Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

raymon

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Iif people claim Garth Brooks is being fake when he speaks of Ireland, there really is no other suitable reply than to point out that he made the 'Ireland and Back' to show that his words are far from hollow.. I mean he has never made a video about another country before or since and so that in it's self speaks volumes. Oh and you posted the Garth Brooks clip on this thread, not me.

When you're ready though, Raymon:

I would still really like to hear a sufficient explanation as to why it is that you feel it okay to claim that the TD Timmy Dooley felt that Keegan saying he supported the licence application was a nod and a wink that it would be "irrelevant" and "circumvented". That infers that he would be okay with such action, no matter how much you deny it and it''s scurrilous indictment to make. You also claimed that Dooley "accused" Keogan of "bias" which is untrue. He 'asked' him whether or not he felt that the fact he owns property in the Croke Park area influenced his decision or if he felt that it qualified as a conflict of interest. He at no stage accused him of bias. Questions are not accusations and seeing as you have no reasonable grounds for making either of these claims (your audio clip of two idiots laughing on the radio hardly suffices) could you please apologise for making them.

I have explained my position a few times now.

I no longer want to feed your obsession.

I will leave it there thanks.

Ash.J.Williams

Anyone else think it looked very Irish in the doc last night seeing the GAA boys being questioned by the committee chairman ex Mayo manager TD john O'mahony!

raymon

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

That infers that he (Dooley) would be okay with such action (circumventing the planning process), no matter how much you deny it and it''s scurrilous indictment to make.

By the way this is a total misrepresentation of my position on this . I never said that , i dont think that.

Please please please stop misrepresenting and second guessing and supposing my position.

Could you please give it up ?

nuac

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Anyone else think it looked very Irish in the doc last night seeing the GAA boys being questioned by the committee chairman ex Mayo manager TD john O'mahony!

John O'Mahony is too close to the GAA to chair that committee on that topic.

He had never been active in Mayo politics. c 2006 the then GAA team manager was let go in mid-con tract and JO'M appointed. Nominated for FG in 2007 election. Big push by many in Mayo GAA for him. Elected. If a Mayo team he managed had won an All-Ireland he would have been a shoo-in go deo.

While many politicians got their start from GAA activity, in his case the connection is too close and recent.

Have to say the bit I saw of the proceedings was well chaired - that was an attempt by McGrath to go off on his own tangent. After a few attempts the Chair managed to stop him.

Happyman42

nuac wrote: »

John O'Mahony is too close to the GAA to chair that committee on that topic.

He had never been active in Mayo politics. c 2006 the then GAA team manager was let go in mid-con tract and JO'M appointed. Nominated for FG in 2007 election. Big push by many in Mayo GAA for him. Elected. If a Mayo team he managed had won an All-Ireland he would have been a shoo-in go deo.

While many politicians got their start from GAA activity, in his case the connection is too close and recent.

Have to say the bit I saw of the proceedings was well chaired - that was an attempt by McGrath to go off on his own tangent. After a few attempts the Chair managed to stop him.

It was transparently obvious what the strategy was going to be at the committee - death by a thousand cuts.
Enough latitude was given to insinuate and accuse but they stopped just short.
It was all about optics...remove the blame from those who actually where to blame and undermine officials doing their jobs within the law and legislation laid down.
The politicos don't like not being able to deliver for some of their constituents the way they used to in the bad old days,
It was a watershed moment and hopefully all our state institutions will take it as the end of political interference.

Peppa Pig

nuac wrote: »

John O'Mahony is too close to the GAA to chair that committee on that topic.

On days 1 and 2 that was coming out. Whatever changed on day 3 saw him do a very good job.
He criticised the GAA, particularly Peter McKenna, refused to join Timmy Dooley on his rants and summed up very well.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I would still really like to hear a sufficient explanation as to why it is that you feel it okay to claim. that the TD Timmy Dooley felt Keegan saying he supported the license application was a 'nod and a wink' that it would be "irrelevant" and "circumvented". That infers that he would be okay with such action, no matter how much you deny it and it''s scurrilous indictment to make.

That infers that he would be okay with such action, no matter how much you deny it and it''s scurrilous indictment to make.

raymon wrote: »

By the way this is a total misrepresentation of my position on this . I never said that , i dont think that.

Please please please stop misrepresenting and second guessing and supposing my position.

Could you please give it up ?

I will of course stop bringing it up if you want me to. From this post forward, I will not raise the matter again unless you do. However..

Please stop saying I misrepresented you, as I am quoting an opinion which you posted on this thread and whether you like it or not, when you *stated* that Timmy Dooley, Peter Aiken, Peter McKenna and Páraic Duffy all thought that Owen Keegan saying he would support a license application for five nights meant that the license application process would be "circumvented" and an "irrelevance" (in the context that of these people are now upset that the license was not granted) you are quite clearly inferring that they are upset because the 'circumventing' did not happen. If you did not mean to infer this, fine, but please stop running away from your own words and trying to make out the person who has pulled you on your comments is somehow in the wrong for doing so.

Here is that statement for reference:

raymon wrote: »

Garth Brooks , Aitken , Gaa and now that Fianna Fail gombeen Timmy Dooley all seem to think that when the City Manager said that he supported the concerts, that this was a nod and a wink that the planning process would be circumvented in some fashion or at least would be an irrelevance.

Happyman42

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Whatever changed on day 3 saw him do a very good job.

Collateral damage was done to the planning officials, to go any further would have resulted in censure for surpassing their remit.
The message was loud and clear...don't mess with certain peoples ability to make money. Remains to be seen how the planning office responds in future.

kippy

Happyman42 wrote: »

Collateral damage was done to the planning officials, to go any further would have resulted in censure for surpassing their remit.
The message was loud and clear...don't mess with certain peoples ability to make money. Remains to be seen how the planning office responds in future.

I don't think thats too relevant.
Had the planning office gone ahead and "allowed" five gigs, or should the do so in future because of the backlash from this event (Unlikely as the circumstances won't have changed) then there would have been a number of court cases (I suspect) against the gigs.
It would be interesting to see what would happen in that instance but the point is if there is additional pressure being put on the planners to allow such a setup in future (5 nights in a row, 400K people etc) and they somehow allow planning for those events, the precident has been set now so I suspect they would be wide open for a court challenge ANYWAY.
So pressure or not, the likely hood of 5 gigs of this magnitude EVER happening in Croker is extremely slim.

raymon

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I will of course stop bringing it up if you want me to. From this post forward, I will not raise the matter again unless you do. However..

Please stop saying I misrepresented you, as I am quoting an opinion which you posted on this thread and whether you like it or not, when you *stated* that Timmy Dooley, Peter Aiken, Peter McKenna and Páraic Duffy all thought that Owen Keegan saying he would support a license application for five nights meant that the license application process would be "circumvented" and an "irrelevance" (in the context that of these people are now upset that the license was not granted) you are quite clearly inferring that they are upset because the 'circumventing' did not happen.

This is getting very very annoying now - you just misquoted me again .

I did not state that - you changed it again to suit your agenda .

please please please stop misquoting me again to try to derive a meaning that I did not say , mean or imply

I never said that it meant that the license application would be circumvented and an irrelevance.

And I didnt infer that they are upset because the 'circumventing' did not happen.

Thats not what I said

Can you stop it please

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

raymon wrote: »

This is getting very very annoying now - you just misquoted me again .

I did not state that - you changed it again to suit your agenda .

please please please stop misquoting me again to try to derive a meaning that I did not say , mean or imply

I never said that it meant that the license application would be circumvented and an irrelevance.

Can you please stop saying I am misquoting you. That too is getting very annoying.

Here is your exact quote:

raymon wrote: »

Garth Brooks , Aitken , Gaa and now that Fianna Fail gombeen Timmy Dooley all seem to think that when the City Manager said that he supported the concerts, that this was a nod and a wink that the planning process would be circumvented in some fashion or at least would be an irrelevance.

The above quote is clearly saying that these people felt when Owen Keegan saying he supported the five night licence application, to them meant that he would circumvent the license application process.I don't know how you can deny this.

And I didnt infer that they are upset because the 'circumventing' did not happen.

Thats not what I said

When you say what you did, in direct response to these people complaining in the media about the license not being granted, you are whether you like it or not, inferring that they are upset because they had thought Keegan's "support" meant that the application process would be circumvented. I don't know how you can't see that that was the inference of what you said.

Can you stop it please.

As long as you stop saying that I misquoted you.. no problem.

raymon

You are really beating this to death ! It seems strange and obsessive to me .

What I find particularly annoying is your changing my quotes ( for example saying that I think that Dooley would be OK with circumventing the planning process in post #601 ). Please stop this .

My exact quote without bolding or manipulating the text was that they all "seem to think that when the City Manager said that he supported the concerts, that this was a nod and a wink that the planning process would be circumvented in some fashion or at least would be an irrelevance."

Thats my exact words .

Now lets look at Dooley's exact words without any manipulation, bolding or emphasis.

"Mr.McKenna and Mr.Duffy said here, that there was a belief based on that conversation back in Feb, that DCC would support a licence application for all five concerts. Now in fairness Mr.Keegan, you have not denied that you gave that impression to Mr.McKenna. What you have said in a statement that you issued is that you gave no assurance, no certainty, no firm offer.. these are all absolutes. Mr.McKenna has never indicated that there was an absolute.."

"..when you had that conversation with Mr.Kenna where you gave the impression that you would be supportive, in a general way, without the issue of assurances, we all accept that, we know how the process works, you couldn't have, you wouldn't have the authority to do that at that stage, but you gave him some belief, or he had some expectation, legitimate or otherwise, that if he submitted an application for five concerts and recognizing that the additionality would be required, and if they reached that threshold, then they could legitimately expect a positive outcome but it seems to me as I said, the issues which you refused the five licences were all blindingly obvious to you in advance of that process even beginning.."

It is my opinion that Dooley seems to believe that DCC gave Mr.McKenna and I quote directly from his words without manipulating or emphasis "some belief, or he had some expectation, legitimate or otherwise, that if he submitted an application for five concerts and recognizing that the additionality would be required, and if they reached that threshold, then they could legitimately expect a positive outcome"

Any belief , expectation , nod , wink or assurance , any of these at this point would have been outside of the licensing process.

There is no threshold at this stage in the licensing process so no expectation could have been given

Therefore in my own words it is my opinion that they all "seem to think that when the City Manager said that he supported the concerts, that this was a nod and a wink that the planning process would be circumvented in some fashion or at least would be an irrelevance."

I dont anyone acted dishonestly - I just think there was a misinterpretation.

That is my opinion - you may have a different opinion.

Lets not expend your energy and mine beating this to death - Im sure you have better things to be doing .

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

raymon wrote: »

You are really beating this to death ! It seems strange and obsessive to me .

Any chance you could just attack the content of my posts rather than me as a person? Thanks.

What I find particularly annoying is your changing my quotes ( for example saying that I think that Dooley would be OK with circumventing the planning process in post #601 ). Please stop this .

I did not "change" any of your quotes in Post 601 (here is that post for anyone that wishes to check).

When you make a statement that Timmy Dooley thinks Owen Keegan showing 'support' for the five concerts to him means that Keegan would circumvent the licensing process, and you say that in response to him showing dismay that the five night license was not granted, you are (whether you like it or not) inferring that his dismay is the result of the circumvention not taking place. Which obviously.. further infers that he would have been happy if it had. Now I know you haven't said that, but your comments infer it.

My exact quote without bolding or manipulating the text was that they all "seem to think that when the City Manager said that he supported the concerts, that this was a nod and a wink that the planning process would be circumvented in some fashion or at least would be an irrelevance."

Thats my exact words .

Yes and that is the quote I used. Emboldening words is just a means of highlighting text which a user feels may be relevant to the point they are trying to make. It is not a form of hypnotism and nor does it change what the person they are quoting has said. I did not "misquote" you.

Now lets look at Dooley's exact words without any manipulation, bolding or emphasis.

"Mr.McKenna and Mr.Duffy said here, that there was a belief based on that conversation back in Feb, that DCC would support a licence application for all five concerts. Now in fairness Mr.Keegan, you have not denied that you gave that impression to Mr.McKenna. What you have said in a statement that you issued is that you gave no assurance, no certainty, no firm offer.. these are all absolutes. Mr.McKenna has never indicated that there was an absolute."

"..when you had that conversation with Mr.Kenna where you gave the impression that you would be supportive, in a general way, without the issue of assurances, we all accept that, we know how the process works, you couldn't have, you wouldn't have the authority to do that at that stage, but you gave him some belief, or he had some expectation, legitimate or otherwise, that if he submitted an application for five concerts and recognizing that the additionality would be required, and if they reached that threshold, then they could legitimately expect a positive outcome but it seems to me as I said, the issues which you refused the five licences were all blindingly obvious to you in advance of that process even beginning.."

It is my opinion that Dooley seems to believe that DCC gave Mr.McKenna and I quote directly from his words without manipulating or emphasis "some belief, or he had some expectation, legitimate or otherwise, that if he submitted an application for five concerts and recognizing that the additionality would be required, and if they reached that threshold, then they could legitimately expect a positive outcome"

Any belief , expectation , nod , wink or assurance , any of these at this point would have been outside of the licensing process.

There is no threshold at this stage in the licensing process so no expectation could have been given

Therefore in my own words it is my opinion that they all "seem to think that when the City Manager said that he supported the concerts, that this was a nod and a wink that the planning process would be circumvented in some fashion or at least would be an irrelevance."

Well, the above just shows how groundless and utterly baseless your remarks are. You claim that the following sentence from Timmy Dooley's testimony is the basis for your reasoning:

"..you gave him some belief, or he had some expectation, legitimate or otherwise, that if he submitted an application for five concerts and recognizing that the additionality would be required, and if they reached that threshold, then they could legitimately expect a positive outcome.."

In particular, you highlight that a "threshold" had not been reached at that stage of the process (which is correct, it had not) and so having an expectation on reaching it, is not possible. That's pretty much what you said and, without putting to fine a point on it, that is pure and unadulterated waffle, as it doesn't make a hill of beans of a difference if the threshold had been established yet or not. It is neither here, nor there and I'm not sure why you think it is of any relevance, yet alone of such relevance that you feel it justifies your your remarks regarding circumvention of license application processes.

Just because the specifics of a threshold are not yet known, in no way means that a person/company cannot be given an indication that if they reach a yet to be determined threshold, that they will have a positive outcome. For example, if I say to you come over to my house later, I have a job for you and if you complete it, I'll give you a €1000. OF COURSE it is reasonable for you to have an expectation of getting paid IF you complete that (yet to be determined) job. You having an expectation of getting paid does not mean that you think you will get paid even if you don't satisfactory complete the job. That would be absurd and it's absurd for you to suggest that Aiken / Dooley or whomever else you want to tarnish with your suggestions, thought that they would be granted a licence even if they did not complete their 'yet to be determined job' which of course was to meet the additionaility which the details of which was later laid out to them at statutory meetings.

Whether they satisfactorily met that additionality or not, in the eyes of DCC, I don't know. None of us do. Aiken / Croke park say they felt they did meet the threshold which was indicated to them and DCC say the opposite and so nobody, imo, can say with any level of accuracy, or confidence, whether they did or not but merely having an expectation that they would be granted a five night license if they met the additionality (which had a yet to be determined threshold) in no way shape or form is indicative of anyone thinking that a license application process would be all but irrelevant and that it would be circumvented as a result of it. It was a very reasonable and understandable expectation.

I dont anyone acted dishonestly - I just think there was a misinterpretation.

That is my opinion - you may have a different opinion.

Indeed I do: I don't think there was any misinterpretation of Owen Keegan saying he "supported" the licence application. I think everyone concerned knew, and accepted, that there is a process to follow and that additionality would be a large part of that process and that it would have to be met if they wanted a positive outcome. I don't think for one second that anyone was in any doubt of that. The only evidence which I see of possible misinterpretation taking place, is during the statutory talks where we have DCC claiming they made it clear that Aiken / Croke Park that they had not mitigated the concerns of the residents to their satisfaction and Aiken claiming that DCC never indicated this at all and that in fact they indicated the opposite. That[i/] to me (assuming all are being honest) appears to me to be where the true misinterpretation took place and nowhere else.

Lets not expend your energy and mine beating this to death - Im sure you have better things to be doing .

No bother. Good talk.

raymon

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

When you make a statement that Timmy Dooley thinks Owen Keegan showing 'support' for the five concerts to him means that Keegan would circumvent the licensing process, and you say that in response to him showing dismay that the five night license was not granted, you are (whether you like it or not) inferring that his dismay is the result of the circumvention not taking place. Which obviously.. further infers that he would have been happy if it had. Now I know you haven't said that, but your comments infer it.
.

Rather than say that "this whole paragraph incorrect and is not what I said , my opinion or my belief" - I am going to choose not to comment further .

Lets leave it there .

Im sure other posters will be happy - there are more important things going on in the world right now .

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

raymon wrote: »

Rather than say that "this whole paragraph incorrect and is not what I said , my opinion or my belief"- I am going to choose not to comment further .

Putting "Rather than say.." before something you then say, doesn't mean you're not saying it.

There was nothing incorrect about that paragraph. You just don't have the chutzpah to admit the inference of what you said.

I'll just leave your quote here and let others decide if you didn't infer what I have suggested you have:

raymon wrote: »

Garth Brooks , Aitken , Gaa and now that Fianna Fail gombeen Timmy Dooley all seem to think that when the City Manager said that he supported the concerts, that this was a nod and a wink that the planning process would be circumvented in some fashion or at least would be an irrelevance.

Lets leave it there .

Im sure other posters will be happy - there are more important things going on in the world right now .

I agree and in fact, I think all threads should be locked on Boards until there is peace in the middle east.

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You just don't have the chutzpah to admit the inference of what you said.

And you don't have the irony meter to appreciate your own whining about supposed personal attacks.