Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

kippy · 15-07-2014 04:39PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

raymon. Do you agree that it should be a requirement for planners to state a potential conflict of interest when making planning decisions? Seems like common sense stuff, Mary Lou McDonald also probed him on the issue.

The TD's in the committee had no problem outlining whether they were members of the GAA or not - or even if they were Garth Brooks fans!

Well how close to croker does the house you own but not live in need to be to reflect a conflict of interest?

Permabear · 15-07-2014 04:49PM

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42 · 15-07-2014 04:52PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why are you assuming a conflict of interest...his son could just as easily be in favour.
When asked he said his son was not an objector...therefore he is just a planner with an intimate knowledge of the area...like most planners in any county of Ireland.

raymon · 15-07-2014 04:52PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

raymon. Do you agree that it should be a requirement for planners to state a potential conflict of interest when making planning decisions? Seems like common sense stuff, Mary Lou McDonald also probed him on the issue.

The TD's in the committee had no problem outlining whether they were members of the GAA or not - or even if they were Garth Brooks fans!

I think if the guy was a resident AND he was the city manager then that might be dubious . He is neither.

Otherwise you Fianna Failers are clutching at straws

Look... the ships are turned back and Timmy Dooley wont get to do his jiving and dancing at the concert or whatever the C&W people call it . Probably time for you guys to get over it .

raymon · 15-07-2014 04:55PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He is neither the City Manager or a resident of the area , he lives in Skerries .

Permabear · 15-07-2014 04:58PM

This post has been deleted.

kippy · 15-07-2014 05:02PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Look at the reasons two of the gigs were not given permission. Is there a problem in your eyes with the reasons?

Permabear · 15-07-2014 05:04PM

This post has been deleted.

kippy · 15-07-2014 05:05PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes and he should have disclosed it. But its neither here nor there in the context of the ruling.
Would appreciate an answer from you.

Permabear · 15-07-2014 05:09PM

This post has been deleted.

kippy · 15-07-2014 05:11PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yep. Based entirely on the reasoning given for not allowing 2 of the 5 gigs.

John_C · 15-07-2014 05:11PM

I'm sure most planners live in the town they work in.

Permabear · 15-07-2014 05:15PM

This post has been deleted.

bumper234 · 15-07-2014 05:17PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

FYP

miju · 15-07-2014 05:18PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Should be sacked as it's a clear breach of EU Directives on planning and ethics in public office and I quote.

Section 2, Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995 wrote:

Definitions
“relative”, in relation to a person, means a brother, sister, parent or spouse of the person or a child of the person or of the spouse;

"registrable interest” shall be construed in accordance with the Second Schedule ;

Section 2, 4 - any interest in land of the person concerned, being an interest the value of which exceeded £10,000 at any time during the appropriate period aforesaid,

kippy · 15-07-2014 05:19PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The objection were part of the process not the entire process.

miju · 15-07-2014 05:20PM

kippy wrote: »

The objection were part of the process not the entire process.

See my post above

kippy · 15-07-2014 05:22PM

miju wrote: »

See my post above

Completely irrelevant and completely out of context.

Permabear · 15-07-2014 05:24PM

This post has been deleted.

miju · 15-07-2014 05:24PM

kippy wrote: »

Completely irrelevant.

How is it completely irrelevant because you cannot deny EU and Irish legislation? Public administrators have a very serious role to discharge, have very strict legislation to apply (legislation which often binds them to little or no discretion)

bumper234 · 15-07-2014 05:27PM

miju wrote: »

How is it completely irrelevant because you cannot deny EU and Irish legislation? Public administrators have a very serious role to discharge, have very strict legislation to apply (legislation which often binds them to little or no discretion)

Did they break the law? If so will you be lodging a complaint with the gardai first thing in the morning?

kippy · 15-07-2014 05:28PM

miju wrote: »

How is it completely irrelevant because you cannot deny EU and Irish legislation? Public administrators have a very serious role to discharge, have very strict legislation to apply (legislation which often binds them to little or no discretion)

Yeah I know but that has zero relevance here

miju · 15-07-2014 05:28PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Did they break the law? If so will you be lodging a complaint with the gardai first thing in the morning?

Yes they did break the law and no what happens in these cases is that it is referred to the EU Commission directly which usually results in fines for the country, I wont have to do that as that is what the PAC will do and is part of their remit

More money down the drain for nothing

miju · 15-07-2014 05:30PM

kippy wrote: »

Yeah I know but that has zero relevance here

So you have no explanation just parrot your same reply as to why its irrelevant good rebuff

:D:D:D

Fact is a person involved in the decision process for the license didn't declare a registrable interest or a conflict of interests as is required by law for public service staff for transparency and full accountability purposes.

Now it has to be questioned why because under same law, declaring said interests doesn't exclude him from discharging his duties once the interest issue is mitigated. Its actually never a problem and the problem only rears it's head when its not declared which is relevant in this case.

bumper234 · 15-07-2014 05:30PM

miju wrote: »

Yes they did break the law and no what happens in these cases is that it is referred to the EU Commission directly which usually results in fines for the country, I wont have to do that as that is what the PAC will do and is part of their remit

More money down the drain for nothing

Searching the worlds new sites and the only ones who.seem to be making a big deal.of this are you and permabear.

kippy · 15-07-2014 05:32PM

miju wrote: »

So you have no explanation just parrot your same reply as to why its irrelevant good rebuff :D:D:D

Its pointless arguing with those who will never change their opinion no matter what the evidence.
The same people that are calling for conflicts of interest were, a few days ago, calling for new laws to be enacted to let this gig happen or overturn existing laws.

raymon · 15-07-2014 05:32PM

miju wrote: »

Should be sacked as it's a clear breach of EU Directives on planning and ethics in public office and I quote.

Please point to the actual rule/ guideline that was broken

Permabear · 15-07-2014 05:34PM

This post has been deleted.

miju · 15-07-2014 05:36PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Searching the worlds new sites and the only ones who.seem to be making a big deal.of this are you and permabear.

I'm not making a massive issue of it just clearing some things up for some people here who are obviously ill informed. Like I said the PAC will refer it to the EU Commission for decision / direction.

It's not a criminal law matter, its a regulatory law and as such is dealt with by the EU Commission and the state is liable not the person directly.

miju · 15-07-2014 05:37PM

kippy wrote: »

The same people that are calling for conflicts of interest were, a few days ago, calling for new laws to be enacted to let this gig happen or overturn existing laws.

Indeed but the difference is they were saying to enact new laws not break them and more importantly the same people who said they couldnt do anything to change rules / regulations were themselves not following same regulations. Seeing the relevance yet?

raymon wrote: »

Please point to the actual rule/ guideline that was broken

Already posted above

Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

Comments