Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

1…1517192021

Comments

  • #482
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


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

    Do you know everything about your work colleagues?


  • #483
    miju
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,483 ✭✭✭miju


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Do you know everything about your work colleagues?

    LMFAO are you still using this silly saline point???

    I don't need to know everything about my colleagues what I do need to know though is about potential conflicts of interest so those potential conflicts are mitigated


  • #484
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    miju wrote: »
    LMFAO are you still using this silly saline point???

    I don't need to know everything about my colleagues what I do need to know though is about potential conflicts of interest so those potential conflicts are mitigated

    It's a valid point

    You keep making a big deal of the fact that Keegan didn't know that one of his colleagues owned a property in the area as if it's his fault for not knowing. Do you know if your colleagues own other properties? Maybe a holiday home? Do they have drink or drug habits? Just because Keegan didn't know about the guys home does not mean his decisions were skewed.....unless you're a GB fan.......then everything Keegan does is a travesty of justice :rolleyes:


  • #485
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


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

    Whether this is relevant has been thrown into doubt since your selective quoting of the legislation.
    We'll see if it was relevant, anybody in government that has a problem with it is free to call him back.

    Let's say you are correct, could you outline how this 'conflict' advantaged the residents?


  • #486
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,584 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Im not sure why the guys impartiality is being called into question.
    The issue, if there is any, is the fact that it appears he had not disclosed his interest in the area.

    It would be very difficult for anyone to prove he hadn't been anything but fair and partial based on the known evidence presented and indeed more difficult to prove that he or his family had a gain from the decisions.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    miju
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,483 ✭✭✭miju


    kippy wrote: »
    Im not sure why the guys impartiality is being called into question.
    The issue, if there is any, is the fact that it appears he had not disclosed his interest in the area.

    It would be very difficult for anyone to prove he hadn't been anything but fair and partial based on the known evidence presented and indeed more difficult to prove that he or his family had a gain from the decisions.

    Ta da that is exactly it im not callin his impartiality into question. Im calling the issue about non disclosure (which leads to questions over his impartiality rightly or wrongly).

    Thats the reason for the EU directives in the first place


  • #488
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    miju wrote: »
    Ta da that is exactly it im not callin his impartiality into question. Im calling the issue about non disclosure (which leads to questions over his impartiality rightly or wrongly).

    Thats the reason for the EU directives in the first place

    Again...who says it was 'undisclosed'? How do you know this?


  • #489
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,584 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    miju wrote: »
    Ta da that is exactly it im not callin his impartiality into question. Im calling the issue about non disclosure (which leads to questions over his impartiality rightly or wrongly).

    Thats the reason for the EU directives in the first place

    Fair enough. But neither you nor me have any idea as whether he has disclosed these facts and to whom he has disclosed them (outside of what came to light yesterday)

    But to call into question his impartiality as you are doing, based entirely on his non disclosure (if that is what it is), without any evidence of benefit to him or his family, as you are also doing, is completely wrong and a slur on his character.


  • #490
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    kippy wrote: »

    But to call into question his impartiality as you are doing, based entirely on his non disclosure (if that is what it is), without any evidence of benefit to him or his family, as you are also doing, is completely wrong and a slur on his character.

    Ta Da! :D


  • #491
    miju
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,483 ✭✭✭miju


    kippy wrote: »
    Fair enough. But neither you nor me have any idea as whether he has disclosed these facts and to whom he has disclosed them (outside of what came to light yesterday)

    But to call into question his impartiality as you are doing, based entirely on his non disclosure (if that is what it is), without any evidence of benefit to him or his family, as you are also doing, is completely wrong and a slur on his character.

    Nope not at all a slur on his character. Like I said I am not calling into question his impartiality, I am questioning why he didn't disclose it AND / OR if he did disclose why didnt a key stakeholder such as the City Manager know about it when rubber stamping the decision (which knowing the procedure for doing so strongly indicates it wasn't disclosed).

    To be honest there's only one of 2 reasons Keegan said what he did yesterday and it's not the obvious reason. The Civil Servant in me knows full well why he said it (as would most Civil Servants) but that would lead me and Boards down libel territory so no thanks :D.

    Sure it will all come out in the wash anyways like usual


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    miju
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,483 ✭✭✭miju


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Again...who says it was 'undisclosed'? How do you know this?

    I don't believe for one second your that stupid as to now see how and why go troll someone else ;)


  • #493
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    miju wrote: »
    I don't believe for one second your that stupid as to now see how and why go troll someone else ;)

    So no answer. Very good, carry on.


  • #494
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,584 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    miju wrote: »
    Nope not at all a slur on his character. Like I said I am not calling into question his impartiality, I am questioning why he didn't disclose it AND / OR if he did disclose why didnt a key stakeholder such as the City Manager know about it when rubber stamping the decision (which strongly indicates it wasn't disclosed).

    To be honest there's 2 reasons Keegan said what he did yesterday and it's not the obvious reason. The Civil Servant in me knows full well why he said it but that would lead me and Boards down libel territory so no thanks :D.

    Sure it will all come out in the wash anyways like usual

    Well no.
    You are calling into question his impartiallity with no evidence for same.

    You suggest that had the city manager known by prior disclosure that the guy had an interest in the area he would never have rubber stammped the decision......
    Why do you say that?

    IF he didn't disclose it I can only assume it was because he thought he didn't have to under any directives or law, or he felt that there wasn't a conflit present.

    Either way, from what I can see there is nothing to suggest he has been anything but impartial in his decision making and at worst he should have mentioned the fact, if he didnt, that he had a house in the area although based on any piece of information I have on it, he didnt necessarily have to.


  • #495
    miju
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,483 ✭✭✭miju


    kippy wrote: »
    You suggest that had the city manager known by prior disclosure that the guy had an interest in the area he would never have rubber stammped the decision......

    IF he didn't disclose it I can only assume it was because he thought he didn't have to under any directives or law, or he felt that there wasn't a conflit present.

    This is the problem with talking to people who dont understand public policies and EU Directives at times. Can you point out where I said he would never have rubber stamped it??

    You can't point it out because I never said it :)

    In a very simplified way (because your obviously having difficulty understanding here). He declares it and relevant stakeholders decide if its relevant or not, it doesn't automatically preclude him by declaring potential interests but it is simply not his decision to make whether it's conflict or not, he must declare potential conflicts even if he feels they aren't. If the stakeholders decide it's a conflict they mitigate the conflict, if they decide it's not they record it and move on.

    Anything else other than the above leads to the exact conversation we are having now and him and the process being opened to question and is simply a breach of Irish and EU Circulars, Directives and Law


  • #496
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,584 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    miju wrote: »
    This is the problem with talking to people who dont understand public policies and EU Directives at times. Can you point out where I said he would never have rubber stamped it??

    You can't point it out because I never said it :)

    In a very simplified way (because your obviously having difficulty understanding here). He declares it and relevant stakeholders decide if its relevant or not, it doesn't automatically preclude him by declaring potential interests but it is simply not his decision to make whether it's conflict or not, he must declare potential conflicts even if he feels they aren't. If the stakeholders decide it's a conflict they mitigate the conflict, if they decide it's not they record it and move on.

    Anything else other than the above leads to the exact conversation we are having now and him and the process being opened to question and is simply a breach of Irish and EU Circulars, Directives and Law

    I did actually pick you up wrong there so apologies for that mistake on my behalf.

    The only reason we are having a conversation on this is that people cannot see the wood from the trees.
    If the guy did wrong by not declaring, I am sure itit will come out. Ultimately however unless he actually benefited from the decisions he has made, nothing more serious should happen and indeed the decisions themselves will hold up under scrutiny.


  • #497
    miju
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,483 ✭✭✭miju


    This is essentially it alright, what will happen is it get reported to EU Commission they read report of same and fine Ireland Inc the amount they see fit


  • #498
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,584 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    miju wrote: »
    This is essentially it alright, what will happen is it get reported to EU Commission they read report of same and fine Ireland Inc the amount they see fit

    It's highly unlikely that will happen. (Them finding anything untoward int he first instance and more so fining the country, as I don't believe that is the penalty)
    It's actually more likely that Brooks will sell out croker for 5 nights in a row and actually get to do the gigs.....next weekend.......


  • #499
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,316 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    miju wrote: »
    I don't believe for one second your that stupid as to now see how and why go troll someone else ;)

    Mod: Don't call posters trolls please, report any posts you've a problem with and the mods will take a look.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    So no answer. Very good, carry on.
    Ta Da! biggrin.png

    Cut out the one liner, sarcy responses please. Thank you.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #500
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    There was nothing made of the issue today which seemed to be arranged to allow GAA/Croke PArk rant about DCC. So I would say it's dead in the water as it's irrelevant.


  • #501
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Where is your proof that 'he didn't disclose it'. All we know is Keegan didn't know.


    Because disclosure of interests by officials in local authorities is to the city/county manager. So either

    (1) He didn't disclose it
    (2) Keegan didn't read the disclosures.

    Somebody did wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    RichardAnd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    It seems that refunds have started.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0717/631270-garth-brooks/

    It's a shame that many people will be disappointed by this, but I think the whole thing was blown out of the water. I personally cringed when I heard that government officials were getting involved. I doubt very much that news of the concerts went too far beyond the country, but the fact that it was treated as a quasi-national issue is worthy of satire.

    At the end of the day, this was one badly organised and executed event. Discussing it at a government level only makes me shake my head at how parochial this country can be sometimes...


  • #503
    Marhay70
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    It seems that refunds have started.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0717/631270-garth-brooks/

    It's a shame that many people will be disappointed by this, but I think the whole thing was blown out of the water. I personally cringed when I heard that government officials were getting involved. I doubt very much that news of the concerts went too far beyond the country, but the fact that it was treated as a quasi-national issue is worthy of satire.

    At the end of the day, this was one badly organised and executed event. Discussing it at a government level only makes me shake my head at how parochial this country can be sometimes...

    I agree, the sight of Kenny going into battle in our parliament over the the question of a singing cowboy is embarrassing to say the least, another baldfaced populist move. We can't get our politicians to stand up and address the important issues facing our country at the best of times but once the vested interests stand to be affected, they're all over it like flies over the proverbial *****.


  • #504
    raymon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭raymon


    Marhay70 wrote: »
    I agree, the sight of Kenny going into battle in our parliament over the the question of a singing cowboy is embarrassing to say the least, another baldfaced populist move. We can't get our politicians to stand up and address the important issues facing our country at the best of times but once the vested interests stand to be affected, they're all over it like flies over the proverbial *****.

    But Kenny didnt.

    Do you think he did ? What did he do?

    Maybe you read the fake newspaper articles.

    I dont want to defend Kenny , but the only gombeens to get involved in this mess were FF and their spokesperson on Line Dancing Timmy Dooley

    Otherwise politicians largely steered clear of this mess


  • #505
    Marhay70
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭Marhay70


    raymon wrote: »
    But Kenny didnt.

    Do you think he did ? What did he do?

    Maybe you read the fake newspaper articles.

    I dont want to defend Kenny , but the only gombeens to get involved in this mess were FF and their spokesperson on Line Dancing Timmy Dooley

    Otherwise politicians largely steered clear of this mess

    OK, I probably intimated that Kenny got involved in the cross floor debates which wasn't the case but he did use his office to become involved in the whole debacle which I consider to be beneath the dignity of An Taoiseach.


  • #506
    raymon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭raymon


    Marhay70 wrote: »
    OK, I probably intimated that Kenny got involved in the cross floor debates which wasn't the case but he did use his office to become involved in the whole debacle which I consider to be beneath the dignity of An Taoiseach.

    Yes .Going into battle in our parliament on behalf of Garth was the complete opposite that happened..

    Now you are saying that he used his office to become involved?
    How so?

    He did the minimum possible. And rightly so.

    I hate to defend Kenny here but your posts are just not accurate.


  • #507
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    bumper234 wrote: »
    It's a valid point

    You keep making a big deal of the fact that Keegan didn't know that one of his colleagues owned a property in the area as if it's his fault for not knowing. Do you know if your colleagues own other properties? Maybe a holiday home? Do they have drink or drug habits? Just because Keegan didn't know about the guys home does not mean his decisions were skewed.....unless you're a GB fan.......then everything Keegan does is a travesty of justice :rolleyes:


    You are missing the point.

    It is an obligation on Keegan's colleague to declare conflicts of interest to Keegan (the city manager).

    If Keegan didn't know about the conflict of interest, either it was never declared (dishonesty and a disciplinary issue) or Keegan didn't read what was submitted to him (incompetence and a disciplinary issue).


  • #508
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #509
    miju
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,483 ✭✭✭miju


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    As I said earlier theres a reason Keegan made the statement he did which should be fairly obvious to all


  • #510
    raymon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,774 ✭✭✭raymon


    What struck me is that Timmy Dooley, Gaa , Aitken and Brooks all seem to think that it was the 90s again where if someone says they would support something , it means the planning process would be a formality. A nod is as good as a wink .

    Well those days are gone .

    Nods and winks and phonecalls and that sort of messing around should not be tolerated.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,584 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Its not a significant conflict of interest. The process works fine. The issue is people not being able to accept the outcome of a process that goes against what they want which is probably understandable. Whats bizarre was the joke that has taken place in the time since the decision was announced and the lack of interest GB had in playing to 240k people, indeed its also been apparant he turned down a number of compromises which was as far backwards a bend as DCC bent.


Advertisement