wtf is going on? Bizzarre
It's not a f'kin raffle, the highest bid wins.
I've never read those specific details, do you have a link to any reporting that says that?
I don't think there is any danger of Leo telling him to go. He's oretty adamant that there is nothing to see here. But perhaps Leo has an agenda. Just a possibility.
"I don't think that there'll be any findings made against Minister Collins. These relate to events of sixteen years ago and it's all about whether he attended a meeting or not.
"I think we need to put it into perspective in that sense. We should allow SIPO and allow the Gardai to do their work. But I'm confident there won't be any findings about him. I have to be very frank about that."
They'd rather be limited to one large problem - the conspirowhacko knobhead who funds it.
I will see what I can find.
Factual information?
They very strongly implied that Collins broke the law.
Collins did not break the law.
I listened to this interview, but was wondering why he had issues with the Garda death figures.
He said "In the past 8 years one Irish cop has been killed on duty. And that was with his own gun."
If you didn't know what happened, you might assume something else. It just sounded clumsy and cold.
Why should he resign?
They post rubbish like this and still claim to be credible. As a journalist yourself who were the bigwigs they were refering to?
The detective who shot himself in Tallaght was on duty at the time. So Cosgrave is wrong. Yet again.
That has not been decided hence why they did not state it is a fact.
As far as I am aware anything they stated as fact has subsequently been proved to be factually correct, either by documents released by LCC or by Collins' own admission.
Unless you know differently?
It's easy to smear and certain people just lap it up because it's what they want to hear.
Tabloids have been doing that for years. The Ditch has smeared nobody, if they had they would have had legal proceedings taken against them.
LOL look at how many times tabloids have smeared people throughout their existence vs how many times they get taken to court, your logic is absolute nonsense.
What do you gain from taking legal proceedings against a complete scrot who runs up a €50k rental debt and has to be ordered by a court to leave his accommodation?, apart from a great big solicitors bill.
When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose, so don’t need to worry about the consequences.
Be interested in seeing that as well when you find it. Paddy was still meeting Bowes for pints as recently as Christmas.
Poor old Niall Collins, a decent, honest hard working politician who just wants to get on with the business of lying on planning applications, assisting his wife to buy publicly owned land and rigging the voting in the Dail.
We should clamp down hard on anybody who smears his good name, or else we risk not being able to attract public servants of his quality in the future.
Alternatively, just have a free-for-all in the media and wait for loons and conspiracy theorists to run with it unabated online.
As has been explained several times on this thread, there is zero point in suing the Ditch as it'll cease to exist before making any payout. It has no reputation and no assets.
How exactly did he assist his wife in buying the land?
For all the talk of loons and conspiracy theorists smearing Collins' good name with lies and disinformation nobody has yet to point out which of these allegations are untrue.
It's only a smear or disinformation, if the information is incorrect.
There was no vote.
There is no beneficial or pecuniary interest.
The insinuation that he did something criminal, despite the fact there was no vote and he didn’t have a beneficial nor pecuniary interest.
Apart from that smear/disinformation, the rest seems ok.
whether or not there was a vote is irrelevant.
Whether or not he had a beneficial or pecuniary interest is entirely relevant.
They explain exactly how he may be deemed to have had a beneficial interest, quoting not only the relevant Act, but also a precedent in previous case law.
Just because you disagree, does not make it a smear or disinformation.
You say there is an insinuation he did something criminal, whereas they explicitly state:
Did Niall Collins commit a criminal offence?
Only a court can decide if Niall Collins committed an offence under the act. The matter would first have to be investigated by An Garda Síochána and a prosecution could only happen with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Is there any other potential wrongdoing?
The code of conduct for councillors puts a general onus on councillors to avoid any conflicts of interest and act with integrity.
Did Niall Collins breach the code of conduct for councillors?
Only SIPO can determine if Collins breached the code of conduct for councillors.
On what grounds could Niall Collins sue?
Ok, as reluctant as I am to engage any further with you, it is nonsense to say that whether there was a vote or not is irrelevant, it is central to the allegation, a false allegation, made by the Ditch.
Here is the quote from the article:
”On 15 January 2007 Niall Collins was one of seven county councillors who voted to approve the disposal of the land.”
If Niall Collins did not in fact vote to approve the sale, as no vote occurred, then that is disinformation.
In relation to the insinuation, if I publish an allegation against hometruths of a crime against a child, is he guilty? That is for a court to decide. Any reasonable person would conclude that you are being accused of a crime.
Incidentally, did you read 2009 High Court case De Burca v Wicklow County Manager? There is a significant distinction between the allegations which you no doubt will have spotted.
Ok. Fair enough. If the Ditch published the claim there was a vote then it is relevant.
The Ditch says:
The minutes say:
The members were in favour of the proposal and it was proposed by Councillor Enright and seconded by Councillor Butler to proceed as outlined.
If you (or Niall Collins) think this is grounds to sue the Ditch, I guess you'd have to argue that the members indicating they were in favour of the proposal is different to the members voting for the proposal.
It is an uncontested fact that the county councillors approved the disposal of the land.
Sure on an anonymous discussion forum you can say the councillors approved the disposal of the land without a vote because they all just indicated they were in favour, and that's not a vote.
But in order to successfully sue you'd have to prove that in court, where presumably the Ditch would once again cite the Local Government Act, Schedule 10, Section 44 - Meetings and Proceedings of Local Authorities -
(12) (2) All acts of a local authority which are reserved functions or questions duly coming or arising before a meeting of a local authority shall be determined—
(a) by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting, or
(b) where there is an equality of votes, by a second or casting vote of the person chairing the meeting (which person shall have and may choose to exercise such a vote).
So if the law states that all questions arising be determined by a vote, then the only way the disposal of the land could be lawfully approved was by a vote.
Irrespective of whether or not each councillor said "I vote YES", or just nodded it through, in the eyes of the law it was a vote.
It is neither disinformation or grounds to sue to state that fact.
I wouldn’t sue the Ditch, neither will Niall Collins I presume, what is the point? What are you going to get from the benefit recipient, rent dodging, court evicted scrot like Roman Shortall?
Did you read the DeBurca case, did you identify the monumental distinction between the two situations?
Collins won't sue the Ditch, because he has no grounds to sue them. Nothing to do with whether or not they can pay.
I'm not suggesting he secretly bid to drive up the price, I'm joking that he may have secretly bid to add legitimacy to the process.
Sticking an ad in the Limerick Leader for a week is hardly putting it on the open market is it?
Even back then there was daft.ie, where a legitimate actor would go to achieve market price.
Possibly but maybe just because FF are a small party now, they feel they can't afford to lose anyone?
It's got to be embarrassing for them being the minority within the FFG minority.
how did he make his money?
Was it not for sale for like 6 months on the open market?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0c95fbacfd3f8db330cceee65321bca3.svg)
