Garth Brooks concerts cancelled - **READ FIRST POST FOR MOD NOTES**

bumper234

Santa Cruz wrote: »

That thread will come on around next May. We will have a few months of "Would you wear a Poppy" and "Would you wear an Easter Lily " first though

Yes & no respectively

Mrs Garth Brooks

Owen Keegan is refusing to attend the oireachtas meeting tomorrow. Whatever he's hiding.

Ace2007

keith16 wrote: »

I was bored so I pulled the data of who posted in this thread and made a word-cloud from the usernames.

The bigger the username, the more posts in this thread.

On looking at this I realised that I hadn't seen any post by Jim Rockford lately, so then checking his profile - it states is account is closed, despite only opening it 3 days ago leads be to suspect that it was set up by someone to add voice to their opinion.

bumper234

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

Owen Keegan is refusing to attend the oireachtas meeting tomorrow. Whatever he's hiding.

Or he doesn't feel he should agree to be quizzed yet again by a bunch of gob****es who are obviously trying to pressure him into dropping his objections.

HigginsJ

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

Owen Keegan is refusing to attend the oireachtas meeting tomorrow. Whatever he's hiding.

He is going in Friday, I'm guessing here but he might be working on other things bar this nonsense

Happyman42

HigginsJ wrote: »

He is going in Friday, I'm guessing here but he might be working on other things bar this nonsense

Even Dimmy Doolin will have given up the ghost by Friday.

They might get something done then to find out the truth.

HigginsJ

Happyman42 wrote: »

Even Dimmy Doolin will have given up the ghost by Friday.

God help us they all might & we can get our money back & all head to thurles instead

My name is URL

Ace2007 wrote: »

On looking at this I realised that I hadn't seen any post by Jim Rockford lately, so then checking his profile - it states is account is closed, despite only opening it 3 days ago leads be to suspect that it was set up by someone to add voice to their opinion.

So.. pretty much the same reason everyone else creates an account on a discussion forum. That's some top sleuthing

Dan_Solo

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

Owen Keegan is refusing to attend the oireachtas meeting tomorrow. Whatever he's hiding.

His contempt for the entire gombeen circus? More than I can manage.

Reformed Character

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

Owen Keegan is refusing to attend the oireachtas meeting tomorrow. Whatever he's hiding.

Why would he , it is a disgrace.
Fair play Owen!

Happyman42

My name is URL wrote: »

So.. pretty much the same reason everyone else creates an account on a discussion forum. That's some top sleuthing

You have two accounts? Whats your other name?

barney4001

unbelievable they even had a meeting today about brooks and his effing concerts ban him from ireland

Ace2007

My name is URL wrote: »

So.. pretty much the same reason everyone else creates an account on a discussion forum. That's some top sleuthing

I mean it would be like someone who already has an account setting up a second. why else would you open an account 3 days ago and then just close it - especially when about 60% of your posts are on this topic.

Dan_Solo

Aidric wrote: »

Oh, the masks are slipping.

Keegan seems to have plowed his own furrow here in an effort to stick it to big business. It was nicely packaged up against concerns of residents, 40% of these objections now reported to be bogus. The whole thing is a sorry mess.

Your own mask of lying about the facts of this case still firmly in place I see.
Reference for this 40% being shown to be false please.

bumper234

Happyman42 wrote: »

Even Dimmy Doolin will have given up the ghost by Friday.

They might get something done then to find out the truth.

Dan_Solo

Ace2007 wrote: »

I mean it would be like someone who already has an account setting up a second. why else would you open an account 3 days ago and then just close it - especially when about 60% of your posts are on this topic.

Is that 60% or up to 60% could possibly be?

My name is URL

Ace2007 wrote: »

I mean it would be like someone who already has an account setting up a second. why else would you open an account 3 days ago and then just close it - especially when about 60% of your posts are on this topic.

I'm sure plenty of people sign up to boards to discuss specific issues they feel strongly about.

As for the account being closed.. perhaps the abuse and snide remarks they were subjected to had something to do with that.

Ace2007

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Is that 60% or up to 60% could possibly be?

60% - 168 out of 279

bumper234

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm sure plenty of people sign up to boards to discuss specific issues they feel strongly about.

As for the account being closed.. perhaps the abuse and snide remarks they were subjected to had something to do with that.

He was banned from 2 of the 3 GB threads for trolling and abuse so he more than.likely jumped before he was pushed.

Muise...

bumper234 wrote: »

He was banned from 2 of the 3 GB threads for trolling and abuse so he more than.likely jumped before he was pushed.

I think its fair to say he started all the snide and abusive carry-on too. Haters!

Kangoo Man

I can't understand why there is so much anti-Garth Brooks concerts on this thread. I've yet to meet a person in the last 2 weeks who didn't feel the concerts should have been allowed to go ahead. The press, politicians and even a large amount of Croke park residents wanted the concerts to go ahead, not to mention the nearly 10% of the population who had tickets. Is it just that there is a lot of neysayers on this forum?

Ace2007

Kangoo Man wrote: »

I can't understand why there is so much anti-Garth Brooks concerts on this thread. I've yet to meet a person in the last 2 weeks who didn't feel the concerts should have been allowed to go ahead. The press, politicians and even a large amount of Croke park residents wanted the concerts to go ahead, not to mention the nearly 10% of the population who had tickets. Is it just that there is a lot of neysayers on this forum?

think it's more like 5% of the population.

The Press are there to make money - the will the same krap going because it will sell - I doubt they really care one way or the other.

Have you asked all of the Croke Park Residents, or are you going on what a handful said?

Dan_Solo

Ace2007 wrote: »

60% - 168 out of 279

whoosh...

conorh91

Muise... wrote: »

To urge a rapid overturning of his decision is to "shoot" him as it is with the sole aim of letting the concerts go ahead, and it carries the presumption that he is corrupt/incompetent if an Oireachtas committee and judicial review can be allowed to bully through the concerts in spite of the judgement he made

Serious problem here with people not understanding the meaning of Judicial Review.

Judicial Review, the clue is in the name. The process exists to review decisions made by relevant bodies. It is not an appeals process. If the High Court finds fault with how a decision was arrived at, the decision is quashed and the application reverts back to the decision maker to begin afresh.

Judicial Review does not overturn a decision.

Judicial Review often only takes a day to be heard where leave to seek judicial review may be heard along with the substantive application.

There's no question of the High Court "bullying" a decision maker, much less allowing itself to be used as a vehicle for bullying by an applicant. People need to get a grip.

Robert2012 wrote: »

It is not DCC's fault

Depends what you mean by "fault".

A decision of the DCC has led to the concerts not going ahead, although it was within DCC's power to grant a licence to allow those concerts to go ahead. They didn't. Whether you think that's their fault or not depends on whether they were right to refuse a license or not.

Muise...

conorh91 wrote: »

Serious problem here with people not understanding the meaning of Judicial Review.

Judicial Review, the clue is in the name. The process exists to review decisions made by relevant bodies. It is not an appeals process. If the High Court finds fault with how a decision was arrived at, the decision is quashed and the application reverts back to the decision maker to begin afresh.

Judicial Review does not overturn a decision.

Judicial Review often only takes a day to be heard where leave to seek judicial review may be heard along with the substantive application.

There's no question of the High Court "bullying" a decision maker, much less allowing itself to be used as a vehicle for bullying by an applicant. People need to get a grip.

Depends what you mean by "fault".

A decision of the DCC has led to the concerts not going ahead, although it was within DCC's power to grant a licence to allow those concerts to go ahead. They didn't. Whether you think that's their fault or not depends on whether they were right to refuse a license or not.

I think the Judicial Review is being sought as a last-ditch effort to restore the concerts by undermining Keoghan. I understand that is not its province - hell, I find the interference from above ludicrous, but that is why it is sought IMO.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

goz83 wrote: »

Is it not 400k?

70,000 were bought by people not residing in the ROI.

Muise... wrote: »

You took delight in his having to face another round of questioning tomorrow though.

Of course and tomorrow I'm gonna have melted Kerrygold and pink Himalayan sea salt on my popcorn which has been sourced from the crystal sea waters that only the local virgin brides have bathed in. Not everyday you see a bureaucratic penpusher get grilled on the farcical attempt they have made at doing their job. It's just a pity these clowns didn't have to record all the conversations which they make and receive in their capacity as city officials. Hell, you can't even talk to some customer service depts these days without having your phone call recorded and yet these muppets can sit around in their safety vests and matching bicycle clips and decide to cancel concerts which 160,000 are due to attend.. just.three weeks.later.

His "serious inadequecy" is a matter of opinion from people who are aggrieved by his decision, and all allegations against him are hearsay.

His competency and the bizarre ridiculous notion that he did a "good job" is also[/] a matter of opinion.. no matter how much you, and others, speak of it as if it as if it were not.

To urge a rapid overturning of his decision is to "shoot" him as it is with the sole aim of letting the concerts go ahead..

My believing the courts should be able overrule council decisions in a short space of time (should they deem it necessary).. is not "shooting" Owen Keegan. If they did so, it would just be striking out his decision, nothing more. His pride would be hurt and I'm sure he would feel undermined but.. tough. If however, they deem at a later date that he lied, made foolish reckless decisions or was just overall not up front about his part in what caused the system to buckle the way it did.. well then yes, *at that stage* I feel he should certainly be hauled in front of a firing squad (so to speak) and either sacked or demoted, but not before. Actually, he'd be the perfect candidate for locking and unlocking park gates on the button each night. Say he'd love that.

..and it carries the presumption that he is corrupt/incompetent if an Oireachtas committee and judicial review can be allowed to bully through the concerts in spite of the judgement he made - a judgement he is tasked with making on behalf of the city.

Nonsense.. should they find he did his job fine and that he should remain in place afterthe system has it's cracks mended.. neh bother, I will respect that decision if and when it is made and so, as you can see, I am not in any way shape or form looking for a 'shoot now and trial later' situation.. more a 'review now, autopsy later and punishments to be dished out as and when those involved feel that they are sure of who and who is not to blame for this whole damn fiasco'.

Dan_Solo

Kangoo Man wrote: »

The press, politicians and even a large amount of Croke park residents wanted the concerts to go ahead

1. The press are supposed to report stuff, not give me their opinions.
2. Politicians should have ZERO influence on planning matter. (wish it was always so)
3. Annoying one half of residents is enough, whatever the other half think.

conorh91

Muise... wrote: »

I think the Judicial Review is being sought as a last-ditch effort to restore the concerts by undermining Keoghan. I understand that is not its province - hell, I find the interference from above ludicrous, but that is why it is sought IMO.

If there are no grounds for JR then leave won't be granted by the High Court.

There is no question of undermining the City Manager because a JR wouldn't go ahead unless there was a prima facie case to answer.

Ace2007

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

70,000 were bought by people not residing in the ROI.

at least get the facts right, about its nearer to 130k bought outside the state, if you believe Aiken.

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

My believing the courts should be able overrule council decisions in a short space of time (should they deem it necessary).. is not "shooting" Owen Keegan. If they did so, it would just be striking out his decision, nothing more. His pride would be hurt and I'm sure he would feel undermined but.. tough. If however, they deem at a later date that he lied, made foolish reckless decisions or was just overall not up front about his part in what caused the system to buckle the way it did.. well then yes, *at that stage* I feel he should certainly be hauled in front of a firing squad (so to speak) and either sacked or demoted, but not before. Actually, he'd be the perfect candidate for locking and unlocking park gates on the button each night. Say he'd love that.

Phew, lucky for him there's only bitter and deluded Brooks fans clutching at straws and plucking evidence out of thin air then or he'd be in real trouble.