Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

bumper234 · 15-07-2014 05:39PM

miju wrote: »

Indeed but the difference is they were saying to enact new laws not break them.

Already posted above

Some advocated paying a judge to over rule the city managers decision!

miju · 15-07-2014 05:43PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Some advocated paying a judge to over rule the city managers decision!

Well clearly anyone advocating paying a judge to over rule a DCC decision isn't worth listening to and you wont get argument from me on that point for sure.

miju · 15-07-2014 06:02PM

Also quoted from another poster in another thread

My name is URL wrote: »

Keegan last week wrote a letter to TD's and Senators that are members of the committee that met today, stating that they would be conflicted if they had any ties or involvement with the GAA.

More DCC double standards on the issue so demonstrates he is fully aware of the EU and Irish law in relation to this (As are most if not all public administrators)

raymon · 15-07-2014 06:04PM

miju wrote: »

Already posted above

No you didnt post it above

You quoted some definitions , but you are specifically accusing that planner of breaking the law , please be specific about the actual text from the section where he broke the law.

kippy · 15-07-2014 06:05PM

miju wrote: »

Also quoted from another poster in another thread

More DCC double standards on the issue so demonstrates he is fully aware of the EU and Irish law in relation to this (As are most if not all public administrators)

What monetary or personal gain had he from the cancellation of two gigs because ultimately that is where the ethics in public office comes into play.
Why not deny planning for every gig?

miju · 15-07-2014 06:10PM

raymon wrote: »

No you didnt post it above

You quoted some definitions , but you are specifically accusing that planner of breaking the law , please be specific about the actual text from the section where he broke the law.

Go read it yourself, the definitions I posted define the terms the rest should be obvious from that.

kippy wrote: »

What monetary or personal gain had he from the cancellation of two gigs because ultimately that is where the ethics in public office comes into play.

It is not actually directly for solely monetary or personal gain (altough they are included) once the registrable interest has not been declared it instantly comes into play in terms of Irish law and EU Regulations

kippy · 15-07-2014 06:11PM

raymon wrote: »

No you didnt post it above

You quoted some definitions , but you are specifically accusing that planner of breaking the law , please be specific about the actual text from the section where he broke the law.

And the portions quoted were entirely without context.

K-9 · 15-07-2014 06:12PM

raymon wrote: »

Here is the root of the issue

Dooley wasn't involved in making the decision though. Having a relative living in close proximity to CP is hardly ideal. It's ok to admit that and still agree with DCC's decision.

raymon · 15-07-2014 06:17PM

miju wrote: »

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.

You made an accusation that a man broke the law - are you positive of this before you proceed down this route or are you just guessing ?

raymon · 15-07-2014 06:23PM

K-9 wrote: »

Dooley wasn't involved in making the decision though. Having a relative living in close proximity to CP is hardly ideal. It's ok to admit that and still agree with DCC's decision.

I agree totally - having a relative living in close proximity is hardly ideal. However I have relatives in the area too , but they wouldnt sway me on this either way .

My point about Dooley is that he got excited that Garth was playing and proposed a bill that would allow for political interference in planning just so Garth could play his guitar.

The OP is about political interference in planning matters. im just trying to keep on OP

miju · 15-07-2014 06:23PM

kippy wrote: »

And the portions quoted were entirely without context.

They always appear out of context when you quote partial legislation but seeing as your not bothered to look it up I'll explain it for you.

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 ;

This is what defines registrable interests and conflict of interest under the legislation

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

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,

This is the relevant section of where he is found to be in conflict

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

18.—(1) In this section “relevant authority”, in relation to a person who occupies or occupied a designated position in a public body, means such person or persons as may stand determined for the time being by the Minister in relation to the position.

(2) A person who occupies or occupied a designated position in a public body—

(a) shall, subject to section 20 (3), in each year during any part of which he or she occupies or occupied the position,
prepare and furnishto the relevant authority for the position a statement in writing of—

(i) the interests of the person, and

(ii) the interests of which he or she has actual knowledge of his or her spouse or a child of the person or of his or her spouse, during the appropriate period specified in section 20 (1) which could materially influence the person in or in relation to the performance of the functions of the position by reason of the fact that such performance could so affect those interests as to confer on or withhold from the person or the spouse or child a substantial benefit, and

(b) in any case where such a function falls to be performed and he or she has actual knowledge that he or she or a connected person has a material interest in a matter to which the function relates—

(i) shall, as soon as may be, prepare and furnish to the relevant authority a statement in writing of those facts,

(ii) shall not perform the function unless there are compelling reasons requiring him or her to do so, and

(iii) shall, if he or she proposes to perform the function, prepare and furnish to the relevant authority, before or, if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as may be after such performance, a statement in writing of the compelling reasons aforesaid.

And this here is his obligations upon found / knowing himself to being in conflict. Note the bolded parts

raymon wrote: »

You made an accusation that a man broke the law - are you positive of this before you proceed down this route or are you just guessing ?

In fairness I think it's been other users who have been guessing law here. As you can read above clear as day

kippy · 15-07-2014 06:26PM

miju wrote: »

They always appear out of context when you quote partial legislation but seeing as your not bothered to look it up I'll explain it for you.

This is what defines registrable interests and conflict of interest under the legislation

This is the relevant section of where he is found to be in conflict

And this here is his obligations upon found / knowing himself to being in conflict. Note the bolded parts (the whole thing)

In fairness I think it's been other users who have been guessing law here. As you can read above clear as day

You should really read it again without the blinkers on. Then read the reasons for not allowing two of the five gigs.

miju · 15-07-2014 06:29PM

kippy wrote: »

You should really read it again without the blinkers on. Then read the reasons for not allowing two of the five gigs.

Must say I'm not really suprised at your incapacity to understand the above given your lovely one liner dismissives thus far :rolleyes:

bumper234 · 15-07-2014 06:31PM

miju wrote: »

Must say I'm not really suprised at your incapacity to understand the above given your lovely one liner dismissives thus far :rolleyes:

Wether their was a slight conflict of interest or not didn't really matter though did it as neither he nor his family objected to the concerts. Should it be a case that everyone now working in these departments can not have a single tie to an area that is under planning?

kippy · 15-07-2014 06:32PM

miju wrote: »

Must say I'm not really suprised at your incapacity to understand the above given your lovely one liner dismissives thus far :rolleyes:

Look at the words 'substantial benefit' then tell me where he or his family got that.

miju · 15-07-2014 06:39PM

kippy wrote: »

Look at the words 'substantial benefit' then tell me where he or his family got that.

Why dont you go and read the Act itself and it will give you your answers? It's all there in black and white under the definitions

kippy · 15-07-2014 06:44PM

miju wrote: »

Why dont you go and read the Act itself and it will give you your answers? It's all there in black and white under the definitions

Definitions? Really.....Define substantial benefit.....
It is in one of the bits you bolded.

Permabear · 15-07-2014 06:58PM

This post has been deleted.

kippy · 15-07-2014 07:02PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So why not restrict all 5?
Indeed why wouldnt he allow as many as possible then buy up other property cheaply?

Dan_Solo · 15-07-2014 07:06PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah, so you are now agreeing too many concerts would indeed be detrimental to the residents around Croke Park.
Glad you've come around to that at looooooooooooong last.

Permabear · 15-07-2014 07:08PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 15-07-2014 07:10PM

This post has been deleted.

kippy · 15-07-2014 07:10PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Its irrellevant as there has been no benefit gained here.
The only issue that I can see was that as far as we know he did not declare the interest. There is zero evidence to suggest he or his family gained from the decision and that is the point.

kippy · 15-07-2014 07:11PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Theres no precedent for 8 in a year or indeed 6.

miju · 15-07-2014 07:13PM

kippy wrote: »

Its irrellevant as there has been no benefit gained here.

Just repeating your ill informed opinion doesnt make it true ya know :rolleyes:

Happyman42 · 15-07-2014 07:29PM

The only thing we know is that Keegan didn't know. We have no idea if he declared it, and it patently wasn't 'hidden' information as Mary Lou clearly knew all about it.

But I do find it interesting that everybody who stood against this application has been smeared by somebody or other from Brooks fold while Brooks walks into the sunset, a hero of the piece.

miju · 15-07-2014 07:44PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

But I do find it interesting that everybody who stood against this application has been smeared by somebody or other from Brooks fold while Brooks walks into the sunset, a hero of the piece.

Can you point out any aspect of the people who stood against the gigs where there isn't some question or other??

Oh and FWIW GB is a dick for not playing the 3 gigs but the issue started elsewhere not GB or Aiken for that matter

Dan_Solo · 15-07-2014 07:49PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nice try.
He acknowledged the possible ownership of property in the area, not that there was a conflict of interest due to such ownership.
Sorry about that. Try being more vague in future perhaps?

kippy · 15-07-2014 08:09PM

miju wrote: »

Just repeating your ill informed opinion doesnt make it true ya know :rolleyes:

My opinion is neither here nor there. It's just an opinion, however it is far from ill informed.

If he was in breech of acts/laws/guidelines I am sure he will be reprimanded for it but it would be a brave person that would take him up on it based on the flimsy evidence presented here to be honest.

kippy · 15-07-2014 08:19PM

miju wrote: »

Can you point out any aspect of the people who stood against the gigs where there isn't some question or other??

Oh and FWIW GB is a dick for not playing the 3 gigs but the issue started elsewhere not GB or Aiken for that matter

Look,
The main people at fault here are Aiken and the GAA. They started the chain and knew well the potential repercussions.
The GAA admitted from early on that it was a "big ask" to have five nights in a row on top of the three already had this year.
To sell 400,000 tickets for shows that had yet to be licensed when the promoters and the GAA knew what was involved was irresponsible at best.

After that, from what we know, it appears the planners didnt flag early on to the promotors that there would be major issue with five, but we've no idea of the ins and outs our timelines involved there.

After 2 were cancelled, Brooks weighed in, heavy handedly trying to force all five gigs or nothing, letting own 240K ticket holders in the process, all the while the nation making a mockery of itself.

Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

Comments