Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

Thoie · 15-07-2014 10:07PM

Whoever was trying to use and abuse the Ethics in Public Office Act by quoting what was essentially the glossary, that act is primarily centered around monetary gain. In terms of registerable interests, the principal residences of the office holder, spouse or children are specifically excluded under schedule 2 (2bii if you want to be precise).

Link

That Act would indicate that a decision maker who held a lot of shares in Aiken Promotions, for example, would need to register their interests.

Permabear · 15-07-2014 10:31PM

This post has been deleted.

kippy · 15-07-2014 10:36PM

I'm not one using the picture as evidence of anything.

We have yet to find out how undisclosed the interest in the propery is and more importantly yet to see exactly where or how the planner managed to benefit from the decision.........
Your house price argument is exceptionally weak and if that is all there is to go on he won't be found in breach of anything.

The only thing the mind boggles at here is the severely blinkered view of people who normally know better.

Permabear · 15-07-2014 10:54PM

This post has been deleted.

Frank Lee Midere · 15-07-2014 10:59PM

Typical hogwash. You don't know if this executive manager had anything to do with the decision, owning property is not living in the area, knowing people in the area is not an argument against being involved in any decision - if he was - or else everybody in Dublin would have to recuse themselves from all decisions.

Just weak unsubstantiated mud throwing.

The decision was correct and lawful.

kippy · 15-07-2014 11:03PM

No one is selectively overlooking anything, apart from yourself.

Frank Lee Midere · 15-07-2014 11:13PM

Really? Can you put a number on that or was it plucked from your arse? Can you explain high prices around balls bridge ( and relatively high prices near Croker). Can you point to prices rising in this particular area because of this particular cancelation. That is, higher than any price rises in Dublin this year.

Can you explain how this guy could possibly be breaking any law since it is the very planning law he is upholding. The law being quoted is designed to stop the over-riding of planning laws, not their enforcement. Aitken isn't appealing the decision because he can't win. Yet planning rejections are often appealed if there's a chance of a court or other body overturning them.

Hilarious. Is there any time when our Gombeen libertarians wouldn't side with capital over planning laws? If there was a plan to knock the Coluseum to build a car park, you would be celebrating the victory of capital and modernism over nostalgia.

Dan_Solo · 15-07-2014 11:26PM

You, and only you, keep claiming this was a "conflict of interest". Everyone else on earth reckons it's a non-issue.
Hmmm... who to believe...

Dan_Solo · 15-07-2014 11:30PM

As a matter of interest, what "agenda" might this be? Do you think the people who agree with this correct decision by the DCC really give a flying fook whether Garth Brooks plays 100 nights in a row as long as he complies with licensing requirements?

Happyman42 · 16-07-2014 12:21AM

It's not so much 'the questions', of course people have every right to question involvement, it's more the answers people (the sore ones) are coming up with based on no evidence at all.

The residents -whingers, chips on shoulders and because a forger or forgers have been discovered, automatically sinister in intent. This is despite the fact that the only people who could benefit from their existence (because the forgeries where routinely discovered and the decision was based on verified objections) from forgeries are Aitken/GAA/Brooks and they tried to benefit from them by getting the decision overturned on the basis that they existed.
The guy who took the injunction - automatically sinister because he was funded (as people often are) and refused to name the people who funded him, who understandably (to reasonable people) wanted to remain anonymous. Then the sensationalist, pandering to the prejudices nugget that he 'was also 'loaned a suit' (not that he simply borrowed one...he was loaned it!!! sinister **** that alright:) ) was given to the Sindo by one of their infamous 'sources' and the lid was firmly nailed shut on his coffin around this parish.
Now we have Keegan and Keoghan in the muck firing line, fire the muck despite the fact that not one major hole was picked in their procedures and due process by the PAC.

And as I said, the troika of Aiken/Croke Park/Brook walk away, NO questions at all about their behaviour.

Transparent and deeply pathetic imo.

raymon · 16-07-2014 05:35AM

Why are you calling Fianna Fails Timmy Dooley corrupt.? Who said that ?

He tried to pull a stroke by proposing a political interference bill. Have you read it ? That is not corruption. Highly dubious but not corrupt.

I dont care if he dances to Garth Brooks or Boy George. It doesnt matter to me.

What matters is that he used this event to propose a piece of legislation that would give politicians power to overturn decisions of planners.

Regarding the man from skerries with a son near croke park in a house he owns, i dont understand why you and another poster want to prematurely destroy his reputation. He is not even the city manager.

Permabear · 16-07-2014 08:39AM

This post has been deleted.

bumper234 · 16-07-2014 08:49AM

He was already subject to the same laws as them

Happyman42 · 16-07-2014 08:54AM

Which flies in the face of the fact that the butthurt Mr Dooley specifically proposed this as emergency kneejerk legislation to specifically fix the Garth Brooks situation.

http://southdublin.today.ie/2014/07/07/politics-fianna-fail-garth-brooks/

Apart from selective quotes from Euro Legislation to make him appear remiss and to infer he was corrupt in some way.

Permabear · 16-07-2014 09:02AM

This post has been deleted.

raymon · 16-07-2014 09:22AM

The only arrogant person i could see was Dooley. He came across very badly. I understand that he now cant get another Garth Brooks photo for his scrap book, but thats no excuse.

The DCC group seemed very balanced and factual. They seemed like they explained their decision very well.

Did you see the hearing?

bumper234 · 16-07-2014 09:23AM

Question for you.

Do you know EVERYTHING about the people that you work with?

old_aussie · 16-07-2014 09:25AM

At least Garth's fans care, the rest of you are being screwed by ya boss.

Happyman42 · 16-07-2014 09:26AM

I'd like somebody to show me where he decided in favour of the residents, who where very unhappy (VERY) about 3 concerts being allowed.

Permabear · 16-07-2014 09:29AM

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42 · 16-07-2014 09:40AM

Where is there evidence that he 'concealed' it? Mary Lou knew about it and he answered honesty.
Would you suspect it was thrown out there in PAC in a 'have you stopped beating your wife' way?

bumper234 · 16-07-2014 09:49AM

But you wouldn't know if one of your colleagues were not abiding right?

And in that scenario in that particular profession that would be what would happen right? Now....Keegan didn't know about his colleagues ownership of a property in the CP vicinity....does that mean he should be blamed for his colleagues "indiscretion"?

miju · 16-07-2014 11:18AM

Thats your reading of the legislation while people who have to deal with that legislation daily including myself would read it another way. In fact just to add weight to my points on this thread see here , he is also apparently to be called back to clarify with the PAC that particular issue and it is looking increasingly likely that there will also be a judicial review of the issue also.

Thoie · 16-07-2014 11:27AM

From that article:
"Several TDs last night said that Mr Keogan should have removed himself from the licensing process due his family and property connections in the vicinity of Croke Park." - many TDs don't have a bogs notion what they're at, so I really wouldn't pay that any heed at all. As the man pointed out further down in the article, no-one complained about it when he allowed the U2 gigs in 2009.

However, that's what PAC is there for, so if they do go ahead and discuss it with him, their conclusion is the only one that matters. The statutory judicial review will also decide one way or the other if the planning decision was made in a fair way. I believe it will, but given how much we pay judges, we'll wait and see what they say

Has anyone started the proceedings yet? They've got 8 weeks from July 3rd to get the ball rolling, so about another 6 weeks left.

If you're dealing with that Act on a daily basis, why did you only quote the definitions, and not the relevant parts of the Act?

Permabear · 16-07-2014 11:30AM

This post has been deleted.

Thoie · 16-07-2014 11:40AM

I have no idea, but given that he allowed the U2 concerts to go ahead (which was also strongly objected to) in 2009, I'd consider that pretty impartial. But as miju claims he's being called in by PAC (which seems to be quite a stretch of their remit), let's let them, or, more relevantly, a statutory judicial review decide on his impartiality.

Permabear · 16-07-2014 11:44AM

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42 · 16-07-2014 11:45AM

The behaviour of the Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications right now is shocking stuff...I am dumbfounded.

Happyman42 · 16-07-2014 11:58AM

Where is your proof that 'he didn't disclose it'. All we know is Keegan didn't know.

miju · 16-07-2014 12:34PM

A key stakeholder in this "didn't know" and your genuinely asking what the issue is here?

Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

Comments