Leo Again

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Because heres the thing. Standards in public office means such conflicts of interest do need to be declared, its actually a fairly standard practice. It only ever becomes an issue when its not declared

He didn't run an election on being a gay man, being pro gay or anything relating to being homosexual. If Senator Norris was running for TD in the morning you know exactly what platform he will be running and thats how it should be.

It's not the fact he's gay.

But it is the fact that he is gay / didn't declare it and was actively pursuing this as a public health policy that does open him to the question of non declaration of interests.

What?

He stated in the radio interview that the fact that we was required to consider the topic was one of the reasons he was acknowledging his sexuality publicly. So what exactly has he not declared?

And this isn't an issue he was actively pursuing - it is an on-going one which was also under consideration during James Reilly's time in office.


Also, there is no pro-gay platform. There's pro-equality, respect, tolerance and human rights.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

Of course your free to doubt it,none of us would be here if we all agreed with each other.

So care to link to the threads you started about Mary Harney taking decisions on women's health issues then?

fran17

Ghost Buster wrote: »

A quick shufty through your posting history would suggest a slight obsession with homosexuality.

Your free to shuffle through my history,some people make a career out of it in this forum.I'm interested in both sides of an issue been known before minds are made up.Unfortunately that steps on certain toes here,but I can't be accountable for that.

Ctrl Alt Delete

floggg wrote: »

He stated in the radio interview that the fact that we was required to consider the topic was one of the reasons he was acknowledging his sexuality publicly. So what exactly has he not declared?

Which he is required to do as a public representative and good to see.

But having declared that interest we now under Irish Standards in Public Office policy has to set out how he mitigates that conflict of interest.

B_Wayne

fran17 wrote: »

I agree with you,i always thought he was honest and a straight shooter.However with his recent coming out and immediate comments concerning making blood donations for gay men a priority,he has left himself open to conflict of interest and near sightedness accusations.Our health service is nothing short of a bloody mess and there should be far more pressing matters for his attention.

It was an issue first raised by our previous health minister and has been on the tables for a long time but you seem to ignore that. Reilly was straight btw so him saying it must be much more credible by your logic...

Flem31

B_Wayne wrote: »

It was an issue first raised by our previous health minister and has been on the tables for a long time but you seem to ignore that. Reilly was straight btw so him saying it must be much more credible by your logic...

Is it possible to put Reilly and credible in the same sentence ?

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Which he is required to do as a public representative and good to see.

But having declared that interest we now under Irish Standards in Public Office policy has to set out how he mitigates that conflict of interest.

I very much doubt sexual orientation is listed as a conflict of interest. Please feel free to show the relevant section.

How is he to mitigate his conflict of interest in relation to men's health issues?

How did Mary Harney mitigate her conflict of interest in relation to womens health issues?

How does Michael Noonan resolves his conflict of interest in deciding on tax issues relating to married people (I'm assuming he's married).

How does Joan Burton resolve her conflict of interest in deciding issues relating to adopted children?

floggg

Flem31 wrote: »

Is it possible to put Reilly and credible in the same sentence ?

Yes, feel free to ignore the actual point made if inconvenient.

B_Wayne

Flem31 wrote: »

Is it possible to put Reilly and credible in the same sentence ?

True but isn't medical profession the one that should ultimately decide on the issue? If the conclusion is made that it's safe to do so based on medical knowledge. Don't really think Fran's isis with gay people should come into play and that's completely Fran's issue.

Flem31

floggg wrote: »

Yes, feel free to ignore the actual point made if inconvenient.

Ah but I didn't ignore the actual point.
I don't base someone's competence or credibility on their sexual preference.

When I judge the former Minister it is based on what he did as minister rather than what he does in the privacy of his own bedroom.
Imo he was an awful minister, and if in the morning he announced he was gay, my attitude towards him wouldn't change. Would yours ?

Leo didn't need to announce that he had to make a decision on blood donations so soon after his other announcement. Is that really the most pressing concern in health atm ?

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

I agree with you,i always thought he was honest and a straight shooter.However with his recent coming out and immediate comments concerning making blood donations for gay men a priority,he has left himself open to conflict of interest and near sightedness accusations.Our health service is nothing short of a bloody mess and there should be far more pressing matters for his attention.

B_Wayne wrote: »

It was an issue first raised by our previous health minister and has been on the tables for a long time but you seem to ignore that. Reilly was straight btw so him saying it must be much more credible by your logic...

Flem31 wrote: »

Ah but I didn't ignore the actual point.
I don't base someone's competence or credibility on their sexual preference.

When I judge the former Minister it is based on what he did as minister rather than what he does in the privacy of his own bedroom.
Imo he was an awful minister, and if in the morning he announced he was gay, my attitude towards him wouldn't change. Would yours ?

Leo didn't need to announce that he had to make a decision on blood donations so soon after his other announcement. Is that really the most pressing concern in health atm ?

I was reading your response in the context of what you were replying to. If you weren't responding in that context, then apologies (though my comments are still applicable to those thanking your post).

It was argued Leo Varadkar couldn't decide on this issue because he was gay.

B Wayne countered by pointing out that this issue was first raised by O'Reilly who had more credibility on this issue (in the sense of not suffering from any conflict of interest).

So whether you think he was good at his job or not, the suggestion this is only being raised by Leo V because he is gay is entirely without merit.

Flem31

floggg wrote: »

I was reading your response in the context of what you were replying to. If you weren't responding in that context, then apologies (though my comments are still applicable to those thanking your post).

It was argued Leo Varadkar couldn't decide on this issue because he was gay.

B Wayne countered by pointing out that this issue was first raised by O'Reilly who had more credibility on this issue (in the sense of not suffering from any conflict of interest).

So whether you think he was good at his job or not, the suggestion this is only being raised by Leo V because he is gay is entirely without merit.

If your comments are applicable to those thanking my post would it not be better to respond to their comments and leave me out of it ?

Reilly was not credible as a minister and the jury is still out on his successor(not based on him being gay but whether he can do the job as health minister).

Leo raised this as one of the first decisions he needs to make .....one week after announcing he was gay, so Leo himself created the link.

My own view is that Leo didn't need to make this one of the first issues he was going to decide on. I am sure there are hundreds of decisions he could make in the Dept of Health that would have a far greater impact on the health of the nation.

For example would you have been disgusted or outraged if this announcement about a decision was made next October rather than now.
I suspect not.

Leo should have let things settle down for a few months and wait until at least after the referendum before bringing this issue up.
It is the lousy timing that is driving most of this discussion.

I don't care that Leo is gay, I do care if he leaves the Health Dept as is and only time will decide that

jobbridge4life

Flem31 wrote: »

If your comments are applicable to those thanking my post would it not be better to respond to their comments and leave me out of it ?

Reilly was not credible as a minister and the jury is still out on his successor(not based on him being gay but whether he can do the job as health minister).

Leo raised this as one of the first decisions he needs to make .....one week after announcing he was gay, so Leo himself created the link.

My own view is that Leo didn't need to make this one of the first issues he was going to decide on. I am sure there are hundreds of decisions he could make in the Dept of Health that would have a far greater impact on the health of the nation.

For example would you have been disgusted or outraged if this announcement about a decision was made next October rather than now.
I suspect not.

Leo should have let things settle down for a few months and wait until at least after the referendum before bringing this issue up.
It is the lousy timing that is driving most of this discussion.

I don't care that Leo is gay, I do care if he leaves the Health Dept as is and only time will decide that

Do you work in a department? If not then you have an extremely limited knowledge of how they operate.

Flem31

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Do you work in a department? If not then you have an extremely limited knowledge of how they operate.

Yes I do work in a department.

floggg

Flem31 wrote: »

If your comments are applicable to those thanking my post would it not be better to respond to their comments and leave me out of it ?

Reilly was not credible as a minister and the jury is still out on his successor(not based on him being gay but whether he can do the job as health minister).

Leo raised this as one of the first decisions he needs to make .....one week after announcing he was gay, so Leo himself created the link.

My own view is that Leo didn't need to make this one of the first issues he was going to decide on. I am sure there are hundreds of decisions he could make in the Dept of Health that would have a far greater impact on the health of the nation.

For example would you have been disgusted or outraged if this announcement about a decision was made next October rather than now.
I suspect not.

Leo should have let things settle down for a few months and wait until at least after the referendum before bringing this issue up.
It is the lousy timing that is driving most of this discussion.

I don't care that Leo is gay, I do care if he leaves the Health Dept as is and only time will decide that

as I said, I read your post in the context of the discussion yiu responded to. I replied on that basis.

Tell me, if Leo was to push this decision back just to avoid the perception that he was prioritising lgbt issues, would the not be a case of letting his sexuality influence his job?

If you don't care about his sexuality, why do you think he should have pushed the decision back because of the announcement he is gay. Its either an issue for you or not.

Is it possible for him to win?

The fact that this was an issue on the table during O'Reilly's tenure, and that it is also one which has arisen in the UK and the US recently should indicate there is plenty of reason to believe the timing of this wasn't specifically of Leo's choosing. All evidence is to the contrary.

He said himself that the need to make a decision on this and the upcoming referendum influenced the timing of his coming out, not vice versa.

jobbridge4life

Flem31 wrote: »

Yes I do work in a department.

In that case you are presumably fully aware of the limits on a Minister's real power and the existence of long standing priorities and agendas beyond the Minister's own.

It should be noted that it is not as though Leo has prioritized this issue over others. He produced a fullsome (and probably wildly over ambitious) list of priorities for the Department.

Flem31

jobbridge4life wrote: »

In that case you are presumably fully aware of the limits on a Minister's real power and the existence of long standing priorities and agendas beyond the Minister's own.

It should be noted that it is not as though Leo has prioritized this issue over others. He produced a fullsome (and probably wildly over ambitious) list of priorities for the Department.

So then he doesn't have the authority to make the decision without first consulting these other vested interests ?

He did prioritize it, he announced he had a decision to make on it

jobbridge4life

Flem31 wrote: »

So then he doesn't have the authority to make the decision without first consulting these other vested interests ?

I said real power. Again as you work in a Department you will be aware of what I am saying.

Flem31 wrote: »

He did prioritize it, he announced he had a decision to make on it

I said he didn't prioritize it over other issues, he included it in his priorities.

Flem31

floggg wrote: »

as I said, I read your post in the context of the discussion yiu responded to. I replied on that basis.

Tell me, if Leo was to push this decision back just to avoid the perception that he was prioritising lgbt issues, would the not be a case of letting his sexuality influence his job?

If you don't care about his sexuality, why do you think he should have pushed the decision back because of the announcement he is gay. Its either an issue for you or not.

Is it possible for him to win?

The fact that this was an issue on the table during O'Reilly's tenure, and that it is also one which has arisen in the UK and the US recently should indicate there is plenty of reason to believe the timing of this wasn't specifically of Leo's choosing. All evidence is to the contrary.

He said himself that the need to make a decision on this and the upcoming referendum influenced the timing of his coming out, not vice versa.

His job is as Minister for Health is to improve the health and wellbeing of the people. Any decision he makes should be based on the urgency of the matters pertaining to that and I hadn't noticed any mad panic or crises about the fact that the LGBT community cannot give blood.

Yes he can win, just do his job based on prioritising the urgent issues first and then working down through a list. Blood donations should not be top of the list.

I look at issues based on urgency in this country rather than following what the UK or USA are currently thinking about.

My point re delaying announcing the blood donation until later in the year is simply one less false argument the no side can raise in the forthcoming referendum. It's not as if he made a decision, he announced he was going to have to make a decision and left it at that.

Flem31

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I said real power. Again as you work in a Department you will be aware of what I am saying.



I said he didn't prioritize it over other issues, he included it in his priorities.

So if there are limits on his real power (your words, not mine), it is possible what the decision is not his to make.

Why is it a priority ?

jobbridge4life

Flem31 wrote: »

So if there are limits on his real power (your words, not mine), it is possible what the decision is not his to make.

Why is it a priority ?

Cause he is a queer and simultaneously a truly dedicated reverse vampire.:rolleyes:

ghogie91

I dont even give blood cause I get regular tattoos and apparently thats contaminated blood

Flem31

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Cause he is a queer and simultaneously a truly dedicated reverse vampire.:rolleyes:

Meaningful debate beyond you ?

floggg

Flem31 wrote: »

His job is as Minister for Health is to improve the health and wellbeing of the people. Any decision he makes should be based on the urgency of the matters pertaining to that and I hadn't noticed any mad panic or crises about the fact that the LGBT community cannot give blood.

Yes he can win, just do his job based on prioritising the urgent issues first and then working down through a list. Blood donations should not be top of the list.

I look at issues based on urgency in this country rather than following what the UK or USA are currently thinking about.

My point re delaying announcing the blood donation until later in the year is simply one less false argument the no side can raise in the forthcoming referendum. It's not as if he made a decision, he announced he was going to have to make a decision and left it at that.

We don't have to do anything because other countries have, but the suggestion he is raising it because of his own sexuality is baseless given it was a live issue before he took office, and in multiple jurisdictions. There is nothing unusual or surprising that it is being considered here now.

I really am struggling to see what this decision has to do with the referendum at all.

Also, the arguments that he should not decide this issue until more urgent matters are addressed really fails to understand the nature of government and ministerial roles.

There will always be "more urgent" issues to deal with, and if we took this attitude, nothing would ever be done about the "lesser" issues. His job, which is supported and facilitated by his departmental staff, is to consider and take decisions on all health related issues which arise, both large and small.

A Minister and/or Department who was only capable of considering one matter at a time would frankly not be fit for the job.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Flem31 wrote: »

Yes he can win, just do his job based on prioritising the urgent issues first and then working down through a list. Blood donations should not be top of the list.

Most definitely it should be far, far down the list and should not even be on a "priority" list.

There is a well reported and highlighted list of urgent issues as long as his arm (some of which he highlighted himself when in opposition) that would take priority over this issue about blood.

Flem31 wrote: »

Meaningful debate beyond you ?

Go have a look in the other thread its far removed from him

jobbridge4life

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Go have a look in the other thread its far removed from him

LoLgasm:rolleyes:

jobbridge4life

Flem31 wrote: »

.

Why is it a priority ?

I don't know the intricacies of the department of health's policy machinations do you? If so please share.

I do know that it has been a long standing issue, has currently been a cause of controversy in the North, is reviled by a group of people on this island (though as it happens not me personally) and in light of the recent reforms in other jurisdictions perhaps a review to see if we are conforming to international best practice was considered timely.

Jumping to his sexuality as a reason however is beyond dubious.

Flem31

floggg wrote: »

We don't have to do anything because other countries have, but the suggestion he is raising it because of his own sexuality is baseless given it was a live issue before he took office, and in multiple jurisdictions. There is nothing unusual or surprising that it is being considered here now.

I really am struggling to see what this decision has to do with the referendum at all.

Also, the arguments that he should not decide this issue until more urgent matters are addressed really fails to understand the nature of government and ministerial roles.

There will always be "more urgent" issues to deal with, and if we took this attitude, nothing would ever be done about the "lesser" issues. His job, which is supported and facilitated by his departmental staff, is to consider and take decisions on all health related issues which arise, both large and small.

A Minister and/or Department who was only capable of considering one matter at a time would frankly not be fit for the job.

There are many issues in other countries that are far more progressive than our own, so delaying this one is not that unusual.

Regarding his sexuality, I have said before and I will say it again, I don't care what he does in the privacy of his own home. Leo being gay, I don't care.
But to raise blood donations within one week of coming out was a daft thing to do, there was no need to do it. After all he didn't actually make a decision, just said he was going to do so, sometime.

Regarding the referendum, you and I are both in agreement that it has nothing to do with the referendum but that won't stop No campaigners from possibly raising it as an issue. Baseless accusation yes, but has that ever stopped an extreme element before.

Re urgent issues in health dept, I would consider life and death situations and the delay in delivering treatment that would improve an individual's circumstances as being high up on a list of priorities. Who can give blood is not a high priority when compared to that.

Flem31

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I don't know the intricacies of the department of health's policy machinations do you? If so please share.

I do know that it has been a long standing issue, has currently been a cause of controversy in the North, is reviled by a group of people on this island (though as it happens not me personally) and in light of the recent reforms in other jurisdictions perhaps a review to see if we are conforming to international best practice was considered timely.

Jumping to his sexuality as a reason however is beyond dubious.

I have never jumped on his sexuality.
Not an issue for me, but also don't see this issue as a high priority.

jobbridge4life

Flem31 wrote: »

I have never jumped on his sexuality.
Not an issue for me, but also don't see this issue as a high priority.

Has it actually been afforded a position of 'high priority' though? A report is under way, the findings of which will be presented to the minister who will make a decision in conjunction with department officials and advisers. He mentioned in passing on a radio show that a decision was coming up and he didn't want to be accused of having secret/ulterior motivations for it.