I know it's a different jurisdiction to that usually discussed here but I thought some of you might
like this from yesterday's Irish Times. "A teenage repeat offender was detained for one year and
banned from the roads for 60 years for breaking into and attempting to take two cars. Judge John
Coughlan made the order at the Dublin Children's Court after the boy
(17) had pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawfully interfering with the mechanism of cars and two
counts of criminally damaging them, to the value of 1300 euro, the court heard." The Irish
Times website is mainly subscribers only so I can't post a link. The rest of the story asserts
that the boy "had a number of previous convictions. On April 2nd. last he was given a three
year suspended sentence for joyriding. On the same date, he was also detained for six months
for a car theft as well as for other charges of larceny and handling stolen goods. Last
December he had been disqualified from having a license for a year for driving without a
license or insurance." A 60 year ban seems to send the right message, he was attepting to drive
while banned already after all. He'll still drive of course. The added spice to all this comes
from the fact that a week or so ago one of our governing party's backbenchers ran down and
seriously injured a pedestrian whilst drunk. It'll be interesting to see what sort of a ban he
gets. tony R.
UK and Europe · Public discussion
60 year driving ban
Thread navigation
Jump through the discussion
Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.
Thread details
What we know about this thread
- Original section
- UK and Europe
- Published
- 5 October 2003
- Last activity
- 6 October 2003
- Original author
- Tony R
- Posts
- 13
- Discussion status
- Public discussion
- Total views
- 1,272
- Views / 30 days
- 0
The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.
-
-
<snip>
I suppose its a start, but surely prison or maybe a curfew would be a more effective punishment
against those who drive while disqualified? -
tony R said:
A 60 year ban seems to send the right message, he was attepting to drive while banned already
after all.>Not so sure about that. He now has no prospect of ever driving legally so what incentive is there
for him? He'll probably continue as is judging by his record but now he has nothing to lose. Maybe a
5-10 year ban to be renewed based on behaviour might at least give a chance for him to reform as he
grows out of youth and settles down.Tony
--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain . -
In article <[email hidden]>, tony R <[email hidden]> writes [snip]
Quoted message said:
A 60 year ban seems to send the right message,
[snip]No, all it does is virtually guarantee that he will reoffend - exactly the opposite of what
is needed.--
Roger Barker [email hidden] Boston, UK -
"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
tony R said:
A 60 year ban seems to send the right message, he was attepting to drive while banned already
after all.>Not so sure about that. He now has no prospect of ever driving legally so what incentive is there
for him? He'll probably continue as is judging by his record but now he has nothing to lose. Maybe
a 5-10 year ban to be renewed based on behaviour might at least give a chance for him to reform
asQuoted message said:
he grows out of youth and settles down.
Yes, I think I agree with you. What I actually meant was it sent the message out to people in
general that driving whilst banned would be treated seriously. tony R. -
tony R must be edykated coz e writed:
Quoted message said:
The added spice to all this comes from the fact that a week or so ago one of our governing party's
backbenchers ran down and seriously injured a pedestrian whilst drunk. It'll be interesting to see
what sort of a ban he gets. tony R.
The ped will probably be judged as causing the incident.--
Ian -
"Roger Barker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, tony R <[email hidden]> writes [snip]
Quoted message said:
A 60 year ban seems to send the right message,
[snip]No, all it does is virtually guarantee that he will reoffend - exactly the opposite of what
is needed.
As I thought I'd implied (through the sentence following the one you partially quoted) it was the
general message to society I thought was right. After all the offender hardly needs a "message" - he
has a jail term and ban to deal with. Hope this makes my point clearer. tony R. -
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
<snip>
I suppose its a start, but surely prison or maybe a curfew would be a more effective punishment
against those who drive while disqualified?For longer than a year, that is
-
In article <[email hidden]>, tony R <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
"Roger Barker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, tony R <[email hidden]> writes [snip]
Quoted message said:
A 60 year ban seems to send the right message,
[snip]No, all it does is virtually guarantee that he will reoffend - exactly the opposite of what is
needed.
As I thought I'd implied (through the sentence following the one you partially quoted) it was the
general message to society I thought was right. After all the offender hardly needs a "message" -
he has a jail term and ban to deal with. Hope this makes my point clearer."General messages to society" might make good sound bytes for politicians, but in reality they solve
few problems.--
Roger Barker [email hidden] Boston, UK -
tony R said:
Last December he had been disqualified from having a license for a year for driving without a
license or insurance."So he'll *really* be bricking it now ;-)
-
"Roger Barker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, tony R <[email hidden]> writes
Quoted message said:
"Roger Barker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, tony R <[email hidden]> writes [snip]
>A 60 year ban seems to send the right message,
[snip]No, all it does is virtually guarantee that he will reoffend - exactly the opposite of what is
needed.
As I thought I'd implied (through the sentence following the one you partially quoted) it was the
general message to society I thought was
right.Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
After all the offender hardly needs a "message" - he has a jail term and
banQuoted message said:
Quoted message said:
to deal with. Hope this makes my point clearer.
"General messages to society" might make good sound bytes for politicians, but in reality they
solve few problems.A nice sound-bite in itself there. However I'll concede your point, no problem. In the OP I really
only wanted to highlight a case that showed lengthy bans are handed out on occasion - we've had many
examples posted here of serious offences resulting in short or no bans - and point out the envisaged
difference in treatment between the boy and the politician. Having reread the article it's not
spelled out what exactly the ban was given for. He wasn't charged with driving while banned (he
didn't actually mange to get as far as driving away before he was caught). tony R. -
Nathaniel Porter said:
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
<snip>
I suppose its a start, but surely prison or maybe a curfew would be a more effective punishment
against those who drive while disqualified?For longer than a year, that is
I'm not so sure. Interpolating to the Paul S**th logic of motoring you're much safer being drunk
while driving. After all, not only don't you need to observe the posted speed limit, you're also
less likely to notice the speed limit signs, therefore you won't be as distracted by that vague
feeling that there ought to be something you're supposed to be adhering to. Also, of course, if you
do it properly you won't be able to remember you've done it at a later date, and so therefore you
can't possibly have been a manace to anyone else at all a tall. Ah begorrah. Whatever that means, or
however you spell it.Trev
-
"Trevor Barton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Nathaniel Porter said:
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
<snip>
I suppose its a start, but surely prison or maybe a curfew would be a
moreQuoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
effective punishment against those who drive while disqualified?
For longer than a year, that is
I'm not so sure. Interpolating to the Paul S**th logic of motoring you're much safer being drunk
while driving. After all, not only don't you need to observe the posted speed limit, you're also
less likely to notice the speed limit signs, therefore you won't be as distracted by that vague
feeling that there ought to be something you're supposed to be adhering to. Also, of course, if
you do it properly you won't be able to remember you've done it at a later date, and so therefore
you can't possibly have been a manace to anyone else at all a tall.......... and, of course, the majority of road accidents are caused by those who are not drunk. :-)
Cheers Andrew
Active in the last 60 minutes
Active in this thread
0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total
No signed-in users are active right now.
No known search crawlers active right now.