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

Fann Linn · 02-03-2021 07:48PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

So in your experience, if a party of an agreement asked for a copy of said agreement, you wouldn't be able to do so because its confidential?

The comparison you have made about passing quotations to rivals just goes to show you have no idea what the agreement was actually about. Perhaps you should do some research yourself before accusing people of talking nonsense.

All GPs are under the same GP contract in Ireland, there is no bidding or quotations or industry secrets. Dud comparisons aren't going to change that.

The health minister or main opposition speaker couldn't get a copy at the time, yet Zero Craic could?

Floppybits · 02-03-2021 07:50PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

So in your experience, if a party of an agreement asked for a copy of said agreement, you wouldn't be able to do so because its confidential?

The comparison you have made about passing quotations to rivals just goes to show you have no idea what the agreement was actually about. Perhaps you should do some research yourself before accusing people of talking nonsense.

All GPs are under the same GP contract in Ireland, there is no bidding or quotations or industry secrets. Dud comparisons aren't going to change that.

If a party wants a copy of the agreement there are proper channels and protocols to follow to get a copy of the agreement.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 07:52PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

If a Government document is CONFIDENTIAL, it is inappropriate to give it to a third party or it is not, you can't have it both ways. You cannot be a little bit pregnant.

My entire point, which you seem to have ignored, is that it wasn't a third party, given it was a GP Contract that would apply for all GPs. People seem to think it was a GP Contract for GPSs represented by the IMO only, which is not the case.

I get why people that have a hatred for Varadkar might want to big it up as a Watergate, but he hasn't exactly disclosed a random confidential document to a random joe that wasn't a party to it.

A good comparison would be teachers. If Varadkar had given a new teachers pay scale agreement to the ASTI, whilst the negotiations were with another union. A bad comparison would be comparing this to a bidding or tendering process, there was none of that going on in this agreement.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 07:57PM

Floppybits wrote: »

In my industry we have been asked to even switch off screens if we are working on something confidential if the customer is being showed around and the customer is always escorted.

There is definitely folks on here doing all sorts of twisting and turning and tying themselves in knots just excuse what Varadkar done especially the excuse he did it for the good of the country.

Another bad comparison of private sector "customers" that is not in any way comparable to the issue at hand. I think you are aware of that too.

People tying themselves in knots to come up with comparisons to their own particular roles and not getting anywhere

Cute Hoor · 02-03-2021 07:59PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

My entire point, which you seem to have ignored, is that it wasn't a third party, given it was a GP Contract that would apply for all GPs. People seem to think it was a GP Contract for GPSs represented by the IMO only, which is not the case.

I get why people that have a hatred for Varadkar might want to big it up as a Watergate, but he hasn't exactly disclosed a random confidential document to a random joe that wasn't a party to it.

A good comparison would be teachers. If Varadkar had given a new teachers pay scale agreement to the ASTI, whilst the negotiations were with another union. A bad comparison would be comparing this to a bidding or tendering process, there was none of that going on in this agreement.

I think you are totally missing the point, this was an agreement between the Government and the IMO, Zero Craic and his buddies had no hand act or part (other than possibly what was being fed to them unofficially) in the discussions, and they had no business whatsoever receiving it (or even being updated on contents) until the i's were dotted and t's crossed by the participants in the negotiations. Even the Minister for Health couldn't get his hand on a copy. If you cannot understand that.....

Floppybits · 02-03-2021 08:01PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Another bad comparison of private sector "customers" that is not in any way comparable to the issue at hand. I think you are aware of that too.

People tying themselves in knots to come up with comparisons to their own particular roles and not getting anywhere

Nope not really and again you are missing the point and doing it on purpose. It is quite clear what you are trying to do on here and it is not working.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:02PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

I think you are totally missing the point, this was an agreement between the Government and the IMO, Zero Craic and his buddies had no hand act or part (other than possibly what was being fed to them unofficially) in the discussions, and they had no business whatsoever receiving it (or even being updated on contents) until the i's were dotted and t's crossed by the participants in the negotiations. Even the Minister for Health couldn't get his hand on a copy. If you cannot understand that.....

If it was just an agreement between the government and the IMO, then why would it also apply to non-IMO GPs?

Cute Hoor · 02-03-2021 08:03PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

If it was just an agreement between the government and the IMO, then why would it also apply to non-IMO GPs?

IT WAS JUST AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE IMO

FACT

James Brown · 02-03-2021 08:04PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

So in your experience, if a party of an agreement asked for a copy of said agreement, you wouldn't be able to do so because its confidential?

The comparison you have made about passing quotations to rivals just goes to show you have no idea what the agreement was actually about. Perhaps you should do some research yourself before accusing people of talking nonsense.

All GPs are under the same GP contract in Ireland, there is no bidding or quotations or industry secrets. Dud comparisons aren't going to change that.

To recap;

Varadkar apologises over leak of confidential GP contract to rival group
Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has apologised for “errors of judgment” after he released a confidential document negotiated with the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) to the president of a rival GP group last year.

Are you just ignoring this?

Floppybits · 02-03-2021 08:05PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

If it was just an agreement between the government and the IMO, then why would it also apply to non-IMO GPs?

If this was the case they why did Leo's mate have to ask him for the document rather than just put in a request for the document?

Also why did Varadkar admit to the wrong doing in giving the document to his mate?

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:05PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

IT WAS JUST AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE IMO

FACT

Saying something in all capitals to me doesn't make it true, just makes you appear a bit rude.

Pretty clear you had no actual response of substance for me anyway.

Cute Hoor · 02-03-2021 08:08PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Saying something in all capitals to me doesn't make it true, just makes you appear a bit rude.

I don't know how many ways I can say this, Zero Craics crowd were not party to the agreement or any of the discussions pertaining to it - fact, this was an agreement negotiated between the IMO and the government - fact.

James Brown · 02-03-2021 08:08PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

My entire point, which you seem to have ignored, is that it wasn't a third party, given it was a GP Contract that would apply for all GPs. People seem to think it was a GP Contract for GPSs represented by the IMO only, which is not the case.

I get why people that have a hatred for Varadkar might want to big it up as a Watergate, but he hasn't exactly disclosed a random confidential document to a random joe that wasn't a party to it.

A good comparison would be teachers. If Varadkar had given a new teachers pay scale agreement to the ASTI, whilst the negotiations were with another union. A bad comparison would be comparing this to a bidding or tendering process, there was none of that going on in this agreement.

It was a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and the department of health.

To reduce this down to a hatred for Varadkar ignores the plain facts you are...well, ignoring.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:08PM

Floppybits wrote: »

If this was the case they why did Leo's mate have to ask him for the document rather than just put in a request for the document?

Also why did Varadkar admit to the wrong doing in giving the document to his mate?

He admitted he didn't do it via the right channels and apologised for that. However he said in the Dail he still would have made it available for him if he was doing it all again. So he wasn't apologising for actually giving NAGP sight of the document.

People seem confused as to what he apologised for.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:10PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

I don't know how many ways I can say this, Zero Craics crowd were not party to the agreement or any of the discussions pertaining to it - fact, this was an agreement negotiated between the IMO and the government - fact.

All GPs are party to the agreement, whether they were IMO, NAGP or neither.

"Fact"

James Brown · 02-03-2021 08:11PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

He admitted he didn't do it via the right channels and apologised for that. However he said in the Dail he still would have made it available for him if he was doing it all again. So he wasn't apologising for actually giving NAGP sight of the document.

People seem confused as to what he apologised for.

He apologised for passing a confidential document to a rival union headed by his pal.
His pal's union was looking to appease members as was Varadkar.

By your logic, all Varadkar did wrong was not let folk know what he was doing. If he was doing nothing wrong why didn't he and why did he apologise?

Are you taking the piss at this point?

McMurphy · 02-03-2021 08:11PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

So in your experience, if a party of an agreement asked for a copy of said agreement, you wouldn't be able to do so because its confidential?

The comparison you have made about passing quotations to rivals just goes to show you have no idea what the agreement was actually about. Perhaps you should do some research yourself before accusing people of talking nonsense.

All GPs are under the same GP contract in Ireland, there is no bidding or quotations or industry secrets. Dud comparisons aren't going to change that.

What, never? /Sarcasm.

The analogy was to do with this bit.

Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has apologised for “errors of judgment” after he released a confidential document negotiated with the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) to the president of a rival GP group last year.

If an employee in my organisation (that would be Leo) was found to have passed a quotation/details of an agreed contract to a competitor (rival gp group in this case) they'd be out the door quicker than they could tippex out the word "confidential" bubbs.

Zero craic was the head of a rival organisation, they weren't privy to the details of the contract, hence why Leo sent him the details in an underhanded way.

This is what he (Leo) apologised for, and that the Gards will be basing their investigation on should it be decided one is merited.

You know this. Trying to ok or normalise something Leo himself has apologised for, and a statement has been taken from the then health minister for is just making yourself look silly, but have at it.

James Brown · 02-03-2021 08:12PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

All GPs are party to the agreement, whether they were IMO, NAGP or neither.

"Fact"

Not the confidential document negotiated between the IMO and Health, that's why it was marked 'confidential' :rolleyes:

Cute Hoor · 02-03-2021 08:13PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

All GPs are party to the agreement, whether they were IMO, NAGP or neither.

"Fact"

No they weren't, bloody hell, just do a google search 'agreement between government and imo'

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:16PM

James Brown wrote: »

He apologised for passing a confidential document to a rival union headed by his pal.
His pal's union was looking to appease members as was Varadkar.

By your logic, all Varadkar did wrong was not let folk know what he was doing. If he was doing nothing wrong why didn't he and why did he apologise?

Are you taking the piss at this point?

You should probably listen to Varadkar's apology, particularly the part where he said he would have invited him in to officially meet and present it to him if he had the opportunity to redo it.

I'm not taking the piss at all. I'm giving my thoughts based on the facts available.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:16PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

No they weren't, bloody hell, just do a google search 'agreement between government and imo'

I said "Fact" at the end of my post cute hoor, which as you know makes it factual.

McMurphy · 02-03-2021 08:18PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You should probably listen to Varadkar's apology, particularly the part where he said he would have invited him in to officially meet and present it to him if he had the opportunity to redo it.

I'm not taking the piss at all. I'm giving my thoughts based on the facts available.

Why would he do anything differently at all if what he did do was entirely appropriate and above board,?

Same question as to why the guards have taken a statement from Harris and possibly will be taking same from Leo.

Cute Hoor · 02-03-2021 08:19PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I'm giving my thoughts based on the facts available.

Have a look at the facts available, they're all over the place, I presume you are taking the p1ss

ON 6 APRIL 2019, the then-Taoiseach Leo Varadkar issued a press release to welcome a long-awaited agreement on a new contract with GPs across the country.

The €210 million deal, although not yet signed, marked a major step given the protracted nature of the years-long manoeuvering between the HSE, the Department of Health and the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO).

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:19PM

McMurphy wrote: »

What, never? /Sarcasm.

The analogy was to do with this bit.

If an employee in my organisation (that would be Leo) was found to have passed a quotation/details of an agreed contract to a competitor (rival gp group in this case) they'd be out the door quicker than they could tippex out the word "confidential" bubbs.

Zero craic was the head of a rival organisation, they weren't privy to the details of the contract, hence why Leo sent him the details in an underhanded way.

This is what he (Leo) apologised for, and that the Gards will be basing their investigation on should it be decided one is merited.

You know this. Trying to ok or normalise something Leo himself has apologised for, and a statement has been taken from the then health minister for is just making yourself look silly, but have at it.

In your role, would the confidential agreement apply to that competitor also? Silly comparisons are not doing your view any favours.

Very tiresome reading all these poor analogies that make no sense in the context of the actual discussion.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:22PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Have a look at the facts available, they're all over the place, I presume you are taking the p1ss

ON 6 APRIL 2019, the then-Taoiseach Leo Varadkar issued a press release to welcome a long-awaited agreement on a new contract with GPs across the country.

The €210 million deal, although not yet signed, marked a major step given the protracted nature of the years-long manoeuvering between the HSE, the Department of Health and the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO).

I'm fully aware there was several years of manoeuvering between those 3 groups. Is the above meant to disprove what I said or something?

It even says "a long-awaited agreement on a new contract with GPs across the country.", which is my point. GPs are a party to the agreement.

Cute Hoor · 02-03-2021 08:25PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It even says "a long-awaited agreement on a new contract with GPs across the country.", which is my point. GPs are a party to the agreement.

The IMO were party to the agreement, they were involved in years of discussions with HSE and Dept of Health.

Post up just one link that shows Zero Craics crowd were involved in the negotiations

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:26PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

The IMO were party to the agreement, they were involved in years of discussions with HSE and Dept of Health.

Post up just one link that shows Zero Craics crowd were involved in the negotiations

You seem confused. At no point have I said they were involved in the negotiations.

Cute Hoor · 02-03-2021 08:27PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You seem confused. At no point have I said they were involved in the negotiations.

Ah OK, explain to me what you mean by 'party to the agreement'

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:30PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Ah OK, explain to me what you mean by 'party to the agreement'

Why were you responding to me if you haven't been reading my posts properly? GPs are a party of the agreement. At the time, NAGP represented 40% of the countries GPs.

Cute Hoor · 02-03-2021 08:32PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why were you responding to me if you haven't been reading my posts properly? GPs are a party of the agreement. At the time, NAGP represented 40% of the countries GPs.

Can you explain to me exactly what you mean by 'party to the agreement', and apologies if you explained it earlier as I obviously didn't see it.

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

Comments