  This has happened to me many times.  

I am now also an expert on unmarked Garda cars which leads to the silly question why on earth would they use cars that are so obvious to anyone who takes the time to notice.  Presumable criminals would be even better experts on this.


----------



## thedaras (17 Jun 2009)

MrMan said:


> > I think you may have missed my point as well as twisted my words. I said leniency is good at times to counter your view that the law is black and white with no grey areas, not that the guards on some tv program were right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Caveat (17 Jun 2009)

csirl said:


> The woman also showed total contempt for the Gardai. She spat some chewing gum on the ground at the Garda's feet and was asked to pick it up. As soon as the Garda turned his back, she spat it out again at his feet. *In most countries in the developed world, she'd have ended up in* *handcuffs* and got a lot more than an €80 fine.


 
Exactly. She should have IMO.


----------



## starlite68 (17 Jun 2009)

Caveat said:


> Exactly. She should have IMO.


 she probably would have...if the cameras had not been there!


----------



## MrMan (17 Jun 2009)

> Where exactly is the grey area?


61km in a 60 zone, having a headlight go while in transit, staying in the pub half hour after closing. There are loads of little things that if the guards came down on they would be slated for being petty and not solving real crime. With some degree of leniency a better relationship can be formed with the public. Leniency does not equal power, it merely shows that they can use common sense at the right time. 
If the guards are waiting for a particularly nasty criminal and I zoom by 20km over speed limit should they go after me and risk losing a drug seizure?



> This is incorrect there is a lot of form filling going on and it does take up to 15 minutes for a family of three.Keeping in mind there were three guards doing this ,so 3x15 mins is 45 minutes of garda time and how much did that cost the taxpayer?


And how many families of 3 are there getting signs formed weekly? I just think that it is nit picking to suggest that there is any great waste of garda resources due to form filling for the public.


----------



## Latrade (17 Jun 2009)

Caveat said:


> Exactly. She should have IMO.


 
And do what with the kids? 

I agree the ultimate punishment hardly seems to match the offence, but then being unfamiliar with who decides an appropriate penalty, I can't say whether it's the individual garda or someone else. I would presume it's at the individual's discretion in terms of a fixed penalty.

But in terms with how the offence was dealt with at the roadside, I can't see what benefit there would have been in taking the woman involved to the station, having to transport all her kids there too. Have the kids sitting and waiting around a station while their mother is processed and charged. Having the kids needing minding while probably traumatised at seeing their mother handcuffed and thrown into the back of a van (again are the kids taken to the station in the van too? A car?). If signing a passport photo is a waste of gardai time, then nursing 5 kids is even worse.

Or what else, send them home? How? Taxi? Do we as tax payers pick up that tab? Arrange to be collected? By who? What if there is no one? Even if there is does the garda have to wait around doing nothing until they can get there? Well that's a great use of resources.


----------



## Caveat (17 Jun 2009)

Latrade said:


> And do what with the kids?


 
Yes, a problem in this case - but only because of a culture of leniency and an unlikelihood of this happening.

On the other hand, any mother who breaks the law - whatever law - should realise that there is a possibility that she may be removed, even if temporarily, from her kids.  

You say do what with the kids - what if she had murdered someone? 

There is always a a way -  husband, relatives, neighbours etc.


----------



## DeeFox (17 Jun 2009)

Latrade said:


> But in terms with how the offence was dealt with at the roadside, I can't see what benefit there would have been in taking the woman involved to the station, having to transport all her kids there too. Have the kids sitting and waiting around a station while their mother is processed and charged. Having the kids needing minding while probably traumatised at seeing their mother handcuffed and thrown into the back of a van (again are the kids taken to the station in the van too? A car?). If signing a passport photo is a waste of gardai time, then nursing 5 kids is even worse.
> 
> Or what else, send them home? How? Taxi? Do we as tax payers pick up that tab? Arrange to be collected? By who? What if there is no one? Even if there is does the garda have to wait around doing nothing until they can get there? Well that's a great use of resources.


 
Good points raised here and, as the OP, this is why I thought it would be an interesting topic of discussion.  I did think a small fine and 2 points was too lenient but I don't know what should have been done when you take into consideration the issues raised as quoted above.


----------



## Latrade (17 Jun 2009)

Caveat said:


> Yes, a problem in this case - but only because of a culture of leniency and an unlikelihood of this happening.
> 
> On the other hand, any mother who breaks the law - whatever law - should realise that there is a possibility that she may be removed, even if temporarily, from her kids.
> 
> ...


 
Every citizen should be aware that offences against the state have that possibility. However, murder is not dealt with on the basis of a fixed penalty. You don't get arrested for certain offences, they are dealt with on the spot.

While you're right that there might have been a way, my point still remains about what to do while arranging that? Does the garda (and also the RTE crew claiming over time while waiting) sit around until a person can be found and then comes to pick up the kids? Do they throw them all in the van and wait at the station for them to be collected? 

If I were to drive without insurance or dangerously, I'd expect a ticking off at the roadside and a summons to court, not the hand cuffs and a bit of a kicking in the van. 

That's just the way it is, some offences are processed at the roadside, other more serious offences involve arrest etc. 

Personally, I think the garda was right in the roadside dealing, but wrong in the extent of the penalty. I'd have thought a summons was more appropriate, however, we also aren't privy to the reasons for deciding on that penalty and whether other factors were taken into consideration. a 5 minute slot on RTE doesn't qualify us as judge, jury and executioner.


----------



## Caveat (17 Jun 2009)

Latrade said:


> If I were to drive without insurance or dangerously, I'd expect a ticking off at the roadside and a summons to court, not the hand cuffs and a bit of a kicking in the van.


 
Nobody is suggesting 'a bit of a kicking'

My reference to arrest was in relation to the contempt she showed to the garda - not her motoring offence.

The fact that this was a televised scenario changes everying anyway.


----------



## Latrade (17 Jun 2009)

Caveat said:


> Nobody is suggesting 'a bit of a kicking'
> 
> My reference to arrest was in relation to the contempt she showed to the garda - not her motoring offence.
> 
> The fact that this was a televised scenario changes everying anyway.


 
I know, but if you can't throw a bit of hyperbole into a discussion what's the world comming to? Such as comparing this offence to murder.

However, you have since shifted from the murder comparison to saying that showing contempt to a state appointed enforcer should be an arrestable offence. I'm not entirely sure I would agree with that. The offence is the offence, not my response or perceived feelings when approached about the offence.

Does that mean if I'm nice, police and respectful to the gardai after murdering someone, I get off?


----------



## Complainer (17 Jun 2009)

RonanC said:


> Trust me I know


Generally, Askaboutmoney doesn't work that way. Evidence is kind-of important round here. 



JQ2002 said:


> Yup, it was defo an unmarked car....I've seen it around Dublin with uniformed guards in it. The Mondeos and Focus seem to be the car of choice when it comes to un marked cars.
> 
> Why was this guard allowed use a state vehicle to do a run away from the Courts anyway?





RonanC said:


> The car *was* an unmarked Garda car, a Silver Ford Focus with the ariel on the roof which all unmarked Garda cars have. If a member of the force was suspended he or she should not have been using a state vehicle unless he or she was in the back of the car after being arrested of course.


I've reviewed this clip from the RTE website (see [broken link removed]). I'm amazed that anyone could claim with certainty that this is a Garda car. It only appears for a few seconds, and the roof aeriel seems no different than any other Ford Focus roof aeriel. 

If this is indeed a Garda car, this matter should be reported and followed up. But I don't see any evidence of this.


----------



## Caveat (17 Jun 2009)

Latrade said:


> I know, but if you can't throw a bit of hyperbole into a discussion what's the world comming to? Such as comparing this offence to murder.
> 
> However, you have since shifted from the murder comparison to saying that showing contempt to a state appointed enforcer should be an arrestable offence. I'm not entirely sure I would agree with that. The offence is the offence, not my response or perceived feelings when approached about the offence.
> 
> Does that mean if I'm nice, police and respectful to the gardai after murdering someone, I get off?


 


Crazy, crazy stuff Latrade.

Firstly, I did not compare the offence to murder - I gave one example (of many possibilities) where this woman would be separated from her kids, that's all.

As for showing contempt of this type during the course of being dealt with for another offence(s), yes, I would regard that as arrestable.



> Does that mean if I'm nice, police and respectful to the gardai after murdering someone, I get off?


 
Yes. Of course. That's exactly what I'm suggesting.


----------



## Latrade (17 Jun 2009)

Caveat said:


> Crazy, crazy stuff Latrade.
> 
> Firstly, I did not compare the offence to murder - I gave one example (of many possibilities) where this woman would be separated from her kids, that's all.


 
What is the purpose of an example if not to suggest a pattern, representation or model: i.e. a comparison? She would also be arrested in the event of suspected terroism. However, it was a routine motoring offence covered by the fixed penalty system, so outside of that the example just wasn't relevant...or comparable. Equally she wouldn't be arrested for dropping litter, using a phone while driving, driving with a brake light not working, etc etc. Far more appropriate examples in this case.



Caveat said:


> As for showing contempt of this type during the course of being dealt with for another offence(s), yes, I would regard that as arrestable.


 
But it isn't arrestable, so again rather a moot point. Thankfully, there is no constitutional or statutory requirement for being polite and respectful to authority figures. If she'd have crossed the line into public order offences, fine, slap the cuffs on and be damned with the welfare of the kids (serves them right for being born to such an unfit mother if you ask me). As it was, she wasn't pleasant, but she was neither abusive or aggressive.



Caveat said:


> Yes. Of course. That's exactly what I'm suggesting.


 
If a minor offence can be escalated due to lack of respect, I don't see why civility can't lessen a more serious offence.


----------



## DeeFox (17 Jun 2009)

Latrade said:


> If she'd have crossed the line into public order offences, fine, slap the cuffs on and be damned with the welfare of the kids (*serves them right for being born to such an unfit mother if you ask me).*


 

What on earth??  This was supposed to be a discussion about a perceived leniency on the part of the Guards - this is a ridiculous comment and I assume it is trolling.


----------



## Caveat (17 Jun 2009)

Latrade said:


> What is the purpose of an example if not to suggest a pattern, representation or model: i.e. a comparison? She would also be arrested in the event of suspected terroism. However, it was a routine motoring offence covered by the fixed penalty system, so outside of that the example just wasn't relevant...or comparable. Equally she wouldn't be arrested for dropping litter, using a phone while driving, driving with a brake light not working, etc etc. Far more appropriate examples in this case.


 
My only point is that if you don't want to risk being separated from your kids and all that entails, don't put yourself into a position where this might happen.  Highly unlikely with regard to the motoring offence itself, possible in the light of her subsequent behaviour and likely IMO, had her behaviour escalated.





> But it isn't arrestable, so again rather a moot point. Thankfully, there is no constitutional or statutory requirement for being polite and respectful to authority figures. If she'd have crossed the line into public order offences, fine, slap the cuffs on and be damned with the welfare of the kids (serves them right for being born to such an unfit mother if you ask me). As it was, she wasn't pleasant, but she was neither abusive or aggressive.


 
Arrestable *IMO* - that's all. Had it been Spain, Germany, France...her behaviour would not have gone unchallenged and could well have led to an arrest.



> If a minor offence can be escalated due to lack of respect, I don't see why civility can't lessen a more serious offence.


 
Well obviously not with murder anyway - which was your example.

I don't have anything more to say on this myself.


----------



## Latrade (17 Jun 2009)

DeeFox said:


> What on earth?? This was supposed to be a discussion about a perceived leniency on the part of the Guards - this is a ridiculous comment and I assume it is trolling.


 
Absolutely not. Often on this forum we mention personal responsibility, well the kids should take responsibility for the actions of their mother. To be honest, given her track record of being impolite and minor motoring offences, I'm sickened the HSE weren't called in to take the kids into care. Even better throw them in the Joy too, that'll teach them for getting into the car in the first place. I can only assume that they now feel such offences and behaviour are acceptable, a spell in the Joy, or bringing back industrial schools, would set a better example.


----------



## VOR (17 Jun 2009)

Complainer said:


> I've reviewed this clip from the RTE website (see [broken link removed]). I'm amazed that anyone could claim with certainty that this is a Garda car. It only appears for a few seconds, and the roof aeriel seems no different than any other Ford Focus roof aeriel.
> 
> If this is indeed a Garda car, this matter should be reported and followed up. But I don't see any evidence of this.


 
The car shows a tax disc but not an insurance cert. This is the norm for a Garda unmarked car. That's always the thing to watch for in your rear view mirror. There is only one aerial visible from the shot as opposed to the normal 3 so that is inconclusive. The lack of insurance is evidence enough for me that it is certainly a government car of some sort.

If it is a private vehicle then it is uninsured and the Gardai present should have spoken to the driver immediately. I mean, even RTE were there for filming another episode


----------



## Cayne (17 Jun 2009)

Latrade said:


> .... or bringing back industrial schools, would set a better example.


 
Disgusting if you ask me bringing that up. Heard of ryan?


----------



## sam h (17 Jun 2009)

Latrade said:


> I didn't see it either and I too am offended and outraged by whatever I'm told to be offended and outraged by.


 
Yikees Latrade, you weren't kidding (but in future, speak for yourself only!)

I reckon you're trolling.....industrial schools???  kids in care???  Mountjoy???  

Are you for real???


----------



## Caveat (17 Jun 2009)

Cayne said:


> Disgusting if you ask me bringing that up. Heard of ryan?


 
Ah you see _Latrade_, that's the problem with sarcasm/irony. It's like an Italian car: you might think it's cool, sophisticated and fun to begin with, but it will always let you down spectacularly.


----------



## Latrade (17 Jun 2009)

Ok, if there's an internet equivalent of a time out: I call it.

First, a bit of context. My posts have been towards what in my opinion was an overreaction to the incident described. I have been pretty clear that I think it was sensible, given the knowledge of the circumstances we have, for the garda to let the driver go home. But that the ultimately penalty seemed light. 

Some comments were made that stated apparant disbelief at the circumstance where the footage hadn't been seen. I feel it reasonable to question that.

Lastly, more context in that in the very brief parts that were highlighted, I was (trying) to apply a lighter sense to the debate. An attempt at humour using sarcasm. In my defence, I don't use smilies as I find them sinister (no offence intended for those people who favour their left hand and are familiar with latin, we're all brothers and sisters and I honestly die inside each time I see those who favour their left struggle with the cruel, no doubt CIA or masonic plotted system, of writing pads, scissors and such day-to-day items. I feel for you all), plus I was under the impression that based upon the rest of the text, such an extreme statement slapped in the middle would be seen to be based on a "let's not take this too seriously"/"poke fun at the hard on crime view" and not that I'm a day or two away from promoting eugenics as an economic solution. (That too was some sarcasm). 

And that's it. Time out over.


----------



## Latrade (17 Jun 2009)

Caveat said:


> Ah you see _Latrade_, that's the problem with sarcasm/irony. It's like an Italian car: you might think it's cool, sophisticated and fun to begin with, but it will always let you down spectacularly.


 
Yes bit on the rare occasion it does work, it's worth it. I defy anyone to say that on the odd day my alfa works I don't look teh hawt.


----------



## DeeFox (17 Jun 2009)

Latrade said:


> Ok, if there's an internet equivalent of a time out: I call it.


 
Fair enough- sometimes hard to separate the ones who are being sarcastic from the ones who are trolling to the ones who genuinely hold very odd and completely indefensible views...


----------



## csirl (17 Jun 2009)

Latrade said:


> And do what with the kids?
> 
> 
> 
> Or what else, send them home? How? Taxi? Do we as tax payers pick up that tab? Arrange to be collected? By who? What if there is no one? Even if there is does the garda have to wait around doing nothing until they can get there? Well that's a great use of resources.


 
Exactly - what about the kids?

The one thing you should never do with kids is put them unrestrained in the back of a car with too many passengers in it driven by someone with no driving license.

The safety of the kids, who are innocent participants, should be the principal concern. They should never be put in such danger regardless of the inconvenience caused.


----------



## dave28 (17 Jun 2009)

The woman should not have been allowed drive away 
a - without seatbelts on the passengers
b - she didnt have a proper driving licence
end of !!


----------



## sandrat (17 Jun 2009)

I saw this and thought it was a bit mad, did anyone reckon she had no shoes on when she got out the car to beg on her knees? are you allowed drive barefoot?


----------



## S.L.F (18 Jun 2009)

DeeFox said:


> to the ones who genuinely hold very odd and completely indefensible views...


 
Only odd and indefensible to you.

I think we need people of all thought waves to speak their piece then we all learn something, lets face facts if we were all saying the same things life would get real boring....real fast.


----------



## Bronte (18 Jun 2009)

If you have 5 kids and a car with two seatbelts in the rear how are you supposed to transport the?  Assuming the driver has no money to buy a people carrier, there is no public transport, no school bus and school/shops are 20km away?

Who are so many of you obsessed with unmarked garda cars?

Caveat, motoring offence to murder, what a leap.  

I don't know what planet you are all on, no garda is going to bring a women and 5 kids to a station for a motoring offence.  I can just hear Joe Duffy now.


----------



## Complainer (18 Jun 2009)

VOR said:


> The car shows a tax disc but not an insurance cert. This is the norm for a Garda unmarked car. That's always the thing to watch for in your rear view mirror. There is only one aerial visible from the shot as opposed to the normal 3 so that is inconclusive. The lack of insurance is evidence enough for me that it is certainly a government car of some sort.


Thanks - now I get it. So who's going to report this matter to the Commissioner?


----------



## Pique318 (18 Jun 2009)

Bronte said:


> I don't know what planet you are all on, no garda is going to bring a women and 5 kids to a station for a motoring offence.  I can just hear Joe Duffy now.


And that's what counts, is it ? Joe bleedin Duffy and his callers on soapboxes decrying the downfall of society ?

Prov licence - Offence
Not insured as a result of above - Offence
Overloaded - Offence
Reversing down a dual carraigeway - Offence

And she drives away!!!
She should have been left on the side of the road, IMO. Let her get her own way home. Impound the car until a fully insured/licences driver picks it up.

No wonder our fatalities are so high on roads.

A couple of weeks ago, they showed a young lad in Donegal in a car with NI plates, prov licence, no licenced driver on board, no tax, (no insurance by virtue of all the previous) and steam pouring out from the power-steering reservoir (incorrectly described by the guard as 'smoke'). He let the guy go ! No points, no fine, just a slap on the wrists of having to attend some ridiculous first steps programme. Considering the guy fit the demographic, and drove the type of car, of boy racer, especially in Donegal, I was stunned that he let him go.

That show is making a mockery of the guards and it appears to set a  precedent whereby major offences are treated lightly in order to avoid paperwork but get the fine anyway.


----------



## Caveat (18 Jun 2009)

Bronte said:


> Caveat, motoring offence to murder, what a leap.


 
Once again, describe the 'leap' I have supposedly made - or maybe just read the posts again.


----------



## DeeFox (18 Jun 2009)

Bronte said:


> If you have 5 kids and a car with two seatbelts in the rear how are you supposed to transport the? Assuming the driver has no money to buy a people carrier, there is no public transport, no school bus and school/shops are 20km away?


 
There always has to be a better way.  Just because that way might be inconvenient doesn't mean that you can break the law.  If this woman (who clearly wasn't an experienced driver) had had to break suddenly one or more of those children would probably have gone through the windscreen.



Bronte said:


> Who are so many of you obsessed with unmarked garda cars?


 
This thread got dragged off in a different direction regarding the unmarked cars.  I don't really get why people care which cars are unmarked Garda cars.  Okay, so this woman who is being charged with making up false stories was almost certainly whisked away by an unmarked car - so what?  In relation to wasting taxpayers money this a very minor issue - there are far worse things going on.  She clearly has some serious issues and I think the Guards are trying to deal with as best they can.


----------



## Bronte (18 Jun 2009)

I remember as a child my mother driving the lot of us home from school round a lovely steep bend, two of us in the front seat, about 5 or 6 in the back,  door opened on the passenger side, banger type car, you know the type, no proper lights, bumper tied with bail twine and when it rained you had to get out to wipe the rain off, or try and peer though the rain, luckily she drove at a dangerously low speed so us two kids dusted our selves off, climbed back it and were killed for not closing the door properly !  As for seatbelts I don't believe there was one in the car.

I'm glad some people on here are not Garda never mind judges.  We are after all talking about a motoring offence.


----------



## DeeFox (19 Jun 2009)

Bronte said:


> I remember as a child my mother driving the lot of us home from school round a lovely steep bend, two of us in the front seat, about 5 or 6 in the back, door opened on the passenger side, banger type car, you know the type, no proper lights, bumper tied with bail twine and when it rained you had to get out to wipe the rain off, or try and peer though the rain, luckily she drove at a dangerously low speed so us two kids dusted our selves off, climbed back it and were killed for not closing the door properly ! As for seatbelts I don't believe there was one in the car.


 
I get what you're saying here - I'm from a very large family and have loads of stories like this.  We fought over who got to sit between the two front seats on a car journey - the losers might have to travel in the seatwell.  Babysitters were for posh people - we were locked into a room if my mother had to go to the shop while my Dad was at work.  No such thing as sunscreen - we burnt regularly.  
I can look back now and laugh but we were lucky that no serious accidents ever happened.  Times have changed and I wouldn't be happy if any of my nieces or nephews were put in positions like this.  I hope the woman in question has learnt her lesson and will take her childrens safety more seriously from now on.


----------



## Bronte (19 Jun 2009)

DeeFox said:


> . I hope the woman in question has learnt her lesson and will take her childrens safety more seriously from now on.


 
Yes that neatly sums it up.


----------

