wtf is going on? Bizzarre
The patience of floating voters with FFG and this kind of stuff is probably coming to an end and there is going to be a shift in sentiment that could cause a major seat loss for FF and FG in the next GE. Even people who had formerly voted FF and FG seem to be, anecdotally, expressing reservations about voting FFG again. One only has to look at the leadership of FFG to understand how standards could have fallen so low in these parties. The floating voters are the demographic that decides the outcome of GEs not party supporters and members.
Regards...jmcc
No gotcha, just pointing out that if you're going to soapbox about defending the truth, it would be better to do so with a true version of events.
What contradiction?
The only one I can see is that it went to market earlier than I thought, the site sold a year after he left the council.
Do you think there is some “gotcha” there?
The foundation of your argument is that he acted corruptly because he had a material/beneficial/pecuniary interest in the property when he attended the local committee meeting where the sale was discussed and a recommendation made to sell the property on the open market, that article makes no reference to him having any such interest.
Really? That was the version of events in the public domain at that time?
Odd then that five days earlier than your post, RTE published a totally contradictory version of events to your version of events:
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.
Are you sure you're not just defending your version/interpretation of events, rather than the truth?
Your timeline doesnt make sense
According to your timeline he attended a council meeting oficially as a councillor 7 months after he left the council
Because that was the version of events which had entered the public domain at that time, new FOI information released has added more to the story. If the Ditch had done their research before publishing, they would have been able to provide the information about the events, they didn’t, so we can only comment on what we have been told. If you look back on my posts, you will see that I said that if more information comes to light, then he could be in trouble, but I do not have a crystal ball, I can only comment on the information available.
That does not change the fact that you continue to be incapable of differentiating between an expression of interest and a beneficial/material interest in a property. But we live in hope.
Thank you for your service.
And who were you defending the truth from 10 days ago when you were peddling this version of events:
He voted at commitee level for the lands to be forwarded to the Council for consideration to place on the market. The Council voted, and the lands were placed on the market, open to any bidder, after he had left the Council to become a TD.
Do you still believe this to be truth?
Interesting development
'He accepted that he should have recused himself from the meeting, but denied that his wife's interest constituted a "material" matter.' - so a €100k+ deal is not material now!
Gardaí are investigating whether junior minister Niall Collins broke any laws when he was on Limerick County Council when his wife bought a plot of land in Patrickswell.
However, gardaí stress that the investigation is not criminal at this time.
Mr Collins addressed the Dàil two weeks ago about the disposal of the site which was later purchased by Mr Collins' wife Eimear O'Connor. He has maintained that he did not break any laws or guidelines while on the council.
A spokesperson said that gardaí are assessing the complaint.
"An Garda Síochána is carrying out an assessment, to examine whether there was any criminality involved in respect of certain matters related to alleged breaches of the Local Government Act 2001 in the Southern Garda Region.
"This is not a criminal investigation at this time."
Speaking about the issue for the first time outside of the Dáil on Tuesday Mr Collins told the Irish Examiner that he did know that his wife had expressed interest in the site in December 2006.
He accepted that he should have recused himself from the meeting, but denied that his wife's interest constituted a "material" matter.
Mr Collins said that the Dàil was not the forum to decide if he had broken any rules and that the issue would be discussed by SIPO, an investigation which is "in train".
6 months after Collins household (husband) left Council, Collins household (wife) sends an unsolicited enquiry about the site to same Council
Are you sure? She sent letter in December 2006, I thought he was still on council then?
Idiots who can’t understand the difference between an expression of interest like asking is something for sake, and a beneficial interest in a property.
I couldn't care less if Collins is turfed out at the next election. His previous scandal in terms of his planning applications seems actually potentially egregious. I do care that people are making claims about corruption and illegality that are not backed up by facts because that should be the bedrock on what everything is based on.
But this story is concocted nonsense, and seems to be something of an Icarian moment for The Ditch.
I did wonder if you had some insight into planning/council workings. I now put even more stock in what you posted, good to have someone who actually knows for sure what the legalities are.
Keep up the good work, I can only feel sorry for you having to deal with idiots on a regular basis.
Do you mean it is not actually Niall Collins specifically that you are defending here, it's important to you because you are defending the truth?
Who are you defending it from?
FFG can't afford to lose any more ministers especially because of investigative journalism by The Ditch and he's from an FF family.
Within recent weeks Collins household (husband) made fool of himself on TV explaining separate inaccuracies regarding yet other house planning matters. But remember we have a govmt that has wrought a monumental housing crisis on its citizens and so this is all trivial "lesser best practices". FFG leadership can't even comprehend why the husband (whose family has been on the Dail since 1948) should have to answer any questions. They see the above as basic business as usual and the public is so repressed they cannot bring themselves to say different.
Whos defending the guy?
all im doing is correcting the errors some posters are making (mainly because i work in the area of planning).
i have zero time for Niall Collins, FF or FG
The truth.
Indeed the panic here has been kind of astonishing.
We've had nothing to see here because:
all to defend somebody from what everybody seems to agree was a massive conflict of interest that he should have recused himself over.
What is so important about this guy?
Again, I'm not the one who literally posted a section of the planning act and who clearly did not understand the words you were reading.
There does seem to be a lot of panic over this story from FFG supporters here. Hypothetically, what would happen to the stability of the government if Collins is forced to resign now that the legacy media is reporting on the story and with AGS investigating it?
No it’s not. A once off property development does not make you a property developer- there’s an extensive “Badges of Trade” test you have to meet before you are considered to carry on a trade of dealing in or developing land. Her motive was to secure a premises for her profession of being a medical doctor, not to make a profit by dealing in or developing land.
She was not "employed or engaged" in anything related to dealing in or developing land.
Again, these words require some kind of legal construct which did not exist.
This is a very basic concept - there needs to be some legal connection between the person of interest and the land. Wanting to potentially in the future buy the land at market price in an open market is not a legal connection. A vague interest (in the colloquial sense) in doing something in the future is not a legal interest.
She was asking if the council was interested in ever selling the land.
Because she wanted to buy it, and develop it. Presumably for profit. Which sounds an awful lot like an activity that relates to "to dealing in or developing land".
How the fuuck could he have a beneficial interest when his wife hadn’t even got to the point of bidding on the property, never mind profit from its sale to whomever bought it, at a later date?
Three pages of utter shiite.
.... "are you just going to keep repeating this?"
lol
Again, are you willing to show me what I've misunderstood or are you just going to keep repeating this? It's not really an argument to just keep saying "You don't understand"
I think the answers to the following questions are YES. Which do you think are NO?
That is not being "engaged or employed" by a business or organisation in dealing or developing land.
All of these things require some kind of legal connection to the land in question or a legal connection to a party that has a legal connection to the land in question, of which she had none.
Ok, as you understand it, what was she doing when she instructed her solicitor to contact the council to express an interest in purchasing the land in order to develop a medical centre?
So wait you're admitting the lawyer expressed the interest to the council, not her
So a doctor, went through a lawyer, neither of them were land or property developers or dealers?
Sounds like the liability if anything would fall to the lawyer, not her, going through a barrister she had a reasonable assumption what was being done was perfectly legal. Try and impeach the lawyer's conduct so.
So again, you haven't shown where Niall Collins had a pecuniary or beneficial interest in the land.
All you are showing is your misunderstanding of the terms and the planning act
This is what they pay barristers 25 euro for.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
