Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Media silence over Niall Collins story

Options
1…89111314…47

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,317 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120521981#Comment_120521981

    Yeah I'm all for a code of ethics for every profession.



  • Options
    #303
    kaymin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,526 ✭✭✭kaymin


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120522902#Comment_120522902

    Niall Collins had a pecuniary interest in the matter when he voted on it, assuming he knew his spouse had expressed interest in purchasing the land prior - that's the key point you need to understand. The rest of your rant concerns different posters views on the matter - I'm not sure why you get so uptight about different perspectives being expressed.

    Here's a sample of quotes from posters claiming its the Russian / SF that's driving the reporting of this:

    That it was founded by someone who has spread pro-Russian proposals for years and now works for Russia Today is the main story here. Questions have to be asked about how it’s being funded. 

    SF twitter soldiers certainly putting in the work on this one

    I reckon if you dig enough you might find SF funds The Ditch.

    The Ditch is 100% set up to target the government parties. The guy who set it up is now working for Russia Today. Think about that for a second.



  • Options
    #304
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120523358#Comment_120523358

    Niall Collins had a pecuniary interest in the matter when he voted on it, assuming he knew his spouse had expressed interest in purchasing the land prior

    No matter how many times you say this it won't stop being false. That is not what "interest" means in a legal sense.

    Pretty much everyone realises this which is why the tables have shifted from it being a legal error to a moral one.



  • Options
    #305
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,470 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120523358#Comment_120523358

    Niall Collins had a pecuniary interest in the matter when he voted on it

    one last time for those at the back... its CATEGORIC that he did not have a pecuniary interest in the lands when he voted.

    it was simply impossible for him to make profit of those lands, at the time he voted, because he had NO material interest in them, nor was he providing professional services to the landowner, nor was he related to the landowner.

    he only developed a pecuniary interest in those lands AFTER the person he was in a relationship with became the landowner.

    now, if you have information that shows that Collins interfered in some way in the sale of the lands so that his partner won the bid, then absolutely thats a serious matter to answer to. But if you do not, then please drop this incorrect opinion you have that he had some interest (material, pecuniary or other) in the lands that were voted on.



  • Options
    #306
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,317 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120523596#Comment_120523596

    I mean he quite clearly had an interest in the land. His wife wanted to buy it.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,470 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120523664#Comment_120523664

    be careful, your ignorance of the issue here is showing



  • Options
    #308
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120523664#Comment_120523664

    And that is quite clearly not what "pecuniary or beneficial interest" means. It is a legal phrase/terminology.



  • Options
    #309
    Madd Finn
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭Madd Finn


    The Sound of Silence.

    307, now 308, posts in the last three days just on this thread.

    How do you enrage a populist putz like Coillte Bhoy?

    Just breathe.



  • Options
    #310
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Syd, you might as well be trying to explain quantum physics to a goldfish as trying to rationalise this for a cohort who simply won’t accept that this wasn’t a massive crime and symptomatic of the banana republic in which they live.

    Dey is not for turning.



  • Options
    #311
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,969 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120523664#Comment_120523664

    You have no idea what you just stated. And you have no idea that you have no idea. I'm not sure which is more difficult for you.

    But anyway, this Collins issue is best summed up in the explanation of a few of the dreaded MAIN STREAM MEDIA!!!!! last night and today.

    1. Only the full County Council, at a statutory meeting of the full County Council can vote in a binding fashion to sell, or to use the legislative term, dispose of land. Meetings of local area Committees are meaningless legally and practically on this issue.

    2. The sale of the land, when approved to proceed by the full Council was handled by the relevant officials of the Council Executive, all well after Niall Collins ceased to be a member of the Council.

    3. Did Niall Collins breach the Local Government Act 2001, as amended? No he absolutely did not, in any way.

    Any ifs, buts or whataboutery after these facts are just word slurry.

    This is over.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,028 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    If there was nothing wrong with it then why did the Taoiseach say Collins should have recused himself from the vote?

    https://www.businesspost.ie/news/collins-asked-to-make-further-statement-to-dail-about-property-dealings/




  • Options
    #313
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120523766#Comment_120523766

    Because it was bad optics that could be twisted as has clearly happened and he's still a politician (and a better one than Collins).

    He also said he had absolutely no legal requirement to do so.



  • Options
    #314
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,028 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120523801#Comment_120523801

    What could be bad optics about a situation where he had done *nothing* wrong?



  • Options
    #315
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120523846#Comment_120523846

    Politics is rarely based on facts.

    As we can see from this thread there is a multitude of people who will readily believe he did something wrong and even that he committed a crime when he clearly did not. He could have avoided this with a bit of foresight, but he's not exactly going to go down as a political behemoth. He could have been focused on being "whiter than white" and not even let the possibility of the mistaken view of impropriety develop.

    Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich and looking like an idiot doing it was bad optics but it had political impact and also was quite clearly not "wrong". This falls in the bucket of "not a big deal, but a bit silly".



  • Options
    #316
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,028 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120523904#Comment_120523904

    Ed Miliband being victim of the British press photographers would not provoke a public statement from his higher ups saying he shouldnt have eaten it though.



  • Options
    #317
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    They're trying to appease people. Its what politicians do.

    I would also say that it would have made everyone's life easier if he just abstained. I would go so far as to say its a bit silly that he didn't. But I also know that there was nothing wrong legally with what he did.

    My boss tells me things I should do differently in work from time to time. It doesn't even mean I was wrong, sometimes it just makes life easier for everyone.



  • Options
    #318
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,470 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120523846#Comment_120523846

    ask denis naughton



  • Options
    #319
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,969 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120524067#Comment_120524067

    The specific circumstances of Naughton's misjudgment justifiably led to his departure. It was monumentally stupid and potentially very costly to the State.

    And not remotely comparable to this Collins discussion.



  • Options
    #320
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,470 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120524127#Comment_120524127

    its absolutely comparable in that nothing wrong was shown or proven, so his resignation was based on optics alone, hell even the taoiseach who called for his resignation admitted to this

    ""But I do believe he left himself open to allegations of a conflict of interest and an inappropriate relationship with Mc McCourt which could have in turn brought the process into question, thus potentially jeopardising the project in its entirety."

    and naughtons response

    "I'm now left in that impossible stark position a politician never wants to be in. Do I make the decision to resign or wait for the decision to be made for me. It's more about optics than fibre optics," 


    so as a response to timmyntc's post about an actionable response to optics, its completely comparable.



  • Options
    #321
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,969 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Naughton's situation was not just optics. Other tenderers to that procurement could very likely have succeeded in claims of a demonstrable bias, in the event of a Court appeal to the award. As I said, it exposed the State to potentially massive additional costs.

    So it's not a valid comparison, either in action or in consequence.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,470 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120524243#Comment_120524243

    there were no other tenderers.......... all other interested parties pulled out of the process before tendering their quotations.


    look, im no political apologist, naughton deserved to go, BECAUSE of the optics of what he did, i have no problem at all in saying that. But at the end of the day he wasnt found to be guilty of any misconduct, stupidity yes of course.

    And similarly what Collins did on his planning application where he actively LIED in 1999 about owning a house in limerick, is an actionable offense and there should have been more fall out from it, but in this particular case, while the optics are poor and teh morals are questionable, he hasnt been found to have done anything wrong.

    so i still stand by my point in my response to that post that optics alone can be reason for action.



  • Options
    #323
    charlie_says
    Registered Users Posts: 1,666 ✭✭✭charlie_says


    Lol the Russians did it!



  • Options
    #324
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,317 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    I mean if I'm looking to buy something I'm interested in it by default.

    How anyone can argue any different is beyond me.



  • Options
    #325
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120524439#Comment_120524439

    Because you are trying to transpose non legal terminology onto legal terminology

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #326
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,317 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120524564#Comment_120524564

    No I'm not.



  • Options
    #327
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    One thing I dont understand

    Eimear O'Connor applied for planning permission on the site in December 2007

    Eimear O'Connor purchased the site officially in January 2009

    I dont understand how you could apply for planning permission on a site you dont own

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #328
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120524568#Comment_120524568

    Interested isnt "interest" in a legal sense

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #329
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,317 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120524582#Comment_120524582

    I never said it was



  • Options
    #330
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,470 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    It's very hard to educate pork



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    Sono Topolino
    Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭Sono Topolino


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120523664#Comment_120523664

    Not this again. For the last time, this is the relevant except from section 177 of the Act:

    (1) Where at a meeting of a local authority or of any committee, joint committee or joint body of a local authority, a resolution, motion, question or other matter is proposed or otherwise arises either—

    (a) as a result of any of its functions under this or any other enactment, or

    (b) as regards the performance by the authority, committee, joint committee or joint body of any of its functions under this or any other enactment,

    then, a member of the authority, committee, joint committee or joint body present at such meeting shall, where he or she has actual knowledge that he or she or a connected person has a pecuniary or other beneficial interest in, or which is material to, the matter—

    (i) disclose the nature of his or her interest, or the fact of a connected person’s interest at the meeting, and before discussion or consideration of the matter commences, and

    (ii) withdraw from the meeting for so long as the matter is being discussed or considered,

    and, accordingly, he or she shall take no part in the discussion or consideration of the matter and shall refrain from voting in relation to it.

    It is clear from the drafting ("pecuniary or OTHER beneficial interest") that a "pecuniary interest" is a particular form of a "beneficial interest". The term "beneficial interest" has a particular meaning in the Law of Equity, and generally means a right over property which is separate and distinct to strict legal title. Section 176 of the Act provides the following examples of "beneficial interests":

    (1) In respect of a resolution, motion, question or other matter which is proposed, or otherwise arises from or as regards F241[the performance by the local authority concerned, or any municipal district members for that authority, of any functions] under this or any other enactment, “beneficial interest” for the purposes of this Part, in relation to a person, includes an interest in respect of which—


    (a) he or she or a connected person, or any nominee of his or her or of a connected person, is a member of a company or any other body which has a beneficial interest in, or which is material to, any such matter,


    (b) he or she or a connected person is in a partnership with or is in the employment of a person who has a beneficial interest in, or which is material to, any such matter,


    (c) he or she or a connected person is a party to any arrangement or agreement (whether or not enforceable) concerning land which relates to any such matter,


    (d) he or she or a connected person in the capacity as a trustee or as a beneficiary of a trust has a beneficial interest in, or which is material to, any such matter,


    (e) he or she or a connected person is acting with another person to secure or exercise control of a company which has a beneficial interest in, or which is material to any such matter.

    It is clear that under no interpretation of the term "beneficial interest" would it extend to a mere intention to acquire property in the future on the open market. An intention does not create a equitable right, and therefore cannot create a "beneficial interest". Ergo, Niall Collins did not have a "pecuniary or other beneficial interest" in the matter, and neither did his wife.

    That is the last thing I will say on this matter. If you are upset by this obvious fact, then I recommend contacting your TDs and urging them to amend the law. Have them call it "Niall's Law" if you want. But currently what Niall Collins did was eminently legal, if downright dodgy and crying foul does not change that simple and obvious fact.



Advertisement