Should archtiects be struck off if they are convicted of a serious crime?

Re: Should archtiects be struck off if they are convicted of a serious crime?

Postby teak » Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:49 pm

Firstly, public health concerns are acceptable grounds for planning reversal.
Secondly, as the local public rep, he has a clear duty to take the concerns
of locals into consideration, even if also being minister.
(If he came from Castlemartyr, would it be okay by you for Gormley to so act ? )

Optics only bother those who put the vision of functionary orthodoxy ahead of
their ultimate duty as public representatives.
teak
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Should archtiects be struck off if they are convicted of a serious crime?

Postby missarchi » Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:11 pm

Best of 'Cementgate' from Twitter... tbc...

I think the idea of blacklisting clients is quite appealling
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Should archtiects be struck off if they are convicted of a serious crime?

Postby onq » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:35 pm

teak wrote:Firstly, public health concerns are acceptable grounds for planning reversal.
Secondly, as the local public rep, he has a clear duty to take the concerns
of locals into consideration, even if also being minister.
(If he came from Castlemartyr, would it be okay by you for Gormley to so act ? )

Optics only bother those who put the vision of functionary orthodoxy ahead of
their ultimate duty as public representatives.


He cannot be a hands off Minister - like he is supposed to be, leaving the LA and EPA to do their job and assess the health risk - and at the same time appear to act to undermine the very process his absence "sanctifies" - that seems like pure Gombeen Man politics.
Call it by whatever other term you wish, it is not playing the game - it appears to be a form of clientilism, or playing to the gallery - looking like he's trying to ensure at least one seat in the next Dáil for what will be his decimated party.
Nothing to do with optics - the process was gone through in great detail and his foreshore license stunt appears to be indirect ministerial interference.
I'll give hime one thing - he's got a tough mental attitude - pity he wasn't in power to curb the excesses of FF earlier in the last decade.
Would he have evne tried to do so?
Hard to say.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Previous

Return to Irish Planning Matters