Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

Thoie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, giving politicians the power to interfere with planning decisions is the problem. The concerts are just the excuse being used to pass legislation to allow that.

SpaceTime

If the politicians come up with something like an alternative venue for the extra gigs, fair enough. That's just using your head.

Changing the law to suit a concert would be an awful precedent.

That's the kind of thing China does! Annoying village in way of shopping centre... Abolish village.

You can see where this goes - everything is a special case to someone.

Housing estate built on flood plane ... Etc etc etc

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Apart from the fact that it would completely undermine what seems to have been a competent and through process and the planning officials involved in it.
But sure rock on Tommy.

raymon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Fianna Fail bill is very sinister and serious indeed.

In my view their meddling in justice and now planning is a huge cause for concern.

BeerSteakBirds

raymon wrote: »

I dont think using the word retarded in relation to Fianna Fail helps the debate.

There are thousands of other words you could jave chosen.

I don't think engaging in book burning, and off topic witch hunts of word censorship helps any debate anywhere. There are thousands of other replies you could have given. 'Retarded' is a very useful word, a very legitimate word and a very useful and irreplaceable concept. In fact it is a rather mild description of those people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Garth Brooks concerts today some other commercial argument another day. IMHO this is definitely bringing us back to the bad old days of the 1980's with politicians trying to influence planning decisions. The fact that they and a lot of others don't see this as a bad thing is very worrying indeed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You cannot undermine a decision taken after due care and diligence. Thi government at least has the sense to see that.

kippy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The shortcomings in the licensing process is blatantly obvious and has been for years.
The shortcoming being the fact that tickets should not be sold for events that are yet to get a license.
That is all that needs to be changed with the licensing laws as far as I can see.

Happyman42

kippy wrote: »

The shortcomings in the licensing process is blatantly obvious and has been for years.
The shortcoming being the fact that tickets should not be sold for events that are yet to get a license.
That is all that needs to be changed with the licensing laws as far as I can see.

Yet other major promoters, MCD, Mountcharles and Electric Picnic have all been on record as saying that it work quite well, and the evidence would suggest that it does too.
They all pointed to the fact that 'getting a livence prior' presents all sorts of problems too.

So kneejerk responses here may work against the very viability of future gigs. Which would be a bad outcome.

kippy

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yet other major promoters, MCD, Mountcharles and Electric Picnic have all been on record as saying that it work quite well, and the evidence would suggest that it does too.
They all pointed to the fact that 'getting a livence prior' presents all sorts of problems too.

So kneejerk responses here may work against the very viability of future gigs. Which would be a bad outcome.

The reason these promotors dont want to see it change is purely because they wont have the "on the fly" options of increasing the number of gigs they sell tickets for. I cant see any other downsides to be honest. It just means more organizing for them.
Thats the only viable change that can and should be made to the law as far as I can see.

I dont think its "kneejerk" in the slightest as whatever changes will be made will very plainly not be made in the short term.

What changes do you think should be made?

Happyman42

kippy wrote: »

The reason these promotors dont want to see it change is purely because they wont have the "on the fly" options of increasing the number of gigs they sell tickets for. I cant see any other downsides to be honest. It just means more organizing for them.
Thats the only viable change that can and should be made to the law as far as I can see.

I dont think its "kneejerk" in the slightest as whatever changes will be made will very plainly not be made in the short term.

What changes do you think should be made?

I am not sure in light of listening to Mountcharles if I would make any.

I will decide after Dail Committee gets some clarity on Aiken/Croke Park's behaviour. If it turns out (as I suspect) that they tried to pressure a decision well I don't see why we should change a system that has worked quite well.

kippy

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am not sure in light of listening to Mountcharles if I would make any.

I will decide after Dail Committee gets some clarity on Aiken/Croke Park's behaviour. If it turns out (as I suspect) that they tried to pressure a decision well I don't see why we should change a system that has worked quite well.

I dont either being honest and I agree with all of the above.
However, I still don't believe it is a good idea letting organisations sell tickets for events before permission for said event has been granted - as you said it can lead to pressure being put on many individuals (as is happening here) with somewhat of a gun to their head as there are already thousands of tickets out there with time and money invested by many people.

The past two weeks have been nothing short of farcical and has done untold damage to the reputation of the state, whomever you think to be in the right/wrong. The cancellation of the 2 gigs hasnt been the issue in my opinion but the subsequent clutching at straws has been far worse.

Happyman42

kippy wrote: »

I dont either being honest and I agree with all of the above.
However, I still don't believe it is a good idea letting organisations sell tickets for events before permission for said event has been granted - as you said it can lead to pressure being put on many individuals (as is happening here) with somewhat of a gun to their head as there are already thousands of tickets out there with time and money invested by many people.

The past two weeks have been nothing short of farcical and has done untold damage to the reputation of the state, whomever you think to be in the right/wrong. The cancellation of the 2 gigs hasnt been the issue in my opinion but the subsequent clutching at straws has been far worse.

If nothing else it is a timely reminder to punters that 'subject to licence' mean exactly as it says, buyer beware.
Personally I think changing the system will threaten smaller less well known, harder sold gigs.

kippy

Happyman42 wrote: »

If nothing else it is a timely reminder to punters that 'subject to licence' mean exactly as it says, buyer beware.
Personally I think changing the system will threaten smaller less well known, harder sold gigs.

I don't disagree, but selling 400K tickets "subject to license" is not in any way feasible if you think about it.
It is okay to say to punters that the tickets are subject to license however, when a punter buys a ticket for such a big event some have to make a lot of arrangements (accomodation, holidays etc etc) to get to that event. The timelines involved mean they have to commit to a lot of things before the license has been granted. Why would they buy tickets in future and commit to such a thing if the license hasn't yet been granted?
(It hasnt stopped people buying tickets in the past but it might make people think twice.)
Perhaps for certain events (numbers over X) a license should be granted before tickets are sold.

secman

I wish that the politicians on all sides would concentrate on the real issues, health system, medical cards, housing, jobs, education, it reslly is sickening to hear them going on about fcking concerts, disheartened by the lot of them. The new Labour leader' s first utterance was anout the concerts, unbelievable , like a Father Ted episode.

Happyman42

kippy wrote: »

I don't disagree, but selling 400K tickets "subject to license" is not in any way feasible if you think about it.
It is okay to say to punters that the tickets are subject to license however, when a punter buys a ticket for such a big event some have to make a lot of arrangements (accomodation, holidays etc etc) to get to that event. The timelines involved mean they have to commit to a lot of things before the license has been granted. Why would they buy tickets in future and commit to such a thing if the license hasn't yet been granted?
(It hasnt stopped people buying tickets in the past but it might make people think twice.)
Perhaps for certain events (numbers over X) a license should be granted before tickets are sold.

Possibly 'outline permission might solve the problem, you can't really say (and Brooks is a prime example) how many might go to the gig until you test demand.
So promoter goes in with an outline, gets approval in principle, so the risk on everybody is less.
But the real change that needs to be made (and the government can apply pressure here) is that stadiums in built up areas MUST engage and have enforcable legally binding agreements with residents. That would be the major lesson from all this.

Happyman42

Doe anybody know if Aiken/Croke Park have said anything about a judicial review or have any idea why they wouldn't have gone this route?

AnonEmos99

Why do people even care about him? You'd swear it was the next Michael Jackson at Croke Park. Bloody amateur.

RichardAnd

The thing about this concert is that none of the trouble would have happened if Garth Brooks didn't have friends in low places. Ahem...

I just think the whole thing is a mess. Five nights in a row was excessive to begin with. I don't see why the planning couldn't have been settled before the tickets went on sale.

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Irish Examiner reporting that Minister Kelly is trying to negotiate a satisfactory outcome to allow the concerts to take place. Would be great if he is successful.

New Minister Alan Kelly negotiating Brooks concerts

That original story you linked to is bogus. Alan Kelly has ruled out his political interference in planning process for the event

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/environment-minister-not-able-to-intervene-in-brooks-decision-636257.html

Happyman42

raymon wrote: »

That original story you linked to is bogus. Alan Kelly has ruled out his political interference in planning process for the event

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/environment-minister-not-able-to-intervene-in-brooks-decision-636257.html

The Indo and their 'sources' strikes again! :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jesus Wept

Good allocation of garda resources there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

raymon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Forgers should be brought to court on forgery and misrepresentation charges.
That is clear. I think 99.9% of a population would wholeheartedly agree with you.

This does not allow for political interference in planning matters.

Calina

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Even if you take out 190 objections from the 370 total, that is still a lot of objections to be considered.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is nothing 'factual' in that article at all...all of it is attributed to 'sources close to'.

Can we will wait until the Garda actually make a statement on this?

But I couldn't help laughing at another attempt by the Sindo to skew the debate...'people with intellectual disabilities'....cue, shock horror. Up there with 'he was even loaned a suit for the court case'.
Classic Indo reportage.:D

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It could just as easily be somebody (knowing about the answer back system and that these fakes wouldn't get through the process) trying to undermine the validity of genuine objectors.

Unless they are very very stupid (and that may be possible) it would be a crazy thing to attempt for genuine objectors.

Let the Gardai actual;ly comment first, then we can.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Calina

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What compromise solution would that be? There isn't provision for rowing back on the DCC's decision not to license as I understand it. Garth doesn't want to do 3 instead of 5.

There has been a lot of screeching from people demanding that the DCC decision be over-ruled. To do so, however, represents straight interference. What would you have people do?

I fail to see why the two contentious concerts cannot be rescheduled and you do not need senior politicians to mediate for that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Calina

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't see how, given it also included a lot of valid objections, that they can't.

Jim Rockford

raymon wrote: »

Forgers should be brought to court on forgery and misrepresentation charges.
That is clear. I think 99.9% of a population would wholeheartedly agree with you.

This does not allow for political interference in planning matters.

Actually it does, the buck stops with the minister of the Environment, not officials who failed to do their job in a competent, clear, honest and transparent manner. Aiken met with them 14 weeks ago and agreed to all their requirements and requests at the time, and met with them regularly after that, at no time was there any indication whatsoever of the concerts might not being granted a licence. Their process is a mess. In a modern society, there inability to rule on any concert licence until about 2 weeks before the actual event is a joke. Hence the Irish solution to the Irish problem was to grant every single concert application for the last 30 years.

Happyman42

Jim Rockford wrote: »

Actually it does, the buck stops with the minister of the Environment, not officials who failed to do their job in a competent, clear, honest and transparent manner.

The minister CANNOT interfere in planning decisions.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is wrong. Using the answer back system they discovered the forgeries and called the gardai in.
They made there decisions based on verified objections.

Jim Rockford

Happyman42 wrote: »

The minister CANNOT interfere in planning decisions.

Watch and learn, Enda will teach you this week . . .

raymon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fianna Fail have proposed a bill that allows ministers to override planning decisions.

Other than that no other interference has happened.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jim Rockford

In the real world, even Enda and his FG cronies are not going to chuck 400,000 votes away

Tabnabs

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The actual reasons:

1 The scale, magnitude and number of the concerts with an expected attendance of in excess of 80,000 people per night over five consecutive nights, three of them being week nights is unprecedented for Croke Park Stadium.

2 Three consecutive concerts have already taken place in Croke Park from the 23rd to 25th of May 2014. Given that Croke Park is situated in a heavily populated residential area, five shows in a row following on from the three concerts already held there this year is considered an over intensification of use of the stadium for the holding of special events/concerts. It would be in effect permitting an increase of 100% in terms of the maximum number of concerts that had previously been held in Croke Park in any given year since the redevelopment of the stadium.

3 The cumulative effect on residents and on some businesses in the Croke Park and surrounding neighbourhoods, of licencing five shows in a row, three of them on weekdays, would lead to an unacceptable level of disruption to their lives/livelihoods over an unprecedented and prolonged period caused by, concert related noise, access restrictions, traffic disruption, illegal parking and potential antisocial behaviour. The City Council would also be concerned with the precedent that would be created if five consecutive concerts in a row of this scale were licenced.

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-press-and-news-read-press-release-press-releases-2014/garth-brooks-outdoor-event

So the issue of forged objections has consequences on one part of the decision of DCC. It also begs the question of how many objectors does it take for the DCC to take note and include that in a decision process?

comongethappy

Jim Rockford wrote: »

In the real world, even Enda and his FG cronies are not going to chuck 400,000 votes away

Garth Brooks cancels 3 concerts.
->
FG loses 400k votes...

Can't get my head around that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jim Rockford

comongethappy wrote: »

Garth Brooks cancels 3 concerts.
->
FG loses 400k votes...

Can't get my head around that.

Enda can, hence the flurry of activity and flapping behind the scenes.

Happyman42

Tabnabs wrote: »

The actual reasons:


http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-press-and-news-read-press-release-press-releases-2014/garth-brooks-outdoor-event

So the issue of forged objections has consequences on one part of the decision of DCC.

If they verified the objections they considered, then there is no problem.

It also begs the question of how many objectors does it take for the DCC to take note and include that in a decision process?

1 objection if given enough weight is enough technically.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Where have 'the Gardai' confirmed that? Have they made a statement, I haven't seen one...please link to it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Thoie

Jim Rockford wrote: »

In a modern society, there inability to rule on any concert licence until about 2 weeks before the actual event is a joke.

If the promoters had submitted the application in a timely manner, they would have received a response months ago (as early as April if they'd submitted it right after they sold all the tickets). The process takes a set amount of time to allow for the public to object.

The fact is that the promoters submitted their application very late in the game, knowing that the acceptance/rejection would come only a couple of weeks before the concerts. I suspect that this was a deliberate ploy as they knew they were on dodgy ground, and were hoping for the "we can't cancel on x thousand people this close to the event" reaction.

While I have no particular love of DCC, they have done nothing wrong here. The blame lies entirely at the feet of whoever it was who decided not to even submit the application until April.

Your allegations that officials failed to do their jobs in a competent, clear, honest and transparent manner has no basis in reality. It comes across as a pathetic attempt to tarnish reputations, just because they didn't come to the conclusion you wanted.

Dan_Solo

Rightwing wrote: »

He has no choice but to intervene.

The man is up against an incredibly dense electorate.

The proof being they voted him in I guess...