Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

Happyman42

Valmont wrote: »

Preferably something from a peer-reviewed, high impact-factor journal, please.

Or something from a newspaper that doesn't have a record for this type of 'journalism'.

bumper234

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But the objections are only PART of the city managers decision. I think the fact that 80,000 people would be trying to access that area during rush hour on a Monday and Tuesday effectively causing gridlock for MANY thousands of commuters would have had more bearing on it tbh.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bumper234

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fine but you are saying that the DCC should look at the licencing applications again because of these ALLEGATIONS.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bumper234

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

FYP :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"up to" 40% "possible" forgeries. "said a source".
Case proven! LOL.

Scofflaw

Jim Rockford wrote: »

She's higher up than that. Lets see how you learn to respect authority when the 5 concerts are given the all clear this week.

Looking back over Jim's 'contributions' to this thread, I think an immediate 3-day ban is warranted.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Sierra Oscar

bumper234 wrote: »

And if some were forged (40%?) does that mean the other 60% from legitimate people should be binned?

Nope, but it does show that DCC did not exactly excel at its job of verifying the objections before granting the license. If the figure of 40% for forgeries is correct then it does demonstrate the probability that a small section of the local community are in disagreement with the wider community - and they feel the need to resort to illegal forgeries of signatures to support their concerns.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"up to" 40% "possible" forgeries. "said a source".
Case proven! LOL.

DCC would not call in the Gardai for no reason, and the Gardai would not launch a criminal investigation for no reason.

bumper234

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Nope, but it does show that DCC did not exactly excel at its job of verifying the objections before granting the license.

So DCC should have gone over EVERY objection in minute detail and contacted EVERYONE on the objection forms? And how long do you think that little project would have taken? A week? A month? 6 months?

Sierra Oscar

bumper234 wrote: »

So DCC should have gone over EVERY objection in minute detail and contacted EVERYONE on the objection forms? And how long do you think that little project would have taken? A week? A month? 6 months?

EVERY objection you shout out!!!

There were only 400 objections, you make it seem as if there were half a million.

I don't think it would have been a huge ask to follow up with a quick call back to verify if the objector was aware that a complaint had been made in their name. It is a concert that will bring over 400,000 people to Dublin afterall. They didn't need to go over them in 'minute detail' (where did I suggest that?). Even a decent sample size would have been sufficient to ensure that certain individuals were not up to old tricks again. It is not as if this is the first time this has happened.

Happyman42

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Nope, but it does show that DCC did not exactly excel at its job of verifying the objections before granting the license. If the figure of 40% for forgeries is correct then it does demonstrate the probability that a small section of the local community are in disagreement with the wider community - and they feel the need to resort to illegal forgeries of signatures to support their concerns.

You are assuming a lot there.
DCC discovered the forgeries and have afaics a verification process (the answer back system)
The Gardai would have to separately verify that these where forgeries, hence contacting people again..
You are also assuming the motive for any attempt to decieve...could just as easily be somebody attempting to discredit objectors, knowing that they would be discovered.

DCC would not call in the Gardai for no reason, and the Gardai would not launch a criminal investigation for no reason.

Once called in the Gardai would have no choice but to launch an investigation.

Sierra Oscar

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are assuming a lot there

.....

could just as easily be somebody attempting to discredit objectors, knowing that they would be discovered.

In fairness, so are you ...

Its not as black and white as many make it out to be anyway. The community is very divided on this issue and has been for years. Yes it is important to respect those that have made complaints. But there is a need to respect those that wanted the concerts to proceed too. I still think the licensing system needs to be examined.

circadian

Let's say it takes 10 minutes to make the call and log any information related to it.

That's 66.6 hours of work. So about a week and a half of CONSTANT work hours. I'd provision 3-4 weeks for that depending on peoples other duties.

bumper234

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

EVERY objection you shout out!!!

There were only 400 objections, you make it seem as if there were half a million.

I don't think it would have been a huge ask to follow up with a quick call back to verify if the objector was aware that a complaint had been made in their name. It is a concert that will bring over 400,000 people to Dublin afterall. They didn't need to go over them in 'minute detail' (where did I suggest that?). Even a decent sample size would have been sufficient to ensure that certain individuals were not up to old tricks again. It is not as if this is the first time this has happened.

And if someone is away on holiday for a couple of weeks? What if you can't contact some of them do you then just assume that their objection was false? How many employees do you have trawling through the objections and knocking on doors to get this done? Some objections have multiple names on so it's 400 objections but many more actual people.

Sierra Oscar

bumper234 wrote: »

And if someone is away on holiday for a couple of weeks? What if you can't contact some of them do you then just assume that their objection was false? How many employees do you have trawling through the objections and knocking on doors to get this done? Some objections have multiple names on so it's 400 objections but many more actual people.

Emm its not exactly unprecedented, councils often follow up on complaints to verify their authenticity. Again we are talking about 400 complaints here, not exactly a huge amount to follow up on.

If the complaints had been filled out with contact numbers (it would take an elaborate operation to fake hundreds of contact numbers) then it would be much easier to contact and verify those that made a complaint. That wouldn't suit the forgers though, makes it too difficult for them to get away with it.

It would probably take a couple of council employees a day to follow up on a decent sample size to see if there is something strange going on. If the 40% forgery figure is accurate then you would know something strange is up immediately. Not that much of a cost when you take into account that the concerts would bring €50 million to the economy.

bumper234

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Emm its not exactly unprecedented, councils often follow up on complaints to verify their authenticity.

If the complaints had been filled out with contact numbers (it would take an elaborate operation to fake hundreds of contact numbers) then it would be much easier to contact and verify those that made a complaint. That wouldn't suit the forgers though, makes it too difficult for them to get away with it.

It would probably take a couple council employees a day to follow up on a decent sample size to see if there is something strange going on. If the 40% forgery figure is accurate then you would know something strange is up immediately. Not that much of a cost when you take into account that the concerts would bring €50 million to the economy.

Am sure this will be bought up when they review planning/licence applications once this GB debacle is over and done with. In the meantime it still stands hat 5 concerts won't go ahead and GB could still play to 240,000 if he wants to.

Happyman42

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

In fairness, so are you ...

Its not as black and white as many make it out to be anyway. The community is very divided on this issue and has been for years. Yes it is important to respect those that have made complaints. But there is a need to respect those that wanted the concerts to proceed too. I still think the licensing system needs to be examined.

I'm open minded about it until somebody in the Gardai comments on it.

For instance, if the last sentence here has any basis in reality...wouldn't the existence of forgeries then have been very handy and fortunate for Aiken.

Promoter Peter Aiken is attempting to convince Dublin City officials the revelations surrounding the objections should pave the way for a review on the decision to block the five concerts.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/whats-on/music-nightlife-news/garth-brooks-croke-park-concerts-3850372

Not claiming for a minute that is what happened, just saying they could have come from anyone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The forgeries where found...the system worked. :rolleyes:

bumper234

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As we now know the planning/licencing process is flawed and needs to be fixed. Does not mean these five concerts should all go ahead.

Sierra Oscar

bumper234 wrote: »

Am sure this will be bought up when they review planning/licence applications once this GB debacle is over and done with. In the meantime it still stands hat 5 concerts won't go ahead and GB could still play to 240,000 if he wants to.

At this stage Brooks should just play the three. I don't buy into his 'ah shucks I don't wanna disappoint' argument considering it is out of his hands.

But I still think there should be an appeals process instead of having to go back to the drawing board every time complaints are made, especially considering both sides of the debate around Croker have used dirty tactics to try and win out in the past.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So Permabear how many valid qbjections does it take for DCC to use as a reason to help make a decision like this? 1, 10, 50, or 100? Or is it the quality of the submission. My understanding is that one submission properly argued is enough to make a decision on. IF the reports are correct about the false objections then there are still in the region of 250 valid objections to be considered as well as factors such as shutting down an area that is a major artery of traffic from the Northside into the city centre on three weeknights especially Tuesday which tends to be the day of heaviest traffic in the city.

It seems to be that DCC were more than generous offering 3 of the 5 nights and then when the toys were thrown out of the pram By GB in offering other solutions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bumper234

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You have a link to this evidence?

raymon

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

At this stage Brooks should just play the three. I don't buy into his 'ah shucks I don't wanna disappoint' argument considering it is out of his hands.

But I still think there should be an appeals process instead of having to go back to the drawing board every time complaints are made, especially considering both sides of the debate around Croker have used dirty tactics to try and win out in the past.

That makes sense .

It does go against your party's strategy with Timmy's "political interference " bill.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is part of their job...not it all though as they have been to pains to point out.

Have a look at their reasoning here and you can see that plainly.

http://dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Press/Documents/LicenceDecisionNoticeGarthBrooks.pdf

K-9

Tbh it all comes back to Croke Parks decision to go with 5, they really should have foreseen outrage from the residents. I can see why they thought they would get the go ahead with very few concerts over the last couple of years but an agreement is an agreement. I'm not particularly fond of the residents group since the stadium was redeveloped, but CP acted in bad faith leaving little trust between the 2 groups. The forgeries are a bit of a sideshow in that context and there's an element of straw grasping!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Has anyone verified the names on the petition?

At least the Times doesn't repeat the 40% claim.

Thoie

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is part of their job...not it all though as they have been to pains to point out.

Have a look at their reasoning here and you can see that plainly.

http://dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Press/Documents/LicenceDecisionNoticeGarthBrooks.pdf

So they managed to turn around the application in 11 weeks, while not skimping on the timeline to allow for observations? So if the promoters had applied at the beginning of February, having sold their 400,000 tickets by then, the decision could have been out before easter, allowing another whole 11 weeks to alter plans/resubmit and go through the entire process again, legally.

Just confirms my suspicions that the promoter deliberately delayed the application. This is not the first planning application they've made in their lives. They aren't some tuppenny hapenny crowd just starting out with their first ever planned event. They knew what they were doing, and it backfired. It's extremely disappointing for the ticket holders, but I still can't see that DCC did anything wrong.

For those who would like a new appeals process, what are you suggesting?

• What are the timelines involved in your proposed appeal?
• Is the promoter allow make alterations to the original submissions?
• If so, how much time are you allowing for the public to make their observations?
• If a member of the public has already paid their €20 to submit an observation the first time around, do they have to pay again?
• If the promoter is not allowed alter their application, on what grounds should they be allowed request an appeal? What evidence would be required to show that the planners had missed an important consideration first time around? How would you define an important consideration?
• Who do you want to review the appeal?
• Should the fee for submitting an appeal be the same as the initial application fee?

Thoie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If those 2,000 people were so eager for the concerts to happen, despite the agreements, and despite the impact why didn't they submit their "yes please" observations to DCC at the appropriate time? The public consultation phase allows for both agreement and objections. Would each of those 2,000 people put their money where their mouths are the next time a concert is planned, and pay €20 and write to DCC themselves?

K-9

@permabear, Yes, some are for it, some aren't. My understanding is the 2,000 are mostly from the Summerhill side of the stadium. I don't know if you are familiar with CP but the Drumcondra/Cusack stand side would have more access issues. It can be a bit claustrophobic leaving the stadium there, I often leave it for 10/15 minutes until most have left. 5 concerts over 3 days was a really dumb idea for me, I couldn't see the DCC passing it, never mind GB going for it

Happyman42

Thoie wrote: »

So they managed to turn around the application in 11 weeks, while not skimping on the timeline to allow for observations? So if the promoters had applied at the beginning of February, having sold their 400,000 tickets by then, the decision could have been out before easter, allowing another whole 11 weeks to alter plans/resubmit and go through the entire process again, legally.

Just confirms my suspicions that the promoter deliberately delayed the application. This is not the first planning application they've made in their lives. They aren't some tuppenny hapenny crowd just starting out with their first ever planned event. They knew what they were doing, and it backfired. It's extremely disappointing for the ticket holders, but I still can't see that DCC did anything wrong.

For those who would like a new appeals process, what are you suggesting?

• What are the timelines involved in your proposed appeal?
• Is the promoter allow make alterations to the original submissions?
• If so, how much time are you allowing for the public to make their observations?
• If a member of the public has already paid their €20 to submit an observation the first time around, do they have to pay again?
• If the promoter is not allowed alter their application, on what grounds should they be allowed request an appeal? What evidence would be required to show that the planners had missed an important consideration first time around? How would you define an important consideration?
• Who do you want to review the appeal?
• Should the fee for submitting an appeal be the same as the initial application fee?

What form does a 'judicial review' take, as this was open to Aiken/Croke Park.
How does that work does anybody know and why wouldn't he have gone that road?
Would it provide a resolution or overturn the decision?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Thoie

Happyman42 wrote: »

What form does a 'judicial review' take, as this was open to Aiken/Croke Park.
How does that work does anybody know and why wouldn't he have gone that road?
Would it provide a resolution or overturn the decision?

In the case of planning you're looking at a Statutory Judicial review, which you'd have to take within 8 weeks of the decision. AFAIK that goes to the High Court - I've no idea if it would have been fast enough to allow the concerts to go ahead.

A judicial review doesn't decide on the merits of the application, it reviews whether the decision maker had the authority to make the decision (he did), the decision must be fair, and comply with the law (it's certainly legal - the fair bit would be for barristers to argue, and not in a "it's not fair little Timmy can't go to a concert" kind of way).

If the judge(s?) found that the proper process hadn't been followed they could quash the decision, at which point I presume you'd start again. The promoters may still go down that road, but I can't see it all coming together before the end of the month. I also still can't see anything that DCC did wrong that would merit taking the case, unless the promoter has good reason to believe they didn't follow proper process.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The streets are very narrow on the Drumcondra side moreso than other sides, if I'm correct, one of which borders the canal. I think somebody posted earlier that DCC said they'd consider it but I doubt after the whole debacle they'd give a definite answer. Part of the problem seems to be some nod, nod, wink, wink replies Aiken got from DCC initially, so I doubt they'd repeat that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

raymon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Exactly - he should agree to perform three concerts or turn the container ships around now. At least Timmy Dooley will get to go to the one of the three concerts then and there wont be any need to immediately change the legislation to accomodate him.

Then the government can take a proper look at what went wrong and change the events planning legislation to have a proper, transparent appeals process,

Thoie

raymon wrote: »

Then the government can take a proper look at what went wrong and change the events planning legislation to have a proper, transparent appeals process,

I'm still not convinced that an appeals process would have helped in this scenario, and no-one's given any reasons as to why an appeal would have worked. Other than "ah go on, go on, go on", what would have changed?

80,000 extra people at rush hour on a Monday and Tuesday is still very disruptive. Concert-goers taking a few hours to leave the place on a Monday/Tuesday night (after 3+ previous days of disruption) is still disruptive. 5 days of disturbed sleep in a row would be close to torture for me (though other people are nicer than I am).

kippy

Thoie wrote: »

I'm still not convinced that an appeals process would have helped in this scenario, and no-one's given any reasons as to why an appeal would have worked. Other than "ah go on, go on, go on", what would have changed?

80,000 extra people at rush hour on a Monday and Tuesday is still very disruptive. Concert-goers taking a few hours to leave the place on a Monday/Tuesday night (after 3+ previous days of disruption) is still disruptive. 5 days of disturbed sleep in a row would be close to torture for me (though other people are nicer than I am).

Yep. People who are unhappy with the process are generally ones who have tickets and arrangements made.
The DCC gave 3 nights and ultimately the decision not do do 3 nights came from GB.

gandalf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That article clearly states that DCC brought the Gardai in to investigate when they became suspicious. Surely it stands to reason that they also set aside those objections.

A compromise was made by DCC that they had no obligation to make and the so called star refused it. At this stage we should all move on and if changes need to be made to legislation the politicians should debate and amend the law to prevent a cock up like this happening again.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The pro-GB side would have more credibility too if the best they have is "some random amount of objections may have been fraudulent said somebody."

Dan_Solo

K-9 wrote: »

Part of the problem seems to be some nod, nod, wink, wink replies Aiken got from DCC initially, so I doubt they'd repeat that.

Source? Aiken? "a source"?

K-9

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Source? Aiken? "a source"?

Should have put according to, but tbh I've no reason to doubt him. There may have been some wires crossed in his version and what was meant by DCC.

Dan_Solo

K-9 wrote: »

Should have put according to, but tbh I've no reason to doubt him. There may have been some wires crossed in his version and what was meant by DCC.

You have no reason to doubt the story of one side in this argument who stands to personally lose oodles of cash?
mmmmmk....