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

sdanseo · 31-10-2020 4:29pm

OK, so TLDR for those confused - I had to do some research to figure this out.

The allegation is that:
Leo gave an unfinished copy of an agreement between the HSE and IMO to a friend in the NAGP.
Why are the IMO and NAGP rival organizations? One represents doctors, one represents doctors who are GPs. Apparently, they are both also de facto unions representing their members' interests and so there would be a conflict of interest for one to know information about an agreement between the other and the HSE, before it was made public.
The law says confidential information cannot be shared for personal gain or the personal gain of others.
What's not clear is whether this would have constituted personal gain, but it probably figures that it did, since it could have influenced contractual negotiations on doctors' remuneration by the state.

However, on the flip side, we also have:
screenshots of someone claiming to be Matt O'Toole being asked for his address by someone claiming to be Leo. There are two different versions of this same screenshot - which would lend itself to the question, that if it was doctored (lol) once, was it fake to begin with?
a picture of the document with what is alleged to be Leo's writing on a table allegedly sent by Matt O'Toole
a story published by an outlet which can only be described as a little unhinged in its bias against the establishment if you look back through its tweets. It leans very left, very SF. Paddy Cosgrave likely has wet dreams over their articles, it would be in their interest to frame Leo.

Edit: handwriting comparison. I would say it does look like his writing.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eii2HsuXgAgCK_I?format=jpg&name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElqnF2-WoAENanQ?format=jpg&name=large

A lot to digest. Interesting to see what Leo says.

tipptom · 31-10-2020 4:33pm

Baggly wrote: »

Mod

The posting in this thread needs to come up a level in standard. Correction....at least a level.

Cards and bans await any who choose not to do so.

Pintmanpaddylosty thanked this, LOLZ

olestoepoke · 31-10-2020 4:33pm

Get the popcorn ready, this is gonna be good.

s1ippy · 31-10-2020 4:34pm

They've actually updated the article and seem to be indicating overtly now that Chay Bowes is the whistleblower.

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

wowy · 31-10-2020 4:35pm

Mr.S wrote: »

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

https://twitter.com/dmorgandub/status/1322505536844300288?s=19

Peter Flynt · 31-10-2020 4:35pm

sdanseo wrote: »

OK, so TLDR for those confused - I had to do some research to figure this out.

The allegation is that:
Leo gave an unfinished copy of an agreement between the HSE and IMO to a friend in the NAGP.
Why are the IMO and NAGP rival organizations? One represents doctors, one represents doctors who are GPs. Apparently, they are both also de facto unions representing their members' interests and so there would be a conflict of interest for one to know information about an agreement between the other and the HSE, before it was made public.
The law says confidential information cannot be shared for personal gain or the personal gain of others.

The law states that confidential information cannot be sent. Period.
Personal gain is irrelevant.

On the IMO and the NAGP it seems to me that these are rival unions. You might think that unions representing the same set of workers work in tandem for the common good but you'd be wrong. Often unions representing the same workplace may work together but they have no problem undercutting each other as often happens in the teaching unions.

The impression I get is that O'Tuathail & others associated with the NAGP are trying to nick members off the more established IMO. Certainly the NAGP were angered many years ago at being left out of talks between govt and IMO. Perhaps Varadkar was illegally supplying information to NAGP via O'Tauthail?

Skeetur · 31-10-2020 4:36pm

sdanseo wrote: »

OK, so TLDR for those confused - I had to do some research to figure this out.

The allegation is that:
Leo gave an unfinished copy of an agreement between the HSE and IMO to a friend in the NAGP.
Why are the IMO and NAGP rival organizations? One represents doctors, one represents doctors who are GPs. Apparently, they are both also de facto unions representing their members' interests and so there would be a conflict of interest for one to know information about an agreement between the other and the HSE, before it was made public.
The law says confidential information cannot be shared for personal gain or the personal gain of others.
What's not clear is whether this would have constituted personal gain, but it probably figures that it did, since it could have influenced contractual negotiations on doctors' remuneration by the state.

However, on the flip side, we also have:
screenshots of someone claiming to be Matt O'Toole being asked for his address by someone claiming to be Leo. There are two different versions of this same screenshot - which would lend itself to the question, that if it was doctored (lol) once, was it fake to begin with?
a picture of the document with what is alleged to be Leo's writing on a table allegedly sent by Matt O'Toole
a story published by an outlet which can only be described as a little unhinged in its bias against the establishment if you look back through its tweets. It leans very left, very SF. Paddy Cosgrave likely has wet dreams over their articles, it would be in their interest to frame Leo.

A lot to digest. Interesting to see what Leo says.

According to the article the contract was too late to benefit the NAGP which is why they talked about "stealing their thunder" by making the terms known. It says the NAGP also dissolved 3 months later. So there can't have been much benefit.

bennyl10 · 31-10-2020 4:36pm

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1322562575742226433?s=21

ceegee · 31-10-2020 4:36pm

Mr.S wrote: »

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

He's coming out with a statement same day as the article - pretty quick. Even if he's flat out denying, he'll still need to get advice, have his statement drafted, reviewed, edited etc.

The article has the address redacted except for Dublin 8, The Village's tweet has it redacted except for Clonskeagh (which isn't D8)

sdanseo · 31-10-2020 4:37pm

Mr.S wrote: »

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

Can't find the tweet I saw.. scrolling for ages. But there was a version of the below that instead of CLonskeagh, said Dublin 8 at the end after the redaction.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElqO9bOXUAAEuIo?format=jpg&name=large

Peter Flynt · 31-10-2020 4:37pm

bennyl10 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1322562575742226433?s=21

He'll do SFA.
Like Bertie threatening legal action after Mahon Tribunal

landofthetree · 31-10-2020 4:38pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:38pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:39pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:40pm

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

Peter Flynt · 31-10-2020 4:42pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:42pm

francois wrote: »

Wake me up when the manufactured outrage level gets to 5

Think were here now, wakey wakey

bennyl10 · 31-10-2020 4:43pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:44pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:44pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:45pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:45pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:45pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:46pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:46pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:47pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:47pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:47pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:48pm

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 · 31-10-2020 4:48pm

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

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

Comments