Were the No campaigners prosecuted or fined for their illegal posters?

rubadub

A week or so ago there were lots of No posters on the footbridges over the N11 which have since been taken down. These were www.sayno.ie posters, I am not sure who would have been responsible for them. The guidelines given to parties in dun laoghaire rathdown are quite clear.

Guidelines Relating to the Display of Election Poster:

1. Election posters should only be erected after an election has been declared and a polling date determined.

2. In accordance with the Litter Pollution Act 1997 election posters and ties must be removed within 7 days after polling date. Failure to do so may result in prosecution. The associated fixing arrangement particularly plastic ties must be removed at the same time the poster is being removed.

3. No adhesive or metal fixings are permitted.

4. All posters should be manufactured from cardboard composites or other recyclable materials.

5. The Party or individual responsible for the poster must be clearly indicated on the poster.

6. Posters must not be erected as follows:

a. on lamp standards with overhead line electricity feed,

b. on traffic signal poles,

c. on bridge parapets, overpasses and on pedestrian bridges

d. on roadside traffic barriers

e. on traffic poles or statutory signage of any type including stop, yield, cycletrack, parking control, etc.

f. on Motorways

g. must not obstruct the view of traffic lights or road signs,

h. must not block or obstruct motorists view of pedestrians, i.e. pedestrian barriers, or railings.

7. There should be a minimum clearance of 2.5 metres (8ft) from the lower edge of any poster to ground level and no posters should be placed higher than 6.5 metres (20ft) from the ground.

8. A maximum of two posters per candidate is permitted on any lamp or standard pole.

9. Political parties/independent candidates are reminded that no claims for damages arising from placing, displaying or removal of their posters will lie with the Council and they may consider it appropriate to take out Public Liability Insurance in this regard.

Election posters that do not comply with these conditions or that are erected on Council property prior to the declaration of an election will be removed by the Council. In the event of a breach of the Litter Pollution Act, 1997 prosecutions may be initiated.

After a brief discussion during which John Guckian answered Members queries, the Councillors requested that the Manager examine the possibility of implementing a scheme similar to Dublin City Council’s system whereby posters are removed at a cost to the parties. J. Guckian AGREED to come back to the Members with a report on the feasibility of this scheme in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown.

Now I understand the Lisbon Treaty might make for a difficult read, but FFS, if they misinterpreted "c. on bridge parapets, overpasses and on pedestrian bridges" I wonder what else they have misinterpreted.

Does anybody know if they were prosecuted, and was it the taxpayer footing the bill for their removal or did they do it themselves?

I have seen a few illegal Yes posters too, but the vast majority are No posters.

Robbo

There's a metric ****load of Libertas posters on the M6 Eastbound after the Athlone Bypass that appear to be in contravention of those regulations.

rubadub

Robbo wrote: »

There's a metric ****load of Libertas posters on the M6 Eastbound after the Athlone Bypass that appear to be in contravention of those regulations.

These are specific to dun laoghaire rathdown. I expect other county councils might have similar ones though, them seem like general common sense to me. It is not as bad as the last election though, they parties were ruthless, it was disgusting to see their lack of respect for public safety.

amacachi

rubadub wrote: »

These are specific to dun laoghaire rathdown. I expect other county councils might have similar ones though, them seem like general common sense to me. It is not as bad as the last election though, they parties were ruthless, it was disgusting to see their lack of respect for public safety.

Tried in vain to find Louth CoCo's rules during the Local elections and again this time. If DLR's regulations are anything to go by there would be a lot of fines handed out when I do find them.

PopeBuckfastXVI

if the no posters' posters are anything like some no posters posting on boards, you can expect them to break the rules and then cry oppression if they're fined.

amacachi

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

if the no posters' posters are anything like some no posters posting on boards, you can expect them to break the rules and then cry oppression if they're fined.

Percantage-wise the Yes side are probably as bad as far as I've seen, though a lot less in sheer number terms.

marco murphy

Why only the no posters?

rebelmind

Yes fine ALL the nasty no people for thought-crime.

Ziggurat

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

if the no posters' posters are anything like some no posters posting on boards, you can expect them to break the rules and then cry oppression if they're fined.

rebelmind wrote: »

Yes fine ALL the nasty no people for thought-crime.

Well. That didn't take long.

rubadub

Perestroika wrote: »

Why only the no posters?

What do you mean?

These were the only posters that I have noticed that have been removed, they were the only ones I saw on pedestrian crossovers. Some of the yes ones are also below the 2m height rule most are obeying the guideines, but the majority of the No ones on the N11 are below the 2m.

OldJay

amacachi wrote: »

Percantage-wise the Yes side are probably as bad as far as I've seen, though a lot less in sheer number terms.

There's nobody defacing 'No' posters with a sticker saying the word 'LIES' though. If people doing this are ever caught, they should be prosecuted.

Desperate measures for the losing 'No' campaign it would seem.

Biggins

Were the No campaigners prosecuted or fined for their illegal posters?

No more so than the "YES" side - see article below!

Justind wrote: »

...Desperate measures for the losing 'No' campaign it would seem.

BOTH sides are using questionable measures. let be honest!

Quote:

Thursday October 01 2009


Fear, lies and an array of blatant illegalities by the Irish Government and by Europe have characterised the 'Yes' campaign in the repeat referendum on which we vote tomorrow. Though the 'No' campaign has also produced dishonesty and misrepresentation, it has not had the capacity to invoke or spread fear amongst Irish people. Its lies have been the subject of much more open and aggressive debate than those coming from the 'Yes' side. And it has simply not been able to engage in the kind of illegalities in which the European Commission and the European Parliament have engaged, nor has it had the political and public access to power that has led to abuse from the State itself.


The result has been a momentous division in this society, which began immediately after the June 2008 referendum result, when Brian Cowen deliberately and unconstitutionally turned his back on almost a million voters who decided what he had asked them to decide. He opened a breach in our democracy and he and his foreign affairs minister began a process of undermining the people who had so voted.
The two main opposition parties had joined ineffectually and inadequately with him before the first referendum and the combination of the three main political parties in the State had been insufficient to defeat the mixed group of 'No'-side organisations. In so doing, the parties abandoned their opposition role -- this was to oppose and question government actions.


The main parties combined for the rerun of the referendum. This presented a formidable phalanx, collectively guilty of worse and more widespread illegalities. The opposition parties were comfortably detached from what was done at government inspiration, but this was no excuse for their inaction in protecting the State's constitution and Europe's laws and for their using European money.
The social, moral and political division that results from this will not be easily forgiven or forgotten.
Fear has been engendered by wrong interpretations of what the Lisbon Treaty can or cannot do. We know it cannot give us jobs. Yet this has been a 'Yes' vote weapon of propaganda, repeatedly used throughout the campaign.


The Lisbon Treaty cannot put us at the heart of Europe, a ridiculous concept anyway, nor can it mend our economy. Europe can help, but Europe can and will do that under the Nice Treaty, for which we voted in June 2008. We can ourselves create jobs and mend the economy. Europe will help in that and will not engage in vengeful repudiation of Ireland, whichever way we vote. There have been lies to the contrary, suggesting we will be made to suffer if we vote no again. It is claimed Europe will become two-tier; this is entirely dishonest.


Of the many illegalities, the latest and most blatant was the placing of a European Commission propaganda supplement in all Irish newspapers last Sunday as a paid insert. This was an unlawful use of European taxpayers' money. The commission has no competence in the ratification of treaties. Moreover, it presented not only profoundly unbalanced views but also misleading information.


It said the Nice Treaty did not protect the concept of a commissioner for each state and Lisbon will. This is not true. If we vote no, European Law says we have one commissioner for each state. Proposals for change lie in the future.
It is inconceivable that the commission would not know this. Yet it lied last Sunday. Whatever we change has to be unanimous, under Nice. That was one result of voting no last June. All that is in Nice is not all in Lisbon.


So the commission intruded unlawfully into our referendum campaign and then lied, making its propaganda supplement last Sunday into a work of fiction. We are expected to trust the European Council's promises through 'declarations' and 'protocols', guided by the commission. Yet the commission told the people lies last Sunday. The commission concealed or disguised crucial information on new taxes which the EU itself could impose and on the Lisbon Treaty requirement that member states should 'progressively improve their military capabilities'. And there was no word on the treaty's most important change, the shift of voting power from small to big member states. We are paying, through our own taxes, for this misinformation.
I have written already about the White Paper on the Lisbon Treaty, which was misleading in its information. I anticipated the Referendum Commission might have had something to say on this. No such corrective was forthcoming.


Other illegalities include the part-funding of the posters and press advertisements of most of Ireland's 'Yes'-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament.
This is illegal under Irish law. So, too, was the Government's use of public funds to circulate to voters a postcard with details of 'assurances' and then a brochure doing much the same as the commission did last Sunday, and with as much indifference to the truth. This breached the Supreme Court's 1995 McKenna judgment, that it is unconstitutional for the Government to use public money to seek to procure a particular result in a referendum.

Anthony Coughlan reminded Judge Clark, chairman of the Referendum Commission in a recent letter of his failure to explain the actual subject matter of the proposal to amend the Constitution and the legal text for this, as the Referendum Act requires.



I am a long way from having completed the full analysis of what the 'Yes' side has put before the people. They have supported and indulged an appetite for scaremongering, lies and illegal aid that parallels the appetite of Pantagruel.
Under the shadow of this behaviour, the country votes tomorrow.
Signed: Irish Independent

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/we-are-going-to-the-polls-in--the-shadow-of-yes-lies-1901066.html

There are wrongs happening by BOTH sides!

OldJay

Biggins wrote: »

BOTH sides are using questionable measures. let be honest!

What a newspaper op-ed pieces says means nothing to me but that person's opinion. If you want to see scaremongering just look at the 'no' posters with lies about minimum wage (which aren't even statements but questions - how's that for alarmism?), lies about Europe being democratic since 1945 when at least 7 member states were under communist regimes until 89 and after, bullsh*t emotional blackmail about abortion and euthanasia, a certain party pontificating about the arms industry when their main ally is a defence contractor and the same party decrying the legal guarantees when they also signed up to Good Friday Agreement . . . a legal guarantee :rolleyes:
Thats just for starters.

I'm going by what I see and this morning I saw from Kilmainham and along the quays past Customs House, defaced 'YES' posters.

The_Minister

Biggins there are several factual errors in that piece.

Who wrote it.

Robbo

The_Minister wrote: »

Biggins there are several factual errors in that piece.

Who wrote it.

It has more than a whiff of the famous 1997 front page editorial in the Indo that helped push the Rainbow Coalition out when Sir Dr AJF O'Reilly was throwing a strop over TV deflectors.

marco_polo

The_Minister wrote: »

Biggins there are several factual errors in that piece.

Who wrote it.

My money is on bruce arnold. Here is another factually flawed piece by him (Giving out about the white paper, which he mentions doing in the other article)

Biggins

Justind wrote: »

...I'm going by what I see and this morning I saw from Kilmainham and along the quays past Customs House, defaced 'YES' posters.

Well I've personally seen defaced "No" signs too!
All this is nothing new sadly.

As for the piece in the article. It might be one sided but as the writer (unknown - it was just signed by the paper) seems to know his way around the law, while not trusting him completely, I would tend to give him more credence than just an anonymous internet poster.
If he/she was to lie about the law so blatantly while naming names and calling them into question without substantive proof as to the real and provable facts (even to their editor), I'm sure their editor would have something to say in respect to their position and job.

marco_polo

Biggins wrote: »

Well I've personally seen defaced "No" signs too!
All this is nothing new sadly.

As for the piece in the article. It might be one sided but as the writer (unknown - it was just signed by the paper) seems to know his way around the law, while not trusting him completely, I would tend to give him more credence than just an anonymous internet poster.
If he/she was to lie about the law so blatantly while naming names and calling them into question without substantive proof as to the real and provable facts (even to their editor), I'm sure their editor would have something to say in respect to their position and job.

It is just little inaccuraties like this that get my goat (if it is in fact bruce)

The proposed distortion is massively in favour of the Big Four -- Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom -- and just plain bad for us. I gave the facts. At present we have seven votes and the big states have 29. Under Lisbon's strict population criterion we would have four million people, Germany 80 million and France, Britain and Italy 60 million each -- a ratio of 20 or 15 to one.

There already is a population element to the voting under Nice as well for example. And his is also incorrect in stating that the Nice system is a double majority system, it is much more complicated.

The post-Lisbon EU would be constitutionally separate from, and superior to, its member states. It would have its own legal personality for the first time.

It has a legal personality already but is called the EC. The first bit is just plain wrong.

To me, if you are accusing somebody eles of misrepresentation you had better be bang on with the facts yourself.

starbelgrade

rubadub wrote: »

I have seen a few illegal Yes posters too, but the vast majority are No posters.

Do you tick off a checklist when you see them? Either way, when was the last time you saw a County Council enforcing any one of their endless lists of Mammy State rules?

I thought they were just there to keep trainspotters happy. :eek:

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

My money is on bruce arnold. Here is another factually flawed piece by him (Giving out about the white paper, which he mentions doing in the other article)

You're quite correct:

Writing in the Irish Independent, Bruce Arnold argues that “Fear, lies and an array of blatant illegalities by the Irish Government and by Europe have characterised the 'Yes' campaign in the repeat referendum on which we vote tomorrow…Of the many illegalities, the latest and most blatant was the placing of a European Commission propaganda supplement in all Irish newspapers last Sunday as a paid insert. This was an unlawful use of European taxpayers' money.”

Hat-tip to Open Europe!

amused,
Scofflaw

vanla sighs

Hahahahahahahahaha........some people just seem to have too much time on their hands.

K-9

starbelgrade wrote: »

Do you tick off a checklist when you see them? Either way, when was the last time you saw a County Council enforcing any one of their endless lists of Mammy State rules?

I thought they were just there to keep trainspotters happy. :eek:

My one enforces advertising hoarding and such like, sometimes, when they are bothered!

starbelgrade

K-9 wrote: »

My one enforces advertising hoarding and such like, sometimes, when they are bothered!

Lucky you - my county council doesn't even fill in pot holes (arguably more / less dangerous than "illegal" posters!).

rubadub

starbelgrade wrote: »

Do you tick off a checklist when you see them?

no, should I have? The vast majority of no posters were illegal, I imagine 90%+ of those I saw today. Outside my polling station there were only NO posters, every single one was illegal, mainly sinn fein. Not a single Yes poster in sight. I saw 2 illegal green party YES ones on the way to work, the green party were by far the worst offenders in the last election, I emailed many of them with no decent response, some of their posters from the last campaign are still littered on the N11. Many Yes ones broke the 2m rule, and I would say in ~50% of those cases there was a NO poster directly under them too.

starbelgrade wrote: »

Either way, when was the last time you saw a County Council enforcing any one of their endless lists of Mammy State rules?

Somebody removed the ones on the bridges (already mentioned in another thread), and during the last election ones were removed from the whites cross junction on the N11, these were particularly hazardous. I do not see these as "mammy state rules", the disregard for public safety these people have is appalling, at least somebody is doing something, I just hope the taxpayer is not paying for it. I challenged a guy putting up illegal labour posters before (which were a hazard), when asked he claimed he did have guidelines, but could not give an example of a single one.

smokingman

I just hope all the posters are taken down - I'm sick of looking at that kid crying on the libertas ones.

rubadub

smokingman wrote: »

I just hope all the posters are taken down - I'm sick of looking at that kid crying on the libertas ones.

They should have been sued, ripoff of the les miserables poster!
http://nighthawknews.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/les-miserables.jpg

Sleipnir

I just wish all the parties involved would take down the plastic ties that they affix the posters with along with the posters.
Maybe they could also remove the ones that were left from the last general election, and even from the general election before that.

They all say they're only interesting in making Ireland a better place yet they make it uglier and uglier every time we are called to vote on something.

Also, "which side has more illegal posters" is a bit silly.