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

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

I have said, from the start, based on the publicly available information, that there was nothing to this. It seems it has take others much longer (including the Gardai) to reach that conclusion. Not my fault that they took longer to understand the issues.

Trying to pretend you had your finger on the pulse from the start of this is hysterical.

Two haymakers I've plucked at random. There's more though.

blanch152 wrote: »

Because some Twitter user says the Gardai are actively investigating him.

blanch152 wrote: »

A lie, a blatant lie.




This is a very good example of how fake news is created.

The Gardai are not investigating Varadkar.

Technically lads,he assisted the Gardaí with their inquiries into whether a crime was committed
Then there was/is either a crime or not at the conclusion
Theres no two ways in this
Only one
He is not currently or on the basis of the British Times article likely to be the suspect of a crime here

thomas 123

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?

Or maybe the “ Garda source “ is just another another leak.

Leakception

thomas 123

Marine Layer wrote: »

Technically lads,he assisted the Gardaí with their inquiries into whether a crime was committed
Then there was/is either a crime or not at the conclusion
Theres no two ways in this
Only one
He is not currently or on the basis of the British Times article likely to be the suspect of a crime here

You are mad to put this to bed, why?

thomas 123

thomas 123 wrote: »

You are mad to put this to bed, why?

Ah honestly,I'm just in with an opinion,I already think the fat lady is warming up the lullaby on it at this stage,that process needs no help from me

skimpydoo

Marine Layer wrote: »

Technically lads,he assisted the Gardaí with their inquiries into whether a crime was committed
Then there was/is either a crime or not at the conclusion
Theres no two ways in this
Only one
He is not currently or on the basis of the British Times article likely to be the suspect of a crime here

He assisted the Gardaí under caution which changes what you said.

FrancieBrady

skimpydoo wrote: »

He assisted the Gardaí under caution which changes what you said.

They are parsing and spinning language to make it anything but what it is, since the start.

skimpydoo

skimpydoo wrote: »

He assisted the Gardaí under caution which changes what you said.

It actually doesn't

skimpydoo

Marine Layer wrote: »

It actually doesn't

It actually does because anything he says can be used in court if it goes that far. This makes it more than an informal chat.

skimpydoo

skimpydoo wrote: »

It actually does because anything he says can be used in court if it goes that far. This makes it more than an informal chat.

It doesn't because he was interviewed as a withness to the investigation,not as a crime suspect as none has been discovered,if the British Times article is correct

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

It doesn't because he was interviewed as a withness to the investigation,not as a crime suspect as none has been discovered,if the British Times article is correct

'Assisting Police/Garda with their inquiries', is one of the oldest euphemisms out there, almost as old as 'he/she was known to Garda'.

Classic use of the wrong euphemism here Marine.

McMurphy

Marine Layer wrote: »

It doesn't because he was interviewed as a withness to the investigation,not as a crime suspect as none has been discovered,if the British Times article is correct

You must have read a different times article to me. Where does it say that

skimpydoo

McMurphy wrote: »

You must have read a different times article to me. Where does it say that

Her version of Google translate is designed for Anti Shinners.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

You must have read a different times article to me. Where does it say that

I think you know what I mean
No protected document,so no OSA coverage and no benefit to Vradakar
I'll let you away with the pedanticism,this time
Unless they're investigating something else not covered by the newspaper scoops

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are parsing and spinning language to make it anything but what it is, since the start.

I have told you plainly and clearly from the start without any parsing and spinning language what exactly is was. Nothing has changed to invalidate my opinion.

blanch152 wrote: »

The document was not a confidential one in terms of the OSA and the Taoiseach was entitled to share it and didn't benefit from sharing it.

As always, the caveat is that opinion is based on the available public information.

As for parsing language, you take a negative response to a question about whether he leaked any other document, as being a positive acceptance that he leaked this particular one. As spinning goes, as debating from false premises goes, it is probably as low as it gets.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I have told you plainly and clearly from the start without any parsing and spinning language what exactly is was. Nothing has changed to invalidate my opinion.



As for parsing language, you take a negative response to a question about whether he leaked any other document, as being a positive acceptance that he leaked this particular one. As spinning goes, as debating from false premises goes, it is probably as low as it gets.

No, I am saying he was 'spinning' what he actually did, and the subsequent revelatory questioning revealed that. Everyone knew, as he did too, what was being talked about.

BTW, your opinion is your opinion only.

McMurphy

Marine Layer wrote: »

I think you know what I mean
No protected document,so no OSA coverage and no benefit to Vradakar
I'll let you away with the pedanticism,this time
Unless they're investigating something else not covered by the newspaper scoops

Pedantic?

You are the one insisting the fat lady is singing, people need new box sets - this is all over etc etc, and then trying to spin yarns about what the article actually said.

The Tory rag "I mean British Times" didn't say no crime was committed, it said a file was to be sent to the DPP, so no it's hardly pedantic to pull you up on a lie. Little details like these are important, I'm sure you'll agree.

Also, bear in mind there were several articles published the same day from different journalists - all of which had different accounts from different sources. As I said the once castigated Tory rag has now seemingly become gospel.

Carry on.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Pedantic?

You are the one insisting the fat lady is singing, people need new box sets - this is all over etc etc, and then trying to spin yarns about what the article actually said.

The Tory rag "I mean British Times" didn't say no crime was committed, it said a file was to be sent to the DPP, so no it's hardly pedantic to pull you up on a lie. Little details like these are important, I'm sure you'll agree.

Also, bear in mind there were several articles published the same day from different journalists - all of which had different accounts from different sources. As I said the once castigated Tory rag has now seemingly become gospel.

Carry on.

I honestly couldn't care less what people think of British newspapers
I do believe the fat lady is tuning up on this,yes thats the impression I got from that weekends coverage
Other opinions are available,but sure if we wanted to avoid strangers opinions,we wouldnt be here at all

McMurphy

Marine Layer wrote: »

I honestly couldn't care less what people think of British newspapers
I do believe the fat lady is tuning up on this,yes thats the impression I got from that weekends coverage
Other opinions are available,but sure if we wanted to avoid strangers opinions,we wouldnt be here at all

Now this poster "doesn't care"

Just cares enough to make sure I knew what they referred to the paper as, and to deliberately misrepresent what the paper said.

Hang around - you're gas altogether.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Now this poster "doesn't care"

Just cares enough to make sure I knew what they referred to the paper as, and to deliberately misrepresent what the paper said.

Hang around - you're gas altogether.

Thanks
But I simply cannot agree with your view of my view there
But you're entitled to your opinion on an opinion forum
It's good that you are here actually,so I return tbose sentiments
As someone once said,2 people who agree on everything usually means there's only one thinker

FrancieBrady

He was interviewed about it there by Cormac on Drivetime.

Told by his solicitors to keep schtum about it. Wouldn't say whether he has his phone back or not.

skimpydoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He was interviewed about it there by Cormac on Drivetime.

Told by his solicitors to keep schtum about it. Wouldn't say whether he has his phone back or not.

It looks like there might be a few more twists in this so called nothing story.

skimpydoo

skimpydoo wrote: »

It looks like there might be a few more twists in this so called nothing story.

Oh?

skimpydoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh?

It looks like he might not have gotten his phone back just yet.

jmcc

skimpydoo wrote: »

It looks like he might not have gotten his phone back just yet.

I think O'Toole's phone is also part of the investigation.

Regards...jmcc

skimpydoo

jmcc wrote: »

I think O'Toole's phone is also part of the investigation.

Regards...jmcc

So it looks like it's not phoney investigation.

Suckit

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He was interviewed about it there by Cormac on Drivetime.

Told by his solicitors to keep schtum about it. Wouldn't say whether he has his phone back or not.

It wouldn't have been the most thorough investigation to be fair, if they only took his phone on Saturday and he had it back already.
It mightn't be the phone he agreed to leak the confidential documents with, to a member of the public as the sitting Taoiseach and head of the Fine Gael party two years ago, but it could have proof of illegal activity on it. All criminal investigations should be thorough, especially if they are committed by a senior member of the government, even if he received legal advice after the fact telling him that it mightn't be (ilegal) - assuming he gave his legal advisors correct and detailed information.

blanch152

Suckit wrote: »

It wouldn't have been the most thorough investigation to be fair, if they only took his phone on Saturday and he had it back already.
It mightn't be the phone he agreed to leak the confidential documents with, to a member of the public as the sitting Taoiseach and head of the Fine Gael party two years ago, but it could have proof of illegal activity on it. All criminal investigations should be thorough, especially if they are committed by a senior member of the government, even if he received legal advice after the fact telling him that it mightn't be (ilegal) - assuming he gave his legal advisors correct and detailed information.

Dear God, the tales that some people spin.

Suckit

blanch152 wrote: »

Dear God, the tales that some people spin.

Found any of those links yet?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Dear God, the tales that some people spin.

I know, Leo trying to suggest they "weren't really mates" was gas altogether.