Whatās the onus of guilt? What part of the bill is he talking about? Iāve genuinely no idea. Capped off with a something something free speech loony left. Textbook gibberish. Translations welcome.
The land was disposed off after Collins voted to dispose of it, after his wife had declared an interest in buying the property from the council. Collins did not note this conflict of interest, he did not recuse himself from it, he voted to put it up for sale.
There were 3 bids for the property, one from Collins wife while still a councillor a second bid, quite possibly also Collins wife and a third and final bid from Collins wife, which was accepted and subsequently sold to Collins wife.
Did Collins actively partake in a decision to put public land in his wifeās hands? Yes.
Did Collins wife actively gain a benefit from the acquisition of the land from the council? Yes.
Itās textbook corruption where Collins has abused his position as a councillor to see public land to his wife of which they are turning over a significant profit all funded for by the taxpayer.
The fact you are defending it shows that you think establishment politicians should be unaccountable to abusing positions of power to enrich themselves and their family.
Hereās Collins refusing to answer questions on why he made false declarations on a planning application which also benefitted him
No to mind all the other shady dealings about wrong names and false information being provided on applications. He is typical of the corrupt gangsterism that has blighted FF for years with the likes of Haughey, Bertie, Lawlor, Martin, Troy and Collins.
2 Likes
I understood there were two votes, one on whether to put up for sale, and one on the actual sale. Is that correct? Collins voted on the first? After his wife approached the council asking it to sell the land. You donāt see anything improper there?
Yes this is 100% correct.
- Collins wife approached the council in Dec 2006 to buy the land
- Council engineer then noted at an area meeting that expressions of interest had been made on the piece of land in January 2007
- Collins party colleague then put forward a motion of whether the land should be disposed of, Collins didnāt note a conflict of interest with his wifeās interest and voted to put the land up for sale
- Collins wife puts bid in on land in March 2007 while Collins is still a councillor
No problem. Here it is
But itās still a very bizarre law to bring in
Translation
He thinks its a bizarre law to bring in. I wouldnt agree and think we need legislation in that area but heās entitled to his view without being abused i suppose. Anyway, glad to help.
I donāt understand this. Are you saying that Collinās wife was bidding herself up? Why?
What part of the law is bizarre and why? Iām as mystified as ever.
Thatās an incredibly stupid post.
One bidder can have multiple bids rejected until it meets an asking price. There is no need for another bidder to be involved.
Iām not disagreeing that we need to update our laws around hate speech but shifting from presumption of innocent till proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent (which is where this seems to be headed) is not the move we should be making. A very dangerous road to go down.
Dont think thats it. There wasnt an official vote when he and a few others made the decision. But the decision was made and rubberstamped with a vote at a later meeting. Collins made the initial decision but didnt vote on it. So he can say he didnt have a vote on it. Classic FF sneak. @anon67715551 would be proud if it was one of the Leitrim massive and not the genetic dregs of a dying dynasty.
1 Like
Do you follow this @glasagusban ? It seems fairly simple to me again but i know you struggled the last time. Give me a shout if you need me.
As far as I recall it the matter of the property was brought before the Bruff LEA meeting when another councillor, possibly the late Leonard Enright moved that the property be sold. There was no dissenting voice from whatever number of councillors make up the Bruff area and the matter to sell the land then became the business on the full County Council.
Collins didnāt vote at the Bruff LEA meeting as there wasnāt any vote at all.
The council voted whether to consider the matter of whether to put the land on the open market and possibly have a vote at a later date. The vote went through comfortably. Collins is under no obligation to recuse himself.
Collins was not on the council when the eventual vote to sell the land went through.
Thereās nothing improper or illegal about anything that happened. Cosgrave called Collins a criminal on the basis of something that sounds ātruthyā but is in fact part of the basic bread and butter of council business.
Thatās not journalism, thatās barefaced bullshit propaganda.
I had to look out the window to make sure you werenāt outside you fuckerā¦ā¦
1 Like
You only looked OUTSIDE the houseā¦
2 Likes
Thatās more understandable, but I still donāt understand what bit of the law heās on about or how and why heās interpreting it that way. I posted up the bit of the bill that Iām guessing @Thomas_Brady and @Batigol are on about and there doesnāt appear to be anything objectionable in it. Iād love to know where theyāre getting their info from or where theyāre getting the impression that the proposed law shifts the presumption of innocence to one of guilt. I suspect theyāre just making it up and havenāt a clue what theyāre on about.
You seemed to be trying to muddy the waters here and deflecting.
Itās irrelevant whether there was an official vote, there was a vote to action selling the land, Collins, a month after his wife had written to the council and expressed interest in buying the land, declined to remove himself from the meeting, declined to state his conflict of interests and a vote or agreement was undertaken by the councillors present, including Collins, to sell the land.
Following this meeting, Collins wife made at least 2 of 3 bids for the land, one of which happened shortly after the meeting when Collins was still a cllr. The 3rd bit was accepted and Collins wife became the landowner of which she is now due to make a tidy profit on.
Collins unquestionably knew about his wifeās interest. He unquestionably got the ball rolling on the disposal and his wife unquestionably benefitted from its purchase. Trying to find semantics and loopholes to defend this corruption is an act of desparation.
I find your take on this weird, and obviously coloured by your dislike of the publication. If Collinsā wife approached the council to sell her the land, Collin voting on whether to consider the matter (as youāve phrased it) is clearly improper.
1 Like
If i say that men shouldnāt be allowed in womenās changing rooms is that hate speech? Under the new law i can be accused of such and have a criminal investigation where i have to prove my innocenceā¦ The bill also states that having material on your phone and the likes that is deemed to promote hate is also a chargeable offenceā¦ So if i have an article that argues biological men can never be women then im looking at being charged?
Not only is this looking to control free speech its looking to control our thoughts.