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…2425272930…47

Comments

  • Options
    #782
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,475 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578189#Comment_120578189

    You seem pretty certain that the law did not require him to recuse himself.

    Yes, I am. Neither he nor his wife had any pecuniary or other beneficial interest in the land. An expression of interest is not a beneficial interest.



  • Options
    #783
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,879 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578176#Comment_120578176

    There is no doubt that he should have informed them, but is it evidence of political corruption? 

    Again, the law is there to remove any question of whether or not there is political corruption.

    From the Code of Conduct for Councillors:

    4.8 The test to be applied by a councillor is not just what s/he might think - but rather whether a member of the public knowing the facts of the situation would reasonably think that the interest concerned might influence the person in the performance of his or her functions. If so, disclosure should follow, and a councillor should consider whether in the circumstances s/he should withdraw from consideration of the matter. In this context it is important to ensure that as well as the avoidance of actual impropriety, occasions for suspicion and appearance of improper conduct are also avoided in case of private or personal interests. The public perception how a councillor is deals with such matters is important for maintaining public trust in local government.

    Everybody appears to agree he should have disclosed the fact his wife was an interested party and recused himself. Why he did not do what he should have done is irrelevant.



  • Options
    #784
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,879 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578201#Comment_120578201

    His wife was trying to acquire a pecuniary interest in the land, and in order to do so, she needed the council to offer the land for sale.

    Without disclosing this, Collins took part in a meeting in which it was decided to offer the land for sale.

    Sure you and I can argue over the semantics of whether the above is strictly a breach of the law or not, as far as we're concerned it is a matter of opinion.

    But if Collins' is to keep his job, he'll need the continued support of the government in his defence that "Ah shure, I didn't need to disclose anything, the law didn't apply in this instance because my wife did not own the land she wanted us to decide to sell."

    Whether or not the government continue to support him, it's very clear from this thread that there are many who think this is a perfectly reasonable defence. Hence my earlier comment that you get the politicians you deserve.

    I think we deserve better, and I expect that the government support of Collins will run out pretty rapidly.



  • Options
    #785
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,475 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578273#Comment_120578273

    It is not semantics. You are the one who claimed the law removed doubt about how he should have acted. He absolutely, categorically, did not break the law. The law does not discuss those "attempting to acquire" a pecuniary interest so it is not relevant.

    I will however grant that he could be found to have broken the code of conduct you linked to. That is not law though and is obviously a lot more subjective. It is entirely based around the "image of impropriety" where you are doing nothing wrong but it could be perceived otherwise. Its a very minor thing to do.

    I wouldn't vote for him, as if nothing else the whole affair makes him seem a bit dim. But the furore around it is mostly either performative nonsense from the likes of the Ditch or a misunderstanding of what actually occurred.



  • Options
    #786
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,707 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578273#Comment_120578273

    Collins took part in a meeting in which it was decided to offer the land for sale.

    Sigh.

    No, he did not take part in any such thing. 😞

    Collins was present at a meeting where it was recommended that the council look at selling the land.

    Collins was not involved in the meeting where the decision to sell was made, he was no longer a councillor at this stage. Collins was not involved in any vote to sell the land. Collins was not involved in any meeting where decisions were made as to who to sell to. Collins was not involved in any meetings where decisions were made as to how much to sell for.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #787
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,879 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578322#Comment_120578322

    Sigh indeed.

    In December 2006 Collins' wife wrote to the council via her solicitor expressing an interest in purchasing the land.

    In mid January 2007 Collins took part in a meeting in which the councillors were told there had been enquiries from interested parties in purchasing the land.

    Collins did not disclose that his wife was one of the interested parties.

    At that meeting the councillors decided to offer the land for sale on the open market.

    Following the meeting it was advertised for sale in the Limerick Leader in January 2007.

    And yet you say Collins did not take part in a meeting in which it was decided to offer the land for sale?



  • Options
    #788
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,470 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578450#Comment_120578450

    thats incorrect



  • Options
    #789
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,879 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578454#Comment_120578454

    OK, what is incorrect about it?



  • Options
    #790
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,648 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578450#Comment_120578450

    Wrong, it wasn't decided at that meeting to offer the land for sale on the open market. That meeting did not have the power to do that.



  • Options
    #791
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,641 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    At that meeting the councillors decided to offer the land for sale on the open market.

    That's where you're wrong. The local area committee did not have the power to offer any land for sale.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #792
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,470 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    at that meeting the councillors decided to offer the land for sale on the open market.

    that statement is incorrect

    the meeting on January 15th 2007 did not have the power to offer the lands for sale on the open market.



  • Options
    #793
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,707 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578456#Comment_120578456

    At that meeting the councillors decided to offer the land for sale on the open market.

    This bit.

    The meeting that Collins attended did not decide to offer the land for sale on the open market. The meeting that Collins attended had no power to offer any land for sale, all they could do was recommend to the council that the land be considered for sale.

    By the time the council considered selling the land and ultimately voted on it Collins was no longer a councillor, and took no part in the process.



  • Options
    #794
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,648 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120577671#Comment_120577671

    Posting nonsense at 1 a.m. smacks of desperation.

    There is nothing to that, as many other posters have pointed out. We are down to bare wood at the bottom of the barrel.



  • Options
    #795
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,879 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578474#Comment_120578474

    Ok, he did no wrong because the councillors did not decide to offer the land for sale at that particular meeting.

    Are we in agreement that if decision to offer the land for sale at that meeting had been taken it would have been wrongdoing?



  • Options
    #796
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,475 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578507#Comment_120578507

    It would make it more likely he would have broken the code of conduct.

    It still would not have been illegal.



  • Options
    #797
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,407 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578205#Comment_120578205

    Everyone agrees that he should have disclosed it, that is not the same as saying he had a pecuniary interest in the property, or that he was legally required to/broke the law by not saying his wife was one of many people who expressed an interest in buying it.



  • Options
    #798
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,879 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578465#Comment_120578465
    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578466#Comment_120578466
    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578473#Comment_120578473

    The meeting was on 15th January 2007.

    We know that the land was not offered for sale on the open market before that meeting, otherwise Collins' wife would have simply placed a bid with the appointed auctioneer rather than writing to the council expressing an interest in purchasing it.

    And we know that land was offered for sale on the open market after that meeting, because an auctioneer was appointed and the property was advertised for sale in the Limerick Leader in January 2007 and February 2007. Subsequent to which, Collins' wife duly did place a bid with the appointed auctioneer.

    So if it was not decided to put the land on the market by the councillors at that meeting, when and who did decide to put the land on the market?



  • Options
    #799
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,407 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578683#Comment_120578683

    Christ, no it wasn’t. The County Council had to decide on whether property was to be sold, not the local committee meeting which Collins attended. He wasn’t even a councillor when the property was marketed and sold.

    This stuff has been reported on, following a FOI request. So either the Ditch didn’t bother getting the facts before reporting, or did make a FOI request and didn’t bother reporting on its contents.



  • Options
    #800
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,879 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578719#Comment_120578719

    Yes it has been reported on. For example, RTE:

    On 15 December 2006, Limerick solicitor Patricia O'Connor wrote to Limerick County Council's Department of Housing to express an interest in a specific site on Main Street in Patrickswell.

    Ms O'Connor said she was writing on behalf of "a client", whose name has been redacted in FOI documents.

    She said her client "wishes to provide a centre in Patrickswell to provide a service" - the details of which have also been redacted - and asked the council to explain how the land could be purchased as at that time it was in public ownership.

    Council agrees to put the site on the market

    A few weeks later, on 15 January 2007, the issue was raised at Limerick County Council's Bruff electoral area committee meeting.

    The meeting minutes of that meeting show councillors were told there had been "a number of enquiries to purchase a parcel of land at Main Street in Patrickswell".

    And they were also told the site was three quarters of an acre and had "very limited use as an open space".

    As such, it was agreed by the Bruff electoral area committee to place the site "on the open market" and that officials would update "the meeting again for further consideration".

    That 15 January 2007 meeting was attended by seven councillors, including Mr Collins.

    Mr Collins did not table the motion or second it.

    The meeting minutes are unclear if a formal vote took place, but no objections were raised to the decision.

    What happened to the property in 2007

    Files released today by Limerick County Council show the Patrickswell site was advertised for sale twice in the Limerick Leader in January and February 2007.

    So RTE are reporting that "it was agreed by the Bruff electoral area committee to place the site "on the open market""

    Have they got their facts wrong? If so please enlighten us as to why RTE are reported the property was advertised for sale in January 2007 yet you are saying he wasn't even a councillor when the property was marketed?

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2023/0425/1379083-collins-background/




  • Options
    #801
    JP Liz V1
    Registered Users Posts: 86,083 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    https://twitter.com/NewstalkFM/status/1656008983474257923

    "PERSONAL MATTERS"

    https://forumofgames.com/




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #802
    Lionel Fusco
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Lionel Fusco


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578719#Comment_120578719

    The property was put on the market in January 2007 Collins was a cllr in January 2007.



  • Options
    #803
    Cluedo Monopoly
    Registered Users Posts: 9,128 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    It's great and amusing to see FG voters vigorously defending a FF politician for antics in the Bertie era. Civil war politics is truly over! We all know what the public perception is and this guy is toast at the next election.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Options
    #804
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,317 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120578600#Comment_120578600

    It's a glaring conflict of interest. He's either too stupid to realise that or he's a crook who didn't care.

    We should not want either type of person in Government.



  • Options
    #805
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,841 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Just an observation on the recusing business.

    Isn't the bar very small between hero and zero in these type of cases ?

    If NC had gone out for a smoke or sent apologies altogether and skipped the meeting he would be in the clear.

    The proposal would still have gone through on the nod.

    Whatever advantage his wife stood to gain from the process she would still have.



  • Options
    #806
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,879 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579031#Comment_120579031

    Not quite, he couldn't just skip the meeting and say nothing. Once he knew of his wife's interest he was required to make a disclosure even if he was unable to attend the meeting for other reasons.

    (2) Where a member of a local authority, committee, joint committee or joint body of the local authority has actual knowledge that a matter is likely to arise at a meeting at which that member will not be present and which, if he or she were present, a disclosure would be required to be made under  subsection (1) , then that person shall in advance of such meeting make such disclosure in writing and furnish it to the ethics registrar



  • Options
    #807
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,841 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579070#Comment_120579070

    I thought we had already established that she didn't have an interest which required disclosure to be made under subsection 1.



  • Options
    #808
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,879 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579085#Comment_120579085

    Yes, there are plenty here who would like to shut the door on that question and declare it incontrovertible. But it has far from been established.



  • Options
    #809
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,475 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579085#Comment_120579085

    Indeed, she very much didn't. So that clause is completely irrelevant.



  • Options
    #810
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,841 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579102#Comment_120579102

    I have been following the thread and posted a few times.

    I found the case quite strong for the "no interest" side.

    However if you have further information on the matter I will be happy to take it into consideration.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #811
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,879 ✭✭✭hometruths


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579133#Comment_120579133

    There is no doubt opinions here vary on the issue, hence why I said it has not been established.

    Irrespective of the specific individual or the specific land involved in this instance, would you agree with the general statement that a person who is planning a development project and is actively trying to purchase land for it is involved in a project that relates to dealing in or developing land?



Advertisement