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

Holy Mary

Embarrassing at this stage tbh.

Rows Grower

seamus wrote: »

His statement in the Dail will be protected by Dail privilege and inadmissible in court. There's a reason why they make these statements in the Dail and not in an interview.

Given the atrocious quality of the writing in the Village, I might be veering towards scenario #2 where this guy is a bit stupid and has accidentally hamstrung himself by publishing first and going to the Gardai after.

He's already admitted what he did.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

His statement in the Dail will be protected by Dail privilege and inadmissible in court. There's a reason why they make these statements in the Dail and not in an interview.

Given the atrocious quality of the writing in the Village, I might be veering towards scenario #2 where this guy is a bit stupid and has accidentally hamstrung himself by publishing first and going to the Gardai after.

Leo's statement that he did it - released the document and that it was wrong was released as a press statement not as a statement in the Dáil.

Fann Linn

Holy Mary wrote: »

Embarrassing at this stage tbh.

He is. He should've came out first with the truth instead of trying to take people for fools.

golfball37

I Am The Law wrote: »

Not End of.

We obviously differ on what’s acceptable behavior so. Thin line between that and making SF acceptable looking which is now Leo’s legacy. Still defend him by all means, the rest of us will suffer for it

seamus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo's statement that he did it - released the document and that it was wrong was released as a press statement not as a statement in the Dáil.

Sure. But that information was already out. Someone confirming rock-solid evidence, doesn't strengthen any case as much as you'd think. If he had denied it, it would take very little evidence to prove that denial false. Admitting that he did it, doesn't make it "more illegal".

s1ippy

There's been a post in this thread every two minutes since the story broke. But Joe public have definitely forgotten all about it and it's blown over.

Fann Linn

s1ippy wrote: »

There's been a post in this thread every two minutes since the story broke. But Joe public have definitely forgotten all about it and it's blown over.

And how is that analysis measured?

Rows Grower

seamus wrote: »

Sure. But that information was already out. Someone confirming rock-solid evidence, doesn't strengthen any case as much as you'd think. If he had denied it, it would take very little evidence to prove that denial false. Admitting that he did it, doesn't make it "more illegal".

They were allegations at that stage.

5511779933

At least there's comfort in knowing our constabulary will not allow bias or undue influence get in the way of investigating establishment jiggery pokery. I imagine the the whistle-blower is a very careful driver these days.

McMurphy

Heather Humphreys on RTE1 now also going with the "Leo didn't gain financially nor personally" line.

They've all been well versed.

s1ippy

Fann Linn wrote: »

And how is that analysis measured?

72 hours; 4,320 minutes, 2000+ posts

NSAman

McMurphy wrote: »

Heather Humphreys on RTE1 now also going with the "Leo didn't gain financially nor personally" line.

They've all been well versed.

And a prime example of how morally corrupt every Irish politician is. They do not know right from wrong.

Rows Grower

McMurphy wrote: »

Heather Humphreys on RTE1 now also going with the "Leo didn't gain financially nor personally" line.

They've all been well versed.

If someone threw a rock at Heather's car and damaged it, they wouldn't gain anything financially or personally either but it wouldn't change the fact it was a criminal offence.

Fann Linn

s1ippy wrote: »

72 hours; 4,320 minutes, 2000+ posts

Grand, thanks. And now your assertion that the public have moved on, which was in fact what I was on about initially.

stockshares

Senior Counsel’s opinion, for Village, affirms being a Minister does not exclude you from the obligations of the Official Secret Act

If this turns out to be true it will likely impact on Helen McEntee who defended him yesterday.

https://twitter.com/VillageMagIRE/status/1323612184623091712?s=19

Bannasidhe

Fann Linn wrote: »

Grand, thanks. And now your assertion that the public have moved on, which was in fact what I was on about initially.

I think you missed the irony. I read it as being a :pac: comment tbh.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

Sure. But that information was already out. Someone confirming rock-solid evidence, doesn't strengthen any case as much as you'd think. If he had denied it, it would take very little evidence to prove that denial false. Admitting that he did it, doesn't make it "more illegal".

Who said it did?

And what 'information' was already out? The Tanaiste has admitted he did the wrong thing. That wasn't 'out there' until he released the press statement.

Now we are going to see if there is a criminal case to answer here. To be fair, you don't know that, however much you think you do and neither do I.

shatners bassoon

The Village's interpretation of the Act is accurate.

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.

The definition of public office under the act excludes members of the Oireachtas but it certainly doesn't exclude them from liability under 4(1), in fact it precludes them from relying on the exception available to public office holders acting in accordance with their duties. For Leo to get off the hook here I think he will need to prove it was 'in his duty in the interest of the state' to release the document.

JeffKenna

I presume a motion of no confidence will be placed at some stage?

Get Real

McMurphy wrote: »

Heather Humphreys on RTE1 now also going with the "Leo didn't gain financially nor personally" line.

They've all been well versed.

Agree. Plus, we don't know he didn't gain personally. Did he avoid Nagp turning on him/FG publicly perhaps? Or did it possibly influence Matt campaigning for him in the last election?

Also, she didn't address the fact that it was possible for Matt to personally and financially gain.

Plus, excellent point by Rows Grower, a few posts above.

stockshares

shatners bassoon wrote: »

The Village's interpretation on the Act is accurate.

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.

The definition of public office under the act excludes members of the Oireachtas but it certainly doesn't exclude them from liability under 4(1), in fact it precludes them from relying on the exception available to public office holders acting in accordance with their duties. For Leo to get off the hook here I think he will need to prove it was 'in his duty in the interest of the state' to release the document.

Chay Bowes just posted.

https://twitter.com/BowesChay/status/1323618397565947905?s=19

shatners bassoon

shatners bassoon wrote: »

The Village's interpretation on the Act is accurate.

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.

The definition of public office under the act excludes members of the Oireachtas but it certainly doesn't exclude them from liability under 4(1), in fact it precludes them from relying on the exception available to public office holders acting in accordance with their duties. For Leo to get off the hook here I think he will need to prove it was 'in his duty in the interest of the state' to release the document.

And i see The Village have an opinion from Senior Counsel to that effect.

I didn't read Leo's statement but the only article I read going into any detail on the legal position was in the Irish Times and it looks like it's completely inaccurate.

RandomViewer

Rows Grower wrote: »

If someone threw a rock at Heather's car and damaged it, they wouldn't gain anything financially or personally either but it wouldn't change the fact it was a criminal offence.

Heather has a tenuous grasp on reality the best of times, asking her for a comment is Forrest Gump territory

Fann Linn

Fann Linn wrote: »

He is. He should've came out first with the truth instead of trying to take people for fools.

I think he's already played his "coming out" card:D

Sir Oxman

And with that, there goes Varadkar's initial defence against any possible breach of the Act.

TheChizler

rusty cole wrote: »

I think he's already played his "coming out" card:D

You are coming across as a little obsessed.

AlphaDelta1

JeffKenna wrote: »

I presume a motion of no confidence will be placed at some stage?

He'll be made step aside.

It's the small things that get his type in the end. Arrogance will only get you so far.

Holy Mary

And i see The Village have an opinion from Senior Counsel to that effect.

Dear God, really getting desperate at the 11th hour!
The story has moved on.
At 4PM Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
I know who my money is on!

smurgen

stockshares wrote: »

Chay Bowes just posted.

https://twitter.com/BowesChay/status/1323618397565947905?s=19

Maybe they'll hide behind AG advice like the tried to with the sealing of the mother and child homes inquiry