Joan Collins Puts Virus Into Protocol For Ban On Public Notices

by Seán Ryan Mon Apr 16, 2007 23:12

It seems that a right winger is to be the first to defy the poster ban.

FF's Pat Gallagher, Minister for State, put up 30 posters on the Drumcondra road on Sunday Morning. The posters contained mugshots of himself and the slogn "Pat the Cope for Donegal. Donegal for the League."

DCC are not amused and have ripped down most of the posters. They say the posters were illegally erected. Pat could be prosecuted for littering. Pat claims that the posters were not political, but that he will face whatever the consequences are.

http://www.oceanfm.ie/onair/donegalnews.php?articleid=0...01284

PR stunt or an open act of defiance?

Will DCC prosecute Mr. Gallagher?

DCC were investigating posters of Enda that were plastered up in the vicinity of the mansion house, by FG around this time last year. Nobody seems to know where this investigation went. Maybe this missing investigation needs to be investigated.

Well at least we know that the Government know about the ban. Will the ban be debated in the Dáil, before the rapidly approaching Dáil breakup and election? Doubt it.

by me - We the People. Sat Apr 14, 2007 20:54

Well then ,it's time to reverse the headache , is'int it?

Use A4 sticky backs and see how easy it is for the swine to remove them.

by Observer Sat Apr 14, 2007 16:50

Thats all fine and large; just poster to your hearts content, but if you dont follow the procedure DCC simply rip your poster / Notice down, as good as any ban that is !

by me - we the people Fri Apr 13, 2007 15:59

These Councillors can't answer the question.

It is evident as to who run the City.
.
This bunch took over where the brits left off.

Commercial posters advertising a Book about recruitment for the British Army are strewn all over the Capital's Streets and the indigenious People are BANNED from erecting Public Notices??

This Dublin Corporation mob have inflated views of their own importance.

This Poster ban is contrary to Article 10 of ECHR and 40 of BUNREACHT so there IS no Lawful ban.

Just Poster to your hearts content boys and girls there is no Law.
Do you remember in school asking....'bhfuil cead agam dul amach'?

Don't ever ask ANYONE for permission to exercise your rights to freedom , especially freedom of expression in your own City.

It is common sense , the ban is UNLAWFUL........PERIOD.

GO POSTER AND SPREAD THE NEWS.

by Poster Fri Apr 13, 2007 14:20

It is nice that some agreement was achieved.
But not nice to rest on the laurels.

I have a question for Councillor Lacey?

What attracts a person to a local government political system which involves councillors being
spoon-fed pap, because, until the campaign (CFSD) launched the questions regarding
the citizen's right to free speech there was

A total ban on postering in Dublin emanating from the 1998 legislation and the Litter Protocol
introduced as part of Ireland's EU presidency- this was also twinned with a vagrancy law
which allowed cops to have powers to remove people who were begging in the centre of
Dublin. A man challenged it and won his right to beg. A one year, heavily financed
sub-committee investigated and created the new regulations which passed through the
council in the last fortnight.

The councillors involved in the one year issue on postering argued for 12 months about
a poster falling on someones head or taking an eye out- when people in this city
have been bullied and criminalised for putting up missing posters and meeting posters.

One female councillor in the chamber was totally opposed to any amendments, the
only person she made sense to was herself.

Now- if people who are attracted to local politics can only reach a level of intelligence
where a litter protocol and making money from public liabily insurance is about as
far as they can reach we have a real problem.

did you know that the brown-envelope brigade are back in the council chambers?

by Louise Gaffney Thu Apr 12, 2007 21:21

A pertinent question has been raised by Mick Butler. No matter how this is cut ie culture promotion, etc, it is at bottom, a commercial advertisement for a product selling on the market. At the same time Notices of public meetings are banned on the same street ! Come on elected councillors, what are ye dojng about this ? Or is it not on your radar ?

by Mick Butler - CFSD Mon Apr 09, 2007 20:56

Thanks Dermot, What I was refering to essentially was the fact that there is a ban in place on O'Connell Street on notices of public meetings and assembly, and yet commercial banners/notices are attached to every pole on the street. I consider such a ban on notices of public meetings an abomination and an excrescence on the body politic that allows such a state of affairs. Apart from that, can you or anyone, enlighten me as to how the extant position is reconcoilable with the notices attached to the public property on the main public thoroughfare in the capital. ?

Regards MB

"Nothing shapes our journey through life as much as the questions we ask".

by Dermot Lacey Mon Apr 09, 2007 18:01

The answer is Mick is I cannot as I have no idea whay you are writing about. On the wider isue the facts remain that Labour, SF, the Greens and Independent Joan Collins all secured the best deal we could. I have no problem acknowledging that the Protocol is not what I would have implemented had I controlled a majority - but I do not and we do not. It is an advance on that originally proposed and again i say that it was a pleasure working with other people on the Left who were interested in practical progress not something traditionally associated with the Far left.

by Mick Butler - CFSD Sun Apr 08, 2007 18:54

A stroll up O' Connell Street and one can see advertisements on lamposts the length of the street, for a book "a long long way" a paraphrase for the British Army recruiting song used to entice Irish men to spill their blood and guts for Empire in the "war to end all wars". This is indeed the content of the book. A few hours earlier it was reported on radio that a speaker representing the state read out the 1916 Proclamation.

Can you help us on this one Dermot ?

by Louise Gaffney Thu Apr 05, 2007 22:18

What a contrast. Poster boy Bertie and ex FF Mary Lou etc will be adorning our central public thoroughfares and Public Meeting Notices are banned on the same public walkways. It certaintly throws a profoundly anti democratic mindset into the spotlight. What of ECHR ? Fair play big time to all involved in this campaign.

by Court Clerk Thu Apr 05, 2007 15:01

"You use the term 'hard right,' I deliberately ignored the 'hard,' reference as it's gibberish. Do you mean 'erect?" Does this mean that you are a flaccid member of the left?"

This can only be described as a childish attempt to denigrate Councillor Lacey. It adds nothing to the arguments for free speech but it exposes Sean Ryan as a boor. I hope the editors will swiftly deal with such nonsense.

by Dermot Lacey Thu Apr 05, 2007 14:56

Sean quite simply I find your views, your attitudes and your disregard for those who do not agree with your hard left attitude nauseating and I have no doubt you have the same view of me. So why don't we both gp before the electorate and let them decide - oops they have.

by seán ryan Thu Apr 05, 2007 14:17

Dermot,

Please read what you've written and then have a think about it. Then try to figure out what it is that I got wrong in my report.

I find it amazing that you possess the nerve to try and portray yourself as the injured party here.

Nobody was asking you to deliver a majority. Simple representation was all that was required.

The Chairperson of the Environment and Engineering Strategic Policy Committee, Cllr. Paschal Donohue, was first to speak on the issue of the Protocol. He said that if agreement could not be reached, that the issue would have been taken off the table and that he didn't know when or if it could be re-visited. At the end of the day Dermot, I totally fail to see how you can argue that removing basic rights is a positive thing, regardless as to whether ye didn't do as much damage to the concept of democracy as ye could have.

You suggest that this protocol is more than was previously on the table. By stating this you are suggesting that this Protocol adds to my rights and I take offense at that.

You use the term 'hard right,' I deliberately ignored the 'hard,' reference as it's gibberish. Do you mean 'erect?" Does this mean that you are a flaccid member of the left?

I note Dermot, you consider that yourself and others to have achieved something. Could you tell me exactly what it is that you have achieved, with regard to how the rights of the citizenry have improved since before the poster ban was first enacted? Indeed could you tell me how basic democratic rights have improved since the introduction of the Protocol?

I'm outraged with the ease and the wanton condescendance with which you promote the idea that this Protocol or some miniscule reduction of its effects, could be a positive development. The protocol, cannot in any way be considered a victory, for democratic rights or dignity.

Would you not agree Dermot, that this Protocol is an abomination and that generations of our ancestors who died not having simple basic rights would have seen it this way too? Surely this is a step backwards and not forwards?

Shouldn't we fight to change it?

Or are you just exercising you skill at spin and excuse making?

by sean mallory Thu Apr 05, 2007 13:53

"I abhor the "hard" left. I do not share its views, values or attitude."

What are these values and views you abhor so much......mutual aid? solidarity? socialism?

by Dermot Lacey Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:34

Sean,

Please read what I write not what you want me to write. The Protocol is not what I would have voted for if I was able to deliver a majority. It is a compromise. No doubt you don't like compromise but I work within a democratice representative system in which compromise is an inevitable and necessary product.

That compromise did produce the following:

The three Sqares were deleted from the ban
The requirement to print the name and address on the posters was modified.
The proposed E100 charge for Public Liability each time posters were erected was changed to an annual fee.
The requirement that all streets had to be named in which posters were to be erected was dropped.
There will be no charge for Community Groups putting up ordinary posters provided that they are A3 in size and less than 40 of them. That would cover most community type meetings events.
The Insertion of the Human Rights clause was agreed.

Not enough you might say. More than was previously on the table I would say.Your reference to my reference about the "Left" was also not true. I referred to the "hard" Left. I abhor the "hard" left. I do not share its views, values or attitudes. I respect the sensible and democratic left and was delighted to work so well with SF and the Greens on achieving as much as we did on this issue. The co-operation between us all augurs well for the future in my opinion.

In terms of left unity I would also say that it was a positive experience working with SF, the Greens and Joan on this issue.

by Sen Sir Ship - None Thu Apr 05, 2007 00:04

"The City Council reserves the right to remove any poster it finds offensive or vulgar" -

This part of the Protocol, not some reference to the EHRA, where the real power will be exterted and is what will be used for DCC to censor and make judgements on campaigns.

Did none of our esteemed elected reps even notice this trap?

It appears that, once again, we have be outsmarted.

Sad really.

by Seán Ryan Wed Apr 04, 2007 23:40

I'm afraid that I left a word out of the last sentence and because of this what I have said is quite vague. The words in the brackets should have read: (and in the big scheme of things, small)

by Seán Ryan Wed Apr 04, 2007 23:08

The Chairperson of the Environment and Engineering Strategic Policy Committee, Cllr. Paschal Donohue was the first person to speak on the Protocol issue. Joan Collins was next, and one of her proposed amendments was the removal of Henry Street, O’Connell Street, Grafton Street, Merrion Square, Fitzwilliam Square and Mountjoy Square from the Protocol. In other words Joan was proposing that people would have the right to poster anywhere within Dublin city. Cllr. Dermot Lacey was given the floor immediately after Joan Collins (12 minutes give or take a few seconds, into the first audio file).

After paying some lip service to the rights of free speech and some other rights Cllr. Lacey went onto say, “… we have a particular problem in relation to the ban on the streets. However there is a recognition within the group that on O’Connell St and Henry St. that there are particular and marginally acceptable reasons for imposing the ban on those two particular streets …”

Cllr. Lacey then goes on to talk about Grafton St. It’s a bit hard to figure out exactly what he says in particular about Grafton St., but it sounds like he’s saying that there’s a problem with imposing the ban on this street and that postering should be confined to the end. Or it’s possible that Mr. Lacey is saying that the ban should only occur at the ends of the street. However this particular argument is quite academic as Cllr. Lacey then proceeds to propose that Merrion Square, Fitzwilliam Square and Mountjoy Square be exempted from the ban on postering. So it’s quite correct for me to say that Cllr. Lacey despite having reservations with regard to the ban on O’Connell St., Grafton St. and Henry St., only supported the removal of the ban from the three squares as aforementioned, and that he supported the ban on the publication of public notices on the three streets I’ve just mentioned.

Cllr. Lacey has been very vague with regard to the lies I’ve allegedly told (somewhat dishonest postings as he puts it). Whilst I awaited this clarification that didn’t arise, I concluded that he was referring to the way in which I reported his actions with regard to the enacting of this disgusting protocol. I stand by every word I printed, especially in what I printed about Dermot Lacey.

Cllr. Lacey has suggested that my reporting of this event was “naive.” However he didn’t elaborate as to what this meant. I say the poster ban is now in effect and I say that Cllr. Lacey was in a position to argue and act other than he did. I fail to see where I’m being “naive.” I reckon Cllr. Lacey is being very naive if he thinks he can argue otherwise.

After Cllr. Lacey's own very vague claim that I have mis-reported what occurred, he then says that this incident of mis-reporting and misrepresenting the happenings in City Hall will cause the very goal that this disgusting Protocol exists to provide for, I.e. that the left is doomed to failure. He also points out that he finally understands why it is that he finds the left objectionable (one can only surmise that he didn't understand why he found the left objectionable prior to my effort). Firstly I’d like to point out to the readership that the Labour Party claim to be on the left and that Cllr. Lacey of the Labour Party has often described himself as being on the left. I’d like to point out to him, that his and his Party’s contribution to this abomination, is in itself proof of the Failure of the Labour Party as a Party of the left and that it is a failure of himself as a politician, who has described himself as a politician on the left. Secondly, I’d like to assure Cllr. Lacey that neither my reporting nor the abomination that he’s helped give birth to, will cause the left to fail. If I dropped dead in the morning the left would continue, I’ve only ever claimed to speak for myself. I myself, with regard to the Protocol, am more determined than ever to succeed, and that the actions in City Hall have confirmed to me how right I am in my determination to succeed. I believe Cllr. Lacey should at the very least, amend his prediction to suggest that it is I who will fail. His all-encompassing attack on the left in general, over my singular (and in the big scheme of things) action are quite unfair and uncalled for.

by Non SP member Wed Apr 04, 2007 13:04

No doubt you can provide us with information about all the hard work you've done against the postering ban. We'll be waiting. Or should I say "we'll be waiting!"

by Dermot Lacey Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:02

I have never met Sean Ryan - though I have offered to. However his naive and somewhat dishonest postings make me understand why i find the hard left so objectionable and why they will never get anywhere.

by Seán Ryan Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:01

There seems to be a lot of speculation about ECHR article 10, which is fair enough. I'd like to remind folks about a case in our courts a few weeks ago. The laws against begging were overturned. There were a few reasons for this development. One of them, according to the Judge, was that the poor chap's right, with regard to receiving and transmitting information, was being denied, in violation of ECHR article 10.

The Mahon tribunal recently tried to muzzle the press. This particular action wound its way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the press, citing ECHR 10 in the judgement. http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS+...1.asp

Kieran O'Sullivan of the IAWM has suggested that the pen pushers in DCC as opposed to the elected representatives in DCC should be held accountable. I respect Kieran's right to have and to express this opinion (and not just because of ECHR article 10). However, I disagree with it.

Ultimately the pen pushers in DCC are responsibe for introducing this ban and they'll be responsible for attempting to enforce it too. However if our buffer zone (those elected officials who supposedly represent the very folks who've had their democratic rights stripped from them) had voted down this unethical Protocol, the poster ban would not be in effect.

Dermot Lacey of Labour, has once again graced Indy with his presence and has sugested that because the 'opposition' would have defeated an attempt to shut down the protocol, that it wasn't worth the effort of expressing what he truly wanted. In other words he practiced the politics of compromise. I suppose compromise is indeed a democratic practice. However considereng that this Protocol is all about snuffing out dissent, one would expect one's representatives to vote based on their sense of morality and fairness and in line with their often expressed views with regard to protest and dissent, rather than pander to those whom they wish to impress. Folks should listen to the first audio link I provided. Dermot Lacey can be clearly heard to say that he agrees with the suspension of basic civil liberties on our three main thouroughfares. Dermot suggests, making lots of points to do so, that removing aspects of the rape of our civil liberties, should somehow void our belief that this rape happened.

As for attacking Joan Collins. Folks ought to remember that Joan has never once gone against her conscience in this sorry and sordid affair. She has never voted in favour of this obnoxious Protocol at any stage of its gestation. Suggestions to the contrary are uninformed and slanderous speculations. I suppose that some might argue that Joan took part in the process of putting together this Protocol and that I should consider her in the way I've just described Mr. Lacey's actions. There's a big difference between the action of trying to remove the effects from a harmful event when one has done their utmost to prevent the crime, and the action of trying to remove some effects but condoning and enabling other effects of the crime.

Wrapping up, I've focussed mostly on rights that revolve mostly around the right to protest. Allow me to finish by focussing on those who suffer much more than I. The relatives and friends of missing persons. Missing persons, and those who care, have been attacked by DCC and this Protocol. Posters of missing persons will now themselves be missing from areas where they would receive most attention. Surely this Protocols aids in the dissapearence of those who cannot be found.

by pat c Wed Apr 04, 2007 09:52

The "law" must be broken. It might be an idea to start with posters condemning this censorship. No need for any traceable organisation to be named on the posters. I would be on for that. If we are stopped by any Gardai or DCC goons then we could hand them copies of article 10 of the ECHR Act of 2003.

Sorry I couldn't be on the demo, had to work late. Congrats on the report and audio links (sincerely meant).

by anon Tue Apr 03, 2007 22:22

These street are shopping street you see, they build a grand plaza but don't want public to use it, if the citizen can't express themselves on O'Connell street then where?
They also say it its for tourisms sake but then try to strip the city of life that tourist come to see.

What exactly constitutes a community group?

by Mick Butler Tue Apr 03, 2007 17:41

Putting the sting in the tail re ECHR 10 may or may not take a court action. There are ones prepared to take such action. ECHR 10 leaves no elbow room for autocratic officials in DCC.
The SWP, SP, SF, Lab Youth activists, etc were noticeable by their absence outside City Hall last night . I tend to agree with C Murray ,here was a core isue where DCC have been banning Notices Of Public Meetings and issuing fines to boot and the "left "response or lack thereof speaks volumes.

Well done to Sean , Joan and friends.

by Goblin Tue Apr 03, 2007 13:05

I have no problem with O'Connell Street being kept clear of ALL election posters from ALL parties/Inds. After the street scaping there are a hell of a lot more polls for eyesore election posters to clutter up the place.

I do fundamentally disagree with notices for public meetings/addresses etc being banned, this is bordering on censorship of dissent. A very dangerous developement indeed.

by Dublin SF activist Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:56

We were always told that O'Connell Street was supposed to be kept clear of election posters for some reason. We never put our posters there during the locals or generals, and as far as I can remember no other party did either.

by Kieran O'Sullivan - IAWM Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:41

I think that the attacks on labour and Jone Collins are unwarrented. They did as much as they could and they have deminished some of the more odiious aspects of the postering policy.

If there is anger to be directed anywhere (and there is) then it should be directed at the unallected officials of DCC. The attempt to ban posters has been presewed by them for a long time. This is a general attitude problem amongst the appointed members of the council. They are completely unaccountable, I was involved in the audible crossing campaign The National Council of the Blind had been lobbying for months and it wasn't until 160 blind people were outside the offices of DCC that Oan Keegan finally got the message.

When I see an election poster up on O'Connell St I'm going to write to DCC asking them to explain why this poster is permitted and other posters are not.

If people want to make critical comments they should at least put their correct name on them.

by poids Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:20

The ECHR never comes to anyones rescue really, no deus ex machina. But what it means is that you can take an action, by recognising its authority they have made it easier to take a case and backed themselves into a corner. You don't even need to take an action, you can build a strong case and then let them know of your intention to go ahead, see if they want to go that far

Anyway those restrictions and penalties as prescribed by law, that sentence cannot be read on its own, any such laws and rules must be seen in the context of being
' necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.'

So unless the council can prove that their rules are neccessary to national security etc they are going to have a hard job on their hands, you need a pretty strong reason for paying the echr lip service and then laughing at them, its the sort of thing they don't like in a defendant.

So eh.. who's going to take that case, no point having it in there unless its going to be used

by Dermot Lacey Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:13

It is a while since I posted on Indymedia and seeing some of the posts I can see why. Any fair minded person will accept that I and the Labour Group honoured our position as did Joan Collins. We secured significant changes to the original proposals:

The three Sqares were deleted from the ban
The requirement to print the name and address on the posters was modified.
The proposed E100 charge for PublicLiability each time posters were erected was changed to an annual fee.
The requirement that all streets had to be named in which posters were to be erected was dropped.
There will be no charge for Community Groups putting up ordinary posters provided that they are A3 in size and less than 40 of them. That would cover most community type meetings events.
The Insertion of the Human Rights clause was agreed.

These By laws were not the ones I would personally introduce but given the Political balance on the Council it was the best the Left in its broader terms could achieve. In terms of left unity I would also say that it was a positive experience working with SF, the Greens and Joan on this issue.

by C Murray Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:45

Take a strip off Joan, why not?

You cannot even co-operate at this level.

Lacey was there. he spoke after Joan, added the same kind of amendments.
FF too.

Lack of co-operation on the broad left in ireland is a laughable pain in the arse.
I was at the meeting and I am telling you that people listen to Joan, its a pity there
is not more support for women candidates like her, but of course then the boys
would have no-one to insult and abuse- would they?

Where were the SP- did not see banners.?
PBPA- no presence.?
Labour- not there.?

All of you were prepared to accept the protocol, were prob not even aware
of the civil rights aspects- cos its not theoretical socialism.
Jayzhus- how pathetic it all is.

Doolin and Burke (SF) supported.
FF (supported)
Labour supported.

by Seán Ryan Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:38

.

Interview with Cllr. joan Collins
Interview with Cllr. joan Collins 10.27 Mb

by Sp Member Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:36

You can dress it up anyway you want but Joan Collins in the end voted in favour of banning postering in the centre of Dublin, I would call that a sell out. If the Labour Party did it you all would be screaming sell out from the rooftops!

by C Murray Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:32

It never once occured to the little shop of horrors who wrote the first protocol that
certain basic liberties were at risk here.

indeed the armchair critics who are attempting to take a strip off Joan and
I assume are politically motivated could not get the ass off the chair and publish
on their sites the effect of the ban, nor go out and protest it.

The original protocol:
1. Six areas in the city centre to be subject to the ban.
2. name, home address and phone number of protest group to be put on poster.
3. Public liabiltiy insurance- for each group who poster this meant a fee of 100
euros per poster run- evrytime a poster was put up.

There are huge problems in the Irish left- one is sexism, another is failure
to inform interested parties of the repurcussions of legislation (both National and local)
on their campaigns- it seems that everything is presented in a one-sided theoretical
manner and that is why it fucks up so bad. it is subject to the agenda of a few
individuals who baulk at difference.

Thanx Joan- for fighting the protcol!

others who supported:
Larry Wheelock.
Michael D Higgins.

The big right wing parties need have no worries about a left threat. ever. in this country
its strangleholded to a very limited agenda.

by Seán Ryan Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:22

.

Council amend and introduce poster ban protocol
Council amend and introduce poster ban protocol 4.61 Mb

by pat c Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:13

Please read what Sean has actually written in the article. Joan attempted to get postering allowed in Henry, Grafton and O'Connell Street. She has also planted a timebomb within the protocol itself. One surrounded by rotten eggs which will blow up in the faces of the City Hall "powers that be".

by Seán Ryan Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:13

.

Council talk about poster ban part 2
Council talk about poster ban part 2 16.19 Mb

by James Connolly Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:12

I remember once they said we couldn't have a rising there but sure where there's a will there's a way.

by SP Member Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:08

So basically Joan Collins voted in favour of banning postering in parts of Dublin City Centre. Is this correct?

by Seán Ryan Tue Apr 03, 2007 09:47

.

Council talk about poster ban
Council talk about poster ban 16.1 Mb

by dloop Tue Apr 03, 2007 09:41

"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law"

Don't see how that'll scupper any plans. The postering ban is law now, and the ECHR legislation says that these rights are subject to law. No headache. No contradiction.

Look, ECHR stuff is never gonna mess with the status quo. It's a red herring for naive activists.

by C Murray Tue Apr 03, 2007 09:26

http://www.ireland.com

The speaker began by reminding everyone that it was twelve months since the
Litter group got together to make the protocol.

The four amendments tabled by Joan Collins had not occured to one of them
until they were pointed out.

I am glad that the necessity of putting a home address and name has been removed
from the protocol, but Is it still acessible to the public through the area manager?
(that little detail had not been resolved)

Irish Times this morning screams that political postering is to be banned from
three thororoughfares:- it neglected to mention that the original protocol had
included three of Dublin's Squares including both Mountjoy and Merrion
Square.

One the councillors failed to get his head around the 100 euros fee , to him it was
not a significant amount of money........

There were five to six amendments tabled, broadly supporting the rights issues
but they were additions after many local groups including the Wheelocks and
some TD's had to lobby for.

SF/Labour/Joan Collins/FF agreed the amendments.
No Green Party person spoke on the amendments.

by Seán Ryan Tue Apr 03, 2007 09:21

If a planning application is a public notice - are DCC breaking their own Protocol on O'Connell St. with regard to planning applications for commercial posters on lampposts?

On yer bike!

Page 5 of Protocol

Page 6 of Protocol

Joan's amendments

Some CFSD activists greet and leaflet DCC personnel

CFSD flyer