Cowengate

odyssey06 said:
It is a penalty point offence to drive on a provisional licence unaccompanied.
Click to expand...
It used to be the law (maybe still is) that that's the case on your first provisional. But I presume he was well past that.
As regards it was the lower provo's limit that caught him, that speaks to the relative innocence of the offence (you & I would've been waved on).

Leo - "not quite as portrayed" - that's the crux of it, either Pulse is wrong or BC is blatantly lying. I doubt he'd be that brass necked to lie. Surely the Garda that pursued him would remember?, he was a sitting TD after all.

Maybe he should have addressed the Dáil (....again) but sure what was he going to say that wasn't already known?? The opposition would be luvvin it, and that's their job, but I take this "demanding answers" stuff with a pinch of salt. He'd probably be accused of abusing Dáil privilege to defend himself. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the report.....
 
Good riddance. No excusing what he did. The holier than thou good-for-nothing broke the law and did so undetected for many years. Well, maybe not undetected; given how stuff works in this country, unprosecuted as far as we know. "Arra sure he wouldn't be the worst of them and isn't the whole country at it?" disappointingly seems to be the general overriding tone in some preceding posts.

Which brings us to the delicate matter of insurance.

How would someone on a learner's permit get motor insurance? Would s/he lie on the proposal form and declare a full licence? Would some well-connected person front for their younger sibling on the proposal form? Would the husband/partner front for him/her? Would the "fronter" supervise the learner's driving or knowingly help breach the insurance conditions, rendering the policy null and void?

How would someone on a learner's permit with a drink-driving conviction get motor insurance? Would s/he lie on the proposal form and declare a full licence and no convictions? Would some well-connected person front for the younger sibling on the proposal form? Would the husband/partner front for him/her? Would any of these kind people drive the now-convicted driver to and from his/her places of business and state employment during the period of licence suspension?

Given that the someone and his/her family might be involved in a number of businesses in and around their local area, would the car(s) involved in breaking the law for decades be personal property or a business asset paid for through let's say a property investment business, a real estate agency or other? It can be easier to hide a convicted / unlicenced driver within a corporate fleet policy than on a personal one. Where might that leave him/her in relation to claiming travel expenses from his or her employer for a company vehicle?

There is more to this story than meets the eye and ear initially. The truth may even out for once.
 
Last edited:

Yes it used to be the law, it has been tightened up that no provisonal licence holder can drive unaccompanied.
So that is no longer the law and a TD is not above the law. And as a TD he has no excuse for being unware of the law.

It doesn't speak to the relative innocence of the offence at all. It shows that he was considered a higher risk and was treated accordingly. He was considered a higher risk because of the number of accidents that have occurred involving such drivers that have left people dead or maimed for life.
He was committing multiple offences on that night. And not just on that night, he appears to have regularly driven unaccompanied.
This was not a once off infraction.
Better he was stopped at that checkpoint and put off the road before his actions had such consequences.

And better for the country that we don't have someone so cavalier about the law in high office.
 
odyssey06 said:
You would think so but nope - Jim McDaid lasted one day as Minister for Defence only for a photo to emerge of him being pally with Provos.
That was a coalition government also (FF + PDs).
Click to expand...
If it was the funeral of a Provo he would have been fine, it seems.
 
The obvious questions are

1) was it the law at the time (unaccompanied only on 1st provisional), 4 years ago?
2) if it wasn't why wasn't he charged with being unaccompanied?

I get people don't like him but he can only be convicted re laws in force at the time.

Maththepac - there's a whole ream of speculation there. I bet the stats will come out this week, how many serial provisional licence drivers are there (or were there at the time). Were they all similarly involved in elaborate corruption to get insurance? I think not.....

The seriousness or otherwise of the offence brings up a fundamental point about law in Ireland, we're fantastic for legislation, oh we're the most upright folk on the planet, but we don't enforce anything. Like that total muppet Shane Ross, there's a good riddance if ever...., with his new lower drink driving limit, like it'd make a blind bit of difference (no stats or evidence remember) other than he could point at something.

In over 25 years driving, 24 fully licensed, I've never once been bagged, or stopped and "assessed for bagging". In Australia, where I only was for about 6 months, I was bagged 3 times, including twice on the same day (passed on each occasion). So the point is that some of these laws are not quite the effective measures we'd claim them to be - we don't get to chose which ones we like - we comply with them all - or we pay the penalty (which he did btw... though you'd never think it....) - but Cowen who I presume had been driving for many years was unlikely to be posing substantially more of a risk that any of the rest of us. When that law was brought in it was said to be for young inexperienced drivers, who had enough to be thinking about, without having more that a half pint on board (or whatever the limit translates to).

"Cavelier about the law" - he was only over the (lower) limit we understand, not the limit for fully licensed. Maybe he has a rake of other sins and they'll all come out but, so far, it looks like he's being thrown out over something that may not even have happened (evading the Guards).
 
The law on unaccompanied learners was in the 016 Road Traffic Act (Section 39).
I've been stopped at checkpoints many times. I've been randomly tested 3 times. I'm driving over 25 years.
 
Signed into law 27 December 2016. The drink driving offence was after AI football final (late September). So he wasn't subject to that (unaccompanied, regardless of which provisional licence) law (which makes sense).
 
Betsy Og said:
Leo - "not quite as portrayed" - that's the crux of it, either Pulse is wrong or BC is blatantly lying. I doubt he'd be that brass necked to lie. Surely the Garda that pursued him would remember?, he was a sitting TD after all.
Click to expand...

To me, not quite as portrayed suggests the leaked account is closer to the truth than Cowen's version to date. It's politics speak for give him time to come clean or fall on his sword. The Garda involved remembering it doesn't really come into play as they would not be allowed to comment publicly.
 
But sure the leaked account is "Pulse says he done a runner Guv", he says he didn't. How are we going to resolve the matter? Isn't there some enquiry ongoing?, surely the Garda can make a statement there (with his/her name withheld from the public). It doesn't matter who the Garda is, its just facts we need to establish to understand the extent of BC's a) misdemeanours & b) truthfullness. The b) being more of an issue than the a) at this stage, though both are politically fatal.
 
Betsy Og said:
I bet the stats will come out this week, how many serial provisional licence drivers are there (or were there at the time).
Click to expand...
I don't care how many others there are or aren't, someone appointed to high office broke the law and hid the facts and then started arguing the toss about the details of the offence(s). Sinning and doing a belated mea culpa is one thing, the "Ah, Jaysus lads I wasn't *that* bad" is a whole herd of differently hued horses.

Betsy Og said:
The seriousness or otherwise of the offence brings up a fundamental point about law in Ireland, we're fantastic for legislation, oh we're the most upright folk on the planet, but we don't enforce anything.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I agree wholeheartedly and I've made that same point in here more than once.

The safety campaigns, running for years on billboards, TV, newspapers are unequivocal - *IF YOU DRINK, DON'T DRIVE*. They don't say if you drink a little, drive slower, or only drive short distances. DON'T DRIVE, the message could not be simpler.

And BTW, if you take prescribed or even OTC medication, please read the labels. If thy say stuff like "Do not operate machinery while taking this product", that includes operating a mechanically propelled vehicle. You may not be detected as over the limit or intoxicated, but your alertness may be compromised. When big or small pharma posts a warning on meds, pay attention. When you're part of the lawmaking machinery, keep to the laws and pay attention to the money being spent on advertising campaigns. After all, it's probably your brother-in-law's ad agency got the job!!
 
Purple said:
I think that may be one thing he can't be accused of. Wasn't a FF TD accused of do that to avoid a stop back in the 70's or 80's?
Click to expand...
Seán Doherty FF but it was in relation to a lock in at a pub in the Boyle area

TD will not face any further action for abusing garda

Fine Gael TD PJ Sheehan repeatedly poked a female garda in the chest while threatening to end her career and refusing to leave his car though he was clearly intoxicated, according to garda sources.
www.independent.ie
 
mathepac said:
I don't care how many others there are or aren't, someone appointed to high office broke the law and hid the facts and then started arguing the toss about the details of the offence(s).
Click to expand...

But did he "hide the facts"? - is he obliged to register every offence of which he is convicted? (I think you should, but I've never heard of it), like you are in respect of your property interests?

The details of the offence are fairly important - doing a U turn is below the standards I'd expect, lying most certainly is below expected standards, as is being over the limit - all I'm arguing about re over the limit is the proportionality of the penalty, the State laid down the punishment and he served it, but not enough punishment it seems....

Dellboy - I'd go with Weshht (I'm agreeing with MTP!)
 
Ah the good old days when a prominent politician could go on the Late Late, admit to after hours drinking and then boast about intimidating the Garda who asked him to leave "Well Gard, will you have a drink or a transfer"

IIRC, that was a Fianna Fail-er too

Someone on RTE asked are candidate Ministers not still Garda vetted against Pulse ? If so, why was this incident not surfaced earlier ?
 
Other than it would be an affront to democracy (no doubt), there should be a vetting process to put your name forward for election. Might have saved a certain party some hassles in relation to a few of the headbangers they've ended up with.
 
I don't really care about Cowen but at the end of the day, I haven't read that he was treated any differently to the thousands of other people who have been caught drink driving. He was charged, went to court and was sentenced. I haven't any accusations that he lied about the conviction. Someone leaked Gardaí records on the incident. He is entitled to fight to get those records corrected if he is convinced they are wrong. And he is right to ask why wasn't he charged with anything other than drink driving if attempting to evade a checkpoint was mentioned. Internal Gardai records should not be used to discredit people when they haven't had a chance to defend themselves in Court. This is at least the second time in recent history that Gardaí records have been 'leaked' or used against a sitting politician.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register