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

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What Leo confessed to is responsible for the investigation. Had he not engaged in wrongdoing we wouldn't be here.

That nonsense you made up about him "confessing" has been destroyed several times in this thread already, yet you keep coming out with this lie.

Varadkar has "confessed" to nothing more than sharing a document with a relevant party but doing so in an informal rather than formal manner. Your persistent attempts to make his statements into something more because of responses to rhetorical questions is pathetic.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no need for you to be the subject of the complaint.

https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/make-a-complaint/before-you-complain/

"Did the incident you are complaining about happen to you? If not, were you there in person and did you see it happen, or are you complaining on behalf of someone that this happened to, with their permission?"

So Cosgrave or Chad Bowes can complain to GSOC that their complaint wasn't properly investigated. Furthermore, they, and others can claim that in the public interest that an investigation into Varadkar's "escape" should happen. This would be under Section 104.


"The Ombudsman Commission may, if it appears to it desirable in the public interest to do so and without
receiving a complaint, investigate any matter that appears to it to indicate that a member of the Garda
Síochána may have—
(a) committed an offence, or
(b) behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings."

You can disagree with my reading of the legislation if you want, but you can't claim that I know nothing about it.




What a pointless post. Some of us have lives and aren't here to answer any question 24/7. Furthermore, there is no requirement to respond to any point.

What has this little deflectionary sidebar achieved? Anyone can make a complaint.

What a revelation.

Suckit

So to get an answer, I used google.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pirate+flags+twitter
First result is Paddy Cosgraves tweet

I've added the pirate flag to my bio, because I think given that Ireland's run by a bunch of pirates, privateers & cronies, it's currently more appropriate than the Irish one which stands for peace between all communities, we're all in this together...

I am guessing that is the Pirate Flag that repeatedly gets mentioned here. But of course it's nonsense and it "is associated with every sort of malcontent, ne'er do well, and loser that you tend to find on Twitter" - The final part being a direct reply to the question.

It's such nonsense that it seems to be working. It has the FG lot here repeatedly referring to it here and telling us all that it's the reason Leo is under investigation and would probably try and blame anything else on them given the chance.
I genuinely don't get the ambivelance on it. It is either a load of nonsense crazy people spouting gibberish on a cesspit of a social platform, or it is worrying speech and facts for FG, worthy enough to repeat everywhere to tell us all that is nonsense and gibberish spouted by idiots on nasty platform.

skimpydoo

I look forward to revisiting old posts in this thread later this year. Posts that stated there was nothing to see here and that it would soon blow over. It's going to make fascinating reading.

Suckit

blanch152 wrote: »

That nonsense you made up about him "confessing" has been destroyed several times in this thread already, yet you keep coming out with this lie.

Varadkar has "confessed" to nothing more than sharing a document with a relevant party but doing so in an informal rather than formal manner. Your persistent attempts to make his statements into something more because of responses to rhetorical questions is pathetic.

So he confessed to sharing a document.
That is the bit he is under investigation for.
That is the part that is believed to have been a criminal act.

Blaming Paddy Cosgrave for 'ratting him out' doesn't change the fact that he did it and this is all his own doing.. Repeating myself again...

skimpydoo

It seems like Leo and his followers can't take responsibility for his actions.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no need for you to be the subject of the complaint.

I didn't say there was. You introduced Ian Bailey as an example, I replied that he was able to make a GSOC complaint because the investigation he was complaining was about him i.e. the incident.

https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/make-a-complaint/before-you-complain/

"Did the incident you are complaining about happen to you? If not, were you there in person and did you see it happen, or are you complaining on behalf of someone that this happened to, with their permission?"

So Cosgrave or Chad Bowes can complain to GSOC that their complaint wasn't properly investigated.

They clearly can't. Do you not know what the word incident means? The incident was the leak. The leak didn't happen to Bowes or Cosgrave, they were not there in person, and they do not have the permission of either Leo or Maitiu.

Furthermore, they, and others can claim that in the public interest that an investigation into Varadkar's "escape" should happen. This would be under Section 104

Section 104 you say?

"104.— Notwithstanding section 10 (4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 , summary proceedings in respect of a matter relating to an offence reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions under this Act may be instituted within 12 months from the date of the offence."

"The Ombudsman Commission may, if it appears to it desirable in the public interest to do so and without
receiving a complaint, investigate any matter that appears to it to indicate that a member of the Garda
Síochána may have—
(a) committed an offence, or
(b) behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings."

That says GSOC can independently commence an investigation. Your claim was that Bowes or Cosgrave could make a GSOC complaint. You also made the claim in the sentence preceding that quote that "anyone can make a public interest" complaint. The legislation clearly states that only GSOC can decide to do so. You're either lying or you're fundamentally incapable of comprehension.

You can disagree with my reading of the legislation if you want, but you can't claim that I know nothing about it.

I can, and I've proved it over two posts now.

What a pointless post. Some of us have lives and aren't here to answer any question 24/7. Furthermore, there is no requirement to respond to any point.

The point is: you have a posting style of making farfetched claims and then not responding when the veracity of such is challenged. Which is probably for the best, given how awful the post I'm responding to is. Stick to what you're at least proficient at.

shtpEdthePlum

Genuine question and I'm not being thick here.

Usually when a politician does something like this there's a tribunal which goes on for years at great cost and establishes nothing until everyone has forgotten what it's about.

What is different in this particular instance?

Loafing Oaf

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Genuine question and I'm not being thick here.

Usually when a politician does something like this there's a tribunal which goes on for years at great cost and establishes nothing until everyone has forgotten what it's about.

What is different in this particular instance?

Have to wait for Garda investigations to run into the sand first...

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say there was. You introduced Ian Bailey as an example, I replied that he was able to make a GSOC complaint because the investigation he was complaining was about him i.e. the incident.



They clearly can't. Do you not know what the word incident means? The incident was the leak. The leak didn't happen to Bowes or Cosgrave, they were not there in person, and they do not have the permission of either Leo or Maitiu.


Section 104 you say?

"104.— Notwithstanding section 10 (4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 , summary proceedings in respect of a matter relating to an offence reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions under this Act may be instituted within 12 months from the date of the offence."



That says GSOC can independently commence an investigation. Your claim was that Bowes or Cosgrave could make a GSOC complaint. You also made the claim in the sentence preceding that quote that "anyone can make a public interest" complaint. The legislation clearly states that only GSOC can decide to do so. You're either lying or you're fundamentally incapable of comprehension.





I can, and I've proved it over two posts now.


The point is: you have a posting style of making farfetched claims and then not responding when the veracity of such is challenged. Which is probably for the best, given how awful the post I'm responding to is. Stick to what you're at least proficient at.

Ouch.

Awkward moment. Very awkward.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say there was. You introduced Ian Bailey as an example, I replied that he was able to make a GSOC complaint because the investigation he was complaining was about him i.e. the incident.



They clearly can't. Do you not know what the word incident means? The incident was the leak. The leak didn't happen to Bowes or Cosgrave, they were not there in person, and they do not have the permission of either Leo or Maitiu.


Section 104 you say?

"104.— Notwithstanding section 10 (4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 , summary proceedings in respect of a matter relating to an offence reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions under this Act may be instituted within 12 months from the date of the offence."



That says GSOC can independently commence an investigation. Your claim was that Bowes or Cosgrave could make a GSOC complaint. You also made the claim in the sentence preceding that quote that "anyone can make a public interest" complaint. The legislation clearly states that only GSOC can decide to do so. You're either lying or you're fundamentally incapable of comprehension.





I can, and I've proved it over two posts now.


The point is: you have a posting style of making farfetched claims and then not responding when the veracity of such is challenged. Which is probably for the best, given how awful the post I'm responding to is. Stick to what you're at least proficient at.

The "incident" is their complaint to Gardai. The "incident" is their interview with Gardai.

If you make a complaint to Gardai, and the Gardai mishandle that complaint, you can complain to GSOC.

https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/about-gsoc/faqs/can-gsoc-get-garda-siochana-investigate-matter-i-reported/

"No. We can look into whether any gardaí were in breach of discipline for any neglect of duty, or lack of action. We cannot oblige them to take any action."

Clearly, if Bowes or Cosgrave feel that there was neglect of their complaint, or lack of action in respect of their complaint, they can refer the matter to GSOC. The Gardai will have been quickly aware of the proclivities of Cosgrace and Bowes, and will make sure that there is no room for such a complaint.

As for the pejorative references in your post to myself, as I will ignore them, you can do what you want with them.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

The "incident" is their complaint to Gardai. The "incident" is their interview with Gardai.

If you make a complaint to Gardai, and the Gardai mishandle that complaint, you can complain to GSOC.

https://www.gardaombudsman.ie/about-gsoc/faqs/can-gsoc-get-garda-siochana-investigate-matter-i-reported/

"No. We can look into whether any gardaí were in breach of discipline for any neglect of duty, or lack of action. We cannot oblige them to take any action."

Clearly, if Bowes or Cosgrave feel that there was neglect of their complaint, or lack of action in respect of their complaint, they can refer the matter to GSOC. The Gardai will have been quickly aware of the proclivities of Cosgrace and Bowes, and will make sure that there is no room for such a complaint.

As for the pejorative references in your post to myself, as I will ignore them, you can do what you want with them.

This is what you came back with?

You ignored all my corrections and came back with this guff? What happened to claiming that anyone could make a 'public interest' complaint? Do I need to make a list of the 5+ things you have gotten wrong and then mysteriously not defended?

If the 'incident' is their interview with AGS, then they can only make a complaint about that interview. This is obvious. The legislation (which you lied about being familiar with) makes it clear who can and can't make a complaint to GSOC and under what circumstances. There is a three-fold test applied and all three tests must be satisfied - there is no provision for someone to make a complaint because they're unhappy with the outcome of a Garda investigation that didn't involve them (with 'involvement' being laid out in the legislation).

I'm not sure why you're now throwing out yet another spurious argument based on deliberately twisting the clear and obvious meaning of words, but how and ever - at least you're consistent(ly wrong).

Further, GSOC will only accept a complaint if it contains allegations of misbehaviour (“misbehaviour” means conduct that constitutes an offence or a breach of discipline) - an investigation having an outcome you are unhappy with is not an allegation of misbehaviour and will not be accepted as such - allegations must be specific, using your Ian Bailey example, GSOC investigated his complaint because a) the incident was about him & b) he made specific allegations about misbehaviour.

Grow up.

Muahahaha

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is: you have a posting style of making farfetched claims and then not responding when the veracity of such is challenged. Which is probably for the best, given how awful the post I'm responding to is. Stick to what you're at least proficient at.

He did the exact same thing with Maurice McCabe, he spent years on here trying to character assassinate him and even when McCabe was completely exonerated by the Disclosures Tribunal blanch was still on here trying to throw mud at him saying "he has serious questions to answer". When asked what these serious questions were he wasnt able to answer and still cannot to this day., instead preferring to run away from his claims. Its a posting style that just seeks to throw mud at good, honest decent people with no intention to back up groundless and spurious allegations.

Anyway I see the Gardai are now saying the investigation is going to run into the summer which means we are going to need a second thread. So much for the claims that this was all nothing and it would be wrapped up in a couple of weeks.

Also given the vast resources the Gardai have now put into this investigation I hope Fine Gael are going to repay the cost of it to the taxpayer who is currently on the hook for investigating their leader. It was after all Fine Gael who called for the SF to pay for the the 25k cost of their motion of no confidence in Varadkar over this very topic of him leaking this document. Ive no ideas what the Garda investigation is costing but can be certain it has been a hell of a lot more than 25k at this stage given that the top brass and a team of detectives from the NBCI are involved. By the Fine Gaels own standard they should pony up the cost of the Gardai investigating their leader, otherwise they are just a bunch of hypocrites.

McMurphy

Wonder if there'll be anything further in tomorrow's papers regarding the latest phones to be seized?

Reading between the lines, I think what's happened is when studying either OTuathails or Varadkars phones, they have discovered a WhatsApp group or something in which details of this whole episode were being discussed, and now everyone involved needs to be interviewed.

Leo and zero craic are after causing a right old kerfuffle, lot of valuable Gardai time and resources being thrown at this.

Also, going on the above. I don't think Cosgrave or Bowes contacting GSOC with some kind of complaint is a realistic possibility now.

I Am The Law

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Have to wait for Garda investigations to run into the sand first...

Must keep up the speculation in the meantime, leo .<> toast

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

This is what you came back with?

You ignored all my corrections and came back with this guff? What happened to claiming that anyone could make a 'public interest' complaint? Do I need to make a list of the 5+ things you have gotten wrong and then mysteriously not defended?

If the 'incident' is their interview with AGS, then they can only make a complaint about that interview. This is obvious. The legislation (which you lied about being familiar with) makes it clear who can and can't make a complaint to GSOC and under what circumstances. There is a three-fold test applied and all three tests must be satisfied - there is no provision for someone to make a complaint because they're unhappy with the outcome of a Garda investigation that didn't involve them (with 'involvement' being laid out in the legislation).

I'm not sure why you're now throwing out yet another spurious argument based on deliberately twisting the clear and obvious meaning of words, but how and ever - at least you're consistent(ly wrong).

Further, GSOC will only accept a complaint if it contains allegations of misbehaviour (“misbehaviour” means conduct that constitutes an offence or a breach of discipline) - an investigation having an outcome you are unhappy with is not an allegation of misbehaviour and will not be accepted as such - allegations must be specific, using your Ian Bailey example, GSOC investigated his complaint because a) the incident was about him & b) he made specific allegations about misbehaviour.

Grow up.

Rubbish, they made the original complaint, they can complain that the Gardai were neglectful in dealing with the complaint. They can't complain about the result of the actual investigation, only that it wasn't done properly, hence the Gardai crossing all the "t"s. It is not just misbehaviour. If you were correct, GSOC would have nothing to investigate.

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

He did the exact same thing with Maurice McCabe, he spent years on here trying to character assassinate him and even when McCabe was completely exonerated by the Disclosures Tribunal blanch was still on here trying to throw mud at him saying "he has serious questions to answer". When asked what these serious questions were he wasnt able to answer and still cannot to this day., instead preferring to run away from his claims. Its a posting style that just seeks to throw mud at good, honest decent people with no intention to back up groundless and spurious allegations.

Anyway I see the Gardai are now saying the investigation is going to run into the summer which means we are going to need a second thread. So much for the claims that this was all nothing and it would be wrapped up in a couple of weeks.

Also given the vast resources the Gardai have now put into this investigation I hope Fine Gael are going to repay the cost of it to the taxpayer who is currently on the hook for investigating their leader. It was after all Fine Gael who called for the SF to pay for the the 25k cost of their motion of no confidence in Varadkar over this very topic of him leaking this document. Ive no ideas what the Garda investigation is costing but can be certain it has been a hell of a lot more than 25k at this stage given that the top brass and a team of detectives from the NBCI are involved. By the Fine Gaels own standard they should pony up the cost of the Gardai investigating their leader, otherwise they are just a bunch of hypocrites.

If the investigation goes nowhere, will you be calling on Cosgrave and Bowes to fund the cost? Silly argument at best.

Again, will ignore the pejorative claims. I make my opinion known, you don't like it, I don't care.

Suckit

blanch152 wrote: »

If the investigation goes nowhere, will you be calling on Cosgrave and Bowes to fund the cost? Silly argument at best.

Again, will ignore the pejorative claims. I make my opinion known, you don't like it, I don't care.

Again blaming the people who called him out.
If they were the people at fault you would never get people reporting anything.
Leo admits that he has done wrong, but is "confident that no crime was committed". Confidence is a great thing to have, but it tantamounts to nothing if it can't be backed by 100% sureties.
Leo is not sure and certain that he has not breached or broken any laws. It has been suggested the leak came about after the information was already published. If that was the case, why all the mystery surrounding it? Leo was hoping that his version of events would be enough to put this to bed. They obviously weren't.
Harris couldn't even get a copy of it at the time as minister for health.
The reason the investigation has gone on this long, and will go on throughout the summer, is not because Paddy Cosgrave, Chay Bowes or anyone else reported it.
Even if I was to sit on your side of fence on this issue, it would still be Leo's fault for at the very least, not following the correct channels, and going to such lengths to get the documents to O'Tuathaill in such a weird (or secretive) manner. The expense should be his/FG's without a shadow of a doubt, however this pans out.
The longer it goes on isn't doing him any favours either.

Suckit

Suckit wrote: »

Again blaming the people who called him out.
If they were the people at fault you would never get people reporting anything.
Leo admits that he has done wrong, but is "confident that no crime was committed". Confidence is a great thing to have, but it tantamounts to nothing if it can't be backed by 100% sureties.
Leo is not sure and certain that he has not breached or broken any laws. It has been suggested the leak came about after the information was already published. If that was the case, why all the mystery surrounding it? Leo was hoping that his version of events would be enough to put this to bed. They obviously weren't.
Harris couldn't even get a copy of it at the time as minister for health.
The reason the investigation has gone on this long, and will go on throughout the summer, is not because Paddy Cosgrave, Chay Bowes or anyone else reported it.
Even if I was to sit on your side of fence on this issue, it would still be Leo's fault for at the very least, not following the correct channels, and going to such lengths to get the documents to O'Tuathaill in such a weird (or secretive) manner. The expense should be his/FG's without a shadow of a doubt, however this pans out.
The longer it goes on isn't doing him any favours either.

Oh he is sure and certain that no crime was involved,you can be sure of that
His view and the governments is right motivation to get all doctors signed,short cut taken
He's also sure and certain that this process which must play out was started by people with such known grudges,they're pathetically all over twitter with their bitterness in public for all to see
Thats going to be their downfall
Too late for them now,they're so stupid
Their true motives have trumped any splunk of sense or strategy
They should have stayed quiet
They're going to be demolished by the sunday papers when the process is finished and you'll be seeing Tubs have Leo and the BF on the sofa talking about it
Opposition should be about policy,not this personal grudge sh1t

BackOfMyBag

Marine Layer wrote: »

Oh he is sure and certain that no crime was involved,you can be sure of that
His view and the governments is right motivation to get all doctors signed,short cut taken
He's also sure and certain that this process which must play out was started by people with such known grudges,they're pathetically all over twitter with their bitterness in public for all to see
Thats going to be their downfall
Too late for them now,they're so stupid
Their true motives have trumped any splunk of sense or strategy
They should have stayed quiet
They're going to be demolished by the sunday papers when the process is finished and you'll be seeing Tubs have Leo and the BF on the sofa talking about it
Opposition should be about policy,not this personal grudge sh1t

you are posting a load of white noise and nonsense ! whether or not leo varadkar is "certain no crime has been committed" is meaningless , you have been trumpeting this numerous times over various posts !

it does not matter that leo is "certain no crime was committed" , leo doesnt get to pick and choose what equals a crime in ireland , and what does not equal a crime !

their has been a long and deep running and ongoing investigation taken place here by high ranking members of the ncbi, with some senior detectives having active roles , various people have been interviewed under caution , and from what is being reported , there net seems to be widening !

from what I can gather , the gards are in the process of completing a file to be sent to irelands dpp , they are who will decide if a crime has potentially been committed by leo, not leo varadkar himself will make that decision !

none of your predictions have come to pass yet , but still you persist with your cock sure posting about what will happen !

BackOfMyBag

BackOfMyBag wrote: »

you are posting a load of white noise and nonsense ! whether or not leo varadkar is "certain no crime has been committed" is meaningless , you have been trumpeting this numerous times over various posts !

it does not matter that leo is "certain no crime was committed" , leo doesnt get to pick and choose what equals a crime in ireland , and what does not equal a crime !

their has been a long and deep running and ongoing investigation taken place here by high ranking members of the ncbi, with some senior detectives having active roles , various people have been interviewed under caution , and from what is being reported , there net seems to be widening !

from what I can gather , the gards are in the process of completing a file to be sent to irelands dpp , they are who will decide if a crime has potentially been committed by leo, not leo varadkar himself will make that decision !

none of your predictions have come to pass yet , but still you persist with your cock sure posting about what will happen !

What predictions?
The only prediction,I'll make here,is no crime,no time
I'm fairly certain that when that happens,chickens for the begrudgers involved will come home to roost

Johnthemanager

Oh no, reports in the papers this morning that the document that Leo leaked was seen by a lot more people than just his buddy the Doc!

This isn't going away.

I wonder when Leo decides it's time to take "the job" somewhere in Europe and shuffles off before the court case?

McMurphy

I'm reading reports that Leo's fate "rests in the hands of the editor of the village magazine" as he's gathered up a lot of evidence through interviews and additional information.

Apparently they're not releasing it just yet.

I'm not sure what veracity there is to that claim, but it comes back what I was saying earlier in the thread, I get the feeling those investigating this episode are doing such a thorough job because it cannot be swept under the carpet, simply because they know there's digital footprints of this thing, both in the public domain, and the possibility of more that's not in the public domain.

One things for sure, it's definitely not going away and Leo is as far away from being home and hosed as he was when this first broke.

There seems to be a concerted effort from the contrarions to establish a more than friends relationship between O'Tuathail and Vradakar and that the document was widely circulated after it came to O'Tuathail
What's strange is, It doesn't seem that Bowes had it
So now the Garda team have to interview a whole raft of names of those that Cosgrave submitted
I'm sure they' re delighted with all the time that's going to take

My reading of Mc's suggestion is the village are trying to dig up as many names as possible to drag the investigation out longer still as the Gardai have to talk to everyone
It all seems very vandettatastic to me

From the Sindo:

the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation (NBCI), who took possession of and examined phones belonging to Mr Varadkar and Dr Ó Tuathail, now believe that once the document was leaked it was circulated more widely than previously thought. This means they must carry out further interviews and inquiries in the coming weeks and months.

"In terms of a thorough investigation, they talk to everyone who may have had knowledge of that document. It does appear that quite a lot of people either had access to it or knowledge of it than had been thought originally,” a source said.

Mr Cosgrave said he had been interviewed by detectives last week and was "more than happy to assist the gardaí in their ongoing criminal investigation”. He originally introduced Mr Bowes, a healthcare entrepreneur, to Michael Smith, the editor of Village magazine which first reported on the document leak last year. Mr Bowes and Mr Smith later made a criminal complaint to gardaí who launched a full investigation.

Mr Cosgrave told the Sunday Independent last week that he introduced Mr Bowes to an individual who it is claimed had further information about the extent of Dr Ó Tuathail's friendship with Mr Varadkar, including messages on their phone where Dr Ó Tuathail made references to interactions with Mr Varadkar.

With that person's permission Mr Bowes said that he subsequently contacted gardaí about them and that person was interviewed by detectives at Irishtown garda station in early April. The individual does not believe they had significant information to offer gardaí but has co-operated with their inquiry and has allowed their phone to be seized under warrant. There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by this individual.

The person had worked with Dr Ó Tuathail as a volunteer for Heroes Aid, a charity set up to procure resources for frontline healthcare workers as the pandemic began. Mr Varadkar shared a promotional video for the charity on his social media on April 1 last year. This line of inquiry is not seen as significant in the investigation at this point.

In another new development, it can be revealed that Dr Ó Tuathail informed gardaí last month of an anonymous letter being circulated to politicians and journalists which makes several claims about the extent of his friendship with Mr Varadkar.

The GP met detectives by arrangement at Terenure garda station on April 5 and provided a voluntary statement regarding the leaking affair.

The letter, which was also sent to the Sunday Independent, contains details of several interactions between Dr Ó Tuathail and Mr Varadkar and includes two pictures of the two men standing beside each other — one at a music festival and one in the Taoiseach's office.

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

If the investigation goes nowhere, will you be calling on Cosgrave and Bowes to fund the cost? Silly argument at best.

Well firstly its not Bowes and Cosgrave under investigation and who the Gardai are spending thousands in taxpayers money to investigate- it is Leo Varadkar who the money is being spent investigating.

And secondly it isnt my argument- it is Fine Gaels argument- they were the ones who said SF should have to pay the 25k cost of holding a motion of no confidence in Varadkar over this very issue, they accused SF of wasting taxpayers money and called on them to pay the cost of it. So by Fine Gaels very own standard they should pay back the taxpayer for Varadkars actions causing massive Garda resrouces having to be spent to investigate him, anything else is just plain hypocrisy and not by my standard- by their own one.

Again, will ignore the pejorative claims. I make my opinion known, you don't like it, I don't care.

Well that doesnt surprise me at all, like I said you tried to throw mud at a good decent honest man like Maurice McCabe and blacken his name and then you ran away from your claims when called out on it. To this day you wont admit you were wrong and even after it was proven so you were still trying to blacken his name. If you're going to post nasty bile against good decent people dont be surprised when you get called out on it.

nialler1978

Marine Layer wrote: »

There seems to be a concerted effort from the contrarions to establish a more than friends relationship between O'Tuathail and Vradakar and that the document was widely circulated after it came to O'Tuathail
What's strange is, It doesn't seem that Bowes had it
So now the Garda team have to interview a whole raft of names of those that Cosgrave submitted
I'm sure they' re delighted with all the time that's going to take

I’m sure they want him out of office, sacked. Nothing else, not even having the opportunity to resign.

Why would anyone “delight” in the time it is taking when they are fully sure he’s a crooked and corrupt individual? You seem to be so certain of matters that this is just time wasting? I mentioned this before, that is height of ignorance, arrogance and so very insulting to the gardai and nbci, they are investigating something because there is a very real and credible possibility of wrongdoing. You need to try and understand this first, then accept it.

carlirl

sure leo was only carryin on

Fann Linn

carlirl wrote: »

sure leo was only carryin on

And lads on here said, Shure he's Taoiseach, he's grand

Brendan Bendar

Lot of anger here….

Fann Linn

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Lot of anger here….

Not here Brenners, just enjoying watching this sh1t show play out. Weren't we told last October, 'nothing to see here, move along...