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

blanch152

RandomName2 wrote: »

It depends. Could be legitimate if authorized by the government. I'm pretty sure the Taoiseach would authorize himself.

Yeah, sure the Village magazine Twitter feed is as legally sound as the Supreme Court.

nialler1978

golfball37 wrote: »

Whether it’s a crime or not yet another FOI reveal shows he’s a liar and unfit for office. Pity it’s left to the shinners to expose his web of lies and get the credit for exposing him. He’s done more for them than Mary Lou and Adam’s combined electorally, sad the FG fans can’t see this.

Not to dissimilar to the DUP singlehandedly fast tracking Irish Unity by about 50 years.

Tyrone212

McMurphy wrote: »

Meanwhile the up and coming within FG tweet the likes of this......

https://twitter.com/McManusDavid/status/1375031555949785089?s=19

Leaked something they got via FOI. Facepalm.

Had a look at his twitter page. God he's a dose. Embarrassing.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, doesn't seem to think so.

It would be odd if the Taoiseach were not afforded the same authority as a minister, given that it's a more senior position. Clearly Varadkar was one of the chief negotiators of this agreement, which may be a carry over from his time as minister for health. Either way it would be strange if neither he, nor Harris, could okay his own actions (either at the time or retrospectively). This is particularly the case given that Harris had promised NAGP a copy of the agreement (he never sent one, but Harris could argue that that was always the plan, and while he may not have been aware of Varadkar's specific actions to that end, that it was in the spirit of what was already a process in the pipeline (which would ultimately have resolved itself anyway when the thing was put up online).

One thing that seems pretty clear. The Department worked on this like it was a 100 page thesis that they had left till the last minute to complete. I would bet any money that on Harris' secretary's computer there was

version27.docx, version27(correct).docx, version 28(recovered).docx

blanch152 wrote: »

Yeah, sure the Village magazine Twitter feed is as legally sound as the Supreme Court.

I somehow get the impression that The Village is not interested in an entirely dry, objective, legal examination of the case. Could be mistaken, but I just get that feeling.

nialler1978

Tyrone212 wrote: »

Had a look at his twitter page. God he's a dose. Embarrassing.

That’s that muppet who proudly posted on Twitter that he had lamp post around his area fixed.

We could get good value out of this lad in years to come.

BluePlanet

The logic by the FG's here suggests that it is impossible for a sitting Taoiseach to ever be convicted of contravening the Official Secrets Act. I doubt very much that is the intention of such an Act.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

It would be odd if the Taoiseach were not afforded the same authority as a minister, given that it's a more senior position. Clearly Varadkar was one of the chief negotiators of this agreement, which may be a carry over from his time as minister for health. Either way it would be strange if neither he, nor Harris, could okay his own actions (either at the time or retrospectively). This is particularly the case given that Harris had promised NAGP a copy of the agreement (he never sent one, but Harris could argue that that was always the plan, and while he may not have been aware of Varadkar's specific actions to that end, that it was in the spirit of what was already a process in the pipeline (which would ultimately have resolved itself anyway when the thing was put up online).

One thing that seems pretty clear. The Department worked on this like it was a 100 page thesis that they had left till the last minute to complete. I would bet any money that on Harris' secretary's computer there was

version27.docx, version27(correct).docx, version 28(recovered).docx



I somehow get the impression that The Village is not interested in an entirely dry, objective, legal examination of the case. Could be mistaken, but I just get that feeling.

Surprised this lad

Diarmuid Rossa Phelan BCL (NUI) LLM (BERKELEY), BL (Kings Inns), Ph D (EUROPEAN UNIV INST FLORENCE), MA (Dub iuris officio), BL (Inns of Court of Northern Ireland), Attorney (NEW YORK), F.T.C.D

would put his name to that if he didn't know what he was talking about tbh.

On another note, some here are confusing a published article with several barristers giving their opinion, and that of a "Twitter feed". Fionnan Sheehan and Eamon Dunphy discussed it (what laws were potentially broken) in-depth on the podcast linked to in the thread earlier too.

Think the general consensus is - Leo's on fairly dodgy ground.

BluePlanet

The Village Magazine also makes a good point:

"It's not about whether the person was an authorised leaker (centering on the leaker); it's about whether the leak was authorised.(centering on the leak).
And authorising involves going through a process - of which there is no evidence here"

Fann Linn

I'm really disappointed that the TU movement to date has said very little on this breach of trust. I think it's incumbent that when IR talks are being undertaken that good faith and confidentiality are foremost in all of the parties involved. For a sitting Taoiseach to be the loose lip is a disgrace.

nsnoefc1878

Tyrone212 wrote: »

Had a look at his twitter page. God he's a dose. Embarrassing.

Staggers me anyone can vote fg, they are vile, self serving t**ts of the highest order.
I've no time for sinn fein given their sordid past, but even tho they are far from perfect on policy matters, I cant imagine how any decent human being could favour fg economic and social policy over sf. Voting for fg is an endorsement of their simply unforgiveable housing policies, that alone should be enough to turn anyone off voting for them.

nsnoefc1878

Fann Linn wrote: »

I'm really disappointed that the TU movement to date has said very little on this breach of trust. I think it's incumbent that when IR talks are being undertaken that good faith and confidentiality are foremost in all of the parties involved. For a sitting Taoiseach to be the loose lip is a disgrace.

Great point.

nsnoefc1878

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Staggers me anyone can vote fg, they are vile, self serving t**ts of the highest order.
I've no time for sinn fein given their sordid past, but even tho they are far from perfect on policy matters, I cant imagine how any decent human being could favour fg economic and social policy over sf. Voting for fg is an endorsement of their simply unforgiveable housing policies, that alone should be enough to turn anyone off voting for them.

Be careful, they'll brand you one of them shinners now you've announced you have no time for FG

nsnoefc1878

Deleted User wrote: »

Be careful, they'll brand you one of them shinners now you've announced you have no time for FG

Yeah, thats the fg approach to everything now, bring sf into it.

RandomName2

Fann Linn wrote: »

I'm really disappointed that the TU movement to date has said very little on this breach of trust.

Well at least someone here has brought it up. Usually the positions of the IMO and NAGP aren't considered relevant, which is daft.

It's really hard to tell what the IMO's position actually is. They were apparently sensitive about discussions concerning the agreement, but that may have been prior to them concluding the contract with the government. So either they are really pissed off, and are just being professionally quiet with relation to the media, they don't care either way, or they actually feel that such behavior was par-for-the-course and to be expected from the government. It's really hard to identify what their stand is without any further information.

Tyrone212

nialler1978 wrote: »

That’s that muppet who proudly posted on Twitter that he had lamp post around his area fixed.

We could get good value out of this lad in years to come.

Lights are on but no one is home springs to mind.

jimmycrackcorm

McMurphy wrote: »

It's a crime

The Village article gets very wishy-washy trying to get past this part:

"The Official Secrets Act 1963 provides in Section 4: 1: a person shall not communicate any official information [defined as any…document or information which is secret or confidential or is expressed to be either and which is or has been in the possession, custody or control of a holder of a public office, or to which he has had access by virtue of his office] to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the state to communicate it. "

Easily arguable - if a Taoiseach isn't authorised to do so then who does?
How do you argue that it's not in the interest of the state to ensure the alternative organization representing GP's gets on board also?

I notice that several posts try to avoid the mention of the NAGP, instead referring sole to passing the document to a friend.

blanch152

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The Village article gets very wishy-washy trying to get past this part:

"The Official Secrets Act 1963 provides in Section 4: 1: a person shall not communicate any official information [defined as any…document or information which is secret or confidential or is expressed to be either and which is or has been in the possession, custody or control of a holder of a public office, or to which he has had access by virtue of his office] to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the state to communicate it. "

Easily arguable - if a Taoiseach isn't authorised to do so then who does?
How do you argue that it's not in the interest of the state to ensure the alternative organization representing GP's gets on board also?

I notice that several posts try to avoid the mention of the NAGP, instead referring sole to passing the document to a friend.

You have it in a nutshell as to why there is no breach of the OSA.

McMurphy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The Village article gets very wishy-washy trying to get past this part:

"The Official Secrets Act 1963 provides in Section 4: 1: a person shall not communicate any official information [defined as any…document or information which is secret or confidential or is expressed to be either and which is or has been in the possession, custody or control of a holder of a public office, or to which he has had access by virtue of his office] to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the state to communicate it. "

Easily arguable - if a Taoiseach isn't authorised to do so then who does?
How do you argue that it's not in the interest of the state to ensure the alternative organization representing GP's gets on board also?

I notice that several posts try to avoid the mention of the NAGP, instead referring sole to passing the document to a friend.

If of course, by "wishy washy" you mean it goes into extensive detail of how Leo's spindoctors are in all probability talking through their hoops, you're bang on of course.

I'm not going to copy and paste all of it, but this would be a good starting point.

If the Tánaiste thinks the Official Secrets Act does not apply to him or to the Taoiseach there is a fundamental failure at the heart of government. Every incoming Minister signs the Official Secrets Act upon taking office. This was confirmed to me by several former Ministers. It’s fundamental to the modus operani of government. His defence is facile

I think you need to try again jimmy.

Pintman Paddy Losty

McMurphy wrote: »

If of course, by "wishy washy" you mean it goes into extensive detail of how Leo's spindoctors are in all probability talking through their hoops, you're bang on of course.

I'm not going to copy and paste all of it, but this would be a good starting point.



I think you need to try again jimmy.

The act applies. He's also authorised to release it. Then there's the fact that it was in the public interest. There's not a court in the land that would convict. DPP won't try anyway.

McMurphy

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

The act applies. He's also authorised to release it. Then there's the fact that it was in the public interest. There's not a court in the land that would convict. DPP won't try anyway.

Call me stone mad, but I'm going to go with the S.Cs opinion on this one Paddy, not just because he's qualified and laid his explanations out in great detail.

But let's be honest, your track record on these threads about predicting how these things are going to play out has been, well let's just say "pure cat" so far.

You backing Leo is his political death knell imo, not a great omen.

jammiedodgers

Well you've been pretty spot on so far Paddy, no reason to doubt you now...

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

I'm afraid this one isn't going to be the big explosive exposé that the conspiracy theorists want. A good statement this afternoon and then get back to the important work of fighting Coronavirus. Will be forgotten by next week.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

No my friend. I'm not. Watch this one fizzle out. Nothing to see here folks. Just a load of manufactured outrage over a a load of nonsense.

The shinners will try and run with it, but no one gives a sh1te.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

I can sense the disappointment around here that this hasn't played out the way the usual cranks wanted it to. There were high hopes of sackings and even criminal charges. People were predicting the fall of the government by now.

Well it's really looks like a damp squib. It's no longer the top story on RTE. Leo has the backing of the taoiseach. Hopes for a secret dossier that the Village magazine inexplicably held back won't be coming forward.

I'm afraid post US election this will be done and dusted.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You do realise how odds work?

That's a ringing endorsement for Varadkar. Shows how this issue is a nothing burger.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Lads you can place this whole silly saga on to this list of things that the Pintman got right.

Despite the bluster and grand predictions of governments falling and Leo being gone within days, it was a total damp squib.

A lot of egg on posters of this thread's face. Embarassed themselves in a frenzied excitement reading tweets by that tool Cosgrave and that dodgy squealer Chat Bowes.

Should've listened to the Pintman.

Pintman Paddy Losty

McMurphy wrote: »

Call me stone mad, but I'm going to go with the S.Cs opinion on this one Paddy, not just because he's qualified and laid his explanations out in great detail.

But let's be honest, your track record on these threads about predicting how these things are going to play out has been, well let's just say "pure cat" so far.

You backing Leo is his political death knell imo, not a great omen.

You can bookmark this post Mc, Leo will be Taoiseach at the end of 2022.

nsnoefc1878

McMurphy wrote: »

Call me stone mad, but I'm going to go with the S.Cs opinion on this one Paddy, not just because he's qualified and laid his explanations out in great detail.

But let's be honest, your track record on these threads about predicting how these things are going to play out has been, well let's just say "pure cat" so far.

You backing Leo is his political death knell imo, not a great omen.

Let's hope he keeps backing him then.

James Brown

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You can bookmark this post Mc, Leo will be Taoiseach at the end of 2022.

Do you think he's suitable for such an office based on his record thus far?

nsnoefc1878

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You can bookmark this post Mc, Leo will be Taoiseach at the end of 2022.

If you'd any dignity, brains or self respect you'd crawl away after reading post 8077 and save yourself further embarssment.

McMurphy

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You can bookmark this post Mc, Leo will be Taoiseach at the end of 2022.

Paddy Power is offering decent enough odds on that one Paddy. If I were you I'd be logging on, putting down a hefty wedge and wait to cash in.

No bother on you at all champ.

blanch152

BluePlanet wrote: »

The Village Magazine also makes a good point:

"It's not about whether the person was an authorised leaker (centering on the leaker); it's about whether the leak was authorised.(centering on the leak).
And authorising involves going through a process - of which there is no evidence here"

What process is laid down? Do you have a link to it?

Is authorised by the Taoiseach not enough?

skimpydoo

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

The act applies. He's also authorised to release it. Then there's the fact that it was in the public interest. There's not a court in the land that would convict. DPP won't try anyway.

Are you sure about this? What will you say if he is charged? He won't be found guilty?

If he is found guilty what will you say? He won't get a tough punishment?

skimpydoo

McMurphy wrote: »

Paddy Power is offering decent enough odds on that one Paddy. If I were you I'd be logging on, putting down a hefty wedge and wait to cash in.

No bother on you at all champ.

Agreed. Paddy if you are so sure put your money where your mouth is and lay down a big wedge on Leo at the Bookies. What have you got to lose since you are so sure of yourself and Leo.

BKelly21

blanch152 wrote: »

What process is laid down? Do you have a link to it?

Is authorised by the Taoiseach not enough?

Where are you getting that the Taoiseach is authorised to leak confidential information, and further, why are the gards conducting a criminal investigation on someone who was [as far as you are concerned] "authorised to leak confidential information" also why did the Tanaìste apologise for actions he did while serving as taoiseach if he was authorised to do so anyway? Just repeating and repeating and repeating stuff over and over again without ever [as far as I can see here] backing it up is very strange.
A barrister has put their name to very clearly laid out reasons as to why Leo [in all likelihood] is in trouble. What are your credentials and qualifications to contradict him, and on what exactly are you basing your "knowledge or legal expertise" on might I ask?