Fine Gael Breaking the Law - Posters on lamposts in Dublin this morning

by donegal resident Thu Oct 28, 2004 13:43

to my european pen-pals. They get their head around the fact that once you cross the Foyle the language is different, the people look different, the political culture is different, the clothes are different, the price of a cup of tea changes, the religion is different and that quite honestly everything is as different as Brixton is to Chelsea.
Some of the more simplistic sometimes write back, asking do the Donegal teenagers prefer snogging their counterparts "on the other side" so as to explore this difference at which point I ignore them.

OK. unless you've missed it
ENDA KENNY IS HAVING A MEETING.

by dundalk resident Thu Oct 28, 2004 13:44

as Rostock is to Munich.

by donal Thu Oct 28, 2004 15:51

hi - its a bit unclear whether you agree or disagree with FG postering the IFSC. Could you clarify whether you are hoping to protest against the postering as a possible illegal act or against FG becuase postering is possibly illegal, if its the latter wouln't it be more worthwhile protesting against the government/city council who introduced the measure?
It's very difficult to take this seriously if you are in fact objecting to FG holding a political meeting? Would you protest in the same way if for example SP or SF had advertised a meeting in the same way?

by Adrian Thu Oct 28, 2004 16:25

Donal, i didnt write the article but i think they were saying that it was hypocritical of a party like FG which i think supported the ban or was neutral to it to then go and break it. Specially since they tend to get all self righteous about lefty parties and groups breaking the law Correct me if im wrong.

by Anonymous Thu Oct 28, 2004 17:06

Hi Donal. Sorry bout the unclarity.

Basically I both disagree and agree with FG. My bottom line as stated in the article is THIS LAW NEEDS TO BE REPELLED AS A MATTER OF URGENCY.

I disagree with them to the extent that not only is it unlawful, but more importantly it is extrememly hypocitical of them to be doing this postering considering they, as far as I know, were in favour of this by-law. They certainly did not raise any objections to it.

I agree with them to the extent that I would encourage them to join forces with all those opposed to this oppressive law.

I certainly do not object to them holding a political meeting. I object to their hypocrisy and encourage them to join forces. Unfortunately I would not expect them to do this. In such a case, seeing FG posters on lamposts is a wee bit sickening!

by Councilwatch Thu Oct 28, 2004 17:36

Both Labour and Sinn Fein have committed themselves to overturning the ban on posters on city furniture, indeed Sinn Fein proposed amendments to the City Development Plan on this regard and Labour put a motion to the Council.

The issue was kicked by the Council to the Strategic Policy Committee responsible. The SPC debates the issue and reports back to the Council with a recommendation one way or the other.

The issue has run into a brickwall because of the failure of Dublin City Council to set up the SPCs. Every SPC consists of councillors, and representatives from the business, workers and community sector.

While the different parties on the Council have allocated their representation, there are problems in regard to the representatives from outside the Council as there has been a surprisingly poor level of take-up from everyone bar the business sector.

Tentatively the hope is for the SPCs to be put on a functional footing in early November and hopefully the issue will be driven through at that stage.

by Anonymous Thu Oct 28, 2004 18:07

Thanks for that update CouncilWatch. I did not what was going on.

Would you expect the ban to be repelled?

I wouldn't, unless some serious effort is put in. But I sure hope it is.

I think its importance is huge.

by Councilwatch Thu Oct 28, 2004 18:45

I'd be relatively confident that the Council will vote to end the ban. Labour and SF have 25 out of 52 votes between them and I'd expect the three independents to back the removal of the ban as well, whatever about possible support from establishment parties.

Then the row between the City Manager and the Council over who has the power to end/impose the ban in the first place will begin.

Councillors did not vote to impose the ban. City Management imposed it on their own say so using legislation that just about can be interpreted as giving them the power to do so.

Can the City Manager's decision be overturned by the Council? The general opinion is that it can but John Fitz's dictatorial style of management suggests it will not be without a fight.

Still, Richard Boyd Barrett said he was going to smash the law in the courts last February so no doubt the Council vote won't even be necessary after Barrett sorts it out. ;)

by Cllr Fri Oct 29, 2004 00:19

You disagree with the law. You are unhappy with the existing political parties.

What are you going to do about it?

Why don't you start your own party or stand as an independent and change the law?

Is it because it is easier to cry about things like this on a web site rather than do anything constructive about it?

Protests only go so far. It takes lawmakers to change law.

Become a law maker. Get yourself elected if you can. If you can't then maybe people don't agree with you.

by pc Fri Oct 29, 2004 00:22

i don't want anyone to agre with me and i don't want to make law