Blog Feeds

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link The Party and the Ballot Box Sun Jul 14, 2019 22:24 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link On The Decline and Fall of The American Empire and Socialism Sat Jan 26, 2019 01:52 | S. Duncan

offsite link What is Dogmatism and Why Does It Matter? Wed Mar 21, 2018 08:10 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link The Case of Comrade Dallas Mon Mar 19, 2018 19:44 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link Review: Do Religions Evolve? Mon Aug 14, 2017 19:54 | Dara McHugh

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Dublin Opinion
Life should be full of strangeness, like a rich painting

offsite link Some Thoughts on the Brexit Joint Report 11:50 Sat Dec 09, 2017


offsite link Notes for a Book on Money and the Irish State - The Marshall Aid Program 15:10 Sat Apr 02, 2016

offsite link The Financial Crisis:What Have We Learnt? 19:58 Sat Aug 29, 2015

offsite link Money in 35,000 Words or Less 21:34 Sat Aug 22, 2015

Dublin Opinion >>

NAMA Wine Lake

offsite link Test ? 12 November 2018 Mon Nov 12, 2018 14:28 | namawinelake

offsite link Farewell from NWL Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Happy 70th Birthday, Michael Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Of the Week? Sat May 18, 2013 00:02 | namawinelake

offsite link Noonan denies IBRC legal fees loan approval to Paddy McKillen was in breach of E... Fri May 17, 2013 14:23 | namawinelake

NAMA Wine Lake >>

The Poster Ban That Never Went Away is Back Again

category dublin | rights, freedoms and repression | news report author Friday December 01, 2006 20:14author by Seán Ryan and John Kelly of CFSD Report this post to the editors

This coming Monday, DCC will meet in Dublin Castle and vote to BAN POSTERING once again
Page 1 of the Protocol
Page 1 of the Protocol

Once again the people of Ireland, and of Dublin are being attacked, by the paper pushers in Dublin City Council. This time, despite having had it spelled out for them in very clear terms, they are again aided and abetted by elected officials.

This coming Monday, the 4th of December, DCC elected officials will congregate and congeal in Dublin Castle, to once again defile the Irish Constitution, Irish law and European Human Rights law, to vote to renew the ban on the publication of PUBLIC NOTICES from streets in Dublin.

A meeting was called recently, it was slyly billed as an environmental meeting and five elected representatives from Dublin City Council attended.

On the table at that meeting was a proposal to re-introduce the ban on the publication of PUBLIC NOTICES. A Document with the heading: ‘Draft Protocol for Authorisation to Erect Temporary Posters/Notices on Dublin City Council Property to Advertise Public Meetings/Events’ was entered for discussion and eventually put to a vote. There were 24 separate rules listed on this document. I’m including the two pages of these rules as photographs with this article. Please note also, that public property is feloniously mislabelled as ‘Dublin City Council Property.’

Five elected representatives voted on bringing this protocol forward and having DCC vote on it this coming Monday. Four out of the Five elected representatives present voted ‘yes,’ to re-introducing the poster ban (not that it ever went away). It’s interesting how fast a vote to impose a ban on postering can reach the table in DCC, and yet it took approximately a year for the vote to lift the ban to reach the table. This is despite elected officials like, Dermot Lacey of Labour swearing that he did everything in his power to get the vote to lift the ban onto the table – and on this site too.

Emer Costello of Labour – Voted yes to a permanent ban on FREE SPEECH.

Bronwen Maher of the Green Party – Voted yes to a permanent ban on the right to FREE ASSEMBLY.

Tom Stafford of Fianna Fáil – Voted yes to a permanent ban on the PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW.

Pascal O’Donaghue of Fine Gael – Voted yes to SLANDERING our HISTORY. If this blueshirt had had his way, the 1916 proclamation would have been ‘cleaned’ from the GPO., and ended up in a dustbin, before anyone had a chance to read it.

Joan Collins, Independent – Voted no, and was the only elected representative, who’d previously expressed concern about this issue, that gave a damn about whose interests she represents.

From Monday on, if this abomination is passed – MISSING PERSON posters will not be allowed to carry a photograph of the missing person and their concerned relatives and friends will have to cough up a €300 deposit to to seek help from the public. People who wish to erect posters will have to sign a document, to enable some rights and remove others, that pre-exist the document and the need to sign it. Posters will not be allowed on, O’Connell Street, Grafton Street, Henry Street, Merrion Square, Fitzwilliam Square and Mountjoy Square.

To add even more insult to injury, the following was tacked onto the bottom of the Protocol: ‘This Protocol does not apply to an event promoted or carried on for commercial purposes.

As if we didn’t know this already.

Page 2 of the Protocol
Page 2 of the Protocol

Some twaddle from Twomey
Some twaddle from Twomey

Sign to enable existing rights and remove others
Sign to enable existing rights and remove others

Indemnify DCC
Indemnify DCC

author by Seán Ryanpublication date Fri Dec 01, 2006 20:16author address author phone Report this post to the editors


Postering can be hazardous to your health!!
Postering can be hazardous to your health!!

author by unManageablepublication date Fri Dec 01, 2006 20:49author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This is abuse. The families of the missing have a right to a Missing person service
and to put up photos.

The problem with the Local Governement Bill was that the government Bureaucraticised
the mandate- so instead of representing the people the Greens (Bronwen_ I am disgusted)
Labour, FF, FG et al - have instituted a Rotating system where power is shared. votes
are agreed- its a microcosm of central government.

It is non-democratic.

The next Council elections are in 2009- thats a long time to await the paralysis
of local Government to alleiviate.


John Gormley is extremely weak in the next election- he has lost his two
councillors (Ryan and Cuffe) because the dual mandate was abolished.
Ryan Meade who was co-opted onto Ryan's seat lost the seat for him.

Bronwen Maher- who should be interested in democracy and representation is
interested in 'power'.

The people who are voting in the Gormley constituency should be aware that
the only green rep in the council is anti-democratic.

Lacey:- Said it before will say it again- cast the deciding vote which imprisoned
and brutalised the bin-charges protestors- look at Labour in the up-coming
election and remind yourself that they do deals- rotation/whip and vote-sharing.
Place this in the context of a traditional left party getting into bed with Enda Kenny.

{this can be read in terms of paternalism/women's rights etc- Don't vote labour/
green- they are prostituting principle to 'power'}

we all know about FG/FF/PD-

so who does it leave?

We do not have to allow the 'democratically elected' councillors to move into the centre
in order to 'platform' their ideas when what they are doing is contemptible.

I would not wait till 2009 to sent the message- the parties that voted against the
democratic right to assembly under the 'litter laws' should be targeted for soft politics
in the upcoming general election.

Greens and Labour are anti-democratic- don't vote for them. Put a little copy of the
litter laws in the hands of 'visiting 'Td'S when they come knocking at your door.
Gormley co-operates too closely with Mc Dowell anyway.

author by S2Spublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 02:06author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Any regulations on stickers?


author by Dermot Laceypublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

While some of the facts as outlined above are wrong I put that down more to a misunderstanding as to the procedures of the Council work.

This issue was tabled for a normal meeting of the Environment and Engineering Committee - this is the Committee that deals with all these matters and is open to the Public to attend.

I am not a member of that Committee but do try to attend regularly. i was not at that particular one.

Personally I think we have a long way to go before the Protocol as outlined above would have my support.

Despite the far too ready willingness of some posters to lie I believe in the right of free speech and to protest.

The truth is that many citizens do not want the City plastered with posters that then subsequently litter the streets and we do have to find a way of accommodating Posterers and keeping the City clean. That is what i have and will continue to try and do.

Finally unmanageable because I do believe in free speech I am reluctant to come heavy on the lies you have repeated about me above. I want to see Indymedia thrive and would have no wish to see it penalised financially.

I have said it before and say it here again. I believe that my vote on the City Estimates in 2003 was the honest and correct thing to do. I have debated the issue many times and no doubt will do so again. I will do so in hostile fora and before any independent audience/chair that you wish I will not stand for my honesty and integrity being attacked. Unlike many people who take unpopular stands in Political life I have never run from debate and show respect for the views of others I expect the same.

author by unManageablepublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I do not think that Indymedia is the place for your inept platforming.
or the Mayo guy- who cannot answer a straight question.

It's like this the Labour Party have the resources to litter a lot of Dublin.
They shove it through the letter-box.
A lot of the stuff that comes through my front door is 4/6 coloured which means
a handsome pre-election budget of Labour Propaganda.
two things:

1. Mr Rabbitte has let down his constituency- it won't be forgotten.
2. The pre-election pact with a party that is second only to Mc Dowell's
in terms of right-wing policy and pro-federal propaganda- means quite simply
that the Labour party have moved away from their grass-root (very dangerous)

As to the citizens of Dublin not wanting posters- thats a heap of crap and
well you know it- in fact the older generation are more anarchistic than mine
about 'free-speech' and they are going to the ballots.

we have quite a fan-club, with memories long enough to remember the abuses
of the State against Wood Quay, Carnsore Point and all the other shite.

The centre is branding for the generation of people who they think provide
the mandate- but the young voters and the older ones are getting very pissed
of with the lies and spin that suffice as 'opposition'. indeed, one old lady climbed onto a bus
beside me the other day and played me a tape of a garda harassing her,
she had been protesting about a protected tenancy- she said 'there is no political
will- its lies and compromise' I fecking agree.

author by unmanageablepublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 13:08author address author phone Report this post to the editors

the Labour Party election poster and leaflet budget should be accessed
under FOI.

The election campaign has already started and they will litter our streets
with their lies- whilst reducing the freedom to object-

This is not alone lack of 'political will' it is facistic suppression.

Lacey and Maher are part of it. {Green and Labour}
well done Joan for opposing.

author by number 6 - legalise freedom campaignpublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 14:12author address author phone Report this post to the editors

In the Protocal draft , what exactly do Dublin City Council regard as 'their Property'?

As far as the People are aware , the Council holds in trust , the People's property.

Who the hell do this MOB think they are?

I also see no date or signature on the draft.There is no credence in any of it , let alone the contents.

Where's Terry O'Keeffe in this ?
He's the Law agent.

Who makes all this crap legal?.and , it can be legalised all they like , but none of it will ever be LAWFUL.......IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The whole thing is bullshit.


author by Coilínpublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 16:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This draft protocol is in many details objectionable, and in some details utterly unacceptable.

Particularly abhorrent details:
1. deposit of EUR 300

So only those with cash up front are to be admitted to an elite freedom-of-expression/ freedom-of-assembly club? Hallo-o?

2. not applicable to commercial events
So the council would restrict the rights of Irish citizens, but not the rights of corporations? Where in Bunreacht na hÉireann does it say that commercial enterprises shall enjoy freedoms that private citizens are denied?

On the other hand, absurdly enough, this clause might be used to get around the ban by declaring every event a commercial event. We call a peace demonstration and on the poster we print the words: "Black shamrocks will be on sale," and - hey, presto! - it's a commercial event.

3. no photographs on posters

Have fundamentalist Muslims staged a coup in the council? Why should citizens not be permitted to erect posters bearing pictures of Jim Connolly, Jesus Christ, Groucho Marx, or anybody else whose opinions they might wish to endorse? -Or to repudiate? Is this provision intended to prevent us posting pictures of the members of the council, denouncing them as scoundrels and traitors?

4. no postering on Grafton Street -
Afraid the citizens might actually want to read the posters?

- or on O'Connell Street.
Afraid somebody might call upon the citizenry to occupy the GPO and declare a republic again?

Details abominable by their conspicuous absence:
1. What provision does the council make to explain in writing the basis on which its agents might remove any poster?

2. What provision does the council make to compensate those whose posters are unlawfully removed?

3. What commitment does the council make to provide public notice boards, up and down every street, in order to facilitate the realisation of "the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions" and "to assemble peaceably and without arms"?

For if the state does not permit its citizens to express their opinions and to assemble peaceably and without arms, then it is inviting them to defy it, to assemble unlawfully to subdue it, so as to reassert their primordial liberties.

But perhaps I have got the matter backwards. Perhaps Dubln City Council is planning an uprising in order to secede from the republic?


author by Maratpublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 19:33author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"the Labour Party election poster and leaflet budget should be accessed
under FOI."

The LP is not a public body so its dociments are not subject to FOI. Actually a lot of Public bodies are not subject to FOI such as the Garda and IAA. The LPs expendiyure on posters etc eould have to be notified to ( I think ) the register of poitical parties. I remember LAN got a letter from some bod demanding that we make a return after the Nice referendum.

author by unmanageablepublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 20:15author address author phone Report this post to the editors

We are in 'election mode'. There is a lot of playing to do- as there always is.

Now the parties of the 'centre'- who are practically unidentifiable from each other
are going to be- indeed have- begun to plaster their faces all over Dublin.

Lucinda Creighton FG- is on the Terenure lamposts giving out about post-office
closure. my 90 year old neighbour must get a bus to achieve her pension.

The councillors under LITTER LAW- have eroded the right to free speech.
The right to poster the faces of lost loved ones.
the right to protest+ in the run-up to a contested election.

This is undemocratic.
This is wrong.
The 'opposition' have singularly failed to engage with the grass roots and are busy playing
'political brands' with people who are too busy to 'think' politically'.

Right of assembly/protest and association does not come under the 'litter laws'.

how dare they attempt to stymiereal debate on the 'runaway state' and their own ineptitude
for nine years.

Its actually actionable under some law. Political parties must be mandated by a
demographic- there is a sizeable demographic unhappy with the Council.

Lacey is well-funded by a local group -let him take his platform elsewhere.

author by Dean Whelanpublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 20:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

pascal donohoe (blue shirt-red nose) has plastered the poles of navan road with posters advertising his meetings this week. and now he wants to silence others. typical right winger.

author by unManageablepublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 20:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

should remove all offending pre-election litter from their neighbourhoods

DCC is eroding the right ot freedom of assembly/speech and protest under the
Litter laws, whilst facilitating the political parties to campaign- this is undemocratic.

suggestion:- campaigns who have suffered by removal of posters should obey the
litter laws and remove the propaganda of the parties who voted this law.

Citizen Duty.

Remember this....
Remember this....

Please remove political litter from our streets
Please remove political litter from our streets

A lot done.....More to do
A lot done.....More to do

Litter laws are undemocratic
Litter laws are undemocratic

author by Democrat - The Irish Electoratepublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 21:27author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Invoke the word Democracy or mention the Constitution. The men and women whom you malign have stood before the electorate. They have a Democratic Mandate. You do not. Bronwen Maher will be a candidate in the general election. Why dont Sean Ryan or John Kelly stand against her? Even Dermot Lacey had to face his constituents after his vote on the budget. The voters weighed him in the balance but did not find him wanting. They elected him once more as their representative. All of the others also have a mandate. Where is your mandate? Who ever voted for Seán Ryan or John Kelly?

author by Seán Ryanpublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 21:34author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I'm an Irish citizen.

Article 9.3 of the Irish Constitution states:

Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens.

Now what's your excuse? And how dare you.

author by Democrat - The Irish Constitutionpublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 21:42author address author phone Report this post to the editors

If anything it instructs to be loyal to the State. In that case you should obey the rulings of DCC as decided by the democraticaically elected councillors. They have a mandate, you do not. You represent nobody other than yourself.

author by Seán Ryanpublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 21:55author address author phone Report this post to the editors

You should take your own flawed advice. Who do you represent? Why do you post your organisation as the 'Irish Constitution.' ?

For the record I haven't mentioned 'democracy' or any of its descendants. And I've had this particular argument with Dermot Lacey before. I claimed that we didn't live in a democracy. The best he could answer in response was that he was doing his best. So don't throw the word 'democracy' around like you have an iota of a conception of what it means - you don't.

I also put it to you that you have no clue as to what 'representation' means either. So if you want to argue factually, then qualify you argument first and secondly qualify yourself. Then make your point - if you can find it once you eliminate the tripe and rhetoric.

I haven't claimed to represent anyone. My claim revolves around elected 'representatives' 'representing' other interests - other than the interests of those who elected them, that is. Also I haven't argued that those mentioned herein haven't a mandate. I'm arguing that this mandate given to these people is being abused and ignored.

As for obeying DCC. Get real. When does the master obey the servant?

author by John Kelly - CFSDpublication date Sat Dec 02, 2006 23:41author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Several councillors told me that a "BYE LAW" was brought in by DCC in 2004 prohibiting notices of public meeting or assembly in the city. This was stated one to one and by a councillor at a public meeting. DCC press office also informed several media sources of this "BYE LAW" giving lawful effect to the ban and this information appeared in several newspapers on Feb 20th 2006. A "law" had been passed what could one do? Well perhaps ask some questions as to when this law was drafted and by whom, a law that violated the Constitution, fascinating, bizarre, shocking, or better still "GUBU, grotesque, unprecedented, bizarre, unbelieveable" or similar words of the late CJH.

The office of the law agent of DCC told me yes this bye law was passed but when I asked to see this in cold print I was left waiting for one day while they searched for my request. Next day I was told that an "error had been made". There never was any such bye law passed by DCC ! Put that in your democratic pipe and smoke it. That is quite something is it not ? That is some quality of democracy indeed.

This new move is nothing but a brazen attempt to further control the flow of political information and it is aimed at political and campaign groups. Many of our fundamental rights were fought for and paid for in blood, how dare these public officials besmirch their sacfrice. Hands off our Constitution and our hard won rights.

author by Mick Butlerpublication date Sun Dec 03, 2006 01:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

S2S, Stickers more than likely comes under fly postering for which one can be fined. The point being posters are a very "effective" form and it is our right to communicate with our fellow men and women free from any threat of legal action.

author by unManageablepublication date Sun Dec 03, 2006 21:08author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Four 'mandated' councillors voted against the right to publicise protest assembly in the
run up to the general election under 'litter laws'.

It is the most appalling indictment of soft politics I have ever heard.

Does Dermott or Bronwen walk the streets of Dublin?

Those particular anti-assembly laws were introduced, along with vagrancy laws to
'clean up' dublin during our presidency. The rights to assembly, association and
free speech are beiing eroded by a bureaucratic council that has no notion of
what a political thought is.

Suffrage was fought for and it can be wiped away with a piece of paper and a reference
to litter laws. It is not a fair playing field in terms of politics. The mandated citizens of this city
have presided over a threat to free speech over litter laws. That is exactly how appallingly
diluted the concept of political will has become in this city. they do not see poverty.
They do not see alienation. they do not see racism. they see peaceful democratic protest
as a 'litter problem'.

That is sad.

CFSD is representing more people in this city than either Lacey or Maher- this I am sure of.
Their council workers have removed Shell to Sea posters, Bin charges Posters, missing posters.

Times up- remove theirs, until the concept of 'participatory democracy' becomes crystal clear.

author by Dermot Laceypublication date Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Unmanageable ( I do know your name since we met in Dartmouth Square but I am presuming you wish to remain anonymous - unlike myself who is prepared to be up front about my identity, my role and my politics),

Yesterday I posted three different detailed replies to this thread which for some reason did not appear. So this time just a simple response.

I have not voted for this Poster Ban Protocol. I do not agree with the contents of this Poster ban protocol and I will not be voting for this Protocol. There are more detailed replies to the other points you raised within the Indymedia archives that for reasons best known to others did not appear, and

Finally your comment about "lacey being well funded" are beyond contempt. Anyone who knows me knows that I pay for all my election/representation expenses with the exception of a small sum paid as a Labour Party candidate. The records of my election expenditure are published and held by the Public Office Commission. I have never taken an inappropriate donation in my life and while I accept any political criticism I find deeply objectionable comments such as yours relating to my integrity or finances.

author by unManageablepublication date Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:12author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I did not infer that it was you personally who is 'well-funded' , what I said was that we
are in 'election mode' and that the political parties- who are not providing an opposition
but inhabiting a comfort-zone are going to be plastering their faces on our lamp-posts very soon.

in that context it is grossly unfair to the protest movement who are not funded and do
not sit on council but who wish to highlight inequity in our city are being silenced
through a mundane and inexcusable litter law.

The opposition if it were Fianna Fail ,would be barking the Dail out on every single attempt
at legislation- because that is what an opposition does.

I (unmanageable person) have sat in the Dail and witnessed consistent and appalling
deals between labour and FF, including the planning and criminal offences (sex laws).
it is the worst kind of political theatre. not one member of the opposition has had the
courage to take on bad policy, media domination or political abuse.

Mr Rabbitte does not stand for his consttuency, nor does Mr Kenny.

Bureaucracy involves the pushing of pens,that is what the opposition does.
Mr Gormley is sending election literature to my home lobbying for metro changes, when
the dogs on the street know that the planning process and corrupt lobby are involved.

You said that the citizens of dublin want these litter laws. I am saying the citizens
of Dublin want political will to take on the abusers of our planning laws and to
fight for ordinary people's rights. We are sick of abuse- cronyism, media manipulation
and flaccid opposition. This includes the communities under threat in the capital
and those isolated and brutalised outside the capital.

So facilitate a healthy democracy and recognise that there is worse than bills and
flyers in this city. (Check out illegal dumping/CRH/Crime/Protected tenancies/housing problems).

Pardon Me -Joe Higgins has taken on these issues. and some independents.

author by pat cpublication date Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I'm glad to read that Dermot Lacey will be opposing this obnoxious protocol and I hope that all of the LP councillors will join him in this. It would help if Dermot could enlighten us as to how Emer Costello appears to be supporting this monstrosity. Knowing the positions that she has taken in the past, I was astounded.

Also I found it mind-boggling that a Green Party councillor would support such a negation of democracy. I just cannot fathom it. I expect no better from FF & FG but the GP claims to be a party of protest.

I wont be able to get to the demo tonight due to work but I hope it goes well.

author by Spike - Nonepublication date Mon Dec 04, 2006 19:52author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Just an observation...

Can anyone offer a practical solution to this matter without invoking the Consitution to back up half assed political posturing?

Dear God, if the 1916 leaders saw the level of political discourse on this thread they'd have joined Redmond in disgust.

I agree that a deposit/charge/fee of 300 Euro is excessive, but the fact remains that there are people who are happy to demand their democratic and constitutional rights to free expression, and get outraged when asked to show responsibility on the matter.

Everyone has a right to put up a poster, but no-one has a right to litter or deface municipal property. I am involved in animal rights and we poster regularly, but lately we have seen everything from bad manners to vandalism done by all political shades in the name of free speech. You know who ye are.

The first candidate to offer defined, adequate and purpose built postering facilities all around the city at no charge (except to those seeking to make a profit) gets my vote. I agree sadly with the Corporation that the matter has gotten out of hand from a litter/environment point of view, but their response is shortsighted. I have a constitutional right to a clean city, and that right must be respected.

I think that postering areas would serve to enhance the impact of your message...what do any of you hardened activists think?

author by Dermot Laceypublication date Mon Dec 04, 2006 23:57author address author phone Report this post to the editors

On the proposal of a number of Councillors tonight - including all Labour Councilors - the Protocol was referred back for further discussion to the Environment Committee. A number of us made clear that as presently drafted it was totally unacceptable and we would not vote for it.

author by Ryanopublication date Tue Dec 05, 2006 19:48author address author phone Report this post to the editors

unManageable: "John Gormley is extremely weak in the next election- he has lost his two councillors (Ryan and Cuffe) because the dual mandate was abolished. Ryan Meade who was co-opted onto Ryan's seat lost the seat for him."
Thanks for reminding me. One thing I did do before losing the seat was to put forward a motion calling for this poster ban to be scrapped. I believe I was the first Councillor to do so. My motion was voted down by FG and FF Councillors. FG subsequently ignored the ban anyway, by plastering Dublin South East with posters of their candidates. DCC took them down.

"Gormley co-operates too closely with Mc Dowell anyway."
What? Is this the same McDowell who called John a fascist in the Dáil last month and all but accused him of sending out his people to smash up the PD offices?

"Mr Gormley is sending election literature to my home lobbying for metro changes, when the dogs on the street know that the planning process and corrupt lobby are involved."
What does that mean? Why shouldn't we lobby for extension of the metro to bring high quality public transport to more neighbourhoods? Glad to hear you got (and read) the newsletter though.

By the way, as far as I'm aware John has not been lobbied on this issue by unManageable or anybody else.

Related Link:
author by unManageablepublication date Tue Dec 05, 2006 20:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

it is not wrong to observe what those who inhabit the halls of power do not see-
sometimes because the idea of 'reaction' is more important than actually
forging policy (thats middle class politics)

for example:

Labour are centrist , they are allied to FG. (reactionary politics)
a marriage of left and right- but the jigsaw pieces don't fit. FG is
very right-wing. They wanted blood tests for all immigrants, their feminst policy is
unenlightened. They don't want the age of consent lowered and they are capitalist.

So we have a perceived strong government being taken on
by a weird alliance of right and left. Thats not politics-thats shite.
Howlin took the piss out of Mc Dowell on rights issues- june 2nd. FG did not agree
with Howlin.

People can see the cracks.

Greens are extremely strong on some issues- but on others they are soft.

So right of opinion reserved.

author by Ryanopublication date Tue Dec 05, 2006 23:54author address author phone Report this post to the editors

unManageable, I don't understand your reply, or at least if it's intended as a reply to my comments then I don't understand it. Are you trying to say that it was more important to slag the Greens off on this page than to lobby them directly? That's the only sense I can make out of your first paragraph.

You haven't explained what you mean by "Gormley co-operates too closely with McDowell anyway", nor have you said why we shouldn't be calling for extension of the Metro.

Related Link:
author by Dermot Laceypublication date Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:58author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Don't worry Ryano.

I am permanently confused trying to engage with Unmanageable in debate. Her principal aim seems to be to attack those who are on the same side on this issue by pointing out that we are not with her on everything else including most of the hare brained opinions she puts forward from time to time. Despite her previously accusing me of being well funded ( by whom she never said and which you ( I think) and I, know is simply not true she refused to withdraw it.

On this issue the facts remain the vast majority of citizens favour the right to protest and favour applying some degree of responsibility to those who do poster not to litter the City. The Protocol as drafted was in my opinion way too far and in fairness I think Bronwen on reflection realised that. The Labour Councillors will be seeking changes and as I have said time after time I will not vote for the Protocol as presently drafted.

author by pat cpublication date Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:25author address author phone Report this post to the editors

John Gormley did come out with some odd statements about graffitti but I certainly dont think hes in league with McDowell. I know you are not Bronwen Mahers keeper but perhaps you could find out why (if) she originally supported this protocol as the lead article claims.

author by unManageablepublication date Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Forgive me Dermott and to a lesser extent Ryan Mead(o).

1. I think what my poor female brain is trying to get around is that we are on election footing.
therefore it is very important that we have an 'opposition'. When silly litter protocols are
instituted it reduces the opposition considerably- be they the Rossport opposition, the
m3 Opposition , the Monaghan Hospital opposition. They have to advertise their meetings.

I did not infer that Dermott has invisible backers to fund him. I inferred that the coffers
of such parties as Labour and the Greens can afford to make posters but those in
the opposition are not alone fucked over by the State but hard-pressed in terms
of money. Since the litter laws allowed for council workers to remove all posters
it has been hard for people to fund and advertise protest- which is esssentially
a part of our democracy. I attacked the crassness of parties in dail opposition who
would be so far removed from the situation in Erris to want to sign onto further
removal of rights under a 'litter protocol'

Ryan- Its important that people can criticise both the Present government and
the people who are going to form the next government because otherwise they
become incredibly comp-lacent. John is well able to defend himself and you work
in his office, thus cannot be described as neutral on the matter of criticism.

Thanks for the hare-brained remark- really grown up.

Dermott , you know that these posters are being removed as they go up. So we
could debate the merits of democratic rights or i could go have my breakfast as
I have been working since 6am.

author by Seán Ryanpublication date Wed Dec 06, 2006 16:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I still cannot get my head around the fact that some elected officials think that we need a protocol to do with postering - period.

There are already anti-litter laws, that all must adhere to.

There are laws to do with what can be printed and said.

As far as litter and environmental issues are concerned: I walk along the streets of Dublin and am hampered by the ammount of black bags strewn all over the place, not to mention mountains of cardboard and plastic. They are litter I presume - no hurry in ridding the streets of those.

I notice people and especially wheelchair users, bottlenecked into pseudo queues, by bus 'shelters' that contain commercial advertising that prevents people from watching for busses and staying dry at the same time. No worry about safety here either. Maybe some bright councillor will suggest that people need to be certified as competent in order to catch a bus - twould be quite easy afterall, to be killed by a passing vehicle as one sticks one's head out of the 'shelter' in order to ascertain as to whether a bus is approaching.

I walk past the Liffey and want to puke my ring up - what with the smell.

A vast number of Commercial buildings in Dublin, open up shop fronts, in grevious and deliberate ignorance of planning, and nothing is said or done.

One person - Spike - has suggested that postering is currently responsible for making Dublin City dirty. This is absolute bollocks, posters haven't been allowed for years at this stage, and any attempt to say otherwise, is propaganda of the lowest kind. And by the way Spike, your right to a tidy city is not guaranteed by the Constitution, and the fact that the city is grossly untidy, is not down to postering, it is down to the lack of imagination and effort in DCC.

And still DCC devote time and a lot of money and resources to fucking with my right to inform my fellow citizens of what is happening.

Now we have two elected officials, here describing themselves as being advocates of my rights. Answer me this: Who voted in the initial poster ban? If this hadn't been implemented to begin with, we would not now have to fight just to have our fundamental rights recognised.

So enough with the platforming and the 'poor me' attitude. Fix this issue and then move onto the next, that's what you're paid for - not excuses. There is no department within DCC that is considered to be efficient, therefore nothing is happening. In other words, sort out the mess you have been mandated to sort, rather than occupying yourselves with issues that you have no business intefering with - period.

author by Ryanopublication date Wed Dec 06, 2006 19:17author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Now we have two elected officials, here describing themselves as being advocates of my rights. Answer me this: Who voted in the initial poster ban? If this hadn't been implemented to begin with, we would not now have to fight just to have our fundamental rights recognised."
It wasn't voted in at all - the City Manager introduced it as an executive order. As I mentioned above, I put forward a motion calling on him to reverse the decision but this was voted down by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Councillors.

By the way, I'm not currently an elected official if you were including me with Dermot in the "two elected officials, here describing themselves as being advocates of my rights".

Related Link:
author by Tweeniepublication date Wed Dec 06, 2006 19:34author address author phone Report this post to the editors

One of the elected officials has indeed lost his council seat.

But- the city manager was an unelected bureaucrat who was given unmandated power
to dissolve the council if the estmates were not agreed- John Fitzgerald.

He also instituted the litter/vagrancy laws.

He is now in Moyross ensuring that 9mm Willy is re-elected by 'co-ordinating a crime

unfortunately the Local governement bill ripped away the dual mandate thus removing
sitting td's from the grass root political scene- it was suppoused to reduce corrupt
lobbying and free up local governement. Bad idea- no directly elected mayors and
the coucils had to take on the minimum wage bill of services- therefore using
estimates to lever the wage bill- or- the council became a bureaucracy.

The man controlling the 'litter' issue was appointed by the then Minister of
Environment, who may have been Martin Cullen.

People are feeling annoyed because there is a disempowerment in the councils.
voting pacts and the whip system reign over mandated honest politics. this
is how unelected government employees dominate our political systems.

However- everyone could see the problems with the local governement bill
and the run-off effect on democracy- How many opposition parties
opposed it- cos it got through the Dail.We are still dealing with the frustration
of its corruption, where an argument about democratic rights is reduced
to a littering row.

author by John Kellypublication date Wed Dec 06, 2006 19:52author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Spike, What is your problem with peole invoking the Constitution ? Sorry to read about your regret at the low level of debate on this thread. Why are you coming on to it ? Can your crystal like intelligence not be stimulated elsewhwere ? BTW I have seen people invoking the Constitution in very unequal contests and depending on the quality of their case the invocation of said Constitution is a very adequate tool in putting manners on monkeys who believe they are above the law.

Number of comments per page
© 2001-2019 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy