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

Titzon Toast

My name is URL wrote: »

Like nuclear reactors, that is a completely different kettle of fish. I mean it shouldn't need spelling out.. one's a concert that is likely to effect a small area for a short period of time.. the other is an irreversible change to the ecological systems that effects the country as a whole =/



Keep trying..

Those houses could be said to be of national importance to our shared history and heritage.

A few people having their roads blocked off to traffic for a couple of days isn't.

It's not a couple of days though. Don't make light of what the residents around Croker would be put through for five straight days and nights, without including the work involved in setting up and dismantling the gigs.
It would be a nightmare if you lived there.

bumper234

Reformed Character wrote: »

So someone from Drogheda/ Balbriggan/Dundalk etc... who will suffer a two hour a day delay each evening on their commute home on the bus from work should not be allowed object?

Not according to the GB fanboys...all part of having a stadium or some ****e.

Muise...

My name is URL wrote: »

You're the one that brought analogies into it

As for your second paragraph, well talk about hyperbole

Yes - an analogy to illustrate a principle, which you shot down on a technicality rather than look at the principle.

Here's the principle: anyone may submit their observations during the planning process.

Here's how it works: observations which are valid, i.e. factually correct and/or plausible, are taken seriously. Observations which are based on prejudice (your concern here) i.e. "I don't like country music" are not.

First Up

Muise... wrote: »

Yes - an analogy to illustrate a principle, which you shot down on a technicality rather than look at the principle.

Here's the principle: anyone may submit their observations during the planning process.

Here's how it works: observations which are valid, i.e. factually correct and/or plausible, are taken seriously. Observations which are based on prejudice (your concern here) i.e. "I don't like country music" are not.

How about ones motivated by a gripe about something else - like a handball alley?

Muise...

First Up wrote: »

How about ones motivated by a gripe about something else - like a handball alley?

I don't follow - people who object to something because they don't like something else?

Reformed Character

First Up wrote: »

How about ones motivated by a gripe about something else - like a handball alley?

Is said handball alley owned by the same people who have tried to use their friends in the Dail to trample all over the rights of the residents in the area?
Perhaps, and I have no evidence, some people objected to the excessive over intensification, based on their experience with the owners of the handball alley who incidentally are also try to push through the over intensification.

conorh91

bumper234 wrote: »

Your geography shouldn't ban you from being able to object to something. What if gov decided to build a nuclear power station in the most remote least inhabited part of the land? Should it only be locals who could object?

That's different. Two principles usually come into play (at least, elsewhere in the legal system) and should apply here imo.

1. Where there is no obvious complainant, but there is a real or arguable threat of a general nature, then anyone should have standing to complain.

2. Where a particular decision has value as a precedent, people who are unaffected by the instant decision should have standing to be heard.

But where there is no precedent, and there are identifiable people who could claim to be injured, the Council shouldn't be entertaining objections from busybodies down the country who are in no substantial or specific danger of being influenced by the decision.

bumper234

conorh91 wrote: »

That's different. Two principles usually come into play (at least, elsewhere in the legal system) and should apply here imo.

1. Where there is no obvious complainant, but there is a real or arguable threat of a general nature, then anyone should have standing to complain.

2. Where a particular decision has value as a precedent, people who are unaffected by the instant decision should have standing to be heard.

But where there is no precedent, and there are identifiable people who could claim to be injured, the Council shouldn't be entertaining objections from busybodies down the country who are in no substantial or specific danger of being influenced by the decision.

And if you live in Galway but your elderly Mother lives in the vicinity of Croke park? Should you be able to object then? What about Brothers/Sisters/Cousins/Friends?

conorh91

bumper234 wrote: »

And if you live in Galway but your elderly Mother lives in the vicinity of Croke park?

No; your elderly mother should complain.

This is how it works everywhere else in administrative law, with very few exceptions, and I don't see why it doesn't apply to planning procedures generally.

I mean Joe Soap from Galway can't apply to judicially review the planning decisions in the High Court because they'd say he isn't affected, but he can apply to complain about some gig anywhere? I find that inconsistent and irrational personally.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

I think it's disgraceful that, considering Keegan knew all along that his decision was made on the assumption that the resident complaints were legitimate, that he did not agree to a judicial review considering that we all now know, as does he, that quite a large percentage of them are fraudulent.

Red Nissan

beakerjoe wrote: »

Is this debate still goin on....let it go lads. More important things going on in the world.

It evolves, it's not the same debate, even when argued over 30 Million times, but now we all more or less apart from the automatons or botts, we have evolved into a different discussion.

Peppa Pig

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I think it's disgraceful that, considering Keegan knew all along that his decision was made on the assumption that the resident complaints were legitimate, that he did not agree to a judicial review considering that we now know, as did he, that quite a large percentage of them are fraudulent.

Hid did not "not agree to a judicial review". He said he would not let it go uncontested.
He said on Tuesday that the process was correctly followed. O'Mahoney and even Timmy Dooley agreed with him today on that point. How could he not contest a review of the process given this.

It was simply a ploy to allow Garth Brooks to trample over our planning system and play his 5 nights. The fact that the legislators even brought it up, never mind wanted it is shocking.

Oh - and the majority are not fradulent

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Titzon Toast wrote: »

You're comparing this nonsense to what's happening in Gaza and what happened with Jimmy Saville???
Innocent people getting blown up and people being sexually abused versus some cancelled concerts?

I suggest you reread the post. I didn't compare the situations to one another at all.

Would you be so concerned if you weren't planning on going to see Garth yourself? I doubt it.

I have no interest in ever seeing Garth Brooks perform. Wouldn't mind a pint with him though.

Mrs Garth Brooks

Didn't all this end today. Half the refunds have been given. Shouldn't this thread be closed now.

Red Nissan

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

Didn't all this end today. Half the refunds have been given. Shouldn't this thread be closed now.

No, the Oireachtas Committee have had Keegan back for more questioning only this afternoon ~ this is the thread that just keeeps on givvvvin.

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

If anyone's foaming at the mouth here it's the anti-concert, pro resident posters that are keeping this thread going and so active (it's been broken out in a graph at least twice on the thread who the top posters are), the ratio is about 10 : 1 here, with all 10 anti-concert people repeating each other and thanking each other constantly.

Aw. Somebody's not feeling the Thanks button love.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Dan_Solo

My name is URL wrote: »

Another thing that struck me today was that Keegan mentioned that anyone is able to file an objection to such a planning application. They don't have to be from people in the immediate or even wider vicinity of Croke Park.. they don't even have to be from Dublin =/

This doesn't make much sense to me. It opens up the possibility that people will object based on their own prejudices, dislike of certain groups etc. Even if they lodge what seem like legitimate objections, they may well have ulterior motives for doing so.

If the fact that someone in Galway can lodge an objection to a gig happening in Dublin isn't a sign of a flawed process then I don't know what is. So much needs to be looked at and fixed.

Fair enough. How about people from outside the localiity aren't allowed hold concerts there then? After all, what would they know about the area either.

RFOLEY1990

it's over lads, move on.

bumper234

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I think it's disgraceful that, considering Keegan knew all along that his decision was made on the assumption that the resident complaints were legitimate, that he did not agree to a judicial review considering that we all now know, as does he, that quite a large percentage of them are fraudulent.

And HUNDREDS of them.were, what's your point? A few were dodgy so they should have all been ignored?

And it was a tiny % you already know this so why keep.saying a large %?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Hid did not "not agree" to a judicial review. He said he would not let it go uncontested.

He should have let it happen uncontested once the reasons which informed his decison became unsound.

He said on Tuesday that the process was correctly followed. O'Mahoney and even Timmy Dooley agreed with him today on that point. How could he not contest a review of the process given this.

Nobody involved was suggesting he did not follow procedure. Nobody.

The GAA, Croke Park and Aiken all took issue with the fact that he supported the application for five concerts and gave them the distinct impression that all five concerts would be granted licences once the residents were happy. He lied saying he did not do that, but now has very slyly changed his tune and so we now know that the GAA, Aiken and Croke Park were all telling the truth. He can quote that comment on the RTE news from the GAA as much as he likes, but it was made in the context of Croke Park doing WHATEVER it needed to please all concerned: the residents and DCC and fair play to Dooley from pointing that out also.

It was simply a ploy to allow Garth Brooks to trample over our planning system and play his 5 nights. The fact that the legislators even brought it up, never mind wanted it is shocking

You're not honestly still trying to blame Garth Brooks for this mess are you? Seriously?

Oh - and the majority are not fradulent

I never said they were, so please don't imply I did. Cheers.

bumper234

Red Nissan wrote: »

No, the Oireachtas Committee have had Keegan back for more questioning only this afternoon ~ this is the thread that just keeeps on givvvvin.

And a fine account he gave too. It's all over now apart from the GB fans wringing their hands about missing out on a concert.

Red Nissan

RFOLEY1990 wrote: »

it's over lads, move on.

It's July mate, the NEVER SURRENDER month.

Dan_Solo

First Up wrote: »

How about ones motivated by a gripe about something else - like a handball alley?

What about people making planning applications because they want to make a shed load of money for themselves? Sounds like a vested interest to me. Out it goes.

conorh91

One thing that's still unclear in my mind is why everyone cannot agree on one point.

The idea of the matinees was batsh1t crazy..

Aiken deserves nothing but uproarious mockery for that chestnut. But why are the DCC supporters not as dumbfounded as the rest of us that DCC seemed willing to go with that crazy plan?

Is it not agreed that the DCC were about to reign mayhem on the residents of Croke Park if they allowed that matinee plan, and is it not agreed that only Garth Brooks stopped them?

Red Nissan

bumper234 wrote: »

And a fine account he gave too. It's all over now apart from the GB fans wringing their hands about missing out on a concert.

He threatened to resign, as if he was SOOOOOOO important.

He was asked twice effectively if he MEANT that.

He shot daggers back with his eyes, as he realised that the questioner would actually like that to happen.

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I think it's disgraceful that, considering Keegan knew all along that his decision was made on the assumption that the resident complaints were legitimate, that he did not agree to a judicial review considering that we all now know, as does he, that quite a large percentage of them are fraudulent.

Entirely fabricated. a.k.a. lies.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What about people making planning applications because they want to make a shed load of money for themselves? Sounds like a vested interest to me. Out it goes.

There goes all workplaces and businesses in the country.

Cuckoo, just another day in the mind of Dan_Solo

Peppa Pig

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

He should have let it happen uncontested once the reasons which informed his decison became unsound.

2/3 of objections have been verified as legitimate by An Garda Siochana. That is 258 valid objections - more than 10 times ever received before.

His reasons never were unsound. If you listened to John O'Mahoney wrapping up you would understand this.

Even the Oireachtas committee backed him today (with the exception of Garth's mate). O'Mahoney even told Timmy to bugger off when he wanted the GAA brought back in.

Keep believing your version though.

And - no thanking this post - its upsetting a few people

Dan_Solo

Red Nissan wrote: »

He threatened to resign, as if he was SOOOOOOO important.

He was asked twice effectively if he MEANT that.

He shot daggers back with his eyes, as he realised that the questioner would actually like that to happen.

And he realises, as we all do, that his job is 100% safe no matter how many tabloids and line dancers whine otherwise.