Croke Park residents to seek concert injuctions.....your opinions?

jibber5000 · 04-07-2014 10:20PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I'll think you find that a decision such as was made yesterday exactly fits the definition of precedent

precedent
noun
noun: precedent; plural noun: precedents
ˈprɛsɪd(ə)nt/
1.
an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

I'm blue in the face asking, but hasn't done me any good.

You said the precedent set is for 3..Surely the precedent set for the future is 6 concerts? DCC were happy to let 6 concerts be held this year..Why would Croke Park revert back to 3 in the future when the planning authorities have allowed double this?

ThisRegard · 04-07-2014 10:22PM

Can I just ask, as Lusk is not within the confines of DCC, how did they turn down planning permission for there?

It's hardly a factual inaccuracy, on this thread?

Irish Aris · 04-07-2014 10:23PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

These are just the requests from the last hour.

Any chance you'd grace us with an answer?

you really think that you are going to get an answer? :rolleyes:

HeidiHeidi · 04-07-2014 10:25PM

jibber5000 wrote: »

You said the precedent set is for 3..Surely the precedent set for the future is 6 concerts? DCC were happy to let 6 concerts be held this year..Why would Croke Park revert back to 3 in the future when the planning authorities have allowed double this?

That's not what I said.

The precedent I referred to was the fact that DCC refused licences for two concerts, when there was a clear assumption on the part of the promoters that they would just roll over and the five nights would be granted.

Promoters can no longer be "guaranteed" that the licences they apply for will not fall foul of residents' objections.

HeidiHeidi · 04-07-2014 10:26PM

Irish Aris wrote: »

you really think that you are going to get an answer? :rolleyes:

Not really, but sure there's no harm in asking

KoolKid · 04-07-2014 10:28PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Can I just ask, as Lusk is not within the confines of DCC, how did they turn down planning permission for there?

It's hardly a factual inaccuracy, on this thread?

Apologies my mistake. The fact that it's a different body obviously makes all the difference.
Still embarrassing IMO.

hynesie08 · 04-07-2014 10:35PM

KoolKid wrote: »

Apologies my mistake. The fact that it's a different body obviously makes all the difference.
Still embarrassing IMO.

Was this the theme park where they refused to submit a planning application and instead offered to fly Councillors to america to show them a theme park?

jibber5000 · 04-07-2014 10:39PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

That's not what I said.

The precedent I referred to was the fact that DCC refused licences for two concerts, when there was a clear assumption on the part of the promoters that they would just roll over and the five nights would be granted.

Promoters can no longer be "guaranteed" that the licences they apply for will not fall foul of residents' objections.

Fair enough.I would still tend to view the fact that 6 concerts were granted a licence in the one year as of equal importance as the precedent of the two that were refused..What's to stop the GAA planning 6 concerts next year

Moses101 · 04-07-2014 10:44PM

Can we have the names of de people in dcc that made the decision?

hynesie08 · 04-07-2014 10:47PM

Moses101 wrote: »

Can we have the names of de people in dcc that made the decision?

Bill and paul.

tigger123 · 04-07-2014 10:48PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

Bill and paul.

Was it not Mary?

HeidiHeidi · 04-07-2014 10:49PM

jibber5000 wrote: »

Fair enough.I would still tend to view the fact that 6 concerts were granted a licence in the one year as of equal importance as the precedent of the two that were refused..What's to stop the GAA planning 6 concerts next year

That was my point. They can plan as many as they like, and apply for licences for them - but there's no longer a "guarantee" that the licences will be granted.

There's still a planning condition that they can only have 3 before licences must be applied for.

Amirani · 04-07-2014 10:49PM

tigger123 wrote: »

Was it not Mary?

Owen I believe.

hynesie08 · 04-07-2014 10:50PM

tigger123 wrote: »

Was it not Mary?

Pffft, Mary's brother in laws hairdresser loves Garth. She wouldn't do that.

ThisRegard · 04-07-2014 11:00PM

Moses101 wrote: »

Can we have the names of de people in dcc that made the decision?

If there was ever a time for a LMGTFY it's now.

Peppa Pig · 04-07-2014 11:05PM

Moses101 wrote: »

Can we have the names of de people in dcc that made the decision?

One of them was called Sean Healy.

jibber5000 · 04-07-2014 11:09PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

That was my point. They can plan as many as they like, and apply for licences for them - but there's no longer a "guarantee" that the licences will be granted.

There's still a planning condition that they can only have 3 before licences must be applied for.

But I really don't see how long term the GAA is in a bad place with this decision. Obviously there is the short term PR nightmare but they still have the 3 concerts each year for the forseeable future with the possibity of more if they get a license, which the precedent for 3 more has now been set.

Lotus2014 · 04-07-2014 11:30PM

Glad the residents won out.

Reformed Character · 04-07-2014 11:33PM

end of the road wrote: »

it was only a few residents

you sound like a broken record spouting the same lies over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over......
In the rather vain hope that if you listen to them often enough the lies will become truth as water is claimed to have become wine.

Reformed Character · 04-07-2014 11:37PM

KoolKid wrote: »

All this reminds me of how DCC didn't want a theme park out near Lusk. It might be good for the economy and create jobs we can't have that now.
I am really happy to see the normal residents standing up and saying this minority aren't representing them.
I am not going to be drawn into the petty arguments here but looking at the bigger picture it is really hard to put a figure on how much this is really going to cost us.

More crap, Lusk is in Fingal CC area, DCC has no authority in that region!

Reformed Character · 04-07-2014 11:41PM

KoolKid wrote: »

Ahh sure maybe it's all rubbish. The thing is how do you measure it?
Maybe we are all exaggerating it and no body was going to come and spend money in our country. Likewise maybe all these other countries that build theme parks and do other things to get tourists in to spend money have it wrong as well.
Maybe we all have it wrong and the few hundred people in Druncondra have it right.

You would think a multi-mod could get their basic facts right, like DCC has no authority at in Fingal and had nothing to do with the Fingal based theme park joke that never had a chance.
Sad to see this kind of rubbish being spouted under the heading of MOD.

Reformed Character · 04-07-2014 11:42PM

KoolKid wrote: »

Still embarrassing IMO.

Only for you!:P:P:P:P

John_Rambo · 04-07-2014 11:49PM

Moses101 wrote: »

Can we have the names of de people in dcc that made the decision?

Sure! Would you like their addresses too? Stick your name, address and mobile number up and they'll call you.

Moses101 · 04-07-2014 11:53PM

Residents 1.business 0

maxwell smart · 04-07-2014 11:53PM

Everyone calm down..

I was listening to the radio for most of today and its good news

The concerts that have been cancelled are for GARETH BROOKS.

So maybe the GARTH BROOKS ones are still on!!

end of the road · 04-07-2014 11:54PM

Moses101 wrote: »

Residents 1.business 0

residents 2 business 3, business won

HeidiHeidi · 04-07-2014 11:59PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

These are just the requests from the last hour.

Any chance you'd grace us with an answer?

Ahem.

Still waiting.

Even just an acknowledgement you've seen the questions would be nice.

John_Rambo · 05-07-2014 12:16AM

end of the road wrote: »

residents 2 business 3, business won

It's not a case of battles won or lost end of the road.
You can continue to desperately try spin it and ignore all that's been told and asked of you. You can repeat the same mantra in different ways, but the biggest losers are the Garth Brooks fans that bought tickets for the two gigs that didn't get permission (for obviously good reasons). The blame for the fans disappointment lies with the promoters and the GAA. They made a balls of it.

Your attempts at piggy backing their disappointment to rabble-crowd against the residents is admirable, amateur and obviously annoying everyone from both camps (which is your aim), so on that front, you're a seasoned troll and good at trolling, but that's all you are. A good, careful troll that has no interest in any of the issues.

Most of you posts on boards.ie are similar. Trouble making, but sailing close to the wind, never enough to get an infraction, but antagonistic enough to stir it up. That carry on obviously gives you a thrill.

End of. (the road)

Overheal · 05-07-2014 12:24AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Last hour?! Good luck with that - I've been trying for weeks now!

Truth is if it was a plot for the sake of money, the pro-concert crowd (and GAA's media goons) would have drummed up rumours about it in the press.

Moses101 · 05-07-2014 12:27AM

Its not as if the world is ending,compromise is what its all about.sorry for the residents,the fans,even the gaa,however the idea that dcc could not bring all parties together to hammer out a solution for now and evermore is not good enough.just saying no and thats that is typical of small minded government.if they can solve the problems up north,surely a local gov.issue should be small beer to de politicians?

Croke Park residents to seek concert injuctions.....your opinions?

Comments