Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
11920222425417

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,475 ✭✭✭An Ri rua


    I know Dooley is being opportunistic but if it's found that other Doc's have been leaked in this way then it's surely not just a resigning matter but a criminal prosecution.

    All very confusing. I know who Doc(tor) Spin is but is he also Doc Leaker? Must re-invent himself like Prince. The artist formerly known as Teesh....


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Nothing. The IMO made the agreement public a week before the events published in the village.

    You've no idea what you're talking about.please log off.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    I did. New GP agreement was agreed on 3 April with the IMO (who represent 20% of GPs). Provided to the president of the NAGP (who represented 40% of GPs) shortly thereafter.

    It's perfectly logical that a new agreement for all GPs was given to the president of a body that represented 40% of GPs.

    Lots of opportunism going on here, don't think Leo will fall on the sword because of it.

    Seems to be a bit of a non-story alright, but it depends what else comes out. Doesn't seem to have had any commercial value or impact when it was provided?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Sorolla wrote: »
    Coveney already failed a leadership campaign - he will not candidate again.

    Simon Harris would be the most popular choice.

    Mairead Mc Guinness would also be a very popular choice

    It will be Coveney if Leo goes. Leo isn't as popular within FG as some posters on here maintain, from what I can see.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    I did. New GP agreement was agreed on 3 April with the IMO (who represent 20% of GPs). Provided to the president of the NAGP (who represented 40% of GPs) shortly thereafter.

    It's perfectly logical that a new agreement for all GPs was given to the president of a body that represented 40% of GPs.

    Lots of opportunism going on here, don't think Leo will fall on the sword because of it.

    It might be perfectly logical (and indeed reasonable) to discuss the agreement with a representative body, but that wasn't what happened here, Varadkar gave a Government document marked 'Confidential/not for circulation' to his pal.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    It’s is my view that Leo is one of the root causes this three card trick government is all over the road. He is constantly undermining MMartin because like trump he is a publicity hound. I’d say he is just biding his time now till some big EU or UN jobs opens up and it’ll be like the flight of the Earls.


  • Registered Users Posts: 883 ✭✭✭Get Real


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Based on the Journals timeline of events that they just uploaded, he will have no need to walk.

    The article I read said it wasn't made public til the 17th of May? A month after Leo leaked it.

    Also on the 16th of April "The GPs have not seen it, the public have not seen it, and we have not seen it." Yet Leo WhatsApped it to someone before this?

    How do you maintain he's not under pressure?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    It might be perfectly logical (and indeed reasonable) to discuss the agreement with a representative body, but that wasn't what happened here, Varadkar gave a Government document marked 'Confidential/not for circulation' to his pal.

    Once it's contents were no longer commercially relevant though. It's bad practice but it's hardly a hanging offence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,208 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    Statement from the Green Party - another twist of the screw

    The Green Party notes the statement from the Tánaiste following the revelations in Village Magazine. The party is calling on the Tánaiste to give a full and detailed account to the Dáil on the issue and to allow sufficient time for the statement followed by questioning.

    It is clear from what has been revealed that the passing on of sensitive information in this manner was not appropriate. The timelines and the full impact of the disclosure on all involved needs further scrutiny.

    Pretty fair statement, so long as Leo told the truth today, this should go away.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭ooter


    I'd say they are all at it. Just matters if you are caught.

    I'd say cowen was saying that a few months ago.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    It might be perfectly logical (and indeed reasonable) to discuss the agreement with a representative body, but that wasn't what happened here, Varadkar gave a Government document marked 'Confidential/not for circulation' to his pal.

    I think you are being a bit disingenuous here describing him as his "pal". He was the president of the NAGP at the time, a body which represented 40% of GPs in the country. And he was providing him with an agreement that all those GPs would be part of.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    smurgen wrote: »
    You've no idea what you're talking about.please log off.

    Try reading the links provided by your friends before you embarrass yourself more.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Once it's contents were no longer commercially relevant though. It's bad practice but it's hardly a hanging offence.

    Extract from the Official Secrets Act 1963
    PART II

    Official Information

    Disclosure of official information.

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭stockshares


    The Journal have a Timeline on the contract negotiations in 2019
    https://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadk...urce=shortlink

    Summary
    1970
    Previous General Medical Services (GMS) contract signed

    2008
    2008 financial crash. FEMPI legislation cuts funding.

    2013,
    NAGP formed for doctors after pension pay-outs at the IMO had angered some members. However, the NAGP was not signed up to the framework with the department. It was also not under the umbrella of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

    2014
    High Court case on related competition issues. IMO determined to be the sole negotiating body on behalf of doctors in a framework agreement with the Department of Health.

    August 2016
    new contract mooted. Health Minster Simon Harris said he wanted the NAGP involved. The drive to get a new GMS contract faltered

    June 28 2018.
    New drive for GMS contract following stories that medical card patients were being refused reimbursements for blood tests taken by GPs. Fianna Fáil health spokesperson Stephen Donnelly asked Simon Harris about the matter because the GP negotiations had been ongoing for a number of months. Donnelly said the NAGP had written to the Minister repeatedly “but it cannot even get a letter in response to say when he expects its representatives to be in the room”. It has received one letter from the Government stating that at some point in the future, the Government will engage with the association.”


    6 February 2019
    Senator Colm Burke told Harris at an Oireachtas Health Committee hearing that members of NAGP would be protesting later that day as they did not feel part of the ongoing negotiating process. Harris said it was a “fair point” but that his department engages with the IMO on contractual matters.

    3 April 2019
    talks concluded on Wednesday, with the new GP contract agreed between the IMO, Department of Health and HSE.

    Friday, 5 April
    IMO issued a press release which announced details of the negotiated agreement

    Saturday, 6 April
    The above-mentioned statement was issued by government with Varadkar and Harris welcoming the agreement with the IMO. The release did not contain much granular detail about what the draft contract contained.

    Between 11-16 April 2019
    The then-Taoiseach provided a copy of the full agreement to Dr Maitiu Ó Tuathail, president of the NAGP.

    16 April 2019
    a debate on General Practitioner Contractual Reform took place in the Dáil. During the same debate, the Fianna Fáil health spokesperson (and now Minister for Health) Stephen Donnelly said it was good to get some detail of the deal, given that the exercise had been very frustrating to date.
    He raised concerns, as did other party spokespeople including Labour’s Alan Kelly, Social Democrats’ Róisín Shortall and Sinn Féin’s Louise O’Reilly, that they had not seen sight of the agreement ahead of the debate.
    The outline of the deal was agreed about two weeks ago. The GPs have not seen it, the public have not seen it, and we have not seen it. We are being given pages of facts and figures now. We have not seen them before. I have asked the Department for them and I have asked the HSE. We have been denied access to any of the detail. We are sort of expected to stand up here now and respond,” Donnelly said at the time.
    Donnelly said health spokespeople for the political parties should have had the information on the deal ahead of time, “days in advance”, he said, adding:
    In fact, we should have had it the day after it was agreed with the IMO.” Sinn Féin’s Louise O’Reilly said during the debate that the deal was done two weeks ago, saying “it is unfortunate that I did not have more detail in advance of the debate”.
    However, former Independent TD and GP Michael Harty revealed he had seen more details of the deal.
    The County Clare deputy told the Dáil he had a copy of the agreement in his possession, and said the agreement was “still under discussion at IMO meetings”.
    I may have an advantage, being an IMO member, in that I have in my possession a document which outlines, in broad brush strokes, what is contained in the agreement,” he said. Former Wexford TD Mick Wallace said during the debate:

    “Only 20% of GPs are IMO members, 40% are members of the NAGP, while 40% are not members of any union. This new contract has been negotiated without the input of the vast majority of GPs or their representative bodies. The vast majority of GPs have still not seen the new GP contract. Only one-in-five GPs have seen the contract via the IMO.”
    The health minister clarified at the end of the debate that GPs had begun a process of intense consultation, which took place in Dublin the night previous.

    17 May 2019.
    The Department of Health published the entire text of the IMO deal.

    22 May 2019
    Results of the ballot of IMO members were announced with 95% of GP members of the IMO across the country supporting the signing of the contract.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Once it's contents were no longer commercially relevant though. It's bad practice but it's hardly a hanging offence.

    You had people on the thread this morning calling for 10 years jail time for this. Laughable and sad.


  • Registered Users Posts: 996 ✭✭✭Sorolla


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Pretty fair statement, so long as Leo told the truth today, this should go away.

    I do believe it might be a good idea for the leaders of FF FG GP to arrive at a gentleman’s agreement and ignore this story.

    We are in a lockdown and we have had tremendous success in reducing “R”

    We should concentrate on this massive success and concentrate our news reporting solely on COVID.

    We’re rounding the turn on the virus and this is THE news story

    No other story is of interest


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Get Real wrote: »
    The article I read said it wasn't made public til the 17th of May? A month after Leo leaked it.

    Also on the 16th of April "The GPs have not seen it, the public have not seen it, and we have not seen it." Yet Leo WhatsApped it to someone before this?

    How do you maintain he's not under pressure?

    Martin must be running through the streets with glee that he could be shot of him.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    Extract from the Official Secrets Act 1963
    PART II

    Official Information

    Disclosure of official information.

    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.

    Did you read section 4(4) and also the interpretation section? They are pretty integral parts of the Act and you left them out of your copy and paste.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Sorolla wrote: »
    I do believe it might be a good idea for the leaders of FF FG GP to arrive at a gentleman’s agreement and ignore this story.

    We are in a lockdown and we have had tremendous success in reducing “R”

    We should concentrate on this massive success and concentrate our news reporting solely on COVID.

    We’re rounding the turn on the virus and this is THE news story

    No other story is of interest

    The media thrive on the cult of personality look at trump shur.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Did you read section 4(4) and also the interpretation section? They are pretty integral parts of the Act and you left them out of your copy and paste.

    Stick em up


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus




  • Registered Users Posts: 8,170 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Sorolla wrote: »
    I do believe it might be a good idea for the leaders of FF FG GP to arrive at a gentleman’s agreement and ignore this story.

    We are in a lockdown and we have had tremendous success in reducing “R”

    We should concentrate on this massive success and concentrate our news reporting solely on COVID.

    We’re rounding the turn on the virus and this is THE news story

    No other story is of interest

    The next four weeks are crucial


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,208 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    Extract from the Official Secrets Act 1963
    PART II

    Official Information

    Disclosure of official information.

    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.


    As the Taoiseach, if he believed it was in the interests of the State to get the majority of GPS to sign up to the deal (and all indications are that it was), and that would be helped by giving the document to the person he gave it to, then there was no breach of the Official Secrets Act, I mean, who else would he have to ask?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    blanch152 wrote: »
    As the Taoiseach, if he believed it was in the interests of the State to get the majority of GPS to sign up to the deal (and all indications are that it was), and that would be helped by giving the document to the person he gave it to, then there was no breach of the Official Secrets Act, I mean, who else would he have to ask?

    He needed to get permission from his mother.


  • Registered Users Posts: 85,105 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    Apologies for being ignorant but struggling a little to understand what is going on, to what end did Leo leak these documents?

    What use did the crowd he leaked have for them? Did they use them for financial gain?

    Yes can #LeoTheLeak answer this werewolf question for me too :P


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,208 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    You had people on the thread this morning calling for 10 years jail time for this. Laughable and sad.

    Now that is funny all right.

    Some of the bile on this thread is eye-opening.

    Some people just don’t like a successful gay son of an immigrant, do they?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »

    This is 4.(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.

    What 'Minister or State authority' authorised him to release the Confidential document, or are you suggesting that any 'Minister or State authority' can release any/all Confidential documents without recourse to any other individual/authority.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    blanch152 wrote: »
    As the Taoiseach, if he believed it was in the interests of the State to get the majority of GPS to sign up to the deal (and all indications are that it was), and that would be helped by giving the document to the person he gave it to, then there was no breach of the Official Secrets Act, I mean, who else would he have to ask?

    Still should go through the proper channels though, even if your point is essentially right.


  • Registered Users Posts: 242 ✭✭foundation10


    I'd say this leak is only the tip of the iceberg and more s**t will come out on him.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,208 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    This is 4.(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.

    What 'Minister or State authority' authorised him to release the Confidential document, or are you suggesting that any 'Minister or State authority' can release any/all Confidential documents without recourse to any other individual/authority.

    He was the Taoiseach, he could authorise himself!!!!!

    Some of the stuff people are posting is hilarious.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement