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

jmcc

Marine Layer wrote: »

They don't believe a crime was committed and have moved on,letting the process play out
Nothing to do with me or Sinn Féin
It couldn't be simpler

I asked whether you condoned Varadkar's action of leaking a confidential document to his friend. It is a simple question.

Regards...jmcc

FrancieBrady

jmcc wrote: »

So you are claiming that because SF does something, it is OK for FG to do it?

Regards...jmcc

jmcc wrote: »

I asked whether you condoned Varadkar's action of leaking a confidential document to his friend. It is a simple question.

Regards...jmcc

You're getting to the nub of it jmcc, Varadkar should neither resign nor stand aside while breaches of two pieces of legislation that carry a penalty of lengthy imprisonment are investigated while others should resign and stand aside while breaches of regulations that carry a penalty of fines are investigated.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You're getting to the nub of it jmcc, Varadkar should neither resign nor stand aside while breaches of two pieces of legislation that carry a penalty of lengthy imprisonment are investigated while others should resign and stand aside while breaches of regulations that carry a penalty of fines are investigated.

It should also be pointed out though that one of those two could have been a super spreader disease event leading to deaths and the other is believed by the government not to be a crime at all,only a process that any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave could stir up
Wonder which is which?

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

It should also be pointed out though that one of those two could have been a super spreader disease event leading to deaths and the other is believed by the government not to be a crime at all,only a process that any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave could stir up
Wonder which is which?

One is a crime with a penalty of several years in prison the other is a crime with a penalty of a fine.
One was confessed to, so was committed, the other was denied and had insufficient evidence to prosecute according to the PSS and an independent senior counsel,

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One is a crime with a penalty of several years in prison the other is a crime with a penalty of a fine.
One was confessed to, so was committed, the other was denied and had insufficient evidence to prosecute according to the PSS and an independent senior counsel,

No crime was confessed to in either example

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

No crime was confessed to in either example

The Gardai and the DPP will decide that, not the government and not Leo. Leo confessed to what they are investigating.

jmcc

Marine Layer wrote: »

No crime was confessed to in either example

Varadkar admitted leaking a confidential document to his friend. He is now the subject of a criminal investigation over this action and Simon Harris and a number of civil servants have been interviewed by the Gardai. Varadkar and FG obviously hoped that the whole matter would be dropped after he admitted leaking the confidential document to his friend but it was not.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

jmcc wrote: »

Varadkar admitted leaking a confidential document to his friend. He is now the subject of a criminal investigation over this action and Simon Harris and a number of civil servants have been interviewed by the Gardai. Varadkar and FG obviously hoped that the whole matter would be dropped after he admitted leaking the confidential document to his friend but it was not.

Regards...jmcc

The government don't believe a crime was committed and have moved on letting the process (they appear very confident) instigatable by any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave play out
No crime has been admitted to

skimpydoo

Marine Layer wrote: »

No crime was confessed to in either example

So admitting to leaking a confidential document doesn't count?

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

The government don't believe a crime was committed and have moved on letting the process (they appear very confident) instigatable by any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave play out
No crime has been admitted to

The government are not the arbiters of whether a crime was committed. They are on the sideline here while our Gardai and DPP assess it and come to a decision.

If they decide it is a crime it will be already confessed to.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Gardai and the DPP will decide that, not the government and not Leo. Leo confessed to what they are investigating.

The statement you have made there is different to what I challenged you on because you cannot point to a crime
Ergo you can't point to the admission of one
You decided,I didn't
Perhaps take your own advice?

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

The statement you have made there is different to what I challenged you on because you cannot point to a crime
Ergo you can't point to the admission of one
You decided,I didn't
Perhaps take your own advice?

If the Gardai and DPP decide it is a crime then it carries a penalty of several years in prison. SF in the north were waiting for a similar decision on a crime that carried a penalty of a fine.

Sure you are not twisting to avoid an uncomfortable truth?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the Gardai and DPP decide it is a crime then it carries a penalty of several years in prison. SF in the north were waiting for a similar decision on a crime that carried a penalty of a fine.

Sure you are not twisting to avoid an uncomfortable truth?

I didn't bring me or Sinn Féin into this,neither are relevant
What is relevant is,since we are comparing,in neither was a crime admitted prior to the conclusion of an investigation

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

I didn't bring me or Sinn Féin into this,neither are relevant
What is relevant is,since we are comparing,in neither was a crime admitted prior to the conclusion of an investigation

Leaking a confidential document was admitted to. The Gardai and DPP will decide if that is a crime, not the coalition government.

skimpydoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leaking a confidential document was admitted to. The Gardai and DPP will decide if that is a crime, not the coalition government.

The only ones who think it's not a crime are the FFG government and FG and Leo supporters. If we were not living in Covid times, Leo would have been long gone by now.

jmcc

skimpydoo wrote: »

The only ones who think it's not a crime are the FFG government and FG and Leo supporters. If we were not living in Covid times, Leo would have been long gone by now.

If it wasn't for Covid, FG would have removed Varadkar after he led FG to one of its worst General Election results ever. FG was even content with going into opposition.

Regards...jmcc

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leaking a confidential document was admitted to. The Gardai and DPP will decide if that is a crime, not the coalition government.

Correct and as I respectfully suggested, perhaps take your own advice on that matter and wait for their conclusion
You jumped the gun and stated something non factual,that he admitted a crime
No crime has been determined,ergo none admitted
Furthermore,the government are confident there was no crime
We could run around the houses on that all night to no avail but it would be a fruitless carry on,lets agree to disagree
No one is unaware of our positions

Jinglejangle69

Just popped in to see the lay of the land.

I see Leo is still living rent free in your heads lads.

Sure look, whatever helps and all that:)

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

Correct and as I respectfully suggested, perhaps take your own advice on that matter and wait for their conclusion
You jumped the gun and stated something non factual,that he admitted a crime
No crime has been determined,ergo none admitted
Furthermore,the government are confident there was no crime
We could run around the houses on that all night to no avail but it would be a fruitless carry on,lets agree to disagree
No one is unaware of our positions

You interjected to state that because the government believed it was not a crime it was somehow not one.

The government have no say in the matter. The wrongdoing that Varadkar confessed to will be determined as a crime or not by the Gardai handing a file n what they discover to the DPP and he decides if it was a crime under two pieces of legislation.

FrancieBrady

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Just popped in to see the lay of the land.

I see Leo is still living rent free in your heads lads.

Sure look, whatever helps and all that:)

As long as Leo is under criminal investigation that almost if not unprecedented event will be a subject of conversation.

Jinglejangle69

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As long as Leo is under criminal investigation that almost if not unprecedented event will be a subject of conversation.

And as I said enjoy:)

This auld Abú system is very comprehensive. They've the parents down as worth a visit to the door. Jesus, starting to think the auld fella might be turning 'green'.


Phone numbers as well. :mad:

Ten of Swords

blanch152 wrote: »

Now that you have introduced whataboutery SF into the discussion, there is a precedent...

No, no there isn't

Starting to wonder if this thread has run it's course tbh. Can we stay on topic or not?

skimpydoo

Deleted User wrote: »

This auld Abú system is very comprehensive. They've the parents down as worth a visit to the door. Jesus, starting to think the auld fella might be turning 'green'.


Phone numbers as well. :mad:

What has this got to do with Leo leaking a confidential document? Me thinks it might be more deflection.

skimpydoo

skimpydoo wrote: »

What has this got to do with Leo leaking a confidential document? Me thinks it might be more deflection.

You're right.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You interjected to state that because the government believed it was not a crime it was somehow not one. .

I stated a fact
You stated an untruth
It really is that simple

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

I stated a fact
You stated an untruth
It really is that simple

You misunderstood and it was clarified.

What I stated is relevant, what you stated is not. It doesn't matter if the government believe he poops gold pellets. If it is found to be a crime he has already confessed to committing it.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You misunderstood and it was clarified.

What I stated is relevant, what you stated is not. It doesn't matter if the government believe he poops gold pellets. If it is found to be a crime he has already confessed to committing it.

I did not mis understand
YOU stated an untruth
YOU then backtracked
YOU then dished out irrelevant advice that you hadn't taken yourself
It really is that simple

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

I did not mis understand
YOU stated an untruth
YOU then backtracked
YOU then dished out irrelevant advice that you hadn't taken yourself
It really is that simple

Clarified/backtracked, have it whatever way you want, doesn't change the truth of this:

What I stated is relevant, what you stated is not. It doesn't matter if the government believe he poops gold pellets. If it is found to be a crime he has already confessed to committing it.

It is very relevant that no crime was admitted because at this point there isn't one
Its also relevant to state that you back tracked in a discussion
The latter may of course be an uncomfortable truth for you