Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

Thoie

Whoever was trying to use and abuse the Ethics in Public Office Act by quoting what was essentially the glossary, that act is primarily centered around monetary gain. In terms of registerable interests, the principal residences of the office holder, spouse or children are specifically excluded under schedule 2 (2bii if you want to be precise).

but excluding any interest in land consisting of any private home of the person or of his or her spouse, that is to say, a building or part of a building that is occupied by the person or his or her spouse or a child of the person or of the spouse as a separate dwelling and any garden or other land usually occupied with the dwelling, being land that is subsidiary or ancillary to it, is required for its amenity or convenience and is not being used or developed primarily for commercial purposes

Link

That Act would indicate that a decision maker who held a lot of shares in Aiken Promotions, for example, would need to register their interests.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kippy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not one using the picture as evidence of anything.

We have yet to find out how undisclosed the interest in the propery is and more importantly yet to see exactly where or how the planner managed to benefit from the decision.........
Your house price argument is exceptionally weak and if that is all there is to go on he won't be found in breach of anything.

The only thing the mind boggles at here is the severely blinkered view of people who normally know better.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Frank Lee Midere

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Typical hogwash. You don't know if this executive manager had anything to do with the decision, owning property is not living in the area, knowing people in the area is not an argument against being involved in any decision - if he was - or else everybody in Dublin would have to recuse themselves from all decisions.

Just weak unsubstantiated mud throwing.

The decision was correct and lawful.

kippy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No one is selectively overlooking anything, apart from yourself.

Frank Lee Midere

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Really? Can you put a number on that or was it plucked from your arse? Can you explain high prices around balls bridge ( and relatively high prices near Croker). Can you point to prices rising in this particular area because of this particular cancelation. That is, higher than any price rises in Dublin this year.

Can you explain how this guy could possibly be breaking any law since it is the very planning law he is upholding. The law being quoted is designed to stop the over-riding of planning laws, not their enforcement. Aitken isn't appealing the decision because he can't win. Yet planning rejections are often appealed if there's a chance of a court or other body overturning them.

Hilarious. Is there any time when our Gombeen libertarians wouldn't side with capital over planning laws? If there was a plan to knock the Coluseum to build a car park, you would be celebrating the victory of capital and modernism over nostalgia.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You, and only you, keep claiming this was a "conflict of interest". Everyone else on earth reckons it's a non-issue.
Hmmm... who to believe...

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As a matter of interest, what "agenda" might this be? Do you think the people who agree with this correct decision by the DCC really give a flying fook whether Garth Brooks plays 100 nights in a row as long as he complies with licensing requirements?

Happyman42

miju wrote: »

Can you point out any aspect of the people who stood against the gigs where there isn't some question or other??

Oh and FWIW GB is a dick for not playing the 3 gigs but the issue started elsewhere not GB or Aiken for that matter

It's not so much 'the questions', of course people have every right to question involvement, it's more the answers people (the sore ones) are coming up with based on no evidence at all.

The residents -whingers, chips on shoulders and because a forger or forgers have been discovered, automatically sinister in intent. This is despite the fact that the only people who could benefit from their existence (because the forgeries where routinely discovered and the decision was based on verified objections) from forgeries are Aitken/GAA/Brooks and they tried to benefit from them by getting the decision overturned on the basis that they existed.
The guy who took the injunction - automatically sinister because he was funded (as people often are) and refused to name the people who funded him, who understandably (to reasonable people) wanted to remain anonymous. Then the sensationalist, pandering to the prejudices nugget that he 'was also 'loaned a suit' (not that he simply borrowed one...he was loaned it!!! sinister **** that alright:) ) was given to the Sindo by one of their infamous 'sources' and the lid was firmly nailed shut on his coffin around this parish.
Now we have Keegan and Keoghan in the muck firing line, fire the muck despite the fact that not one major hole was picked in their procedures and due process by the PAC.

And as I said, the troika of Aiken/Croke Park/Brook walk away, NO questions at all about their behaviour.

Transparent and deeply pathetic imo.

raymon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why are you calling Fianna Fails Timmy Dooley corrupt.? Who said that ?

He tried to pull a stroke by proposing a political interference bill. Have you read it ? That is not corruption. Highly dubious but not corrupt.

I dont care if he dances to Garth Brooks or Boy George. It doesnt matter to me.

What matters is that he used this event to propose a piece of legislation that would give politicians power to overturn decisions of planners.

Regarding the man from skerries with a son near croke park in a house he owns, i dont understand why you and another poster want to prematurely destroy his reputation. He is not even the city manager.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bumper234

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He was already subject to the same laws as them

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Which flies in the face of the fact that the butthurt Mr Dooley specifically proposed this as emergency kneejerk legislation to specifically fix the Garth Brooks situation.

“This is an almost unprecedented situation and measures need to be taken to resolve it and ensure that it doesn’t happen again. The cancellation of at least two, and now possibly all five of these concerts will have a serious impact on Ireland’s reputation abroad.

http://southdublin.today.ie/2014/07/07/politics-fianna-fail-garth-brooks/

Nothing has been noted on this thread about Mr. Keogan's undisclosed conflicts of interest that did not become public knowledge at the Oireachtas committee meeting yesterday. Any reputational damage he has suffered can hardly be attributed to two posters on this thread.

Apart from selective quotes from Euro Legislation to make him appear remiss and to infer he was corrupt in some way.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

raymon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The only arrogant person i could see was Dooley. He came across very badly. I understand that he now cant get another Garth Brooks photo for his scrap book, but thats no excuse.

The DCC group seemed very balanced and factual. They seemed like they explained their decision very well.

Did you see the hearing?

bumper234

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Question for you.

Do you know EVERYTHING about the people that you work with?

old_aussie

gandalf wrote: »

This is turning into one really bad joke.

the reputational damage from political interference in the planning process is far worse than pissing off a washed up over the hill Country and Western singer and his legions of deluded fans.

At least Garth's fans care, the rest of you are being screwed by ya boss.

Happyman42

bumper234 wrote: »

Question for you.

Do you know EVERYTHING about the people that you work with?

I'd like somebody to show me where he decided in favour of the residents, who where very unhappy (VERY) about 3 concerts being allowed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Where is there evidence that he 'concealed' it? Mary Lou knew about it and he answered honesty.
Would you suspect it was thrown out there in PAC in a 'have you stopped beating your wife' way?

bumper234

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But you wouldn't know if one of your colleagues were not abiding right?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And in that scenario in that particular profession that would be what would happen right? Now....Keegan didn't know about his colleagues ownership of a property in the CP vicinity....does that mean he should be blamed for his colleagues "indiscretion"?

miju

Thoie wrote: »

Whoever was trying to use and abuse the Ethics in Public Office Act by quoting what was essentially the glossary, that act is primarily centered around monetary gain. In terms of registerable interests, the principal residences of the office holder, spouse or children are specifically excluded under schedule 2 (2bii if you want to be precise).

Link

That Act would indicate that a decision maker who held a lot of shares in Aiken Promotions, for example, would need to register their interests.

Thats your reading of the legislation while people who have to deal with that legislation daily including myself would read it another way. In fact just to add weight to my points on this thread see here , he is also apparently to be called back to clarify with the PAC that particular issue and it is looking increasingly likely that there will also be a judicial review of the issue also.

from article above wrote:

Several TDs last night said that Mr Keogan should have removed himself from the licensing process due his family and property connections in the vicinity of Croke Park.

Thoie

miju wrote: »

Thats your reading of the legislation while people who have to deal with that legislation daily including myself would read it another way. In fact just to add weight to my points on this thread see here , he is also apparently to be called back to clarify with the PAC that particular issue and it is looking increasingly likely that there will also be a judicial review of the issue also.

From that article:
"Several TDs last night said that Mr Keogan should have removed himself from the licensing process due his family and property connections in the vicinity of Croke Park." - many TDs don't have a bogs notion what they're at, so I really wouldn't pay that any heed at all. As the man pointed out further down in the article, no-one complained about it when he allowed the U2 gigs in 2009.

However, that's what PAC is there for, so if they do go ahead and discuss it with him, their conclusion is the only one that matters. The statutory judicial review will also decide one way or the other if the planning decision was made in a fair way. I believe it will, but given how much we pay judges, we'll wait and see what they say Has anyone started the proceedings yet? They've got 8 weeks from July 3rd to get the ball rolling, so about another 6 weeks left.

If you're dealing with that Act on a daily basis, why did you only quote the definitions, and not the relevant parts of the Act?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Thoie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I have no idea, but given that he allowed the U2 concerts to go ahead (which was also strongly objected to) in 2009, I'd consider that pretty impartial. But as miju claims he's being called in by PAC (which seems to be quite a stretch of their remit), let's let them, or, more relevantly, a statutory judicial review decide on his impartiality.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

The behaviour of the Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications right now is shocking stuff...I am dumbfounded.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Where is your proof that 'he didn't disclose it'. All we know is Keegan didn't know.

miju

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where is your proof that 'he didn't disclose it'. All we know is Keegan didn't know.

A key stakeholder in this "didn't know" and your genuinely asking what the issue is here?

bumper234

miju wrote: »

A key stakeholder in this "didn't know" and your genuinely asking what the issue is here?

Do you know everything about your work colleagues?

miju

bumper234 wrote: »

Do you know everything about your work colleagues?

LMFAO are you still using this silly saline point???

I don't need to know everything about my colleagues what I do need to know though is about potential conflicts of interest so those potential conflicts are mitigated

bumper234

miju wrote: »

LMFAO are you still using this silly saline point???

I don't need to know everything about my colleagues what I do need to know though is about potential conflicts of interest so those potential conflicts are mitigated

It's a valid point

You keep making a big deal of the fact that Keegan didn't know that one of his colleagues owned a property in the area as if it's his fault for not knowing. Do you know if your colleagues own other properties? Maybe a holiday home? Do they have drink or drug habits? Just because Keegan didn't know about the guys home does not mean his decisions were skewed.....unless you're a GB fan.......then everything Keegan does is a travesty of justice :rolleyes:

Happyman42

miju wrote: »

A key stakeholder in this "didn't know" and your genuinely asking what the issue is here?

Whether this is relevant has been thrown into doubt since your selective quoting of the legislation.
We'll see if it was relevant, anybody in government that has a problem with it is free to call him back.

Let's say you are correct, could you outline how this 'conflict' advantaged the residents?

kippy

Im not sure why the guys impartiality is being called into question.
The issue, if there is any, is the fact that it appears he had not disclosed his interest in the area.

It would be very difficult for anyone to prove he hadn't been anything but fair and partial based on the known evidence presented and indeed more difficult to prove that he or his family had a gain from the decisions.

miju

kippy wrote: »

Im not sure why the guys impartiality is being called into question.
The issue, if there is any, is the fact that it appears he had not disclosed his interest in the area.

It would be very difficult for anyone to prove he hadn't been anything but fair and partial based on the known evidence presented and indeed more difficult to prove that he or his family had a gain from the decisions.

Ta da that is exactly it im not callin his impartiality into question. Im calling the issue about non disclosure (which leads to questions over his impartiality rightly or wrongly).

Thats the reason for the EU directives in the first place

Happyman42

miju wrote: »

Ta da that is exactly it im not callin his impartiality into question. Im calling the issue about non disclosure (which leads to questions over his impartiality rightly or wrongly).

Thats the reason for the EU directives in the first place

Again...who says it was 'undisclosed'? How do you know this?

kippy

miju wrote: »

Ta da that is exactly it im not callin his impartiality into question. Im calling the issue about non disclosure (which leads to questions over his impartiality rightly or wrongly).

Thats the reason for the EU directives in the first place

Fair enough. But neither you nor me have any idea as whether he has disclosed these facts and to whom he has disclosed them (outside of what came to light yesterday)

But to call into question his impartiality as you are doing, based entirely on his non disclosure (if that is what it is), without any evidence of benefit to him or his family, as you are also doing, is completely wrong and a slur on his character.

Happyman42

kippy wrote: »

But to call into question his impartiality as you are doing, based entirely on his non disclosure (if that is what it is), without any evidence of benefit to him or his family, as you are also doing, is completely wrong and a slur on his character.

Ta Da!

miju

kippy wrote: »

Fair enough. But neither you nor me have any idea as whether he has disclosed these facts and to whom he has disclosed them (outside of what came to light yesterday)

But to call into question his impartiality as you are doing, based entirely on his non disclosure (if that is what it is), without any evidence of benefit to him or his family, as you are also doing, is completely wrong and a slur on his character.

Nope not at all a slur on his character. Like I said I am not calling into question his impartiality, I am questioning why he didn't disclose it AND / OR if he did disclose why didnt a key stakeholder such as the City Manager know about it when rubber stamping the decision (which knowing the procedure for doing so strongly indicates it wasn't disclosed).

To be honest there's only one of 2 reasons Keegan said what he did yesterday and it's not the obvious reason. The Civil Servant in me knows full well why he said it (as would most Civil Servants) but that would lead me and Boards down libel territory so no thanks .

Sure it will all come out in the wash anyways like usual

miju

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again...who says it was 'undisclosed'? How do you know this?

I don't believe for one second your that stupid as to now see how and why go troll someone else

Happyman42

miju wrote: »

I don't believe for one second your that stupid as to now see how and why go troll someone else

So no answer. Very good, carry on.

kippy

miju wrote: »

Nope not at all a slur on his character. Like I said I am not calling into question his impartiality, I am questioning why he didn't disclose it AND / OR if he did disclose why didnt a key stakeholder such as the City Manager know about it when rubber stamping the decision (which strongly indicates it wasn't disclosed).

To be honest there's 2 reasons Keegan said what he did yesterday and it's not the obvious reason. The Civil Servant in me knows full well why he said it but that would lead me and Boards down libel territory so no thanks .

Sure it will all come out in the wash anyways like usual

Well no.
You are calling into question his impartiallity with no evidence for same.

You suggest that had the city manager known by prior disclosure that the guy had an interest in the area he would never have rubber stammped the decision......
Why do you say that?

IF he didn't disclose it I can only assume it was because he thought he didn't have to under any directives or law, or he felt that there wasn't a conflit present.

Either way, from what I can see there is nothing to suggest he has been anything but impartial in his decision making and at worst he should have mentioned the fact, if he didnt, that he had a house in the area although based on any piece of information I have on it, he didnt necessarily have to.

miju

kippy wrote: »

You suggest that had the city manager known by prior disclosure that the guy had an interest in the area he would never have rubber stammped the decision......

IF he didn't disclose it I can only assume it was because he thought he didn't have to under any directives or law, or he felt that there wasn't a conflit present.

This is the problem with talking to people who dont understand public policies and EU Directives at times. Can you point out where I said he would never have rubber stamped it??

You can't point it out because I never said it

In a very simplified way (because your obviously having difficulty understanding here). He declares it and relevant stakeholders decide if its relevant or not, it doesn't automatically preclude him by declaring potential interests but it is simply not his decision to make whether it's conflict or not, he must declare potential conflicts even if he feels they aren't. If the stakeholders decide it's a conflict they mitigate the conflict, if they decide it's not they record it and move on.

Anything else other than the above leads to the exact conversation we are having now and him and the process being opened to question and is simply a breach of Irish and EU Circulars, Directives and Law

kippy

miju wrote: »

This is the problem with talking to people who dont understand public policies and EU Directives at times. Can you point out where I said he would never have rubber stamped it??

You can't point it out because I never said it

In a very simplified way (because your obviously having difficulty understanding here). He declares it and relevant stakeholders decide if its relevant or not, it doesn't automatically preclude him by declaring potential interests but it is simply not his decision to make whether it's conflict or not, he must declare potential conflicts even if he feels they aren't. If the stakeholders decide it's a conflict they mitigate the conflict, if they decide it's not they record it and move on.

Anything else other than the above leads to the exact conversation we are having now and him and the process being opened to question and is simply a breach of Irish and EU Circulars, Directives and Law

I did actually pick you up wrong there so apologies for that mistake on my behalf.

The only reason we are having a conversation on this is that people cannot see the wood from the trees.
If the guy did wrong by not declaring, I am sure itit will come out. Ultimately however unless he actually benefited from the decisions he has made, nothing more serious should happen and indeed the decisions themselves will hold up under scrutiny.

miju

This is essentially it alright, what will happen is it get reported to EU Commission they read report of same and fine Ireland Inc the amount they see fit

kippy

miju wrote: »

This is essentially it alright, what will happen is it get reported to EU Commission they read report of same and fine Ireland Inc the amount they see fit

It's highly unlikely that will happen. (Them finding anything untoward int he first instance and more so fining the country, as I don't believe that is the penalty)
It's actually more likely that Brooks will sell out croker for 5 nights in a row and actually get to do the gigs.....next weekend.......

K-9

miju wrote: »

I don't believe for one second your that stupid as to now see how and why go troll someone else

Mod: Don't call posters trolls please, report any posts you've a problem with and the mods will take a look.

Happyman42 wrote: »

So no answer. Very good, carry on.

Ta Da!

Cut out the one liner, sarcy responses please. Thank you.

Happyman42

There was nothing made of the issue today which seemed to be arranged to allow GAA/Croke PArk rant about DCC. So I would say it's dead in the water as it's irrelevant.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where is your proof that 'he didn't disclose it'. All we know is Keegan didn't know.

Because disclosure of interests by officials in local authorities is to the city/county manager. So either

(1) He didn't disclose it
(2) Keegan didn't read the disclosures.

Somebody did wrong.