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

landofthetree

Mr.S wrote: »

And there we go, flat out denial and seeking legal action - as expected.

Interesting to see what happens now.

See you in 7 years.

s1ippy

Mr.S wrote: »

Must have been because Bowes was tweeting this morning.

Side note, why is there no author of the article, who actually wrote the piece?

https://twitter.com/BowesChay/status/1322353607702945792?s=20

The article was written by Michael Smith.

Stheno

Mr.S wrote: »

Can you explain? I've only seen the one screenshot from the article about the address.


.

There are two different screenshot of the address the one on the magazines twitter is Clonskeag and the other in the article is Dublin 8

LawBoy2018

So the allegations made by the Magazine were true. What now?

Peter Flynt

It seems Varadkar's line seems to be that it's ok for him to break the law as the IMO issued information on a deal to their members a couple of weeks before he sent the info.

TheValeyard

francois wrote: »

Wake me up when the manufactured outrage level gets to 5

Think were here now, wakey wakey

bennyl10

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

So the allegations made by the Magazine were true. What now?

He’s saying it wasn’t a leak as the information was all public

So no not true

And that there is no breach of the corruption act in Any sense has he didn’t benefit in any way

So yes the village ‘leaking’ with no actual
Substance or checking

s1ippy

He's saying that the leak wasn't done until the 17th, not on the 5th as is alleged in the article.

Sounds like something that would be very easy to verify if true.

LawBoy2018

bennyl10 wrote: »

He’s saying it wasn’t a leak as the information was all public

So no not true

But he did provide them with the details, as alleged. He's denying the illegality of same.

Peter Flynt

Varadkar is trying to claim that he did not break the Official Secrets Act as it does not refer to the "Members of the Oireachtas" but it does refer to holder of a public office.

bennyl10

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

But he did provide them with the details, as alleged. He's denying the illegality of doing same.

If the info was public it’s not a leak

Nor is it confidential

jackboy

Mr.S wrote: »

His argument is that the the document wasn’t sensitive at the time. (But it wasn't released, so not sure how can make that stick?)

I feel ol' Leo is digging a hole now.

Interesting. So why did he need to send the info if it was already in the public. More importantly, why did he send it, what was the info needed for?

Hurrache

The Village must have know the details as to what they insinuated and published were wrong, there's no other reason why they'd pull the story from their website so quickly.

Edit, I didn't realise it's back, must have been something going on.

LawBoy2018

bennyl10 wrote: »

If the info was public it’s not a leak

Nor is it confidential

That's what the statement says. The smoking gun will be the date of the 'leak'.

s1ippy

It looks like he's just trying to make out like he made a mistake. Floundering doesn't even begin to describe it.

On the 5th, the IMO are doing press releases about the deal. Why would the lads be delighted to get the information two weeks after it was made public?

Sounds like bollocks to me.

Peter Flynt

s1ippy wrote: »

He's saying that the leak wasn't done until the 17th, not on the 5th as is alleged in the article.

Sounds like something that would be very easy to verify if true.

Entirely irrelevant if the IMO released information prior to this.

The issue is whether Varadkar broke the law?

Also why didn't O'Tuathail simply go and look up the IMO website?
Why did he feel the need to boast about receiving confidential info from Varadkar if it was already in the public domain.

LawBoy2018

Hurrache wrote: »

The Village must have know the details as to what they insinuated and published were wrong, there's no other reason why they'd pull the story from their website so quickly.

https://villagemagazine.ie/varadkar-leaks-confidential-document/

?? It's still there.

Peter Flynt

Hurrache wrote: »

The Village must have know the details as to what they insinuated and published were wrong, there's no other reason why they'd pull the story from their website so quickly.

It wasn't pulled from their website.
It's there now.

Smegging hell

https://twitter.com/PTHosford/status/1322566036282028034

s1ippy

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Entirely irrelevant if the IMO released information prior to this.

The issue is whether Varadkar broke the law?

Also why didn't O'Tuathail simply go and look up the IMO website?
Why did he feel the need to boast about receiving confidential info from Varadkar if it was already in the public domain.

"we owe it to Maitiú that this remains very confidential.

Must not leak"
lol

Bubbaclaus

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Varadkar is trying to claim that he did not break the Official Secrets Act as it does not refer to the "Members of the Oireachtas" but it does refer to holder of a public office.

Have you read the Act?


“public office” means an office or employment which is wholly remunerated out of the Central Fund or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or an appointment to, or employment under, any commission, committee or tribunal set up by the Government or a Minister for the purposes of any inquiry, but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas.


Pretty clear that it does not apply to him. Whether you agree with the law or not is a separate issue, but it is clear there is no offense under this Act as the article had insinuated. Pretty poor journalism to claim there is really.

wirelessdude01

Something not adding up with the timeline Leo is presenting.

tigger123

You have to actually sign the official secrets act, so Leo would most probably know if it applies to him or not.

s1ippy

Releasing the information was "not best practice" and also "illegal".



https://twitter.com/Diarmuid_Hugh/status/1322566289425076224?s=20

It's the size of the Mariana Trench.

Peter Flynt

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Have you read the Act?


“public office” means an office or employment which is wholly remunerated out of the Central Fund or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or an appointment to, or employment under, any commission, committee or tribunal set up by the Government or a Minister for the purposes of any inquiry, but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas.


Pretty clear that it does not apply to him. Whether you agree with the law or not is a separate issue, but it is clear there is no offense under this Act as the article had insinuated. Pretty poor journalism to claim there is really.

The Department of An Taoiseach is a public office funded from the Oireachtas.

Bubbaclaus

s1ippy wrote: »

Releasing the information was "not best practice" and also "illegal".

Which law though? Cos the one the village quoted doesn't apply. Is there another one you are claiming that has been broken?

tigger123

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The Department of An Taoiseach is a public office funded from the Oireachtas.

But he didnt work for the Department of the Taoiseach. He was Taoiseach.

landofthetree

That Leo leaks however hasn’t yet been proved or become a political liability for the Tánaiste.

From the article.

:rolleyes:

sdanseo

Leo's statement on the face of it seems very upfront. He not only didn't deny it, but admitted sharing it, gave his reasons for same and actually justifies it.

He's good at spin - but at face value that seems quite honest and almost naive if it's how things worked out. A fúckup, but not a deliberate attempt to stimey anything.

Of course, the SF / broad left will not see it that way and regardless of any clarification will use it as ammunition.

And what worries me is that the 20 minutes of research needed to reach such a conclusion is 19 minutes more than it feels like most far left leaners will do, if the evidence of recent protests and SF type rhetoric is anything to go by, unfortunately a significant enough proportion of left followers are the type who will blindly follow the ringleaders and shít stirrers and not do as much digging as is actually required to form an opinion.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Entirely irrelevant if the IMO released information prior to this.

The issue is whether Varadkar broke the law?

I very much believe in the spirit not the letter of the law and giving the benefit of the doubt on this doesn't appear to have any dire consequences.
That would also appear to be a minute technicality at this point.

Bubbaclaus

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The Department of An Taoiseach is a public office funded from the Oireachtas.

Did you read the definition of public office for the State Secrets Act, which you just quoted?

Peter Flynt

tigger123 wrote: »

But he didnt work for the Department of the Taoiseach. He was Taoiseach.

Ah ffs.

Phoebas

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Something not adding up with the timeline Leo is presenting.

Can you be more precise?

Peter Flynt

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Did you read the definition of public office for the State Secrets Act, which you just quoted?

It refers to the HOLDER of the office, not the office itself.

Bubbaclaus

Peter Flynt wrote: »

It refers to the HOLDER of the office, not the office itself.

"but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas."

Peter Flynt

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

"but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas."

Irrelevant Leo, sorry Bubbaclaus.

sdanseo

sdanseo wrote: »

Leo's statement on the face of it seems very upfront. He not only didn't deny it, but admitted sharing it, gave his reasons for same and actually justifies it.

He's good at spin - but at face value that seems quite honest and almost naive if it's how things worked out. A fúckup, but not a deliberate attempt to stimey anything.

Of course, the SF / broad left will not see it that way and regardless of any clarification will use it as ammunition.

And what worries me is that the 20 minutes of research needed to reach such a conclusion is 19 minutes more than it feels like most far left leaners will do, if the evidence of recent protests and SF type rhetoric is anything to go by, unfortunately a significant enough proportion of left followers are the type who will blindly follow the ringleaders and shít stirrers and not do as much digging as is actually required to form an opinion.



I very much believe in the spirit not the letter of the law and giving the benefit of the doubt on this doesn't appear to have any dire consequences.
That would also appear to be a minute technicality at this point.

So the leader of a notoriously corrupt party acted naively?

Would you ever behave.

Bubbaclaus

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Irrelevant Leo, sorry Bubbaclaus.

I don't follow your posts? Leo is very much a member of one of the houses of the Oireachtas.

jackboy

So, what is the motivation of the whistleblower to stitch Leo up?

Leo’s statement is well put together but there are still some basic questions to be answered.

ExMachina1000

francois wrote: »

Wake me up when the manufactured outrage level gets to 5

If true its illegal under the official secrets act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/act/1/enacted/en/html

Bubbaclaus

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

If true its illegal under the official secrets act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/act/1/enacted/en/html

Which part of the act?

jams100

Who the f**k is the village magazine?
Doesn't look great for Leo but I'm sceptical, if it was the Irish Times that reported this I'd be much more likely to believe, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just yet.

How can they claim he broke the criminal justice act? Did he receive compensation for giving this information? If he didn't receive any compensation or gift then he hasn't broken that, story seems sensationalised imo either way a lot of answers needed before any judgements are made imo. Great to see the opposition parties speak up when they think there is something to be gained, sinn fein typically coming out of their burrow now they see an opportunity to score some political points.

All I'm saying is there are two sides to every story, haven't heard the other yet

funnydoggy

jams100 wrote: »

Who the f**k is the village magazine?
Doesn't look great for Leo but I'm sceptical, if it was the Irish Times that reported this I'd be much more likely to believe, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just yet.

How can they claim he broke the criminal justice act? Did he receive compensation for giving this information? If he didn't receive any compensation or gift then he hasn't broken that, story seems sensationalised imo either way a lot of answers needed before any judgements are made imo. Great to see the opposition parties speak up when they think there is something to be gained, sinn fein typically coming out of their burrow now they see an opportunity to score some political points.

All I'm saying is there are two sides to every story, haven't heard the other yet

I don't get your post, Leo admitted it. If I'm reading wrong, apologies jams100!

LawBoy2018

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Which law though? Cos the one the village quoted doesn't apply. Is there another one you are claiming that has been broken?

You're saying that a little too confidently imo. It's certainly not as black and white as you seem to think it is.

Section 4 provides:

4.—(1) A person shall not communicate any official information 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.

(2) A person to whom subsection (1) applies shall take reasonable care to avoid any unlawful communication of such information.

(3) A person shall not obtain official information where he is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that the communication of such information to him would be a contravention of subsection (1).

(4) In this section “duly authorised” means authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority.

Section 2 defines 'official information' as; "any secret official code word or password, and any sketch, plan, model, article, note, 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 or had access, by virtue of his office, and includes information recorded by film or magnetic tape or by any other recording medium".

Furthermore, Section 2 defines a 'public office' as "an office or employment which is wholly remunerated out of the Central Fund or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or an appointment to, or employment under, any commission, committee or tribunal set up by the Government or a Minister for the purposes of any inquiry, but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas."

As a TD, Varadkar's position would not be within the scope of 'public office' as set out above. However, as Taoiseach??

jams100

jams100 wrote: »

Who the f**k is the village magazine?
Doesn't look great for Leo but I'm sceptical, if it was the Irish Times that reported this I'd be much more likely to believe, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just yet.

How can they claim he broke the criminal justice act? Did he receive compensation for giving this information? If he didn't receive any compensation or gift then he hasn't broken that, story seems sensationalised imo either way a lot of answers needed before any judgements are made imo. Great to see the opposition parties speak up when they think there is something to be gained, sinn fein typically coming out of their burrow now they see an opportunity to score some political points.

All I'm saying is there are two sides to every story, haven't heard the other yet

We have. Leo has released a statement.

sdanseo

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Ah ffs.

No, not "FFS".

The Official Secrets Act goes to the trouble of deliberately, clearly and pointedly differentiating Ministers from people who contracted with them, and specifically gives the Minister the authority to allow a disclosure. The Taoiseach is the Minister's boss, that authority naturally extends to him.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/act/1/section/5/enacted/en/html#sec5

Disclosure of confidential information in official contracts.

5.—(1) A person who is or has been—

(a) a party to a contract with a Minister or State authority or with any person on behalf of a Minister or State authority, or

(b) employed by such party,

shall not communicate to any third party any information relating to the contract and expressed therein to be confidential.

(2) A person to whom subsection (1) applies shall take reasonable care to avoid any unlawful communication of such information.

(3) It shall be a good defence to a prosecution for a contravention of this section to prove that the communication was authorised in writing by the Minister or State authority or by the party contracting on behalf of the Minister or State authority.

ExMachina1000

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Which part of the act?

Section 4 or 5

sabat

jams100 wrote: »

All I'm saying is there are two sides to every story, haven't heard the other yet

What "side" of this whole thing is the one where Varadkar did nothing wrong?

jams100

funnydoggy wrote: »

Leo admitted it

They claim he broke the criminal justice act no? If he did where is the evidence he received compensation?

Wombatman

Mr.S wrote: »

From a user on Reddit:

Worth noting that according to Oireachtas records, Steven Donnelly stated in response to Simon Harris on 16 April 2019:



This means that according the Varadkar's own timeline, he had provided this document to his friend before the Oireachtas, the GPs or the public at large had seen it.

(source: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-04-16/32/)

It does say 'Confidential: Not for Circulation' on the front of the the doc FWIW.

Hurrache

Mr.S wrote: »

It now goes beyond the Village Magazine - By Leo's own admission he shared the document, but his timeline still doesn't make much sense as he claims the information was in the public domain when he shared.

If it was in the public domain, then his timeline makes sense if it's correct.