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

IAMAMORON · 15-02-2021 04:58PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

Won't happen.

In fairness if the Gardaí are going to be carrying out a thorough investigation of the matter, he will need to be invited for questioning?

Do you reckon he is a Big Mac kind of dude, or maybe he is into chicken rolls or Burger King?

McMurphy · 15-02-2021 05:01PM

IAMAMORON wrote: »

In fairness if the Gardaí are going to be carrying out a thorough investigation of the matter, he will need to be invited for questioning?

Do you reckon he is a Big Mac kind of dude, or maybe he is into chicken rolls or Burger King?

Did you just jump into the story today, in an all out defence of the chosen one, without any actual research?

Chay Bowes, a former interim chief executive of the NAGP, made a complaint to gardai about the leak in November. Gardai have taken a statement from him and have examined his mobile phone which contained copies of WhatsApp conversations showing the contact between Varadkar and Ó Tuathail. “The gardai have interviewed me and reviewed all the relevant data I had,” Bowes confirmed yesterday.

I hope Bowes made back up copies, I hear the Gardai don't look after phones that well. Odd one gets lost I've heard.

Cute Hoor · 15-02-2021 05:04PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Yeah, don't you know that the real reason there is criminality involved is that Leo didn't fill out paper Form S16F in triplicate with seven days notice and copy it to the correct authorising officer so therefore he wasn't entitled to the document.

Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document? Should be an easy enough question.

blanch152 · 15-02-2021 05:17PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document? Should be an easy enough question.

What does confidential mean in a legal sense?

Was confidential written on the document? Yes
Does this have any legal connotations? Have asked this question of posters many times and have yet to get a single coherent response.

Cute Hoor · 15-02-2021 05:18PM

blanch152 wrote: »

What does confidential mean in a legal sense?

Was confidential written on the document? Yes
Does this have any legal connotations? Have asked this question of posters many times and have yet to get a single coherent response.

Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document?

Floppybits · 15-02-2021 05:24PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document? Should be an easy enough question.

He has been jumping through hoops since the story broke trying to claim the document wasn't confidential. This is even after Varadkar has admitted it was confidential.

blanch152 · 15-02-2021 05:25PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document?

CONFIDENTIAL

I have just marked this post as confidential. It is a confidential post. You are not authorised to share it.

What does confidential mean on that document in a legal sense? Any more than me marking this post as confidential?

Cute Hoor · 15-02-2021 05:27PM

blanch152 wrote: »

CONFIDENTIAL

I have just marked this post as confidential. It is a confidential post. You are not authorised to share it.

What does confidential mean on that document in a legal sense? Any more than me marking this post as confidential?

Bloody hell, it's a very simple question, are you saying it wasn't a confidential document?
There are only 2 possible answers (that I know of) yes or no.

blanch152 · 15-02-2021 05:30PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Bloody hell, it's a very simple question, are you saying it wasn't a confidential document?
There are only 2 possible answers (that I know of) yes or no.

Is my post confidential, do you accept that?

Bubbaclaus · 15-02-2021 05:30PM

Floppybits wrote: »

He has been jumping through hoops since the story broke trying to claim the document wasn't confidential. This is even after Varadkar has admitted it was confidential.

I suppose the question there would be who is it confidential for and would it be confidential for a GP representative to see a GP agreement? I don't have the answer to that, but maybe someone of a legal background might. Basically what defines the confidentiality and who can see the contents of such a confidential document? If it is all the parties of the agreement, then sharing it with the head of NAGP wouldn't actually be an issue, as it was an agreement for all GPs, not just the 20% that were under the IMO.

James Brown · 15-02-2021 05:33PM

blanch152 wrote: »

CONFIDENTIAL

I have just marked this post as confidential. It is a confidential post. You are not authorised to share it.

What does confidential mean on that document in a legal sense? Any more than me marking this post as confidential?

Brilliant

The laws of physics are up for debate now i imagine.
There is a government. They were having negotiations with a union. There was a confidential negotiation document. LV took it and passed it to a pal, the head of a rival union.
This is what LV confessed to.
I know we don't do accountability but by the logic of your comment we could let The Sun have access to MM personal emails, I mean what is confidential?

Cute Hoor · 15-02-2021 05:34PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Is my post confidential, do you accept that?

I'm assuming you're not going to answer

blanch152 · 15-02-2021 05:34PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I suppose the question there would be who is it confidential for and would it be confidential for a GP representative to see a GP agreement? I don't have the answer to that, but maybe someone of a legal background might. Basically what defines the confidentiality and who can see the contents of such a confidential document? If it is all the parties of the agreement, then sharing it with the head of NAGP wouldn't actually be an issue, as it was an agreement for all GPs, not just the 20% that were under the IMO.

Now, we are getting somewhere.

We also have the issue as to whether it is a document covered by the Official Secrets Act before it is finalised. We also have the issue as to the difference between marking a document as confidential, and the legal definition of a confidential document.

If Varadkar had passed around a lunch menu for preferences at Cabinet, marked it confidential and then given it to a journalist, would that also be a breach of the Official Secrets Act?

People are losing their sh!t over something that they can't even define in a legal sense.

We have someone who three and a half months ago proclaimed that Varadkar had committed an illegal act, and who still can't tell us which law was broken.

blanch152 · 15-02-2021 05:35PM

James Brown wrote: »

Brilliant
The laws of physics are up for debate now i imagine.
There is a government. They were having negotiations with a union. There was a confidential negotiation document. LV took it and passed it to a pal, the head of a rival union.
This is what LV confessed to.
I know we don't do accountability but by the logic of your comment we could let The Sun have access to MM personal emails, I mean what is confidential?

Other than the word confidential being written at the top (same as my post), what evidence do you possess that it met any legal definition of confidential?

James Brown · 15-02-2021 05:36PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I suppose the question there would be who is it confidential for and would it be confidential for a GP representative to see a GP agreement? I don't have the answer to that, but maybe someone of a legal background might. Basically what defines the confidentiality and who can see the contents of such a confidential document? If it is all the parties of the agreement, then sharing it with the head of NAGP wouldn't actually be an issue, as it was an agreement for all GPs, not just the 20% that were under the IMO.

It was a confidential negotiation document between the health department and the IMO.
It was passed to a rival union.
That was wrong. Varadkar apologised.
Any legal implications will be looked at.

James Brown · 15-02-2021 05:39PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Other than the word confidential being written at the top (same as my post), what evidence do you possess that it met any legal definition of confidential?

It met that criteria for government. It was there's to consider confidential.
Any legal issues, if there are any will be investigated. Doesnt take away from Leo being wrong and apologising.
In a job if your office marks something confidential you should treat it as such less you be reprimanded or fired.
Too bad our government don't have such standards.

Cute Hoor · 15-02-2021 05:40PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Other than the word confidential being written at the top (same as my post), what evidence do you possess that it met any legal definition of confidential?

It gets worser and worser, presumably obtuse is the edict that has issued from Mount St

Bubbaclaus · 15-02-2021 05:40PM

James Brown wrote: »

It was a confidential negotiation document between the health department and the IMO.
It was passed to a rival union.
That was wrong. Varadkar apologised.
Any legal implications will be looked at.

I'm pretty sure it was the actual agreement that was shared, not a negotiation document? Perhaps I am remembering wrong, but I am almost certain it was the draft of the actual GP agreement itself.

blanch152 · 15-02-2021 05:40PM

James Brown wrote: »

It met the criteria for government. It was there's to consider confidential.
Any legal issues, if there are any will be investigated. Doesnt take away from Leo being wrong and apologising.

Great, you can set out the criteria for me then, and which piece of legislation they come from.

You can?

Can't you?

I mean, you said there are criteria, right?

blanch152 · 15-02-2021 05:42PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

It gets worser and worser, presumably obtuse is the wdict that has issued from Mount St

So you are another poster who doesn't have the first clue about what firstly makes a civil service document a civil service document and secondly, what makes one confidential.

There has been an awful lot of spoofing since the start of this thread about confidentiality and illegality and thousands of posts later, we are no wiser as to the legal basis of the confidentiality or even the possible piece of legislation that was broken.

James Brown · 15-02-2021 05:43PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Great, you can set out the criteria for me then, and which piece of legislation they come from.

You can?

Can't you?

I mean, you said there are criteria, right?

It was considered confidential by government. Leo is in government.
I knew you were trying to set this trap

Cute Hoor · 15-02-2021 05:45PM

blanch152 wrote: »

So you are another poster who doesn't have the first clue about what firstly makes a civil service document a civil service document and secondly, what makes one confidential.

There has been an awful lot of spoofing since the start of this thread about confidentiality and illegality and thousands of posts later, we are no wiser as to the legal basis of the confidentiality or even the possible piece of legislation that was broken.

I'll try just one last time, and there are only 2 possible answers, YES or NO.
Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document.

James Brown · 15-02-2021 05:47PM

blanch152 wrote: »

So you are another poster who doesn't have the first clue about what firstly makes a civil service document a civil service document and secondly, what makes one confidential.

There has been an awful lot of spoofing since the start of this thread about confidentiality and illegality and thousands of posts later, we are no wiser as to the legal basis of the confidentiality or even the possible piece of legislation that was broken.

Made up stuff.
We don't know if laws were broken its being investigated.
We do know he leaked a confidential document. He apologised.
You are trying to suggest that unless its drafted into legislation there is no such thing as confidential

blanch152 · 15-02-2021 05:48PM

James Brown wrote: »

It was considered confidential by government. Leo is in government.
I knew you were trying to set this trap

On what legal basis did the government consider it confidential? If the government did indeed consider it confidential.

https://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/welcome/

"Iris Oifigiúil is the official means used by the Government for announcing appointments to public offices and publishing proclamations, statutory instruments, appointment of receivers to companies, etc."

Maybe you could link me to the relevant issue of Iris Oifigiul where the government published its proclamation that this document was confidential?

Floppybits · 15-02-2021 05:51PM

This is madness what I am reading here, people actually questioning when a confidential document is actually confidential and then trying to compare it to a lunch menu. This is comical Ali stuff and I would ask those questioning it if say it was lets say a SF minister that did this would you be dogmatic in you defense of that minister or would you be looking for that minister to either step aside or to be sacked?

As for a confidential document, well if it says confidential on it and it hasn't been officially made public then it is confidential and should not be shared. I know that in my job if I got a document with Confidential written on it that I would not be sharing it my mate or anyone who is not suppose to see it and if I did pass on a confidential document to someone who wasn't suppose to have then the company would be in their right to sack me. Simple as that.

blanch152 · 15-02-2021 05:52PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

I'll try just one last time, and there are only 2 possible answers, YES or NO.
Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document.

How is it possible to know whether a document is confidential or not, until the legal basis of confidentiality has been made clear?

Cute Hoor · 15-02-2021 05:54PM

blanch152 wrote: »

How is it possible to know whether a document is confidential or not, until the legal basis of confidentiality has been made clear?

Is that yes or no?

Cute Hoor · 15-02-2021 05:55PM

blanch152 wrote: »

There has been an awful lot of spoofing since the start of this thread

There sure as hell has been, and you don't have to look very far to see who the spoofers are.

jammiedodgers · 15-02-2021 05:57PM

Why did Leo apologise for leaking a confidential document if it wasn't a confidential document?

blanch152 · 15-02-2021 06:03PM

Floppybits wrote: »

This is madness what I am reading here, people actually questioning when a confidential document is actually confidential and then trying to compare it to a lunch menu. This is comical Ali stuff and I would ask those questioning it if say it was lets say a SF minister that did this would you be dogmatic in you defense of that minister or would you be looking for that minister to either step aside or to be sacked?

As for a confidential document, well if it says confidential on it and it hasn't been officially made public then it is confidential and should not be shared. I know that in my job if I got a document with Confidential written on it that I would not be sharing it my mate or anyone who is not suppose to see it and if I did pass on a confidential document to someone who wasn't suppose to have then the company would be in their right to sack me. Simple as that.

It is not as simple as that. In certain cases, you would be entitled to four years salary under unfair dismissals legislation if you are sacked for sharing a document.

How does a Taoiseach, a Minister, a government, a civil servant decide whether something is confidential or not, and on what legal basis? Until that is explained, it is impossible to know whether the document was confidential or not or even if the Taoiseach declassified it by sharing it and was entitled to do so.

It seems that the mob screaming for the Tanaiste's head in this instance doesn't have a clue about the basis on which it is screaming!!

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

Comments