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

1…103104106108109…416

Comments

  • #3152
    Nobotty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Nobotty


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    If you were to say quote the village magazine and their legal advise saying it was illegal,who gets sued then


    Varadkar clearly been leaking all sorts,hes not gonna sue anyone,same as gerry adams isnt going to sue anyone for saying he was in the ira,as civil cases allow all sorts of irrelevant info be aired publically and whatever shred of a reputation he has left would be wiped out

    You can report on what someone else says but you can't say it in any other way other than its your opinion
    The mainstream newspapers might report on the story but you won't hear them cast judgement
    There have been at least 2 garda complaints so that will clear up the issue of law
    Vradakar won't sue the village at this time
    He'll wait until Garda investigations are concluded
    After that,assuming they don't charge him,and let's be honest no charge is the likely outcome,he'll have twitter do a Donald trump on the village tweets and/or sue then or injunct them from repeating
    Or he may do nothing
    The do nothing would suit him fine as it won't be a story reported by others then


  • #3153
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    smurgen wrote: »
    More coming tomorrow. Can't wait ☺️.

    https://twitter.com/BowesChay/status/1324051443540725761?s=19
    Oh that's good :)
    esp Ryan


  • #3154
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The document was in the public domain.

    I don't know if I'm allowed to post this, but we are over 200 pages into this topic and the controversy is nearly a week old, and somebody still thinks that the document was in the public domain


  • #3155
    Allinall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,266 ✭✭✭Allinall


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Can you back this up?

    You are asking me to prove a negative.

    Can you show where he does need the permission of An Taoiseach to voice an opinion?

    You also claimed the Taoiseach refused to allow
     him to look at the issue.

    There is no evidence that this is the case.


  • #3156
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Here is the opinion of a senior counsel.

    Please don't be arrogant enough just to dismiss it. Can you produce a similarly weighted and considered opposite opinion?

    https://villagemagazine.ie/senior-counsels-opinion-for-village-affirms-being-a-minister-does-not-exclude-you-from-the-obligations-of-the-official-secret-act/

    That legal opinion doesn't say what you think it says. Read this piece:

    "However the communication by any person may nonetheless be excepted from prohibition, not because of status for example as member of the Oireachtas or Minister, but if the disclosing person either

    is duly authorised to communicate the official information – “duly authorised” here means (S.4(4)) authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority to communicate the official information, or
    communicates the official information in the course of or in accordance with his or her duties as the holder of a public office (not including membership of the Oireachtas), or
    when it is his or her duty in the interest of the State to communicate it."

    So, according to that opinion, if Leo authorised himself, or in accordance with his duties, or in the interest of the State, then he didn't break the law.

    That agrees with everything I have said since the start of this discussion about the Official Secrets Act.

    Hope nobody was getting too excited about this legal opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • #3157
    stockshares
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,760 ✭✭✭stockshares


    Marc on now.

    Mentions double standards.

    Says the way MM handled to he scandal was a disgrace

    Contrary to what's in the papers none of his colleagues dissented(disagreed) when he made the remarks

    Leo's story is a fairytale. There isn't a 6yr old in Ireland that doesn't know that.

    Asked if he considers leaving FF he ysed a football analogy saying that at times you might have bad tactics and bad players in your team/club but you don't keave, you try to change it.


  • #3158
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,532 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Allinall wrote: »
    You are asking me to prove a negative.

    Can you show where he does need the permission of An Taoiseach to voice an opinion?

    You also claimed the Taoiseach refused to allow
     him to look at the issue.

    There is no evidence that this is the case.


    When the Taoiseach is asked in the Dáil to consult the AG, what do you think is happening?

    The opposition are putting the 'request' on the record of the house. The AG cannot just go to the media or independently comment on an individual case.
    That is why the opposition were 'officially' asking the Taoiseach to involve the AG. He denied the request. The AG cannot get involved.

    If he/she can then there would be incidences of it.


  • #3159
    ooter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭ooter


    "fairytale backstory."


  • #3160
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    This thing is not going away yet.


  • #3161
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,049 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    MacSharry saying it as it is in fairness.
    A fairy tale.


  • Advertisement
  • #3162
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    shatners bassoon wrote: »
    This has to be a wind up.

    No, no one can say for certain whether a law has been broken. The same way no one can say for certain whether a murderer committed a crime until the matter is investigated and tried. The fact that we don't know for certain that he's the murderer doesn't mean he hasn't broken the law!

    <Snip>

    That argument just doesn't wash. There is no evidence that a law has been broken. The senior counsel opinion obtained by the Village magazine supports the view that Varadkar could have authorised himself to share the document. That he didn't follow best practice in doing so doesn't make it a crime.


  • #3163
    WicklaWolf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 47 ✭WicklaWolf


    A six year old wouldn't believe Leo Varadkar's story - Marc McSharry


  • #3164
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Bullocks wrote: »
    I reckon this story is dying on its feet , the Village didn't come out with anything new despite their promises of more to follow and the US elections are keeping the newspapers full without looking for any more news . Could be a lucky time for Leo for this to air

    Yet I just heard Pascal defending Leo to Claire Byrne on Radio One. His repeated assistance that Leo is a politician of integrity sounded hollow and desperate imo.
    CB: FF are revolting
    PD: Leo has integrity. :rolleyes:

    Hmmmm... story not gone away even as we are all glued to the count in Georgia and Pennsylvania is bad for the govt.


  • #3165
    Allinall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,266 ✭✭✭Allinall


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    When the Taoiseach is asked in the Dáil to consult the AG, what do you think is happening?

    The opposition are putting the 'request' on the record of the house. The AG cannot just go to the media or independently comment on an individual case.
    That is why the opposition were 'officially' asking the Taoiseach to involve the AG. He denied the request. The AG cannot get involved.

    If he/she can then there would be incidences of it.

    Yet another claim with nothing to back it up. Why you are bringing the media into it I have no idea.

    Just because you or I do not know of any incidents of the Attorney general making independent commentary does not mean he cannot do so.


  • #3166
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,532 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    McSharry nailing it. This is not 'leaking to the press or giving a steer', this is 'leaking a confidential official state secret'.


  • #3167
    grayzer75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭grayzer75


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The way this has been pursued on Twitter and online is Trumpian in nature, led by the Shinnerbot Twitterati.

    Not surprising again to see the similarities between different variants of the toxic ideology of exclusionary nationalism.

    Haha typical FFG response - deflect and then blame the shinners.

    This sh1tshow rests squarely at the door of #LeoTheLeak and nobody else but you'll go all out to defend your master regardless.


  • #3168
    costacorta
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 483 ✭✭costacorta


    WicklaWolf wrote: »
    A six year old wouldn't believe Leo Varadkar's story - Marc McSharry

    Sure poor old Marc will do anything to blame MM who overlooked him for a ministry. It’s called being bitter so of no relevance really what he says ..


  • #3169
    timmyntc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,608 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    A broken clock is right twice a day


  • #3170
    Nobotty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Nobotty


    Problem with McSharry's view point is its driven by a civil war hatred of FG
    There's a lot of that in FF and FG
    The only party they hate more is SF
    The only beauty I suppose is your enemies enemy is your friend
    Until of course he starts attacking you


  • #3171
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,532 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Allinall wrote: »
    Yet another claim with nothing to back it up. Why you are bringing the media into it I have no idea.

    Just because you or I do not know of any incidents of the Attorney general making independent commentary does not mean he cannot do so.

    You claimed I was wrong and also nothing to back up what you say.

    The absolute arrogance of that.


  • Advertisement
  • #3172
    Allinall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,266 ✭✭✭Allinall


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You claimed I was wrong and also nothing to back up what you say.

    The absolute arrogance of that.

    Once again you are asking me to prove a negative.

    It's disingenuous.

    Your original claim was that

    "Michael Martin is refusing to allow anybody with the power to look at it (the Attorney general) give an opinion."

    You have offered nothing to back up this claim.


  • #3173
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    Does anybody here believe the NAGP shouldn’t have had access to the full document at all? Even Sinn Fein wanted the NAGP to have access to this material. However if the IMO were asked for permission it would most likely have created a massive issue as the IMO wouldn’t want a rival union to have any influence.

    It was a shortcut and a poor error of judgement but I honestly believe it was done for genuine reasons. Can you imagine the outrage if GPs had refused to sign the agreement because the NAGP campaigned against it due to being kept out of the loop?

    Of all juicy political scandals this is pretty dry.


  • #3174
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So, as of now, no law has been broken, to the best of anyone’s knowledge.

    It has been alleged the law has been broken, the matter needs to be investigated to determine if this allegation is correct.
    Should the evidence indicate the law has been broken then it is up to the DPP whether the matter should be brought before the courts.
    Only until such time as the courts have made their ruling can it be said with certainty if the law has been broken or not.

    This is generally (with some exceptions e.g. fixed notice penalties) how it is determined if the law has been broken.

    If none has then an investigation would clear that up wouldn't it?


  • #3175
    timmyntc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,608 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    IngazZagni wrote: »
    Does anybody here believe the NAGP shouldn’t have had access to the full document at all? Even Sinn Fein wanted the NAGP to have access to this material. However if the IMO were asked for permission it would most likely have created a massive issue as the IMO wouldn’t want a rival union to have any influence.

    It was a shortcut and a poor error of judgement but I honestly believe it was done for genuine reasons. Can you imagine the outrage if GPs had refused to sign the agreement because the NAGP campaigned against it due to being kept out of the loop?

    Of all juicy political scandals this is pretty dry.

    The NAGP should have been included in negotiations, yes.
    But they weren't. The Govt were negotiating with one union, and then Leo leaking the outcome of said negotiations to another union.

    It doesn't look great.


  • #3176
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,532 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Allinall wrote: »
    Once again you are asking me to prove a negative.

    It's disingenuous.

    Your original claim was that

    "Michael Martin is refusing to allow anybody with the power to look at it (the Attorney general) give an opinion."

    You have offered nothing to back up this claim.

    He rejected a call in the Dáil to request the AG to investigate.

    WTF?


  • #3177
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    It has been alleged the law has been broken, the matter needs to be investigated to determine if this allegation is correct.
    Should the evidence indicate the law has been broken then it is up to the DPP whether the matter should be brought before the courts.
    Only until such time as the courts have made their ruling can it be said with certainty if the law has been broken or not.

    This is generally (with some exceptions e.g. fixed notice penalties) how it is determined if the law has been broken.

    If none has then an investigation would clear that up wouldn't it?

    There is no evidence that the law has been broken.


  • #3178
    stockshares
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,760 ✭✭✭stockshares


    timmyntc wrote: »
    The NAGP should have been included in negotiations, yes.
    But they weren't. The Govt were negotiating with one union, and then Leo leaking the outcome of said negotiations to another union.

    It doesn't look great.

    Does anyone know why the NAGP weren't included?

    Was it because Gov were aware of the way it was being run or was it pure bias towards IMO.


  • #3179
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    blanch152 wrote: »
    There is no evidence that the law has been broken.

    That cannot be stated with certainty until the matter has been investigated.
    There is certainly evidence. The Tánaiste has admitted sending a confidential document. That is in the Dáil record.

    Which is possibly better evidence then social welfare inspectors use to justify entering the homes of Lone Parent recipients during a level 5 lockdown, yet that is happening.


  • #3180
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,532 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    There is no evidence that the law has been broken.

    Nor will there be until somebody with investigative powers looks for it.

    Until then, we all have equally valid 'opinions'.


  • Advertisement
  • #3181
    Nobotty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Nobotty


    timmyntc wrote: »
    The NAGP should have been included in negotiations, yes.
    But they weren't. The Govt were negotiating with one union, and then Leo leaking the outcome of said negotiations to another union.

    It doesn't look great.

    They absolutely should have been in the full loop yes but Leo being Leo decided to get as many gp's as possible to sign before the Euro and council elections
    Tool was the Tool there in that

    Mcsharry and o'Cuiv and now Cowen like a lot of FF hate the coalition
    I personally like a lot of the country don't understand their hatred for the right-wing of their party FG
    But its driving last nights PP meetings shouting
    The 3 of them undermining their partys co leader's position on the co Teesh Leo doesn't make any difference unless and until the Gardaí charge Leo
    And that won't be happening


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement