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

stockshares wrote: »

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.

Didn't have a license for negotiations - which led to members leaving & contributed to their debts which ultimately led them to liquidation.

O'Tuathails plan to get the contract & put it to members was presumably to boost membership in the union & stop things falling apart.

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.

This is it, all day long.

The Government chose to deal with the IMO only. They chose not to deal with the NAGP. In my opinion they should have been dealing with both and therefore would have been covering the majority of GPs in the country but that's not what they chose to do as is their right.

Leo however chose to share the document with NAGP, therefore stepping outside the negotiation boundaries set by his own Government and knowingly doing so. This fella is now Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. His credibility and integrity are shot and totally incompatible with both of his current roles.

s1ippy wrote: »

When the health minister is keeping them at arm's length and the Taoiseach, knowing that they want to "destroy" the union in talks, secretly goes over the health minister's head for a mate, it's a different story.

How does he know they want to destroy the IMO? What evidence do you have of this? Outrageous suggestion.

blanch152 wrote: »

Using that analogy, we can't be certain that you aren't a mass murderer and a pedophile and it would be ok to accuse you of same.

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.

No it wouldn't, because there's no evidence to suggest that I'm a mass murderer and a paedophile. If there was, I would expect the matter to be investigated.

The purpose of obtaining counsel's opinion was to refute Leo's statement that it is "manifestly wrong" to suggest that he broke the act because the definition of "public office" specifically excludes members of the Oireachtas. The opinion confirms that in fact, Leo is manifestly wrong on this point. I'm still staggered that he / his legal team even sought to make this argument. You don't need to be senior counsel to figure out that he's incorrect here. You just need to read the act. At best it's an embarrassing error by him and his solicitor. At worst, it's deliberately misleading.

The remainder of the opinion merely restates the relevant contents of the act and the exceptions, namely, that releasing information is acceptable if the person:

- 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.

My understanding is that Leo has never claimed that he was authorised to do so. He has made the argument that it was in the public interest. This is open to debate.

There is more than enough here to warrant investigation. Why not just have the AG review matters and give an opinion?

What was said about Leo been on the IMO side?

Surely he wouldn't leak something if it was going to harm the IMO and he knew it??

McMurphy wrote: »

"I'd love to destroy IMO too" is a bit of a giveaway.

Is that really a screenshot from Leo’s phone? How has someone managed to screenshot the Taoiseachs phone? What a massive security breach.
What was Leo’s response to this and had the document been sent before or after this message?

IngazZagni wrote: »

Is that really a screenshot from Leo’s phone? How has someone managed to screenshot the Taoiseachs phone? What a massive security breach.
What was Leo’s response to this and had the document been sent before or after this message?

Don't think that's Leo's conversation.

There is two different ones

timmyntc wrote: »

Thats between Chay Bowes & MOT, not Varadkar.

Yep.

Lot of incorrect stuff here, surprised posters here still don't know the simple details seems they are here 24/7.

Let's stick to the facts.

McMurphy wrote: »

As far as I know, that conversation is between MOT and Leo. I'm not sure how they got access to screenshots of Leo's phone, but he's never came out and dispute that it's from his (Leo's) phone.

There's no screenshots from Leo's phone, and no claim that there is. They're all from Chay Bowes' phone, or MOT's phone (who seems to have screen-dumped everything he ever did on his phone to Bowes).

WicklaWolf wrote: »

It's a screenshot of Maitiu O'Ts phone. He probably took it and sent it on.

Nope. Unless MOT has the other person saved as a contact with his own name, and is having a backwards conversation with the other person from their point of view while calling the other person his own name.

shatners bassoon wrote: »

No it wouldn't, because there's no evidence to suggest that I'm a mass murderer and a paedophile. If there was, I would expect the matter to be investigated.

The purpose of obtaining counsel's opinion was to refute Leo's statement that it is "manifestly wrong" to suggest that he broke the act because the definition of "public office" specifically excludes members of the Oireachtas. The opinion confirms that in fact, Leo is manifestly wrong on this point. I'm still staggered that he / his legal team even sought to make this argument. You don't need to be senior counsel to figure out that he's incorrect here. You just need to read the act. At best it's an embarrassing error by him and his solicitor. At worst, it's deliberately misleading.

The remainder of the opinion merely restates the relevant contents of the act and the exceptions, namely, that releasing information is acceptable if the person:

- 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.

My understanding is that Leo has never claimed that he was authorised to do so. He has made the argument that it was in the public interest. This is open to debate.

There is more than enough here to warrant investigation. Why not just have the AG review matters and give an opinion?

Firstly, if the Taosieach cannot authorise it, there is no higher office in the land. Self-authorisation is obvious from the legislation. Secondly, even if by some quirk, it isn't, there was a reference to a Cabinet decision that the Government should continue engagement with the NAGP, that is sufficient authorisation.

Who decides on the interests of the State? The government, led by the Taoiseach. The presumption therefore is that the Taoiseach is acting in the interests of the State. It would be a very high threshold to prove he wasn't, especially in a case like this. Saying it is open to debate isn't enough.

IngazZagni wrote: »

But I just learned the screenshot you sent did not involve Leo Varadkar. How is Varadkar supposed to know O Tuathails personal opinion of the IMO from a private message he wasn’t involved in?

Simple facts.