agree, you should need a licence to have a baby, and have to do a test as well.

Don’t be giving Noonan new tax ideas…

Falstaff, you’re on to something there! Perhaps you can forward your idea onto Noonan, instead of the household charge they can impose a child licence together with a bi-annual National Child Care Test (NCCT). The benefits for the state could be great, I’m not sure how many kds are born/living here but initially the govt will get a wad (excuse the pun) of cash for each licence they issue (one per kid), then with the NCCT that’ll bring more cash in too! Looking into the future it could reduce the Children Allowance bill as I will assume there will be less kid borns………..yeah the benefits will be endless!!

I tell ye’, go for it, gvie Noonan a shout, I’d do it but I wouldn’t want to take the credit when it is your idea in the first place!!

lol jack i think china beat to that. they tax after this first

Rob, you might be onto something there….

Not if there was a few cases of garlic in the boot….

but dont you have to die to win the Darwin awards?

Basing on the evidence and the amount of time left in 2012…

No laws on text driving, ps I gave you the thumbs down.! Amd I’m on m50 now ha ha

John mack,
there are laws on text driving. It’s the exact same as speaking on the phone, the penalty is for ‘holding a mobile phone while driving” so, to explain that in ordinary English for you, that means using the mobile phone while driving in any means or form. Talking, texting, even taking a photograph with a camera phone.
And besides all of the above, the Gardai can do you for careless driving if seen texting. So you keep up your good work boasting on the M50. Enjoy possibly loosing you licence

Sean, could you look up them for us and post a link? I’m too busy driving here….

Hey John Mack, so you’re on the M50……….what about it? We all know the M50 is the biggest parking lot in the country, so you couldn’t possibly be driving while giving the thumbs down…………thereby no law broken!!!

John mac. You on the M50 texting?. That’s ok. For reading your comment you dont seem old enough to drive.

Gerard M. You want me to look it up for you? Do you want me to drive for you too? You seem to be the type who calls your mother to turn you over in bed!

From http://www.rotr.ie the penalty is ‘Holding a mobile phone while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle” It carries 2 penalty points on payment or 4 penalty points on conviction. If you pay the fine within 28 days its €60 and for 28 days after that it is a €90 fine.
Source:http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/accidents-gardai-and-penalties/penalty-points-fixed-charge-offences/index.html

Carlin,
The gardai are exempt from that law, becasue the radio communication system works like two cups on each end of a piece of string they have no option but to use the mobile while driving. It’s real handy when they are ordering their batter burger and chips!!!!!!!

Well done!

John M. If there’s no such thing as “text driving”, then there’s no such thing as “drink driving”. Mr Shakespeare!

Maybe her local police should show her photographs of dead infants, tot, children that weren’t strapped into seats, their graves. Then give her at least 5 years in jail. For 3 hours a day she sits and watches children and adults in rehab, victims from accidents that were caused by others. The baby would be loved and kept safe from stupidity for that time and hopefully the stupid woman will have learnt her lesson.

Also take her licence from her for 5 years when she gets out.

sheila wow…just wow.
I agree she is a stupid woman and that her children are safer without her. She should be sent to remedial driving classes and banned from driving until court appointed classes are satisfied that she has learnt her lesson. Possibly incarceration..no doubt that she is risking her child’s life and the lives of other road users which is inexcusable.
But three hours a day in rehab while in jail for 5 years?!

@James,

From your message, it seems you feel I am a little harsh on this woman. A few reasons why I would give her that sentence!

1. Breaking the law in many ways
2. Endangering the lives of 3 children that have a right to life and to live a full life eg. playing sport, being able to eat themselves, go to the toilet themselves, converse in conversation etc. etc. When she crashes, running into another lane, be in going in the same direction as herself or another poor unfortunate going the opposite way, killing and/or maiming them.

She has now not only destroyed her 3 children’s lives and the lives of others in their cars, but she has destroyed their families also. They will never see them to hold, hug, converse with them again, ever.

Giving her this sentence, may, may rehabilitate her, may not, just hope it would. Now does that answer your question James. As I said to many others, ‘live in my shoes for a day, then give an opinion’

sheila,
did you read my comment? I agree with 90% of your points. I am not- in any sense- attempting to defend her reprehensible behaviour.

@James (Harris)

I got the impression that you felt I was a bit harsh? Well, the 3 hours in the rehab centre to me would be more positive than her looking at 4 walls 24/7. It would hopefully instill into her that she’d never do it again and also advise others not to do it when she finally got out.

I just get angry with the Irish courts when they give a sentence for ‘dangerous driving’ after they’d been drinking all day/night gets into a car a kills. To me that’s at least manslaughter if not murder. We all have a choice to drink and not drive or to drive. Most of us thankfully don’t drink and drive. I feel the law here should be changed and more severe. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

Sheila,
I despise anyone who doesn’t respect the sanctity of life. My only objection was that things like seeing victims in rehab should be a short, sharp, shock. One-off. Repeating it would be overkill, possibly having the opposite effect. I should have been clearer.

@ James,

Yes, maybe, my point/message may have been written with not enough thought. Maybe there should be more advertising on these sorts idiots on TV during the day and evening to make sure everyone sees them. Women, men, young women, and lads. I feel sometimes when I see one add in particular, the young chap with his mother, he’s about 26 yrs old in a wheelchair, can hardly speak, that one is shown later in the evening when a some of these people are gone out drinking already.

Anyway, I feel there’ll always be idiots on the road, no matter how many warnings they are given.

IFC, you are still grossly generalising without any factual backup. Yes it is an urban myth that there are those who take advantage of our generous social welfare system for single parents (namely single mothers). If we are to take your remarks as litteral, then what you are saying is that all single parents are sponging off the social welfare. I’ve no doubt that there are those that are doing just that, but to tar everyone with the same brush is wrong. In addition to make the assumption that these children are more in danger of neglect/abuse is tottally wrong too. Children growing up with two parents have as much a chance of suffering at the hands neglect/abuse than those with single parents. This is not common place occurance but a minority one, for example you might as well be saying ALL priests are child rapists, and we all know there are some good priests among the bad ones, but the bad ones does not make all of them abusers!!

Your view point is so much in the dark ages, I thought you had all died out! Clearly I was wrong, suppose that’s what I get for generalising!!!

BTW, your user name of Ireland for Change is abit ironic given your view point. Really you should consider renaming yourself as ‘Ireland go Backwards’, becasue with opinions like that, it is very much the direction you are heading in!!

Gross generalisation, show us your facts that neglect and abuse is common place? Yes I’d agree it does happen, but it has nothing to do with the payment of the Children’s allowance abuse and neglect happens in other countries that do not have benefits such as childrens allowance. Your point is totally groundless!!!

And if you are referring to the above article as an example, you would know if you had read it that the woman in question lives in California and was at the time driving/texting and endangering her kids in CALIFORNIA!!!

Not funny!

Sicko

IFC, you lost me?? In words below ‘care to elaborate???

BTW IFC jimbo’s comment I think is directed at the woman in the article above, not directed at you!