Quentin Gargan  on April 23, 2007

Christie is also getting quite a bit of flak over putting his posters up before anyone else. Every West Cork town has his posters on every road in and out of it. I spoke to the senior engineer in charge of the Litter Acts on the Co. Council and he confirms that it is illegal. But isn’t Christie a councillor?

Problem is that now that he’s jumped the gun, its only a matter of time before everyone else climbs in. So you’ll be looking at all our ugly mugs for longer than usual…

conor  on April 23, 2007

Old school FF obviously.

Anne  on April 23, 2007

Here you go Conor. http://www.myspace.com/christy_osullivan Are the greens a political party or a police force? This is the 1st election where Christy was 1st with the posters. However every election he was 1st to take them down. I’m surprised at Quentin. I thought we had a good character here. I can’t believe he’s starting these tactics of picking on other politicians. It’s so old school!!

conor  on April 24, 2007

Hey Anne, tell whoever setup christyosullivan.com to forward it to that MySpace address. Should take less than a minute.

But Christy is breaking the law by putting up those posters so early. Should we vote for blatant law-breakers?

Those in Cork South West who don’t read this blog (all 99.99999% of them) are still in the dark as to Christy’s details. I wouldn’t mind one bad flyer in the door from him but I got two!

Quentin Gargan  on April 24, 2007

Hi Anne,

I know I risk being accused of nit-picking, but it is more nuanced than that. Arising from the tribunals, there are now limits on both donations and election expenses. But the limits only apply during the three weeks of the election campaign. Thats why you get so many leaflets and stuff before the election is called - its a way of front-loading the expenditure.

If we allow posters to go up early, the parties can then spend as much as they like. Its bad enough at the moment with each candidate allowed to spend €30K, but if we allow a precedent of early postering, then the sky is the limit.

There are other loopholes on the donations side as well, so the whole thing is gradually being eroded again.

Sorry if that makes me look like a fussy nutter. I’m not.

Anne  on April 24, 2007

Hey, Quentin, best of luck in the election. My first vote was green but I am beginning to realise that you are so right wing. By the way, were you not the first to have election leaflets through the door? So you are kind of contradicting yourself there. Another thing is if money is spent before the election is called isn’t that better as the tax payer will not be reimbursing it. Am I right or wrong there?

Quentin Gargan  on April 24, 2007

Hi Anne,

The tax payer only covers a maximum of €6,350 per candidate of election expenses. The main party candidates will be well over that limit anyhow. The only limiting factor for many on posters is the €30,000 one.

My leaflet may have been the first, but you’ll only get that one. The well-heeled parties will get quite a few in. (We all get one free-post delivery during the three weeks of the campaign, and during that time no leafleting is accepted by An Post).

Right wing? Thats a new one. I think if you look closely, you’ll find that the Green Party has policies that support far more equitable tax regimes than most. Sinn Fein and ourselves are the only main parties not promising cuts in income tax so that more can be spent on health, education and other public needs.

conor  on April 24, 2007

What I find funny is that most of the parties are still living in the mid 20th century.

Do they honestly think that blanket coverage with stupid posters of people with faces for radio will sway our vote?

It’s an insult to our intelligence.

Has anyone in Irish politics spent even 5 minutes studying how Labour got into and kept power in the UK? It was about a lot more than crappy posters and litter-flyers.

€30k on Alastair Campbell for 2 days would probably be money well spent.

Anne  on April 24, 2007

I totally agree with you there Conor. I think the poster thing is ridiculous. I really can’t see how they could influence a vote unless it loses them one. I meant to reply to your other comment re: voting for blatant law breakers. I think we should have get a bit of perspective on law breaking. By that I mean I would have been so much happier if I had heard the green party candidate launch an attack on the people burning rubbish on a daily basis. Not in their back yards but in their fireplaces. My neighbours have a weekly session to get rid of their waste. It makes me so angry as my children are breathing in the fumes. and it’s really obvious too. Now if Mr. Gargan had come up with a suggestion to fine these law breakers, my faith may be restored.

Quentin Gargan  on April 25, 2007

Hey Anne,

I put out a press release about this as soon as I came across the ESRI report on burning waste. It got ignored by all of the media on the week I put it out, but did get coverage in the Southern Star the following week. I phoned every newspaper several times to try and highlight the issue. The issue did eventually get coverage in the Irish Times and Examiner, and on Newstalk 106, though my input wasn’t specifically picked up.

I totally agree with you on this one. There is absolutely no point in arguing against incineration if the people of West Cork are going to burn their rubbish at low temperatures in their fireplaces. There is a freephone number which you can use to call and complain and it will be investigated. That number is 1890 335599.
But a lot of people don’t want to report their neighbours, and there should be an inspectorate. As you say, you can pick up the smell walking around any housing estate, and I’ve only noticed it recently while canvassing at night.
Pay-by-weight did increase the recycling, but it had this very negative spin-off. One suggestion is to have a fixed charge for refuse, but weigh recyclables and give a rebate for recycling. I don’t know how you’d administer it. So, carrot or stick? I’d favour inspectors, but then you accuse me of being right wing.

conor  on April 25, 2007

Interesting one about recycling and waste charges.

Some of our neighbours switched over to a private firm called Wiser before the recycling bins were introduced by the council. We didn’t bother.

About once a month the Wiser guy comes to the door highlighting the price difference between them and the council. It never looked big enough for us to bother. But we were ignoring that he was quoting “typical savings”. We aren’t typical with 5 kids.

Catherine totted up our waste bill for last year - €790. Wiser is coming it at less than half that (€280 first year, €360 after that) and it’s fixed price, not by weight. And they collect your glass unlike the council. We switched over to them last week.

The simple “stick” for us is that we cannot fit a weeks rubbish into a wheely bin unless we put all recyclables into a separate bin and use our composters.

I’m very impressed by these guys, I just hope they are not dumping everything in a quarry

Anthony  on April 26, 2007

Has anyone actually read Christie O’Sullivan’s leaflet?
The first paragraph on the inside page reads - and I quote exactly:
“Our Traditional industries farming and fishing have seen major changes taking place over the last decade however, I will endeavour to ensure that government departments will engage in full consultation with the various representative groups in finding an agreed strategy going forward for these industries which are integral in many of our coastal communities it is imperative for many of our coastal towns and villages to ensure that no further decline of these industries take place.”

Surely Fianna Fail could have employed a proof reader before subjecting such an appallingly badly written piece of nonsense on the ignorant electorate - ’tis no wonder we are ignorant if those in power are ignorant too!

Anthony  on April 26, 2007

And I’ve just spotted that I am a wee bit guilty of not proof reading as I spelt Christy wrong (was Christie in my original comment)!

conor  on April 26, 2007

What ever happened to a few bullet points saying “I stand for the following:”. Clear simple English with concrete beliefs. This say-nothing “we love farmers and fishermen” that all the main Cork South West candidates have come out with is just drivel.

To be fair to Quentin, he was the only one who stood out in the Bandon Opinion profiles along with (wash my mouth out with soap) Cionnaith from Sinn Féin.

The reason they STAND out is that they STAND for something.

conor  on April 26, 2007

The race by all the main parties to the crowded centre leaves huge opportunities for those on the edge with some media-savviness to cause an upset.

I’m honestly getting to the stage where I may vote for people whose policies I don’t even support simply because they have a bit of conviction and are unafraid to take a strong position on something.

For all the criticisms we lob at US politics, at least it is bloody interesting because people are not afraid to speak their minds.

Anthony  on April 26, 2007

To be fair to Christy O’Sullivan’s leaflet, he DOES go on to bullet point some of his many concerns, the last one being “Educational opportunities”!!

Anne  on April 27, 2007

FAO Quentin:
I too have checked with officials in Cork County Council and I have been reassured that Christy O’Sullivan is not breaking the law.

In the Litter Polution Act 1997 Secn 19 it explicity says that no one can put adverts etc on property they don’t own. However, in Sub section 7 there is an exemption for election material, unless they are still in postition for 7 days or longer after polling day.
The Act is “silent” in relation to the period before elections.

This information was obtained from Cork County Council who also informed me that there were no special sanctions for other parts of the country.

Here is Section 19 from Litter Pollution Act 1997 READ Sub section 7

Prohibition of articles and advertisements on and defacement of certain structures, etc. 19.—(1) Where any structure or other land, door, gate, window, tree, pole or post is in or is visible from a public place, a person who is not the owner, occupier or person in charge thereof shall not—

( a ) exhibit or cause to be exhibited thereon any article or advertisement, or
( b ) carry out or cause to be carried out any defacement thereof by writing or other marks,
unless the person is authorised in advance to do so in writing by such owner, occupier or person in charge or by or under any enactment.

(2) A person shall not place advertising material on a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place without the prior consent of the person who owns, or is in charge of, the vehicle.

(3) Without limiting the liability of any other person under subsection (1) or (2), where there is a contravention of that subsection in relation to—

( a ) an advertisement that pertains to a meeting or other event, the person who is promoting or arranging the meeting or event, or
( b ) any other advertisement, the person on whose behalf the advertisement is exhibited,
shall be deemed also to have contravened that subsection.

(4) A local authority may, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by it and the occupier concerned, in the case of an article, advertisement or defacement in its functional area in relation to which there is a contravention of subsection (1)—

( a ) by its employees or agents, remove or obliterate all or a part of the article or advertisement or, as the case may be, remove or otherwise remedy the defacement, and
( b ) for those purposes, by its employees or agents, enter on the structure or other land concerned or the structure or other land on which is situated the door, gate, window, tree, pole or post concerned.
(5) In a prosecution of a person in relation to a contravention of subsection (1) it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to show and it shall be assumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the person was not the owner, occupier or person in charge of the structure or other land, door, gate, window, tree, pole or post to which the contravention relates and was not authorised as referred to in subsection (1).

(6) A person who contravenes or is deemed to have contravened subsection (1) or (2) or who obstructs or impedes a local authority or its employees or agents acting in the exercise of the functions conferred on a local authority by subsection (4) shall be guilty of an offence.

(7) A prosecution shall not be brought in a case in which an offence under this section is alleged to have been committed in relation to an advertisement if—

( a ) the advertisement is exempted development within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, or is a notice displayed or erected in pursuance of a requirement by or under any enactment, or
( b ) the advertisement—
(i) advertises a public meeting, other than an auction, or
(ii) relates to a presidential election within the meaning of the Presidential Elections Act, 1993, a general election or a bye-election, within the meaning, in each case, of the Electoral Act, 1992, a local election within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1994, a referendum, within the meaning of the Referendum Act, 1994, or an election of representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities,
unless the advertisement has been in position for 7 days or longer after the day specified in the advertisement for the meeting or the latest day upon which the poll was taken for the election, bye-election or referendum concerned.

(8) In this section and in section 20—

“occupier” in relation to a door, gate, window or tree, means the occupier of the structure or other land on which the door, gate, window or tree, as the case may be, is situated and, in relation to a pole or post, means the owner of the pole or post;

“structure” has the meaning assigned by the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963.

conor  on April 27, 2007

Sounds right Anne because those doing it in Dublin are only getting in trouble when they put them on things like bridges and cause obstruction.

Quentin Gargan  on April 27, 2007

Hi Anne. I pointed that out to Tom Sugrue, the Senior Engineer in Cork Co. Council responsible for litter because it had been pointed out to me by a journalist. He said that as far at the Council is concerned, the posters are illegal.

The Act may appear “silent”, but strictly speaking there is no election at present within the meaning of the 1992 Electoral Act, so the posters are in connection with an election which doesn’t exist as yet.

It may be pending, but it has been pending for the last five years. In Dublin Pat the Cope Gallagher’s ones were removed by the Council.

If the law is ambiguous on this it needs to be changed. For a start, this would be a way of further diminishing the effectiveness of spending limits which apply only to expenditure during the last three weeks of the election.

My understanding is that Cork City Council and Limerick City Council have agreed to allow posters to go up.

Personally I’d prefer if none of the parties had any posters at all, but I was assured that there was no point in seeking a common position on this.

Anne  on April 27, 2007

Quentin, the posters are not illegal. I believed you when you said you were not nitpicking but I dunno anymore. And again how can you go on about election expenditure when you clearly spent money on your own campaign with leaflets and with your travelling around to every town and village with the electic car. Come on - you are so contradicting yourself. I think you should take back your comment about Christy’s blatant disregard for the law. Thats rubbish. While candidates may wait for the election to be called we all know it is imminent now as it has to happen legally before some date in July. So where are you going with your 5 years comment. Really I have become so disillusioned with you. The last green candidate in this constituency Bernie whatever her name was would never have lowered herself to your tactics and I have never heard Christy O’Sullivan get publicity out of highlighing other candidates faults. I am so disappointed with your last comment……… It is frustrating me

Quentin Gargan  on April 27, 2007

Hi Anne,

Yes, we mailed out our leaflets early. I had bought the electric van before I even dreamt of running for the election, so in terms of the roadshow, it was at was a matter of an old market stall which I had from a bygone era before I was

arrested for selling flowers, a few posters and a sign-writing job on the van. No great deal. There is no risk whatsoever that I’m going to exceed the €30K spending limit - before, during and after the election combined.

Not to labour the point, I still hold that early posters are illegal on the basis that there is no election as yet, and that was the position given to me by the Co. Council. If the Council which is charged with enforcing the Litter Act has varying views, there’s a bit of a problem there, but I don’t think you can blame me for that. Do we have an election yet in accordance with the Electoral Act? I don’t think so. Not until it is called. And that might not be for another two years. Although this is unlikely, it is possible, especially if the constitutional challenge to the election succeeds (perish the thought…).

Out of interest though, how long do you think posters should be up for? Do you think we should put them up whenever we feel like it? Three weeks? Six weeks? Six months?? Was there anything wrong with the concept that we all put them up together when the election is called, especially since that is what most of the parties understand to be the law?

But you’re right - it isn’t a terribly important issue compared to other ones, and to be honest, I thought this was a piece for page 5 of the Second Section on the Star, not the front page which I think should have gone to that ESRI report on burning rubbish in West Cork, or even the one I did on the ineffectiveness of burning gorse (which never saw the light of day). The editor knows his readership and thought differently. Fair enough…

Anne  on April 28, 2007

Clutching at straws

John Hayes  on April 30, 2007

Just to clarify a few issues .. per the constitution, Oireachtas Éireann (the national parliament) has two chambers. Dáil Éireann (the house of representatives or lower house) has 166 members, elected for a term of up to five years by the single transferable vote system in multi-seat constituencies.

Since the last election was held in 2002, Bertie had no choice but had to call another election before June 1st.

The fact that Christy’s campaign has started to put up posters before others just shows that the man is serious in his effeorts. Even Bernie Murphy (1980’s) got elected without restorting to this negative type of campaigning.

Debate the man on the issues or stand aside and let someone else represent the Green Party who will.

I posted this comment on your (Quentin) website and is waiting moderation.

Quentin Gargan  on April 30, 2007

This is getting boring. I’ve responded to this comment which is duplicated on my own blog, where it can be seen that this particular thread has attracted more than twice the number of comments as any other thread including those on issues such as 98% of houses built in 2005 not meeting even our very basic building code, or burning waste (which only attracted 2 comments).

It is clearly a misjudgement on my part to put this out - not because I am wrong to challenge premature postering, (that is clearly a matter of opinion) but because I misjudged the response it would provoke.

I am more than happy to debate a wide range of issues with Christy and have already done so on the radio, will do so at an IFA meeting on 10th May, and would have done so on climate change tonight at the Westlodge except he isn’t coming (Denis is).

Lastly, as far as I know, the constitution says seven years, not five. If the constitutional challenge in relation to unequal representation amongst various constituencies were to succeed, the Dail would have had to hastily pass an Act allowing it to continue until such time as the constituency boundaries had been re-drawn. This was a very real possibility when I wrote that. I am not sure what would happen procedurally about this, now that the Dail has been dissolved. Anybody else know?

conor  on April 30, 2007

Now that crucially important posters have been discussed to death, how about you all address the Cork vaccination scandal and what each of the parties you support is going to do about it.

The election may only be three weeks away but this issue can easily be turned into an election loser unless an immediate plan is proposed.

Your feedback on my questions to the HSE can be give here.

John Hayes  on April 30, 2007

Quentin,
The election for the President takes place every seven years.

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/E900003-004/

Article 28.
At a General Election for Dáil Eireann the polls (exclusive of those for members for the Universities) shall be held on the same day through out the country, and that day shall be a day not later than thirty days after the date of the dissolution, and shall be proclaimed a public holiday. Dáil Eireann shall meet within one month of such day and shall, unless earlier dissolved, continue for four years from date of its first meeting, and not longer. Dáil Eireann may not at any time be dissolved except on the advice of the Executive Council.

conor  on April 30, 2007

Lads, have you heard the phrase “flogging a dead horse”?

John, you mentioned debating the issues. 220 kids getting chest X-Rays due to the lack of BCG vaccinations in Cork is an issue. How does Christy stand on that and what is he going to do about it?

John Hayes  on April 30, 2007

Conor,

Why don’t you ask him?

Contact Details
Address: Hillside, Tawnies, Clonakilty, County Cork.
Home: 023 33 465
Work: 023 33 465
Mobile: 086 856 5582
Email: Christy O’Sullivan christy.osullivan@corkcoco.ie

I am in no way associated with FF or Christy O’Sullivan. I expressed an opinion on something that Quentin had wrote which I believe was not in keeping with the Green Party.

Pat  on May 1, 2007

“However, in Sub section 7 there is an exemption for election material”

In the Litter Pollution Act 1997 Section 19, the only relief awarded to the alleged offender by Sub section 7 is that they would be spared prosecution in the case of election material.
However this does not appear to nullify Sub section 4, which allows a local authority in agreement with a property owner to remove any offending material.

Jack Russell  on May 1, 2007

Christy does not stand a chance. FG will win 2 seats.

http://cominsngoins.blogspot.com/2007/05/fg-in-cork-south-west-5-factor.html

conor  on May 1, 2007

Hmm, distinct look of a comb-over from PJ.

Can’t vote for someone who can’t deal with reality or who can’t hire a competent web-designer.

Jim should do well.

Quentin Gargan  on May 2, 2007

Hmmm. I’ve never seen such diverse decisiveness. Some people telling me that PJ will top the poll, others telling me he will get the shock of his life. Very few people in the middle ground.

I would say that both the main parties have queered their own pitches to some extent. While Denis and Jim are probably safe as incumbents, the third seat may well not go to either main party. That’ll be a nice change.

Anne  on May 28, 2007

Jack Russell says:
May 1st, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Christy does not stand a chance.

What was that?

JD  on May 30, 2007

Disappointing election results all around, in my opinion.
The real issues are as Conor has pointed to (vaccinations etc). Locally Bandon has a few problems, noticeably litter and speeding cars. I was involved in a near fatal car crash (not accident) some years ago and it has given me a deeper sense of careful driving and the policing thereof. Nationally we have a huge problem with speed, and indeed it is young men that are largely at fault. I travel over 50,000 per year throughout the country and I’m still shocked at the level of dangerous driving that prevails. To my friends, and indeed fathers like Conor, each trip is probably a journey into the unknown in terms of other drivers risk taking and putting families in danger. I blame the lack of serious policing and serious punishment. What will it take for this carnage to stop?? No second chances, take the motor from the offender and stop the softly-softly approach. Not one canvasser or politician who called to the house in the lead-up to the election had much to say on the matter.
Just my 2 cents worth.

conor  on May 30, 2007

Yesterday we narrowly avoided the crash I have been predicting since it was installed - the merge lane at the new lights for Dunnes on the Bandon Rd.

We took off in left lane and a van tried to cut us up in right lane. He gave up since we were ahead. Person behind us decides to cut van up. The idiots collided because neither was willing to give way!

What level of ignorant, arrogant incompetent stupidity does it take to prefer crashing over giving way? I see this behaviour on every trip I take.

And of course we got near Bandon, the overtaking lane came to an end and only then did the arsehole in the Merc behind us decide to overtake us with oncoming traffic bearing down. There were at least ten cars in front of us so the reason for it was lost on me. Reflective waistcoat on driver told me everything I needed to know there.