wtf is going on? Bizzarre
😂 At least you didn’t call him Putingrave.
Pooty Trumpgrave it is so. Who are we talking about lol
So we have a councillor, who's now a Minister, who knows his wife is interested in buying a specific piece of council land that it is not yet for sale.
Nonetheless he goes ahead and takes part in a council meeting during which there is a discussion on whether or not the council should sell this specific piece of land.
And we think that's OK because we don't like a guy who runs a tech conference?
We're proving the old adage that you get the politicians you deserve.
Hard to believe after 26 pages and all the news coverage, that someone could type something so bereft of the facts of this story, and think it summarises it.
He knew his wife was interested in buying the land - that's a fact.
Whether or not to sell the land was discussed in a meeting in which he took part - that's a fact.
Paddy Cosgrave; styles himself as a mix between Trump, Musk, Gates and Putin. Funds The Ditch website because of his personal vendetta against Leo Varadkar. Currently alluding on twitter to himself having some sort of revenge porn material about Leo Varadkar.
Currently alluding on twitter to himself having some sort of revenge porn material about Leo Varadkar.
No mind for people that have evidence of corruption etc. and sit on it for personal gain.
Nobody cares about Cosgrave. Most care about The Ditch doing some great investigative journalism which is very rare these days in Irish media and western media in general. The up and coming activists sorry I mean journalists are happy to be lapdogs for the establishment once they have a cushy job that pays well.
Let's not forget his good lady doctor wife, she went from medical centre Florence Nightingale to scumbag property developer battling local residents to get planning permission for five houses. The hardnosed developer is now negotiating with the council (i.e. hubbies mates) about selling the site back to them. Lovely people altogether. As I said before, unless you are related to these people then making excuses for them is a form of self-abuse.
Its good to have investigative journalism for sure. Dont kid yourself though. Cosgrave has his own agenda on it. The Ditch is very biased. Theres lots of legitimate questions about Cosgrave and the ditch
Does any agenda Cosgrave has excuse any wrongdoing by Collins?
Because either our Tanaiste believes it's ok for our councillors to not recuse themselves from meetings discussing sale of council land that they"re aware their wife has an interest in buying.
Or that he thinks that is normally not OK, but in this instance the councillor in question deserves a pass because Paddy Cosgrave has an agenda.
neither is a great look TBH
This latest tweet from The Ditch may upset some people.
Regards...jmcc
The matter is yet to be upgraded to a formal criminal investigation
Not much of a burger there tbh.
Saw a reddit comment on this that perfectly summarises whats likely happened here
The Ditch: "Hello, is that the Gardai? We think Niall Collins broke the Local Government Act 2001."
Guards: "Ok, cheers Paddy, we'll look into that."
The Ditch: "Gardai confirm they are examining alleged breaches of LGA 2001."
I walk into a Garda station and claim jmcc committed a crime, when asked about jmcc the Gardai say they are investigating the allegation, because that is what they are supposed to do.
What does that say about jmcc?
What wrong doing did collins partake in? He agreed with literally everyone else in a meeting that the land in question should be sold. Fair enough he probably shouldn't have attended that meeting but the land would have been sold regardless. He affected no change in this situation to benefit him or his wife and did nothing illegal that we know of.
Paddy cosgrave tried to shake down the government for back handed funding to keep the web summit here(which he now receives to the tune of 11m in portugal) and to use the gardai as private security for the web summit and his own personal events during it. He was told to eff off by FG and has been on a hissy fit about it ever since.
Also his texts about leo sound very likely to contain nothing of wrong doing or his propaganda wing would have published them straight away, im guessing they are solely personal in nature and if he does publish them will end up making cosgrave look even more like the pitiful, hate filled, conspiracy theorist, narcissist many know him well to be.
Someone made a complaint, they are looking at it before entirely dismissing it as there has clearly not been a breach of law. It is once more wholy dishonest framing, but that is hardly surprising.
I'm sure if they said they weren't investigating the framing would be them ignoring complaints.
You ask what did Collins do wrong and state that he shouldn't have attended the meeting in the same breath!
Attending the meeting. That's exactly what he did wrong.
His wife wished to purchase publicly owned land that was not on the market.
Niall Collins attended a meeting in which a decision was taken to put the land on the market.
He should have disclosed the fact that his wife was one of the parties who had expressed an interest in purchasing the land and recused himself from the meeting.
Whether or not it is adjudged that this was illegal remains to be decided, but whatever gripes Cosgrave might have should have no bearing on the legality of it.
If we simply waive this away with a nothing to see here because of Cosgrave's agenda, we're creating a very bad precedent.
There was no "discussion", it was a motion brought and seconded by other people that was nodded through.
I agreed he probably should have not attended the meeting but there is nothing illegal about him being there. Answer me this did he affect any change in the situation that you are aware of?
The wrong he did is obvious he should have disclosed his conflict of interest and recused himself from the meeting simple as. If Collins genuinely thought he did nothing wrong why did he wait a month before finally admitting he knew his wife wanted to purchase the land?
At that meeting a decision was taken to place the land on the market. Whether the discussion lasted 30 seconds or 30 minutes Collins should have recused himself.
We have no idea whether his presence affected any change or not.
But that's precisely why we have laws requiring councillors etc to recuse themselves.
So it removes the the question of whether or not their presence affected any change.
Hence even the outcome of the meeting has no bearing on fact that he should have disclosed the fact his wife was an interested party and recused himself.
Depends on your definition of "should" really - optically it would have been better. However, he was categorically under no legal obligation to do so.
The law did not require him to recuse himself. So if you think it removes any question then you should be fine with him not doing so.
We do know, the senior engineer recommended it be sold and everyone else agreed, if you are aware of some evidence that disproves or calls into question this version of events you should take it to the gardai.
If the same energy existed surrounding the impending “hate speech “ bill as this nothing burger , we’d be a better country
What about all the other facts related to this?
• There were many expressions of interest in the property.
• Neither Collins nor his wife had any pecuniary interest in the property.
• There was no vote.
• The local committee meeting he attended had absolutely no powers to dispose of the property.
• The property was placed on the open market.
• There were multiple bidders, it sold to the highest, which is the industry norm.
• Collins was not a county councillor when it did sell and played no part in the sale process.
When considered in the round, his only wrongdoing, if you want to call it that, was not saying that his wife was one of the many interested parties during that local area meeting. There is no doubt that he should have informed them, but is it evidence of political corruption? Only on the Ditch and for some of its less inquisitive readers.
You seem pretty certain that the law did not require him to recuse himself. I am of the opposite view.
The law in question is Section 177 of the Local Government Act 2001:
177.—(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.
Ultimately how you or I interpret the above is of little consequence, but no doubt more qualified individuals are looking at it closely.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
