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.
THE AUDI A8 is one of the most luxurious saloon cars currently on sale and in this long wheelbase form you could feel like a Head of State as you’re driven around.
Its conservative styling adds a real sense of class to what is a mobile cocoon of fine leather and polished wood.
This particular car is the SE Executive trim, Long Wheel Base (LWB) model.
It is powered by a 3.0-litre turbocharged diesel engine that produces 262hp, while its 580Nm of torque means that it powers along almost effortlessly. This six-cylinder engine utilises Audi’s latest diesel technology and is highly efficient, consuming just 5.8 litres/100km on a combined cycle.
Acceleration is impressive, with the car capable of reaching 100km/h in just 6.1 seconds. This is thanks in part to its quattro all-wheel drive – meaning power is evenly distributed to all wheels no matter the weather conditions to ensure maximum grip.
Along with that is an eight-speed automatic transmission that slips between gears almost seamlessly, but should you want to take more control, steering-wheel-mounted paddles allow you to shift manually too.
Electrically-assisted power steering is light to the touch while the front and rear park assist as well as the reversing camera make fitting into tighter spaces that bit easier.
Among the high-tech features on this Audi A8 LWB are the Matrix LED headlights.
These advanced units consist of 25 light-emitting diodes that serve as the car’s high-beam. An on-board camera monitors the road ahead, and when an oncoming vehicle is detected it automatically adjusts segments of the LED to dynamically dip the headlight.
Only the area of the other vehicle is dipped allowing for more of the road to be illuminated – and this adjusts as the car moves.
Of course, being a long wheelbase model the rear passengers get to travel in real luxury. There’s as much legroom as you would expect to find on a business class seat on an airplane and rear privacy glass adds to the occasion.
The rear does allow for three passengers, but the central backrest folds down to reveal a comfortable leather and wood lined armrest that includes rear climate controls and adjustability for the heated rear seats. Even the bootlid is electrically operated and opens to reveal a 520 litre capacity.
This 2016 Audi A8 LWB falls into tax band D, which is €570 a year. It comes with just 53km on the clock and a €114,050 price tag.
If this Audi A8 LWB ticks all the right boxes as your dream car, then contact Audi Ballina, Co Mayo, to arrange a test drive.
View the full advert here: Audi A8 LWB
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I would happily back a news blackout on such stories until slime sacks like Watkins are rotting behind bars. If saying the “wrong thing” could help his case in any way, then just shut up.
Eliza
Calling Watkins a slime sack, could lead you open to legal action for slander, however your defence could be honest opinion.
Until Watkins is convicted in court he is entitled to his innocence that is the law.
Regardless of the above I agree with you.
Not slander; libel, and if its true then its not libel or slander
Identifying the children involved is the issue, he’s already pleaded guilty.
Watkins has been convicted in court, go mad…
Actually the laws of libel and slander are gone, as it is all covered under defamation since January 2010.
One was the spoken word and one is the written word. Defamation covers both now.
Anti-social network, Also in relation to your comment about libel. The police are not looking at it as libel, as it’s clearly contempt of court and breach of subjudice as directed by the courts.
He admitted guilt,dirtbag should be set on fire
Not libel; Defamation. The 2009 Defamation Act abolished the separate torts of slander and libel and created “the tort of defamation”.
So its still ok to say what I like on thejournal.ie?
I’ve seen people in court cases identified on here and elsewhere by posters. The post gets deleted pretty lively when it does happen to be fair. But it only takes a few people to view it, and word of mouth and the rumour mill take over.
That’s the nature of realtime commenting, and as a result the net can be a dangerous place for online publications.
They should just jail your wan of the Geldofs anyway, it might shut her up for a while.
The Irish authorities will bring in similar legislation soon after the Brits do. That’s how our system works, just copy the Brits.
Like the smoking ban??… Ohhh wait…
Peaches is a dumb c***. what Watkins did is absolutely deplorable, no question. But now she not only selfishly compromised the case but the anonymity and safety that watkins victims deserve just for the sake of twitter hits
Censorship on the horizon lads. Best download all the kinky stuff while you still have the chance.
Shinnerbots beware :)
Do you ever give it a rest ken?
You spout libelous slander on here all the time and seem to know an awful lot about shady goings on. So you will need to shut up too. By the way do you ever go to the gardai with your evidence?
Wow,Kenneth,2 words,lie down for a few hours,that must have been mentally exhausting for you!
Im no fan of Peaches Geldof, but its sad she may be prosecuted for reporting valuable info about a predator. Its really getting to the stage that anything you say might get you in trouble, even when you’re in the right.
The issue is that by revealing the names of the women, she implicitly revealed the names of the victims. It’s the victims’ right to anonymity that’s the issue here, not the perpetrator’s. Hence Watkins does not have anonymity.
The difference is though its written. If you wrote something on the wall lets say in the 1970s like politician A is a paedo or whatever, you wouldnt be suprised in the albeit unlikely event of being arrested if identified
Its impossible to enforce this twitter thing. PErsonally I would ban twitter but thats not going to happen. For all newpsapers with comment sections below like this one they should not allow comments on cases involving an ongoing or upcoming court case or appeal.
If this peaches character had merely told a friend verbally on the telephone for example she knew the name the name would get out by the grapevine and she wouldn’t be in any trouble because it would be impossible to identify where the ‘rumour’ or ‘name’ came from.
Its almost impossible to cut this sort of event or similar from happening again. In this case Peaches was stupid and just stupid as someone who ran into a shopping mall and shouted the names of the children. The only solution is to get rid of brain fart media like twitter and fbook will never happen though for obvious reasons. It will be used as another excuse for governments to try and control anonymity on the internet. It will certainly create more work for lawyers.
Sean ffs would you ever just inform yourself. Your just like Peaches. The reason these women were not named in court was to protect the identity of the children/victims. Do you have an issue with protecting these victims as they would have gone through more than enough already. I think these women should be exposed but I’m willing to waive that to protect these children.
Mjhint As a matter of fact I agree with you re the protection issue and that changes my stance, but on a broader level I think its outrageous the way the media has synced with social media to make an even more contemptible, morally all over the place entity that allows footballers to seek injunctions when they cheat but not someone to give details to add to a criminal case. But I do agree now that protecting children, in such a case as this, is actually paramount.
Apparently the courts website published the names originally and that’s where Peaches Geldof got them. So what was viewed as a “clerical error” on the courts behalf is considered punishable on hers. Seems a bit unfair to me. I totally understand why the names have to be kept secret for the victims but the court did publish them first.
“This is not about telling people what they can or cannot talk about on social media; quite the opposite in fact, it’s designed to help facilitate commentary in a lawful way”.said Attorney General Dominic Grieve, the government’s chief legal advisor.
It sounds like that is precicely what you are doing Mr Grieve! This is more about scaremongering to bring in censorship of the internet now that the usual prattle about children being bullied on social media has died down. They don’t miss a trick! Now people can’t even have a good gossip online without them sticking their oar in. What they will publish next is a list of “pre-aproved, government sanctioned topics of conversation to be allowed on social media.
It’s beyond control whether they like it or not.
Shinnerbots- glorifying terrorism us a crime in the uk :)
Shinnerbots Is that the best thing you could come up with. Your after posting it so much today that it seems you think it’s the funniest thing since your mother got laid. Hears a hint for you spambot, it ain’t bloody funny. The only thing funny about it us that it makes you look like a tool.
have your say