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

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:34PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

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.

OK.

Typically in these types of agreements, the contents of the agreement will apply to two or more parties.

GPs would be one of such parties for this particular one.

Cute Hoor · 02-03-2021 08:37PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

OK.

Typically in these types of agreements, the contents of the agreement will apply to two or more parties.

GPs would be one of such parties for this particular one.

My understanding is all GPs, irrespective of their unions or no unions were going to be impacted by the agreement, but I still don't understand your term 'party to the agreement'

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:39PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

My understanding is all GPs, irrespective of their unions or no unions were going to be impacted by the agreement, but I still don't understand your term 'party to the agreement'

That is what I was referring to. They are literally a party to the agreement. They are one of the parties to the agreement i.e they are tied to the terms of the agreement.

James Brown · 02-03-2021 08:40PM

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.

The facts are he leaked a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and the health department.
His excuse or his brazenness are another matter.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

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.

It was a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and Health department. Nobody else's business. Varadkar's pal was looking for the inside scoop and Varadkar gave it to him to try garner support from his pal's members.

James Brown · 02-03-2021 08:41PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

That is what I was referring to. They are literally a party to the agreement. They are one of the parties to the agreement i.e they are tied to the terms of the agreement.

Not to the confidential negotiation document Varadkar leaked.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:42PM

James Brown wrote: »

The facts are he leaked a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and the health department.
His excuse or his brazenness are another matter.

Why does it suddenly become "another matter" once I answer your question specifically on it?

James Brown · 02-03-2021 08:44PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why does it suddenly become "another matter" once I answer your question specifically on it?

Because him doubling down or having a neck like a jockey's bollocks doesn't change what he did.

You've yet to accept the facts. You are conflating the GP agreement with the IMO confidential negotiation document.

Cute Hoor · 02-03-2021 08:47PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

That is what I was referring to. They are literally a party to the agreement. They are one of the parties to the agreement i.e they are tied to the terms of the agreement.

Ah OK, they are tied to the terms of the agreement. My understanding of 'party to the agreement' would have been that they were part of the negotiations leading up to agreeing the final document.

Which leads me back to where I was some time ago, Varadkar had absolutely no right whatsoever to give Zero Craic, any other union, or any individual unaffiliated GP, a document marked CONFIDENTIAL emanating from years of negotiation with the IMO, HSE and Dept of Health until all of the i's had been dotted and all t's crossed with agreement from all negotiating partners that the document could then be released. Absolutely no right.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:49PM

James Brown wrote: »

Because him doubling down or having a neck like a jockey's bollocks doesn't change what he did.

You've yet to accept the facts. You are conflating the GP agreement with the IMO confidential negotiation document.

Perhaps I am. Where is the GP agreement then if what was leaked was simply a negotiation document after negotiations had ended? Would they really have declared job done based purely on a negotiation document at the time?

And thanks for actually having a genuine post and discussion with that comment, rather than claiming im talking nonsense/taking the piss or shouting capitals at me which happens too frequently on here.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 08:51PM

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Ah OK, they are tied to the terms of the agreement. My understanding of 'party to the agreement' would have been that they were part of the negotiations leading up to agreeing the final document.

Which leads me back to where I was some time ago, Varadkar had absolutely no right whatsoever to give Zero Craic, any other union, or any individual unaffiliated GP, a document marked CONFIDENTIAL emanating from years of negotiation with the IMO, HSE and Dept of Health until all of the i's had been dotted and all t's crossed with agreement from all negotiating partners that the document could then be released. Absolutely no right.

In your opinion, I assume, rather than having any legal basis for that?

Cute Hoor · 02-03-2021 08:54PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

In your opinion, I assume, rather than having any legal basis for that?

Basic common sense would tell you that, it would be the most basic understanding of anybody who was ever involved in remotely sensitive negotiations or indeed any negotiations. It would have been the first point on the agenda for the first and every subsequent meeting.

James Brown · 02-03-2021 09:19PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Perhaps I am. Where is the GP agreement then if what was leaked was simply a negotiation document after negotiations had ended? Would they really have declared job done based purely on a negotiation document at the time?

And thanks for actually having a genuine post and discussion with that comment, rather than claiming im talking nonsense/taking the piss or shouting capitals at me which happens too frequently on here.

What do you mean by 'simply'? Is the play now to downplay the importance of the document?
It's irrelevant. I'm not dodging this question nor was I the one we seem the have moved on from regarding Varadkar's neck. It was a confidential document between the IMO and Health and Varadkar passed it to his pal, the head of a rival union.
I'm having trouble taking you seriously but I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.
To recap we've had what does 'confidential' even mean, it wasn't illegal, confused with the GP agreement claiming it was open to any GP and now the discussion seems to be moving to the importance of the document.

Varadkar leaked a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and Health department to his pal, the head of a rival union.

Floppybits · 02-03-2021 09:27PM

James Brown wrote: »

What do you mean by 'simply'? Is the play now to downplay the importance of the document?

This has always been the case, since this broke we have had, sure it was in the public, the Taoiseach can do what he wants, when is confidential actually mean confidential and well the last few posts on this arguing that the union not involved in the negotiations were involved by osmosis.

Now when the supporters of Varadkar denying that a precedent has been set.

James Brown · 02-03-2021 09:47PM

Floppybits wrote: »

This has always been the case, since this broke we have had, sure it was in the public, the Taoiseach can do what he wants, when is confidential actually mean confidential and well the last few posts on this arguing that the union not involved in the negotiations were involved by osmosis.

Now when the supporters of Varadkar denying that a precedent has been set.

It's hard for some to conceive the bigger picture. Too bogged down in party loyalty the real issue is a top government minister passing a confidential document to his pal under these circumstance being shrugged off, opens the door to further abuse and cronyism, like FF/FG needed any help in that department.

Floppybits · 02-03-2021 09:52PM

James Brown wrote: »

It's hard for some to conceive the bigger picture. Too bogged down in party loyalty the real issue is a top government minister passing a confidential document to his pal under these circumstance being shrugged off, opens the door to further abuse and cronyism, like FF/FG needed any help in that department.

And they will be the first to be looking for a head on a plate if someone from another party was to do the same if they were in government. Sure we had a minister lose his job in the last government for having a dinner at a bidders house but seemingly it is different rules for FG.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 09:53PM

James Brown wrote: »

What do you mean by 'simply'? Is the play now to downplay the importance of the document?
It's irrelevant. I'm not dodging this question nor was I the one we seem the have moved on from regarding Varadkar's neck. It was a confidential document between the IMO and Health and Varadkar passed it to his pal, the head of a rival union.
I'm having trouble taking you seriously but I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.
To recap we've had what does 'confidential' even mean, it wasn't illegal, confused with the GP agreement claiming it was open to any GP and now the discussion seems to be moving to the importance of the document.

Varadkar leaked a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and Health department to his pal, the head of a rival union.

Apologies if you have taken offence to my use of the word simply, don't let it take away from my question that I would genuinely like an answer to.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 09:55PM

Floppybits wrote: »

And they will be the first to be looking for a head on a plate if someone from another party was to do the same if they were in government. Sure we had a minister lose his job in the last government for having a dinner at a bidders house but seemingly it is different rules for FG.

Back to the examples with bidding/tendering again. If he had leaked a document to a rival group involved in a bidding/tendering process then I would fully agree with you.

Whatisthisnow · 02-03-2021 09:57PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Back to the examples with bidding/tendering again. If he had leaked a document to a rival group involved in a bidding/tendering process then I would fully agree with you.

So what your saying is its ok to leak certain things

The FG way

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 09:59PM

Whatisthisnow wrote: »

So what your saying is its ok to leak certain things

The FG way

I'll only respond to your posts from your other account

Fann Linn · 02-03-2021 10:12PM

Floppybits wrote: »

And they will be the first to be looking for a head on a plate if someone from another party was to do the same if they were in government. Sure we had a minister lose his job in the last government for having a dinner at a bidders house but seemingly it is different rules for FG.

Jack Chambers being called out for his and his govt's hypocrisy on that very issue tonight. Excusing LV because he made an 'error of judgement ' when leaking documents to his mates but calling for Gordon Elliot to be held fully accountable for being in a distasteful photo.

James Brown · 02-03-2021 10:21PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Apologies if you have taken offence to my use of the word simply, don't let it take away from my question that I would genuinely like an answer to.

I didn't take offence just pointing out it looks like you are attempting a new tactic in an effort to excuse Varadkar.
I answered. It's not relevant. It's a side issue not related to what Varadkar did. How important you feel the document might be has no bearing. And frankly I don't care. The IMO and department of health deemed it confidential. That makes it confidential.

Do you now accept it was a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and Dept. of Health and Varadkar passed it to his pal, the head of a rival union? You've yet to acknowledge that.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 10:34PM

James Brown wrote: »

I didn't take offence just pointing out it looks like you are attempting a new tactic in an effort to excuse Varadkar.
I answered. It's not relevant. It's a side issue not related to what Varadkar did. How important you feel the document might be has no bearing. And frankly I don't care. The IMO and department of health deemed in confidential. That makes it confidential.

Do you now accept it was a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and Dept. of Health and Varadkar passed it to his pal, the head of a rival union? You've yet to acknowledge that.

When have I ever not acknowledged that?

The difference in perspective comes from me seeing the head of a GP union to have every expectation to see such a document that would apply to all its members. You don't. Simply differing opinions.

It is the same to me as if the ASTI had been negotiating a new teacher pay scale, and the resulting pay scales were given to the other unions following the conclusion of discussions, but before the final document was published. I have no issue with that. Others would see it warranting 10 years jail time.

ohnonotgmail · 02-03-2021 10:37PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

When have I ever not acknowledged that?

The difference in perspective comes from me seeing the head of a GP union to have every expectation to see such a document that would apply to all its members. You don't. Simply differing opinions.

.

if they have a right to see it then they go through the proper channels. they dont get their mate to slip it out under his coat.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 10:43PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if they have a right to see it then they go through the proper channels. they dont get their mate to slip it out under his coat.

Absolutely. And Varadkar apologised in the Dail about not using an appropriate channel and said he should have invited him in officially to share the contents with him instead.

McMurphy · 02-03-2021 10:46PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Absolutely. And Varadkar apologised in the Dail about not using an appropriate channel and said he should have invited him in officially to share the contents with him instead.

After it was published and in the public domain presumably?

ohnonotgmail · 02-03-2021 10:47PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Absolutely. And Varadkar apologised in the Dail about not using an appropriate channel and said he should have invited him in officially to share the contents with him instead.

well no. the minister for education should have shared the document if they felt it appropriate.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 10:53PM

McMurphy wrote: »

After it was published and in the public domain presumably?

I wouldn't have thought so. No need to do it at that point if it is already in the public domain?

McMurphy · 02-03-2021 11:10PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought so. No need to do it at that point if it is already in the public domain?

But Leo claimed it was already in the public domain when he passed it to zero craic, that was also repeated by Helen McEntee, and many on this thread as the first line of defence.

That was a lie so, yeah?

James Brown · 02-03-2021 11:20PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

When have I ever not acknowledged that?

The difference in perspective comes from me seeing the head of a GP union to have every expectation to see such a document that would apply to all its members. You don't. Simply differing opinions.

It is the same to me as if the ASTI had been negotiating a new teacher pay scale, and the resulting pay scales were given to the other unions following the conclusion of discussions, but before the final document was published. I have no issue with that. Others would see it warranting 10 years jail time.

All the time. Since day one you've questioned the reported facts and suggested motive or the perceived importance of the document or the understanding of 'confidential' make a difference. They don't.

Opinion of the facts doesn't change the facts. You might excuse it and that's your opinion, which is fine of course.

That's fine but it's not the same. If the ASTI were negotiating with the dept. of Education and Varadkar slipped a confidential document to a pal who headed a rival union, yes that would be the same.
You seem to be saying if the details were going to come out anyway, what's the problem? Well the problem is it was a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and Dept. of Health and Varadkar passed it to his pal, the head of a rival union.

Bubbaclaus · 02-03-2021 11:31PM

McMurphy wrote: »

But Leo claimed it was already in the public domain when he passed it to zero craic, that was also repeated by Helen McEntee, and many on this thread as the first line of defence.

That was a lie so, yeah?

You are very confrontational. What do you mean by public domain?

If you mean the details of the press releases by the IMO and Government giving all the key details, then yes that was in the public domain.

If you mean the actual document, then no it wasn't.

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

Comments