Posted in:
DeliverOhOh
The liveried bicyclists who zip past, delivering fast food, are probably working illegally.
News
-
-
Revised complaint had claimed serious new information had arisen — so the woman is contemplating litigating the reasons given for rejection, and is pursuing a civil action against the retired district court judge
-
Posted in:
Charlemont Charlatanism
Dublin’s proposed Metro is an unplanned mistake, facilitated by egregious procedural and consultation failures over Charlemont station, that risk derailing it.
-
Dublin’s proposed Metro is an unplanned mistake, facilitated by egregious procedural and consultation failures over Charlemont station, that risk derailing it.
-
Scappaticci, an IRA assassination unit, MI5, the murder of a Westminster MP and Kincora’s stench of death
-
Ryan Tubridy’s evidence to the Oireachtas Committees displays his personal values that have also characterised his broadcasting career – sadly they, and RTÉ’s, are shallow and materialistic. By J Vivian Cooke Ryan Tubridy volunteered to give an exhausting full day of evidence to two Oireachtas committees – (Public Accounts and the Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sports and Media committees) – in order to rescue both his career and his reputation. He can be satisfied that his performance last week left him in a better position than he was in at the start of the day and that he has improved his prospects of returning to the airwaves. Tubridy’s contributions were clear and polished but also focused and consistent in its messaging; for all his polite and respectful congeniality there was plenty of steely resolution on display. There was also an obduracy in how he continued to characterise the payments at the heart of the controversy. Ryan Tubridy’s income paid by RTÉ was not reduced. Although he is correct in saying that the money that RTÉ paid him directly for his broadcasting work was reduced. But this pay cut was made up by a separate contract between Renault and Tubridy for €75,000 per annum for personal appearances. Tubridy’s position is that the calculation of his salary from RTÉ should not include the €75k p/a payments as they were not for his broadcasting work. He maintains this position even after the revelation that the amount Renault paid to him was offset by a reduction of the same amount in how much RTÉ charged Renault for advertising. Moreover, Tubridy’s contract stipulated that RTÉ indemnify him for any failure by Renault to make the contracted payments. When Renault withdrew from this direct contract with Tubridy, this guarantee was called on and RTÉ ended up paying Tubridy €150,000 (2 payments of €75,000) directly – not mediated through the series of transfers of earlier payments. As it transpired, RTÉ funded Tubridy’s payments either indirectly through their credits to Renault or directly once the guarantee was invoked. The fact that Tubridy, or Kelly for that matter, was not aware of how these payments were structured does not validate their factually incorrect assertions. Yet they refuse to correct their position in the face of the established facts. Still, the evidence in the public domain clears Tubridy of any culpability in and any knowledge of dodgy accounting practices. While Tubridy has acknowledged that he has made some mistakes over the years in not questioning or challenging erroneous RTÉ statements, he feels, with good reason, that RTÉ used his celebrity as a diversion from its own delinquencies. In response, Tubridy and his agent attempt to apportion all of the blame for the scandal at RTÉ’s doorstep. However much this is true for the presenter, many committee members repeatedly quizzed Kelly about his participation in the deceptions and questioned the credibility of his evidence. Kelly is Tubridy’s agent in both the show-business sense and in the sense that he is authorised by Tubridy to represent him and to act on his behalf. As such, Kelly’s actions reflect on Tubridy’s character – particularly given Tubridy’s repeated declarations of faith and trust in his agent even in light of the revelations put to him. Both Kelly and Tubridy displayed complete indifference to ensuring the facts of the payments were accurately stated. Kelly provided the invoices that facilitated RTÉ’s accounting deceptions when requested. Their stated objections to the recording of his end-of-contract payment that he forewent were faint and not pursued. The fact that Tubridy, or Kelly for that matter, were not aware of how these payments were structured does not validate their factually incorrect assertions. Yet they refuse to correct their position in the face of the established facts. Like the presenter’s own shows, and, sadly, too much of RTÉ’s output, their behaviour at the time was complacent when confronted with commercial impropriety; was to avoid forcefully challenging or questioning those in power; and above all, not to be disruptive nor create problems. Kelly’s actions reflect an ethos that he shares with Tubridy – a corporate sensibility that is concerned with financial profit while being spiritually bankrupt. While Tubridy has not disputed that, in his own words, his salary was “eye-watering” he makes no apologies for seeking to extract the maximum remuneration from RTÉ or other companies. Tubridy repeatedly stated that he employs Kelly to maximise his income without any consideration of the appropriateness of the quantum of those payments in the context of the company or society that ultimately pays his fees. Tubridy’s commercial personal ethics translates to promoting crass consumerism that sacrifices environmental survival or social equity for the sake of material acquisition. It is a value system that is selfish and narcissistic in its utter unconcern for anyone or anything else. The problem with Tubridy in this instance and throughout his career is not what he has done but what he fails to do.
-
The hands of former Attorney General Paul Gallagher and of the property industry are all over the Planning Bill By J Vivian Cooke The Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, 2022 The Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, 2022 attempts to bring clarity to the legal underpinnings of the planning system which are currently scattered across numerous laws, regulations, and court decisions (at both national and EU levels). Historical balance between central and local government The history of planning legislation is of a balance between centralised powers, typically emanating from the Minister and latterly from the Office of the Planning Regulator (OPR); and local authorities’ powers, which in turn have been divided between officials’ and elected councillors’. Too often powers exercisable at either a centralised or local level, have simply not been exercised properly, and many would say local government has not justified the trust that underpins the delegation of such powers as planning permission (in officials) and zoning (in elected councillors). The Bill is a significant salvo at taking back some of the powers of local authorities by requiring their deference to centralised standards. Whether the requirements will be observed by headstrong local authorities remains to be shown. Equally uncertain is the appetite of the OPR to exercise zealously its powers or of any Minister to sanction councillors in a delinquent local authority who might be party colleagues. Long-standing and egregious failures of planning, including the sprawl of Dublin and one-off housing, have been largely perpetrated in contradiction to national policy due to enforcement inaction rather than action, with such consistency that it must be deemed to be policy inaction. Unclear if local authorities will defer to the centralisation The Bill carries forward the often-unenforced logical impetus of the existing system. It is based on a clear hierarchy for strategic planning and policy in which subsidiary plans are obliged to be materially consistent with all policies that are above them in the hierarchy. The hierarchy descends from National to Regional to Local Authority to Local. Under the Bill, the Minister will set out certain aspects of important policy in National Planning Statements which contain directives that purport to be binding, termed National Planning Policies and Measures (NPPM). The history of planning legislation is of a balance between centralised powers, typically emanating from the Minister and latterly from the Office of the Planning Regulator (OPR); and local authorities’ powers, which in turn have been divided between officials’ and elected councillors’ New planning procedures Regional assemblies must draft Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies (RSES) that are “materially consistent” (the term is significant: “comply with” would have been stronger, requiring, as it does, positive action) with the specific directives in NPPMs, and support overall government goals; while both national and regional documents aim to coerce often recalcitrant local authorities in their individual Development Plans which drive the planning permissions they issue. The Bill sets out a process common for all actions provided for in law which, the drafters fear, might not necessarily be observed in the political process. Each individual step, in both policy drafting and permission-decision-making, is explicitly laid out in comprehensive step-by-step detail. The requirements for consultation, notification, review, compliance, appeal and deadlines are all stipulated in statutory process maps. Within these policy constraints, local authorities can, as now, give effect to national standards in ways that they deem appropriate to local circumstances; this may be valuable in preserving the democratic legitimacy of the planning process and, in addition, because local authorities have better knowledge of conditions on the ground. Compliance and Enforcement Errant authorities, whose subsidiary document diverges from a higher-level policy instruction are legally obliged to amend their policy documents to take such steps as are necessary to make it materially consistent with national, regional or local standards. Moreover, coherent planning objectives are pursued by obliging regional and local plans to have an internal, or horizontal, consistency with the authority’s other formal policy documents in areas such as housing, transport and climate action. It remains to see what will happen if authorities fail to amend as required. The longstanding experience has been that correcting the flouting of such directives inevitably depends on intervention by the often-reluctant OPR or by beleaguered individual litigants. The Bill maintains the current status of OPR enforcement actions against local authorities which are recommendations to be implemented at the discretion of the Minister, but they probably should be changed to be mandatory. This legislative review project has been misled from its conception by exclusively focusing on the wrong goals – consistency, efficiency and speed. A legal obligation doesn’t necessarily lead to compliance. It would, for example, be better if a standing body — the powers of the OCR could be increased — were to be charged with — and employed personnel who were scrupulous and determined, indeed passionate and fired up about — taking action to enforce compliance. And if the standing body were properly funded. It would ensure that local authority development plans and individual planning decisions complied with planning policy. This is what was envisaged in the recommendation from the Planning Tribunal to establish a Planning Regulator. Unfortunately, lobbying means that we got a regulator for propriety but an advisor for compliance.Much of the Bill is a reiteration and refinement of the existing approach to planning rather than a radical new departure. However, some proposed changes have the potential to create difficulties. Locus Standi for Individuals and Limited Companies If the Bill works in practice, developers will know better, before submitting a proposal for permission, by what standards their proposal will be judged and by when a definitive decision will be made. The building industry has, largely self-servingly, identified inconsistent planning decisions and the threat of legal challenges as a major obstacle to designing and financing urgently needed new private residential developments and, through extensive lobbying, appears to have convinced the Department of Housing of this spurious argument. Too much of the adverse comment that the Bill has been subjected to has focused
