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

Peter Flynt

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.

Not according to then opposition health spokesman Stephen Donnelly on 16th April.

Bubbaclaus

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

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??

2 things here.

1. The Taoiseach is very clearly a member of the Oireachtas and the definition of public office does not apply as a result. This means Section 4 of the Act is irrelevant here.
2. Even if you wanted to argue Section 4 does apply, who do you think the Taoiseach needs to request authorisation from in Section 4(4)?

jams100

sabat wrote: »

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

I'm not saying he done nothing wrong, I'm pointing out there is no evidence he broke the criminal justice act as they seem to be claiming, if they are wrong about that or cannot furnish any evidence then it brings the entire article into question. I'm not for a second saying he done nothing wrong, but people jump to conclusions too quickly in this country sometimes, need more information to get the full story

irishproduce

Haven't seen anything other than the piece on rte news. I got to the statements from sinn feinn and soc Dems and I end up just thinking, oh for god's sake, give over with the fake outrage. It's really slimey watching the faux outrage and holier than thou positions taken by some of the biggest wasters and leeches in there. I'd be ashamed of my life having to conduct myself like that.

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/)

This link is not working?

Phoebas

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

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

As Taoiseach, the phrase 'unless he is duly authorised' is relevant.

LawBoy2018

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

2 things here.

1. The Taoiseach is very clearly a member of the Oireachtas and the definition of public office does not apply as a result. This means Section 4 of the Act is irrelevant here.
2. Even if you wanted to argue Section 4 does apply, who do you think the Taoiseach needs to request authorisation from in Section 4(4)?

That's the question, is the Taoiseach a member of the Oireachtas? The Taoiseach is the head of the Government.

Bubbaclaus

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Section 4 or 5

Have you even read the act? I doubt you have, cos if you did you could see that neither of those sections apply.

You can't even decide yourself which section to pin on him!

Bubbaclaus

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

That's the question, is the Taoiseach a member of the Oireachtas? The Taoiseach is the head of the Government.

And what about the 2nd point? Which makes your argument irrelevant either way?

ExMachina1000

irishproduce wrote: »

Haven't seen anything other than the piece on rte news. I got to the statements from sinn feinn and soc Dems and I end up just thinking, oh for god's sake, give over with the fake outrage. It's really slimey watching the faux outrage and holier than thou positions taken by some of the biggest wasters and leeches in there. I'd be ashamed of my life having to conduct myself like that.

Sure they are all bastards. Sf folk resigned during the week because they were claiming covid payments that they weren't eligible for.

Every time someone in public office is caught out they should be hammered for it. No point in the oh look over there attitude.

That's if leo did anything wrong. Maybe he didn't. Like the time he contacted clare county council on behalf of Trump and doonbeg. Hes a pup

IAMAMORON

It is certainly the end of the line for Maitiú O' Tuathail. No one will be able to trust him anymore. Or Chay Bowes ( who?). You only get to blow your whistle once.

Interesting scoop all the same, very non story though and snapshots of Wassap images are stinky poo. Am I wrong in thinking that I saw one with Leo's name at the top? How did they get there hands on a screenshot from Leo's phone?

ExMachina1000

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Have you even read the act? I doubt you have, cos if you did you could see that neither of those sections apply.

You can't even decide yourself which section to pin on him!

Yes I'm in the library right now studying up on the law. Il be personally representing the state vs Leo.

If I want legal advice il contact a solicitor. If I want to try a different size shoe il give you a shout

hotmail.com

Leo confirms the accuracy of the story but then says it's defamatory.

LawBoy2018

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

And what about the 2nd point? Which makes your argument irrelevant either way?

If the Taoiseach does in fact come within the scope of Section 4, he's in trouble imo.

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

I would imagine that Simon Harris was the relevant Minister here. Do you think he gave Varadkar permission to circulate the agreement to his buddies, before it was even available to the Oireachtas? Objectively, I would say that's unlikely.

Bubbaclaus

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Yes I'm in the library right now studying up on the law. Il be personally representing the state vs Leo.

Interesting. I suppose when you cant back up your original point, the only go to option then is snark.

hotmail.com

It looks like the end of Leo.

Sunday papers will have it tomorrow.

Bubbaclaus

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

If the Taoiseach does in fact come within the scope of Section 4, he's in trouble imo.

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

I would imagine that Simon Harris was the relevant Minister here. Do you think he gave Varadkar permission to circulate the agreement to his buddies, before it was even available to the Oireachtas? Objectively, I would say that's unlikely.

Ah here. Have you ever heard of a chain of command? The Taoiseach does not require the permission of Simon Harris. FFS man.

caveat emptor

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's always amusing that the same 2/3 posters rapidly appear at the same time whenever FG or one of their members get themselves into bother, and always immediately with the "nothing to see here" mantra while the story itself is still breaking.

Leo's statement later and the reactions/response will tell if there's something to it, but it certainly doesn't look good for him on the face of it, and it would be a foolish publication to come out with a story like this about the former (and future) Taoiseach with nothing to substantiate it.

Nobotty

It'll all come out when Leo Sues
I just hope he states at the outset that the damages are being donated to charity

tigger123

hotmail.com wrote: »

It looks like the end of Leo.

Sunday papers will have it tomorrow.

FG will row in behind him, leaving FF and the Greens with either the option of collapsing the Government and putting a General Election in front of eveyone in the middle of a pandemic, or accepting his explanation.

LawBoy2018

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Ah here. Have you ever heard of a chain of command? The Taoiseach does not require the permission of Simon Harris. FFS man.

You're making presumptions here. That's why I've said that it's not black and white.

Phoebas

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

That's the question, is the Taoiseach a member of the Oireachtas? The Taoiseach is the head of the Government.

Are you really asking if Leo Varadkar T.D. is a member of the Oireachtas?

LawBoy2018

Phoebas wrote: »

Are you really asking if Leo Varadkar T.D. is a member of the Oireachtas?

I'm asking if Leo Varadkar, in his capacity as Taoiseach, was a member of the Oireachtas. Can't you read? lol

StackSteevens

Fann Linn wrote: »

Jim O'Callaghan calling now for Leo to make a statement to clarify the issue.

Is Jimbo touting for business as Leo's Senior Counsel?

Bubbaclaus

Phoebas wrote: »

Are you really asking if Leo Varadkar T.D. is a member of the Oireachtas?

Its laughable, isnt it. Don't know why I bother with these things sometimes.

Higgins5473

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

No my friend. I'm not. Watch this one fizzle out. Nothing to see here folks. Just a load of manufactured outrage over a a load of nonsense.

The shinners will try and run with it, but no one gives a sh1te.

This lads understanding of political science and forecasts are at a Chomsky-esque level.

“She only fell off a swing”
“It was only a round of golf”
“It’s only a load of nonsense”

There are some here that speculate that himself and the rest of the usual suspects who have disappeared are in fact working for FG in some social media spam and deflection capacity.

You’d hope to god FG would be able to produce something in their offices which isn’t at this level of delusion, misunderstanding and ignorance.

Goldrickssan

"I only broke the law in a limited and specific way"

StackSteevens

irishproduce wrote: »

Haven't seen anything other than the piece on rte news. I got to the statements from sinn feinn and soc Dems and I end up just thinking, oh for god's sake, give over with the fake outrage. It's really slimey watching the faux outrage and holier than thou positions taken by some of the biggest wasters and leeches in there. I'd be ashamed of my life having to conduct myself like that.

While you are quite correct in your description of some of the oxygen thieves in Dail Eireann, it is unarguable that Leo has serious questions to answer about his actions.

noodler

It's definitely true that the main contents of the contract were in the media before it was signed (and subsequently published)

The contract was lucrative, roughly 50m per annum increases to GPs for four years so IMO would have had huge incentive to put that out to their members and media to show they were doing a good job.

There doesn't really seem to have been any negative effect from it (other than, or course, if it was technically illegal) bit doesn't help him given his recent criticism for budget leaks.

LawBoy2018

noodler wrote: »

It's definitely true that the main contents of the contract were in the media before it was signed (and subsequently published)

The contract was lucrative, roughly 50m per annum increases to GPs for four years so IMO would have had huge incentive to put that out to their members and media to show they were doing a good job.

There doesn't really seem to have been any negative effect from it (other than, or course, if it was technically illegal) bit doesn't help him given his recent criticism for budget leaks.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1322576881309392900

Goldrickssan

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1322576881309392900

Yikes.

Not good Leo buddy. Might want to brush up the Europe CV.

smurgen

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1322576881309392900

Largely public is not public. There's a reason why the watermark on the front says confidential not for circulation. I'm learning more to him being gone from this now

hotmail.com

This story isn't exactly the sexiest of stories and may get forgotten amidst such a busy news week.

Leo may survive.

JohnnyFlash

Complete non-story as I mentioned earlier. All the usual lads fell for a bit of fake outrage again. Must be disappointing for you all to see it fizzle out. Word for the wise, men (always men), The Phoenix and The Village aren't reliable journalistic sources. A Shinner and Loony Left pamphlet respectively.

noodler

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1322576881309392900

True - not saying the entire Contract was public.

There are two important aspects to it that were public, if memory serves, that it would pay 210m over the period and that it would add a few Chronic Disease Management services to the GP's offerings.

I don't want to belittle the small print but they really were the headlines.

Vetch

smurgen wrote: »

Largely public is not public. There's a reason why the watermark on the front says confidential not for circulation. I'm learning more to him being gone from this now

Confidentiality is time-specific though. Just because something has confidential/not for circulation written on it at time of writing doesn't mean it's always confidential.

ExMachina1000

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Interesting. I suppose when you cant back up your original point, the only go to option then is snark.

You are on a one man mission to tell everyone with an opinion that they are wrong. It's not cool

golfball37

Why would someone in the WhatsApp group ask if they were genuine, if as Leo claims now, they were already in the public domain?

smurgen

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Complete non-story as I mentioned earlier. All the usual lads fell for a bit of fake outrage again. Must be disappointing for you all to see it fizzle out. Word for the wise, men (always men), The Phoenix and The Village aren't reliable journalistic sources. A Shinner and Loony Left pamphlet respectively.

Hahahahahaha

Bubbaclaus

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

You are on a one man mission to tell everyone with an opinion that they are wrong. It's not cool

You can't have an opinion on the law if you haven't even bothered to read the short Act that you are claiming is broken.

Its like having an opinion on a film you haven't seen.

noodler

golfball37 wrote: »

Why would someone in the WhatsApp group ask if they were genuine, if as Leo claims now, they were already in the public domain?

The pdf of the contract wasn't.

The amount of money it was paying and the new CDM services GP would offer under it were.

Edit: Time stamp of messages will be key but the above definitely known way before contract agreed/announced/published

Phoebas

The key thing that this hinges on is was the deal done or was it still under negotiation.

If it was still under negotiation then Leo would be wrong to share it. If it was a done deal then it's a completely different thing.

LawBoy2018

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You can't have an opinion on the law if you haven't even bothered to read the short Act that you are claiming is broken.

Its like having an opinion on a film you haven't seen.

We have both read the relevant legislation and have two different opinions. The law is always open to different interpretations.

s1ippy

JohnnyFlash

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Complete non-story as I mentioned earlier. All the usual lads fell for a bit of fake outrage again. Must be disappointing for you all to see it fizzle out. Word for the wise, men (always men), The Phoenix and The Village aren't reliable journalistic sources. A Shinner and Loony Left pamphlet respectively.

"Divert. Distract. Deflect."

FG Playbook 101.

TCM

Deleted User wrote:

How can Micheal Martin look his family in the eye when he's letting Varadkar take a piss in his mouth daily.

I thought it was Trump who did that sort of thing.

LawBoy2018

Phoebas wrote: »

The key thing that this hinges on is was the deal done or was it still under negotiation.

If it was still under negotiation then Leo would be wrong to share it. If it was a done deal then it's a completely different thing.

The document states "subject to amendments/changes" which would indicate that it wasn't finalised.

Bubbaclaus

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

We have both read the relevant legislation and have two different opinions. The law is always open to different interpretations.

Your opinion that the Taoiseach is not a member of the Oireachtas is a bit mad and I don't think is open for interpretation, but that's besides the point of my post. I was responding to a poster that was claiming he had broken "Section 4 or 5" of the Act and hadnt even read it, and then got snarky about it.

smurgen

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

The document states "subject to amendments/changes" which would indicate that it wasn't finalised.

There's also a great big watermark saying confidential not for circulation on it. Not best practices eh

Higgins5473

Phoebas wrote: »

The key thing that this hinges on is was the deal done or was it still under negotiation.

If it was still under negotiation then Leo would be wrong to share it. If it was a done deal then it's a completely different thing.

Not really completely different, he’s already admitted it was wrong. One is bad, the other one is worse. Either way, he did something he shouldn’t have, to what degree is yet to be uncovered.