Procedure to ensure DCC does not destroy Notices of Public Assembly

by John Kelly - CFSD Mon Sep 18, 2006 22:26

I agree with you ? ? about the notion of asking for permission to dispaly notices of public meetings/assembly in Dublin. The mover of the motion to revoke the ban informed me that DCC was relying on legislation that requires people to ask the owner of property if they want to place sinage etc on that property.

My own view is that council property is public property, albeit under the care and maintaince of the relevant council, but its possible they might win the "permission" argument in a court . However since they provide no facilities for public assembly notices they are in no position to have in place a blanket ban on such notices. What we did achieve was an overturning of the blanket ban and it is now mandatory for them to grant such permission.

Blanket bans or even selective refusals are not an option for DCC anymore. It is not perfect and will require fine tuning and vigiliance. Perhaps instead of seeking "permission" we should simply "inform" them that we will be placing notices and will remove them after event is over in confromity with the May 22 vote of DCC.

by ?? Sun Sep 17, 2006 19:57

John, is there something tangible which people can point to when wishing to rely on this 'process / procedure' and are faced with the intransigence of the bloody-minded little burocrats who breed in DCC, or their willing robots who rip down posters notifying public events?

if there is, please post copy or link, otherwise this info maybe of little practical value

also, it needs to be clearly established ASAP as a 'right', and if it is not accepted as such by DCC, how can that be changed?

why should you notify any asshole in DCC about your intentioin to exercise your right to free/political speech?

why do you need said asshole's blessing?

how is such permission 'granted'?

if there is no paper-trail, then there is no accountability, and we all know how much lazy burocrats love to lie to cover their asses if there is any heat coming down.

All in, it sounds as if the 'process/procedure' is not properly defined, susceptible to arbitrary application, open to permission being revoked after supposedly having been granted by some nameless voice over the phone.

Some work remains, but well done so far

by John Kelly - CFSD Fri Sep 15, 2006 18:50

I made an error re M Phillips, he is not City Manager, he is rather City Engineer and Director of Traffic. It might be no harm however if people cc their mails to the City Manager John Tierney and Asst City Manager Matt Twomey. Hopefully my use of the word "ensure" on original release will not be premature, if they continue to remove such notices the groups or individuals concerned should post same information on this site. J K