Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LIBYA’S FOREIGN MINISTER has announced that his country will be calling an immediate ceasefire to its military campaign, following the United Nations’ Security Council resolution seeking an end to armed hostilities in the country.
The Guardian reported that foreign minister Moussa Koussa said his country had accepted the resolution and would halt all military activity immediately – just hours after the UN’s heavyweight committee voted without opposition to impose a no-fly zone over the country.
As Libya was a member state of the United Nations, it was bound to respect the UN’s decisions, Koussa explained, adding that Libya encouraged the “opening of all dialogue channels” with the wider world.
The resolution was criticised nonetheless, saying the use of military force was both a breach of Libya’s sovereignty and of the UN’s charter.
Such a move meant UN forces would take pre-emptive military action to disable Libya’s own airborne capabilities.
It was not immediately clear whether the government’s decision had been backed by the country’s de facto leader Muammar Gaddafi, who had yesterday warned foreign forces he would turn his country into “another Vietnam”.
Foreign troops entering his country would “be entering Hell”, he said, adding that they would ultimately “drown in blood”.
Though the resolution of the Security Council was not unanimous, permanent members Russia and China – who both wield vetoes on the committee – both chose not to use them, meaning a 10-0 passage for the resolution.
The announcement of Libya’s ceasefire came shortly after British prime minister David Cameron revealed that the UK would send RAF planes to Libya “in the coming hours” to help enforce the no-fly zone.
Cameron told the House of Commons this morning that Britain would join a UN-authorized operation to stop Muammar Gaddafi from launching “a brutal attack using air, land and sea forces” on the rebel-held city of Benghazi.
RAF Typhoon and Tornado fighter jets would be involved in the operation, which Cameron said was ‘about saving lives’ and protecting people in Libya – insisting it was “not about choosing the government of Libya.”
The Commons speech came as Britain, France and NATO held emergency meetings following the overnight vote of the UN Security Council approved a no-fly zone over Libya.
Additional reporting by AP
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Plastic cards!!! About time, only in Ireland does a student ID look more official then the drivers licence
@ Alan, very true! My friend was in the States and said they don’t accept our drivers license as ID. A joke!
i think they should just ban driving under the influence of alcohol completely, get it over and done with
Good idea but not possible as even using mouthwash or having some sherry trifle would potentially mean you fail a zero level breath test.
Finally. It’s nice to see some initiative & solid action.
Newly qualified “R” drivers will have completed 12 mandatory driving lessons and passed the driving test like everyone before them, I don’t understand the need for restrictions.
The entire driving licence-driving education system in this country is a farce. I obtained my full driving licence after only 3 months on a provisional licence. My driving test was done in the daytime in near-perfect weather conditions. I passed with flying colours. Yet nowhere in my training did I learn how to drive in driving snow conditions, in torrential rain, in icy conditions, in thick fog, at night, or indeed in any combination. Too often I see drivers at night with either no lights on or full headlights coming straight at me. We need to have a proper training system put in place that teaches people how to drive in all weather conditions similar to what is done in Finland (where they have driving centres with roads that have simulated ice conditions, gravel tracks, etc.). “R” licences are a good idea too and certainly lower drink-driving limits, but not just applied to young people – they should be applied to everyone.
how can you have different punishments for the same crime?
A lot of the ideas and initiatives are extensions or modifications to plans that were already in place; I do agree blood alcohol levels should be zero no exceptions and match that with a VRT & Tax exemption on vehicles for pubs who provide local transport. More fundamentally we need to start teaching people to drive in schools as a formal subject with the objective that everyone leaves secondary school with their full license on an ‘R’ plate.
As part of the educational process young drivers need to learn about all aspects of driving from vehicle care & maintenance to driving in difficult conditions. Many young drivers dangerously modify vehicles which can affect the handling, stopping distance and safety features of a car and don’t understand the physics behind the changes or dangerous consequences as a result of poorly modified components.
Maybe then we will see a radical change in driver behaviour and reduced road deaths amongst the most vulnerable demographic in our community. The last element we need is high visibility enforcement; we don’t have it and it needs to be introduced; round the clock checkpoints, mandatory breath testing, and car seizures for non-compliance with road traffic legislation. If we are serious we can reduce road injury & death, lower insurance premiums and be less nervous as our kids head towards driving age.
If a tester believes a person has passed the exam and is capable of driving in an educated, safe and responsible manner there should be no need for extra punishments. I agree with the extra penalty points for learner drivers as I think far too many people get their learners permit and head onto the roads with no training and in many cases no full licence driver.
The thing is people generally don’t do their driving test drunk or pick up their mobile in the middle of it. It’s these kind of behaviours that need to be eradicated from the driving mindset, doing a great U point turn during your test doesn’t mean you wont run someone over while using your phone while driving.
So someone who has their licence for less than 2 years should be punished more severely for drink driving than someone who has theirs for ten?
Don’t see why they couldn’t just set the blood alcohol limit at 0mg/100ml, it’d be a lot simpler than creating three different classes of drivers and different laws for each. The clarity would have benefits in itself.
Because it would mean potentially failing a breath test after you used mouthwash in the morning!
In Finland you have to be tested on a skid pan. And you don’t get to drive on public roads until you have your full licence. The licence test itself takes about 1 year that’s if you pass all the tests, if you fail one you have to start again from the beginning.
Probably a little away from the topic but why not just make it a zero tolerance drink driving policy….it amazes me that all countries don’t have this?
The Road Safety Authority will be put in charge of the driving licence system and the testing of commercial vehicles for roadworthiness.
So what will the staff who currently issue licences do?
And we are still left with 2 vehicle testing organisations.
What a waste of money!
have your say