Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

"I'd love to destroy IMO too" is a bit of a giveaway.

So Matt O'Toole and Chas Bowes, both involved in a rival organisation to the IMO, discuss destroying the IMO, and this is relevant, how?

timmyntc

McMurphy wrote: »

Sorry, misleading tweet if so.

...
These 12 new exchanges are now being published for the 1st time & include exchanges between @LeoVaradkar & @DrZeroCraic
...

it includes a conversation between Leo & MOT. It doesn't say that they all are.
Only 1 pic out of the 4 are between Leo & MOT. (The one with Leo's name at the top)

Jinglejangle69

McMurphy wrote: »

Sorry, misleading tweet if so.






Ah yeah..... Actually, on closer inspection, it's a photo of a buffalo's arse. Easy mistake to make.

That's why using twitter as gospel is dangerous.

s1ippy

IngazZagni wrote: »

But I just learned the screenshot you sent did not involve Leo Varadkar. How is Varadkar supposed to know O Tuathails personal opinion of the IMO from a private message he wasn’t involved in?

I never said Leo was supposed to know that, I did say he shouldn't have leaked confidential documents about a rival organisation to a friend. That the friend wanted to destroy the union represented in the talks just further bolsters why he was doing entirely the wrong thing to leak them, despite his whole "if it's a crime to love one's country" shtick.

Jinglejangle69

IngazZagni wrote: »

Like?

I'm agreeing with you.

Simple facts like it's not Leo in that conversation.

We need to stick to the facts.

atticu

McMurphy wrote: »

Sorry, misleading tweet if so.






Ah yeah..... Actually, on closer inspection, it's a photo of a buffalo's arse. Easy mistake to make.

I am guessing that you have never heard of photoshop.
It will blow your mind when you find out what can be done with a photo.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Sorry, misleading tweet if so.

Ah yeah..... Actually, on closer inspection, it's a photo of a buffalo's arse. Easy mistake to make.

Yes, it appears you have been duped into thinking that the texts were between Leo and Matt. Looks deliberate on Village Magazine's part, but it all consists of Matt's version of his interactions with Harris and Varadkar, and is second-hand information.

Disgraceful mud-slinging by Village, but not surprising that they have found patsys to repeat it as if it came directly from Leo.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, it appears you have been duped into thinking that the texts were between Leo and Matt. Looks deliberate on Village Magazine's part, but it all consists of Matt's version of his interactions with Harris and Varadkar, and is second-hand information.

Disgraceful mud-slinging by Village, but not surprising that they have found patsys to repeat it as if it came directly from Leo.

Is there a denial from Leo?

McMurphy

atticu wrote: »

I am guessing that you have never heard of photoshop.
It will blow your mind when you find out what can be done with a photo.

I have heard of it.

I'd say the likes of this was produced using it.



This is just the FG equivalent of screaming "FAKE NEWS".

s1ippy

I'd imagine there won't be a denial, that the hard copies of these sceengrabs are retrievable in WhatsApp for the legal proceedings and there are more to come.

IngazZagni

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

I'm agreeing with you.

Simple facts like it's not Leo in that conversation.

We need to stick to the facts.

Apologies. It actually shocked me when a poster suggested that tweet involved Leo because that would have changed everything.

It was still wrong what he did though.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, it appears you have been duped into thinking that the texts were between Leo and Matt. Looks deliberate on Village Magazine's part, but it all consists of Matt's version of his interactions with Harris and Varadkar, and is second-hand information.

Disgraceful mud-slinging by Village, but not surprising that they have found patsys to repeat it as if it came directly from Leo.

Did you say just something about being "duped", and mistake village magazine, and a tweet from Chay Bowes in the same post Blanch?

Village magazine didn't tweet that, chay bowes tweeted it.

twowheelsonly

blanch152 wrote: »

Firstly, if the Taosieach cannot authorise it, there is no higher office in the land. Self-authorisation is obvious from the legislation. Secondly, even if by some quirk, it isn't, there was a reference to a Cabinet decision that the Government should continue engagement with the NAGP, that is sufficient authorisation.

Who decides on the interests of the State? The government, led by the Taoiseach. The presumption therefore is that the Taoiseach is acting in the interests of the State. It would be a very high threshold to prove he wasn't, especially in a case like this. Saying it is open to debate isn't enough.

You seem to be very tied up on this point, that of the Taoiseach being pretty much self governing and by extension can pretty much do as he likes without the approval of anybody.
Thankfully he's not, and is answerable to the House and to the people of Ireland. He may claim to have acted in the interest of all but the fact remains that he went against all the policies of negotiation, went against his own Government and even went against a Union of which he was previously a member. He did all this by sending those documents to a third party who was not entitled at that time to have them.
He's a leak which makes him untrustworthy and unsuitable for the position of Tánaiste or his Ministerial portfolio. His "nothing of this nature" comment was very telling and basically an admittance that he has spoken out of turn before.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Did you say just something about being "duped", and mistake village magazine, and a tweet from Chay Bowes in the same post Blanch?

Village magazine didn't tweet that, chay bowes tweeted it.

Last I checked, Village confirmed that Chay Bowes was working with them on the story. Maybe you missed that.

Allinall

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you believe the AG is free to independently investigate a Taoiseach or Minister. I don't. Why? Because I am not aware of it ever happening in the history of the State.

The Taoiseach or the Cabinet need to 'request' it. That is why the Taoiseach was asked to instigate an AG investigation in the Dáil. If anyone else could request it that would have happened.

Now, instead of arrogantly jumping up and down claiming I am wrong, go prove I am wrong by backing it up. Otherwise scroll on.

Please show me where I did this?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Last I checked, Village confirmed that Chay Bowes was working with them on the story. Maybe you missed that.

So they're responsible for each and every tweet he puts out on his personal twitter account?

I'd be very careful about a "last time I checked someone was working with someone else" line in a thread about the then Taoiseach leaking information through back channels blanch.

If that's your new bar, who else is Ultimately responsible for Leo's actions?

zerosugarbuzz

Pierce Doherty and Leo going at it on leaders questions just now, rte1

Nobotty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is there a denial from Leo?

There is a catch all statement from Vradakar about defamation
We've just worked out in this thread another stick he has to beat the Village with
Woeful incompetence on their part ,its been like that from the start because they should have waited for a better time to use this,if downfall and FG damage was their game

Instead,it looks like to me that personal dislike ruled the roost here
It definitely isn't clever
Clever would have been in the middle of an election and if the allegations weren't true,damage to a campaign would have been done before it could be un done

Its no use at all now
None

shatners bassoon

blanch152 wrote: »

Firstly, if the Taosieach cannot authorise it, there is no higher office in the land. Self-authorisation is obvious from the legislation. Secondly, even if by some quirk, it isn't, there was a reference to a Cabinet decision that the Government should continue engagement with the NAGP, that is sufficient authorisation.

Who decides on the interests of the State? The government, led by the Taoiseach. The presumption therefore is that the Taoiseach is acting in the interests of the State. It would be a very high threshold to prove he wasn't, especially in a case like this. Saying it is open to debate isn't enough.

Varadkar hasn't addressed any of the exceptions under the act. If it's his position that he has the power to self-authorise the release of confidential documentation (which, let's be clear, would render the Taoiseach immune to any action under the Act, regardless of the nature of the breach provided it was authorised by the very person communicating the information) then he should state that clearly.

To definitively claim that 'a reference to a Cabinet decision that the Government should continue engagement with the NAGP...is sufficient authorisation' for Leo to send a confidential document directly to a friend in that organisation without the knowledge of the other parties involved is ridiculous.

Finally, the executive absolutely does not decide what is in the best interests of the state as referred to in legislation.

What's your opinion on Leo claiming that the the Village were 'manifestly' wrong to suggest that the legislation applies to him?

Jinglejangle69

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Pierce Doherty and Leo going at it on leaders questions just now, rte1

Sure what else is there to discuss.

Only covid, economy, education, housing etc

McMurphy

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Pierce Doherty and Leo going at it on leaders questions just now, rte1

Doherty is trying to get Leo to confirm or deny very specific questions about correspondence between himself and MOT.

can't help get the feeling that they have further screen grabs and are trying to steer Leo into s scenario where he'll have contradicted himself.

atticu

McMurphy wrote: »

I have heard of it.

I'd say the likes of this was produced using it.



This is just the FG equivalent of screaming "FAKE NEWS".

I do apologise, I didn’t realise that you thought they were true.

Seeing as you believe them, let me know when you would like to buy some magic beans.

McMurphy

atticu wrote: »

I do apologise, I didn’t realise that you thought they were true.

Seeing as you believe them, let me know when you would like to buy some magic beans.

So, let's be clear here, are you suggesting the screenshots are Photoshopped/Fake?

A yes or no will do.

Let's clear it up. Use the pot, or get off it.

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

Doherty is trying to get Leo to confirm or deny very specific questions about correspondence between himself and MOT.

can't help get the feeling that they have further screen grabs and are trying to steer Leo into s scenario where he'll have contradicted himself.

Yeh, agree that is what is going on.

FG members need to consider very carefully how long they are going to support this.

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

Did you say just something about being "duped", and mistake village magazine, and a tweet from Chay Bowes in the same post Blanch?

Village magazine didn't tweet that, chay bowes tweeted it.

Village Magazine retweeted Chay's tweet, without clarification. Clearly they agreed with how he was portraying it. Otherwise they wouldn't have retweeted him.

So people on here genuinely thought the conversation between Chay Bowes and Matt O'Toole on WhatsApp was actually with Leo?

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

Doherty is trying to get Leo to confirm or deny very specific questions about correspondence between himself and MOT.

can't help get the feeling that they have further screen grabs and are trying to steer Leo into s scenario where he'll have contradicted himself.

Just listened back there...is Doherty suggesting that there was a 2nd 'Draft' document released?

atticu

McMurphy wrote: »

So, let's be clear here, are you suggesting the screenshots are Photoshopped/Fake?

A yes or no will do.

Let's clear it up. Use the pot, or get off it.

I don’t believe they are actual screenshots of the mobile phones of the people they are making out to be.

So, simply put, I believe they are fake.

I am sure that you will post up a link to try and prove that I am wrong.

FrancieBrady

atticu wrote: »

I don’t believe they are actual screenshots of the mobile phones of the people they are making out to be.

So, simply put, I believe they are fake.

I am sure that you will post up a link to try and prove that I am wrong.

Have yopu backed up your contention that they are fake?

has Leo denied that any of these screenshots are his? He got another opportunity in the Dáíl to do that when he was specifically asked about his phone records.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Village Magazine retweeted Chay's tweet, without clarification. Clearly they agreed with how he was portraying it. Otherwise they wouldn't have retweeted him.

So people on here genuinely thought the conversation between Chay Bowes and Matt O'Toole on WhatsApp was actually with Leo?

Not everyone misread the tweet, I admit I did, and am sure many others did too, but as can be evidenced in this thread, not everyone did.

There is an argument that if people misread the tweet, or if it was deliberately misleading.

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

Not everyone misread the tweet, I admit I did, and am sure many others did too, but as can be evidenced in this thread, not everyone did.

There is an argument that if people misread the tweet, or if it was deliberately misleading.

I'd say it was just a poorly written tweet rather than anything deliberate.