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

McMurphy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Did the Village come up with that?

Understood this thread was about Varadkar Story in the Village.

Francie could you enlighten an auld grunt where the Village come in on this ?

Just a hunch I have here Brenner, but I think you're probably pretending not to see the joke "Dr Harold" made. Let me run through it with you.

The tweet is, In a satirical way stating that "Leo Varadkar welcomes Carphone Warehouse’s commitment to fulfill outstanding ‘burner phone’ orders before closing"

My guess is (most people won't need to guess though) it's a pisstake in reference to varadkar/zero craic correspondence with each other.

There's this you see.

Both Mr Varadkar and Dr Ó Tuathail were asked by gardaí to surrender their mobile phones, which they did, and contact phone data between them in the period before and after the document changed hands has been reviewed by the Garda investigation team.

A "burner phone" is:

A “burner phone” is a cheap, prepaid mobile phone that you can destroy or discard when you no longer need it. In popular media, criminals often use burner phones to evade detection by authorities. You might use a burner phone for privacy reasons, as a last resort, or during an emergency.

There in lies the joke. If zero craic and Varadkar had burner phones, popular with criminals they'd not be in the shït bren, nor worry about the Gardai checking data between them before, and if they've been in contact with each other since the story broke.......

You're welcome.

Jaysis.

Brendan Bendar

McMurphy wrote: »

Just a hunch I have here Brenner, but I think you're probably pretending not to see the joke "Dr Harold" made. Let me run through it with you.

The tweet is, In a satirical way stating that "Leo Varadkar welcomes Carphone Warehouse’s commitment to fulfill outstanding ‘burner phone’ orders before closing"

My guess is (most people won't need to guess though) it's a pisstake in reference to varadkar/zero craic correspondence with each other.

There's this you see.



A "burner phone" is:



There in lies the joke. If zero craic and Varadkar had burner phones, popular with criminals they'd not be in the shït bren, nor worry about the Gardai checking data between them before, and if they've been in contact with each other since the story broke.......

You're welcome.

Jaysis.

Ever think of sending your CV into Betway ?

political analyst

Given that official secrets concern government documents, isn't the government the alleged 'victim' in any case in which the Official Secrets Act has been allegedly breached? If it is, then shouldn't it be left to the government to decide whether to press charges?

FrancieBrady

political analyst wrote: »

Given that official secrets concern government documents, isn't the government the alleged 'victim' in any case in which the Official Secrets Act has been allegedly breached? If it is, then shouldn't it be left to the government to decide whether to press charges?

I would say 'the people' are the nominal victims. Hence the DPP will prosecute on our behalf.

political analyst

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would say 'the people' are the nominal victims. Hence the DPP will prosecute on our behalf.

But government documents are government property. So it's not like a burglary at a private individual's home.

FrancieBrady

political analyst wrote: »

But government documents are government property. So it's not like a burglary at a private individual's home.

They are 'our' property and the government is 'our' government. There is supposed to be separation of powers. The Director Of Public Prosecution works on 'our' behalf not the government of the day.

political analyst

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are 'our' property and the government is 'our' government. There is supposed to be separation of powers. The Director Of Public Prosecution works on 'our' behalf not the government of the day.

If they're 'our' property then why can't we just walk in and have access to them? :rolleyes:

skimpydoo

political analyst wrote: »

Given that official secrets concern government documents, isn't the government the alleged 'victim' in any case in which the Official Secrets Act has been allegedly breached? If it is, then shouldn't it be left to the government to decide whether to press charges?

If the Government investigated themselves, cronyism would never end.

BackOfMyBag

political analyst wrote: »

Given that official secrets concern government documents, isn't the government the alleged 'victim' in any case in which the Official Secrets Act has been allegedly breached? If it is, then shouldn't it be left to the government to decide whether to press charges?

if a government was let decide on whether or not to police itself when it comes to corruption and illegality , when would any government ever be held to account ?
besides that , there is also the small matter of the contract that was leaked also involving the IMO , maybe they should get to decide if charges are pressed too ?

no . better for the dpp to act on the Irish peoples behalf as an independent and neutral body.

it sounds a bit like calling for the police to be allowed to police itself which would be a recipe for disaster !

shatners bassoon

political analyst wrote: »

Given that official secrets concern government documents, isn't the government the alleged 'victim' in any case in which the Official Secrets Act has been allegedly breached? If it is, then shouldn't it be left to the government to decide whether to press charges?

The victim doesn't decide whether a crime is prosecuted or not.

Obviously, if a victim doesn't want to testify it makes it a lot harder / impossible to proceed in some cases.

Important to point out that if the Garda Source for the British Times is correct, then, no protected status for the document and no benefit for Vradakar so there is no crime
Ergo, the DPP will just have the formality of looking at the file and investigation closed

shatners bassoon

This thread got away from me but I enjoyed the whooping and hollering over The Times article from the rabid anti-shinners. They only had to wait 600 pages!

I would comment that if a decision has been made that the document was not confidential, it's absolutely bizarre that the investigation has made it this far. If the document isn't confidential then there's no point in investigating the other aspects of the potential charges, surely?

Also, I won't profess to know how the DPP and Gardai liaise during the investigation stage but ascertaining the status of the document is surely a matter for the DPP rather than the Gardai. It's a legal issue rather than an evidential one.

FrancieBrady

shatners bassoon wrote: »

This thread got away from me but I enjoyed the whooping and hollering over The Times article from the rabid anti-shinners. They only had to wait 600 pages!

I would comment that if a decision has been made that the document was not confidential, it's absolutely bizarre that the investigation has made it this far. If the document isn't confidential then there's no point in investigating the other aspects of the potential charges, surely?

Also, I won't profess to know how the DPP and Gardai liaise during the investigation stage but ascertaining the status of the document is surely a matter for the DPP rather than the Gardai. It's a legal issue rather than an evidential one.

I would think it is forbidden for the DPP to be telling Gardai his/her thinking in the middle of an investigation tbh. And if he/she was I think there would be questions to be asked there too.

We know nothing of the experience or rank/role of the 'Garda source'. They may turn out to be right but the whooping and hollering is certainly a tad premature.

My feeling always was is that he will get a rap over the knuckles in a 'not enough evidence to prosecute' kind of way.

I'd be surprised if the DPP gives carte blanche for TD's to knowingly engage in wrongdoing. Unprecedented surely?

I personally wouldn't be in favour of depriving anyone of their Niche enjoyment in this thread
I would continue to advise finding a new box set though as the British times has not only leaked the Finale of this one,they leaked the end of the show.

McMurphy

Marine Layer wrote: »

I personally wouldn't be in favour of depriving anyone of their Niche enjoyment in this thread
I would continue to advise finding a new box set though as the British times has not only leaked the Finale of this one,they leaked the end of the show.

If I'm not mistaken, there were many of the "pro Leo" camp completely dissing the times when they were first out of the blocks, weeks before anyone else with their revelation's that the preliminary investigation was upgraded to the criminal one.

Now their word seems to be gospel.

Just an observation.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I would think it is forbidden for the DPP to be telling Gardai his/her thinking in the middle of an investigation tbh. And if he/she was I think there would be questions to be asked there too.

We know nothing of the experience or rank/role of the 'Garda source'. They may turn out to be right but the whooping and hollering is certainly a tad premature.

My feeling always was is that he will get a rap over the knuckles in a 'not enough evidence to prosecute' kind of way.

I'd be surprised if the DPP gives carte blanche for TD's to knowingly engage in wrongdoing. Unprecedented surely?

What a load of nonsense. How would the DPP believing there was no evidence of a crime equate to giving a carte blanche for TDs to knowing engage in wrongdoing?

The desperate attempts to build this into something it is not continue.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

What a load of nonsense. How would the DPP believing there was no evidence of a crime equate to giving a carte blanche for TDs to knowing engage in wrongdoing?

The desperate attempts to build this into something it is not continue.

The TD/Tanaiste has confessed to knowingly distributing a document he knew to be confidential. He said so in the Dáil.

I am not 'desperate' to do anything, just responding to the known facts.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken, there were many of the "pro Leo" camp completely dissing the times when they were first out of the blocks, weeks before anyone else with their revelation's that the preliminary investigation was upgraded to the criminal one.

Now their word seems to be gospel.

Just an observation.

It is the British Times,I always call it that
Great for catching up on British news mainly
What was your reaction to their news of this at the start? I've had a look,you praised the journalist and the quality of its garda source,mentioning her tribunal experience
So that table is firmly bolted to the ground
No turning it over I'm afraid
If the Garda source is correct,theres no crime and no suspect of crime needing action

McMurphy

Marine Layer wrote: »

It is the British Times,I always call it that

What you call it has absolutely nothing to do with my observation. Not sure of relevancy tbh.

Great for catching up on British news mainly
What was your reaction to their news of this at the start? I've had a look,you praised the journalist and the quality of its garda source,mentioning her tribunal experience
So that table is firmly bolted to the ground
No turning it over I'm afraid
If the Garda source is correct,theres no crime and no suspect of crime needing action

I said Debbie McCann (she's not the times) had great contacts within the Gardai. The article you're referencing wasn't penned by Debbie McCann. Be "afraid" or don't be "afraid" you haven't the point you think you have lol.

I don't seem to be in camp flip flop marine layer.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

What you call it has absolutely nothing to do with my observation. Not sure of relevancy tbh.


I said Debbie McCann (she's not the times) had great contacts within the Gardai. The article you're referencing wasn't penned by Debbie McCann.

I don't seem to be in camp flip flop marine layer.

Well you can take it,I always call that paper the British Times (as opposed to the Irish Times)
So can you clarify are you questioning the British Times's Garda Source's veracity ?

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

Well you can take it,I always call that paper the British Times (as opposed to the Irish Times)
So can you clarify are you questioning the British Times's Garda Source's veracity ?

I doubt the story made the front page of the British Times...it made the front page of the Irish edition of the The Sunday Times though.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The TD/Tanaiste has confessed to knowingly distributing a document he knew to be confidential. He said so in the Dáil.

I am not 'desperate' to do anything, just responding to the known facts.

No he didn't, and you have been called out on this lie repeatedly.

McMurphy

Marine Layer wrote: »

Well you can take it,I always call that paper the British Times (as opposed to the Irish Times)

Please explain why you think it's important what you call the paper, and why I would care anyway? What is your actual point here, where are you going with it?

So can you clarify are you questioning the British Times's Garda Source's veracity ?

What calcification is needed?

People here were dissing the times as "a Tory rag" when Debbie McCanns first revealed the investigation on Leo was a criminal one.

I pointed out that who owned the paper had no bearing on the story being true or untrue, and pointed out the journalist Debbie McCann had great contacts within the Gardai, and stated why I believed she had great contacts.

It turned out McCann was spot on, and was the first to break the story about the criminal investigation.

The latest article in the times isn't from Debbie McCann, and yet the then "Tory rag" is now next to gospel.

What part of this is confusing?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No he didn't, and you have been called out on this lie repeatedly.

Varadkar apologises over leak of confidential GP contract to rival group

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/varadkar-apologises-over-leak-of-confidential-gp-contract-to-rival-group-1.4398960

He agreed it was confidential and that he leaked it under questioning in the Dáil.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Please explain why you think it's important what you call the paper, and why I would care anyway? What is your actual point here, where are you going with it?


What calcification is needed?

People here were dissing the times as "a Tory rag" when Debbie McCanns first revealed the investigation on Leo was a criminal one.

I pointed out that who owned the paper had no bearing on the story being true or untrue, and pointed out the journalist Debbie McCann had great contacts within the Gardai, and stated why I believed she had great contacts.

It turned out McCann was spot on, and was the first to break the story about the criminal investigation.

The latest article in the times isn't from Debbie McCann, and yet the then "Tory rag" is now next to gospel.

What part of this is confusing?

Fine,you directed the dissing comments at me by quoting me,I've never dissed them
You're accepting the British Time's article as the latest,I take it so
No crime,nothing further is it's take home point
New boxset still needed based on that
I've no idea what to suggest for you

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

Fine,you directed the dissing comments at me by quoting me,I've never dissed them
You're accepting the British Time's article as the latest,I take it so
No crime,nothing further is it's take home point
New boxset still needed based on that
I've no idea what to suggest for you

Why this snideness and trying to bully people into silence with the 'box set' remarks?

People are still interested in how this this unprecedented series of events will play out. On a discussion forum.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why this snideness and trying to bully people into silence with the 'box set' remarks?

People are still interested in how this this unprecedented series of events will play out. On a discussion forum.

Not going to work
Losing in the wonderous adventures thread doesn't make this one 2nd prize for you

McMurphy

Marine Layer wrote: »

Fine,you directed the dissing comments at me by quoting me,I've never dissed them
You're accepting the British Time's article as the latest,I take it so
No crime,nothing further is it's take home point
New boxset still needed based on that
I've no idea what to suggest for you

No I didn't direct it at you, I might have quoted you granted, but unless you were part of the "people dissing the times as a Tory rag" then it clearly doesn't apply to you.

I'll echo Francies sentiments about the "box set" jibe though.

Story clearly hasn't ran it's course, and whatever the outcome, Leo Varadkar has admitted to leaking a document to his friend whilst Taoiseach.

That'll follow him to his grave. (I'm afraid).

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

No I didn't direct it at you, I might have quoted you granted, but unless you were part of the "people dissing the times as a Tory rag" then it clearly doesn't apply to you.

I'll echo Francies sentiments about the "box set" jibe though.

Story clearly hasn't ran it's course, and whatever the outcome, Leo Varadkar has admitted to leaking a document to his friend whilst Taoiseach.

That'll follow him to his grave. (I'm afraid).

Well thats your opinion and you are more than welcome to it
Other opinions do vary

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

No I didn't direct it at you, I might have quoted you granted, but unless you were part of the "people dissing the times as a Tory rag" then it clearly doesn't apply to you.

I'll echo Francies sentiments about the "box set" jibe though.

Story clearly hasn't ran it's course, and whatever the outcome, Leo Varadkar has admitted to leaking a document to his friend whilst Taoiseach.

That'll follow him to his grave. (I'm afraid).

That is why this will always be relevant when talking of his career. No doubt, future biographers will ignore it or downplay it but it's already not a very flattering episode, how ever it plays out.