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…210211213215216…416

Comments

  • #6362
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    James Brown wrote: »
    All the time. Since day one you've questioned the reported facts...

    Care to provide evidence supporting where I have "questioned the reported facts" from day 1?


  • #6363
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    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.

    Was Varadkar right to give the document marked CONFIDENTIAL to his buddy zero craic when he did?


  • #6364
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    Was Varadkar right to give the document marked CONFIDENTIAL to his buddy zero craic when he did?

    Thats not for me to decide. I've no issue with it personally, if you are looking for my personal opinion on the matter.


  • #6365
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Thats not for me to decide. I've no issue with it personally, if you are looking for my personal opinion on the matter.

    So you think he was right?


  • #6366
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    So you think he was right?

    I cannot answer that as it is not a binary situation. Me having no issue with it doesn't automatically mean I think he was "right".


  • Advertisement
  • #6367
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    I cannot answer that as it is not a binary situation. Me having no issue with it doesn't automatically mean I think he was "right".

    Why can't you answer it, it's a very simple question, and it's just your opinion, it's not a court of law. Do you think he was right to give it to his buddy when he did.


  • #6368
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    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.

    Another way of putting it is, I don't like people trying to piss down my neck and tell me it's raining.

    As stated already, the first line of defence offered by Leo, McEntee and others was that it was already in the public domain.

    He couldn't leak something already in the public domain, nor should be have apologised for leaking something if it was already in the public domain, and more importantly than that what was Simon Harris doing with members of AGS for several hours making a statement about something already in the public domain?

    Just a while ago, you said Varadkar apologised for how he shared the confidential documents, and how Leo said if he could, he would have did it differently? Theres not really a right way to share a confidential document with someone who isn't supposed to see it until it's in the public domain though, herein lies the problem.

    Wouldn't it be a good idea to stop tying yourself in knots bubba?


  • #6369
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    Why can't you answer it, it's a very simple question, and it's just your opinion, it's not a court of law. Do you think he was right to give it to his buddy when he did.

    But you are asking me if I think it was right, with the alternative presumably being that I think he was wrong. That is too basic a question and binary answer choice for the circumstances at play.

    I think it was fine to share details of a GP agreement with.a body representing 40% of GPs, following the official announcement of an agreement being reached. I don't think he was "right" to do it, but neither do I think he was wrong. Get it?


  • #6370
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    But you are asking me if I think it was right, with the alternative presumably being that I think he was wrong. That is too basic a question and binary answer choice for the circumstances at play.

    I think it was fine to share details of a GP agreement with.a body representing 40% of GPs, following the official announcement of an agreement being reached. I don't think he was "right" to do it, but neither do I think he was wrong. Get it?

    I think he was wrong and I have no problem saying it, Varadkar knows he was wrong (and admitted it eventually), why can't you say you think (and it's only your opinion) whether he was right or wrong. There won't be repercussions for you.


  • #6371
    smurgen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    But you are asking me if I think it was right, with the alternative presumably being that I think he was wrong. That is too basic a question and binary answer choice for the circumstances at play.

    I think it was fine to share details of a GP agreement with.a body representing 40% of GPs, following the official announcement of an agreement being reached. I don't think he was "right" to do it, but neither do I think he was wrong. Get it?

    No. It's binary.


  • Advertisement
  • #6372
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Another way of putting it is, I don't like people trying to piss down my neck and tell me it's raining.

    As stated already, the first line of defence offered by Leo, McEntee and others was that it was already in the public domain.

    He couldn't leak something already in the public domain, nor should be have apologised for leaking something if it was already in the public domain, and more importantly than that what was Simon Harris doing with members of AGS for several hours making a statement about something already in the public domain?

    Just a while ago, you said Varadkar apologised for how he shared the confidential documents, and how Leo said if he could, he would have did it differently? Theres not really a right way to share a confidential document with someone who isn't supposed to see it until it's in the public domain though, herein lies the problem.

    Wouldn't it be a good idea to stop tying yourself in knots bubba?

    I said you are being confrontational because you are getting aggressive over me posting what I understood from Varadkar's statement in the Dail and what he said he would have done differently. If you interpreted what he said differently then maybe it would make sense for you to set it out, rather than ending every single one of your posts with some passive aggression?


  • #6373
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    smurgen wrote: »
    No. It's binary.

    It must be great to live in such a basic world, but the one i am in is a bit more complex and nuanced than that.


  • #6374
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    I think he was wrong and I have no problem saying it, Varadkar knows he was wrong (and admitted it eventually), why can't you say you think (and it's only your opinion) whether he was right or wrong. There won't be repercussions for you.

    That is a lie.

    Varadkar said that the way he shared it was wrong, but he never said he was wrong to share it.

    As for your relentless pursuit of posters to give black and white answers to pejorative questions, it fails to take into account all the complexities of the situation. Life isn’t black and white.


  • #6375
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    I said you are being confrontational because you are getting aggressive over me posting what I understood from Varadkar's statement in the Dail and what he said he would have done differently. If you interpreted what he said differently then maybe it would make sense for you to set it out, rather than ending every single one of your posts with some passive aggression?

    Where?

    There wasn't a hint of "aggression" in my posts - and if you read them that way, maybe the internet isn't the place for you.


  • #6376
    smurgen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    It must be great to live in such a basic world, but the one i am in is a bit more complex and nuanced than that.

    The troubles is simple in your world yet something like a contract being confidential or not is nuanced. Lol.


  • #6377
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    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.

    Your understanding is flawed.

    I gave an example earlier whereby the GRA and PDFORRA are parties to the national pay agreements but don’t form part of the negotiations but get copies of confidential discussion documents. All perfectly normal.


  • #6378
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    smurgen wrote: »
    The troubles is simple in your world yet something like a contract being confidential or not is nuanced. Lol.

    Does this sentence even make sense? What are you trying to say?


  • #6379
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Where?

    There wasn't a hint of "aggression" in my posts - and if you read them that way, maybe the internet isn't the place for you.

    Even this post is passive aggressive, you just can't help it.


  • #6380
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Does this sentence even make sense? What are you trying to say?

    I couldn’t understand it either.


  • #6381
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Care to provide evidence supporting where I have "questioned the reported facts" from day 1?

    Sure:

    This was some time ago yet you are still on it today:
    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    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.

    Another 'nothing to see here theory':
    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    I'm sure if the ASTI had negotiated an agreement with the Government for all teachers and Leo had then given a copy of that agreement to the TUI there would be no story.

    The only reason there is a story here is because the NAGP were never given official status to represent GPs, despite the GPs in their membership being double that of the IMO. The real story here is why NAGP werent given a seat at the table for the earlier negotiations, not why were they given a copy once it was done.

    A standard in these parts:
    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    In your opinion indeed. I can see the imagination is running in over drive, even bring his sexuality into it.

    This is your first post in the thread:
    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    I'm a bit confused here. Does that tweet by the village magazine show the extent of their evidence for the story? If so, then I can understand why none of the mainstream news published it.

    Whether it's true or not, there is nothing in those screenshots that points to any wrongdoing. I hope there is some actual damning evidence in the article itself? Cos otherwise they took a major legal risk here.

    It's fair to say you've covered all the bases.
    So as I say, since day one all you've done is question the reported facts, dismiss and supply excuses.
    If you think he did nothing wrong in your opinion, that's cool, but at least you accept he slipped a confidential negotiation document to his pal, head of a rival union.


  • Advertisement
  • #6382
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Originally Posted by blanch152 View Post
    It is a simple matter to me. The Taoiseach has the responsibility of deciding what is best.

    blanch152 wrote: »
    That is a lie.

    Varadkar said that the way he shared it was wrong, but he never said he was wrong to share it.

    As for your relentless pursuit of posters to give black and white answers to pejorative questions, it fails to take into account all the complexities of the situation. Life isn’t black and white.

    It sure isn't black & white for some people, grey, welcome back, there would be no need for relentless pursuit if people gave simple responses rather than waffling and evasion. Still waiting for your answer btw.

    Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has apologised in the Dáil for his error of judgment in releasing a confidential document agreed with the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) to the President of a rival GP group last year.


  • #6383
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    James Brown wrote: »
    Sure:

    This was some time ago yet you are still on it today:



    Another 'nothing to see here theory':



    A standard in these parts:



    This is your first post in the thread:



    It's fair to say you've covered all the bases.
    So as I say, since day one all you've done is question the reported facts, dismiss and supply excuses.

    None of the above shows me "questioning the reported facts" as you had claimed James. So you found nothing to back up your statement is the conclusion essentially?


  • #6384
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,914 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    smurgen wrote: »
    The troubles is simple in your world yet something like a contract being confidential or not is nuanced. Lol.
    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Does this sentence even make sense? What are you trying to say?
    blanch152 wrote: »
    I couldn’t understand it either.

    the issue is with ye two because it makes sense to me. pretty standard english I would have thought.


  • #6385
    smurgen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Does this sentence even make sense? What are you trying to say?

    That it's a simple issue. This is a diversion tactic of Fine Gaelers. Your lot are quiet black and white when it's the other side being judged yet there's a muddying of the waters/nuanced when it's your crowd. Simply put it's not rocket science.its binary. A document is confidential or it isn't.


  • #6386
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the issue is with ye two because it makes sense to me. pretty standard english I would have thought.

    Can you dumb it down for me so?


  • #6387
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Originally Posted by blanch152 View Post
    It is a simple matter to me. The Taoiseach has the responsibility of deciding what is best.
    blanch152 wrote: »
    Your understanding is flawed.

    I gave an example earlier whereby the GRA and PDFORRA are parties to the national pay agreements but don’t form part of the negotiations but get copies of confidential discussion documents. All perfectly normal.

    Do you think it would be OK for any Taoiseach to give a copy of a document marked CONFIDENTIAL to his/her buddy.


  • #6388
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    smurgen wrote: »
    That it's a simple issues. Yet this is a diversion tactic of Fine Gaelers. Your lot are quiet black and white when it's the other side being judged yet there's a muddying of the waters/nuanced when it's your crowd. Simply put it's not rocket science.its binary. A document is confidential or it isn't.

    You seem very confused, what scenario for the "other side" are you on about here where I saw it as black and white? I think you must have me confused with someone else. I only have one account on here :)


  • #6389
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,914 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Can you dumb it down for me so?

    It is simple enough as it is.


  • #6390
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    You seem very confused, what scenario for the "other side" are you on about here where I saw it as black and white? I think you must have me confused with someone else. I only have one account on here :)


    I think he was wrong and I have no problem saying it, Varadkar knows he was wrong (and admitted it eventually), why can't you say you think (and it's only your opinion) whether he was right or wrong. There won't be repercussions for you. What do you think.


  • Advertisement
  • #6391
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    That is a lie.

    Varadkar said that the way he shared it was wrong, but he never said he was wrong to share it.

    As for your relentless pursuit of posters to give black and white answers to pejorative questions, it fails to take into account all the complexities of the situation. Life isn’t black and white.

    Should have used barbershop quartet instead of courier?

    He apologised for slipping it to his pal. He gave excuses why he shared it, but didn't say he was right to share it either.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement