wtf is going on? Bizzarre
The proposal was to 'Dispose of land at Patrickswell'. This proposal was put to a vote. It wasn't a vote on the proposal to propose to dispose of the land.
There is a definition under Irish law. Can you please have the decency to read other people’s posts when they put in the effort to explain statutory interpretation?
Why would Australian law apply?
Neither was Niall Collins. How about that.
It is not defined in Irish law and how you defined it is wrong. If you don't believe me refer to the Cavan Monaghan CoCo website - https://www.cavanmonaghan.net/en/local-government/pecuniary-interest-guidelines.aspx
For what its worth while agreeing on the substance of the legality of this case, I would slightly disagree with the framing that this is the real scandal. Given the details of what happened as in the IT piece I just don't think anything particularly amiss occurred. The instigators of the sale were the engineer and those who brought the motion, and it was ultimately signed off on when he wasn't there anymore. I don't think there is any hidden corruption - I think its far more likely in a mundane council meeting he just didn't bother recusing himself in a vote that was passing unanimously anyway. He probably should have just to avoid the allegations of impropriety, but I'm happy to put it down to lack of nous rather than anything else. I just don't think its that big a deal.
As to whether the laws in general are open to corruption, then yeah there is work to be done there I'm sure.
He didnt vote to sell the land though. He voted to agreee that a proposal to sell the land would move to the next stage.
We don’t necessarily care about Australian law here. The meaning of “pecuniary interest” is statutorily defined for the purposes of the Local Government Act 2001, as I explained before. Unless you wish to present an argument as to why my interpretation is incorrect, you must accept that you are simply wrong.
Paul Murphy was not in the decision making process on the property.
Regards...jmcc
See, that's a circular argument and is based on the false premise that he doesn't have a legal interest. He quite clearly has a conflict of interest when he voted and, therefore, has a pecuniary interest according to the Australian legal definition of the term.
It only had a market price because her husband had a say in creating that market.
It was a conflict of interests imo but we'll agree to disagree.
youre the one who came out with this doozy:
Niall Collins had a pecuniary interest in the matter when he voted on it
which simply could not be any more incorrect, so i wouldn't be going around claiming someone else doesn't know what they are talking about, when youve already been exposed.
Read his post. Also read mine where I explain what “pecuniary or other beneficial interest” means. If he doesn’t have an “interest” (in law), how can he have a conflict of interest? We have been over this point many times.
I don’t like Niall Collins. I think he is a sleeveen and I would never vote for him. However, he did not break any law and (if you ask me) that is the real scandal.
Huh, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Humour me
Because it wasn't a legal conflict of interest.
We're more or less going down the road of "politicians can't ever introduce tax cuts cause they will benefit from them".
He just explained why.
And why, pray tell, is conflict of interest not relevant to the vote Niall Collins exercised?
A) no it isn't. She bought it at market value. She was no better off the day after she bought it than the day before. Conflict of interest has a legal definition, which is important and does not apply in this case, but in a more colloquial use of it the counterpoint would be that he was a tangential party at best to the vote. He didn't bring it, recommend it, second it and it was otherwise unanimous. In an actual, legal conflict of interest I do not think that's a defence, but in the manner people are starting to use it now it seems relevant.
B) I wouldn't be in trouble in my job. Because we have very clear rules on what you can and cannot do and when you follow those rules you have a defence.
It's literally the dictionary definition of a conflict of interest.
Any other job in the world and you'd be in trouble but politicians set the game and the rules, so they're fine.
Politicians have the game sown up. The laws they enact are suited to suit them and the already established moneyed class that they came from.
Irish people are on some sort of assumption that the politicians they elect are some sort of stupid, thick necked, gom. This assumption has been fed for the last 40 years by various outlets of the media, Halls Pictorial, Scrap Saturday, Mario Rosenstock, Oliver Callan. Ordinary people assume Irish politicians/High ranked civil servants are inherently stupid due to this state sanctioned noise.
The reality is this, every single Irish politician is the most devious and Machiavellian of them all. Every single one of them. They have no respect for you. They care not a single iota for you. They are out for themselves. And they do it spectacularly.
Pecuniary interest is not a type of beneficial interest so the entire premise of your post is wrong. A beneficial interest is a type of pecuniary interest though.
Once again - here is the definition under Australian law - there's no definition under Irish law.
"pecuniary interest" is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated as provided in section 183.
(2) A person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to the matter.
If Niall Collin's wife expressed interest in the council's land then it could not reasonably be concluded that his interest in the land is so remote or insignificant as to not influence his decision to vote in favour of the sale of the land.
Partly because much of the initial furore was over a "crime" by a councillor so the legal aspects matter. This has clearly been shown to be not true.
Conflict of interests generally also is a legal term however, and is supposed to be used in the same manner. It's not clear who you were replying to given you didn't quote anyone, but he had no legal interest in the land which was for example syd was trying to explain.
I'm going to take it at face value, as posted here, that this was legal.
Still doesn't make his behaviour anywhere near acceptable.
In my work I get very basic mandatory training on business ethics and corruption. It doesn't really relate to my job and I barely pay attention.
Even from that I know that were I to act similarly to how Collins did here I'd be in trouble.
Seems FFG don't have similar policies or apply them, and they're not willing legislate to ensure even these basic standards are applicable to local government.
Speaking for the 'ordinary country people' as MHR so often puts it and he the biggest landlord of them all.
Yeah, maybe they're Russians
"ordinary people". Thats who votes for the government parties you realise? Maybe the readers of The Ditch aren't so ordinary at all?
If Paul Murphy bid the highest price he would now own it. Can't see the issue here.
Agree with you after reading this thread,A rise and follow Charlie is still alive and kicking, blind faith and mother Ireland is still rearing them.
