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

21-03-2021 10:47PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone please tell me why a document can be considered confidential when the agreement it contains was published by the IMO in a press release days before our Taoiseach sent it to an interested party?

Anyone?

Obviously, no one can explain. Goodnight.

ooter · 21-03-2021 10:54PM

Why did zero craic ask to see the document if the agreement had already been published?

Suckit · 21-03-2021 11:15PM

ooter wrote: »

Why did zero craic ask to see the document if the agreement had already been published?

Why did civil servants refuse to give it to Simon if he could read it in the paper?
Why did they also sneak it out to Leo who put it in a taxi for O'Tuathaill, if all Leo had to do was tell him to look at the press release...

I bet they're feeling real stupid now..

Floppybits · 21-03-2021 11:21PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously, no one can explain. Goodnight.

Here is one for you

Why if the document was no longer confidential could Harris not get a copy of it and why did Varadkar when he got a copy of it leak to his not friend friend via back channels? Why not just tell one of the many many many highly paid advisors or civil servants to send a copy via proper channels? Then all this would have been avoided. Can you answer that?

RandomName2 · 21-03-2021 11:22PM

Okay so I've looked through this ****fest. 510 pages this thread has. Has nobody been arsed to do this before now? Has it just been leoootheeeleaaak from the usual crowd? He's got to go now. He's done for. It's even more illegal now. He's toast.

Okay so...

The GP agreement was concluded by April 6th.

Source
https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/media/pressrel/gp-contract-launch.html

Source
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30915934.html

Source
https://www.imo.ie/news-media/news-press-releases/2019/statement-imo-reaches-210/index.xml

Ó Tuathail seems to have received a copy of the draft agreement on the 16th or 17th of April

Source
https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*G451xkNZQcVUNy6Fjd-Jbw.png
(check the time stamp)

'Well maybe he had it for weeks and just didn't mention it?'
Just before anybody makes that bull**** retort think about the implication. This would mean that Ó Tuathail didn't share it with anybody else in NAGP for weeks. It is clear that the top brass (literally labeled 'Inner Sanctum') only heard that Ó Tuathail had a copy of the draft a full day after the Dail had received it and discussed it.

'Maybe the image has been doctored'

The only people who could have doctored that image would have been The Village. Right.

Look I always stated that nobody was interested in this. Nobody is interested in the GP agreement. Nobody is interested in why NAGP wasn't at the table. Nobody is interested in the IMO's current position. Nobody is interested in the moral or ethical implications of any of this. Nobody is interested in any sense or logic. It is the most painfully transparent hatchet job I've seen.

The Children's Hospital. There. If you want a real scandal get off your arses and do some work. You're a bunch of lazy whingers.

FrancieBrady · 21-03-2021 11:26PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look I always stated that nobody was interested in this. Nobody is interested in the GP agreement. Nobody is interested in why NAGP wasn't at the table. Nobody is interested in the IMO's current position. Nobody is interested in the moral or ethical implications of any of this. Nobody is interested in any sense or logic. It is the most painfully transparent hatchet job I've seen.

Gardai seem fairly 'interested'.

RandomName2 · 21-03-2021 11:27PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gardai seem fairly 'interested'.

There has been a complaint. They have to do due diligence and investigate it.

nialler1978 · 21-03-2021 11:28PM

Quote: Maryanne84
Can someone please tell me why a document can be considered confidential when the agreement it contains was published by the IMO in a press release days before our Taoiseach sent it to an interested party?

Anyone?

Obviously, no one can explain. Goodnight.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Obviously, no one can explain. Goodnight.

In a political thread with back and forth of nitpicking, and generally just nonsensical sniping on this and that it’s usually easy enough to get someone to take some kind of bait.

You should really take stock of this, for your own dignity, so I have a small suggestion if I may..., when nobody replies and when you start quoting yourself and replying to yourself, it’s not a great reflection of your previous post history or your general frame of mind. Just a gentle nudge in the right direction.

FrancieBrady · 21-03-2021 11:29PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

There has been a complaint. They have to do due diligence and investigate it.

They are conducting a criminal investigation into a high ranking minister and Tanaiste.

skimpydoo · 21-03-2021 11:33PM

[QUOTE=RandomName2;116652359
Look I always stated that nobody was interested in this. Nobody is interested in the GP agreement. Nobody is interested in why NAGP wasn't at the table. Nobody is interested in the IMO's current position. Nobody is interested in the moral or ethical implications of any of this. Nobody is interested in any sense or logic. It is the most painfully transparent hatchet job I've seen.

The Children's Hospital. There. If you want a real scandal get off your arses and do some work. You're a bunch of lazy whingers.[/QUOTE]

If nobody is interested, why is it trending on social media? why is it on the front page of The Sunday Times? and why has it gotten a lot of pages on here?

21-03-2021 11:35PM

nialler1978 wrote: »

Quote: Maryanne84
Can someone please tell me why a document can be considered confidential when the agreement it contains was published by the IMO in a press release days before our Taoiseach sent it to an interested party?

Anyone?

Obviously, no one can explain. Goodnight.

In a political thread with back and forth of nitpicking, and generally just nonsensical sniping on this and that it’s usually easy enough to get someone to take some kind of bait.

You should really take stock of this, for your own dignity, so I have a small suggestion if I may..., when nobody replies and when you start quoting yourself and replying to yourself, it’s not a great reflection of your previous post history or your general frame of mind. Just a gentle nudge in the right direction.

Or simply the fact that other posters aren’t researching their “facts” before they post.
Facts are that the document was in the public domain before Leo gave it to his former friend. It had been already approved by government.

jammiedodgers · 21-03-2021 11:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone please tell me why a document can be considered confidential when the agreement it contains was published by the IMO in a press release days before our Taoiseach sent it to an interested party?

Anyone?

Why did he apologise for leaking it if it was already published?

skimpydoo · 21-03-2021 11:40PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Or simply the fact that other posters aren’t researching their “facts” before they post.
Facts are that the document was in the public domain before Leo gave it to his former friend. It had been already approved by government.

As asked before, if it was in the public domain why did Simon ask for a copy?

Suckit · 21-03-2021 11:40PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look I always stated that nobody was interested in this. Nobody is interested in the GP agreement. Nobody is interested in why NAGP wasn't at the table. Nobody is interested in the IMO's current position. Nobody is interested in the moral or ethical implications of any of this. Nobody is interested in any sense or logic. It is the most painfully transparent hatchet job I've seen.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40248653.html

21-03-2021 11:42PM

skimpydoo wrote: »

As asked before, if it was in the public domain why did Simon ask for a copy?

When exactly did he ask for a copy?

skimpydoo · 21-03-2021 11:43PM

Deleted User wrote: »

When exactly did he ask for a copy?

He asked before Leo was given a copy.

FrancieBrady · 21-03-2021 11:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

When exactly did he ask for a copy?

Why are you trying to exonerate somebody who has already confessed and apologised for this?

RandomName2 · 21-03-2021 11:51PM

Suckit wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40248653.html

Former Fine Gael TD Kate O’Connell has insisted there is “no ill feeling” between her and Taoiseach Leo Varadkar after his controversial decision not to select her for the Seanad election.

Ms O’Connell said she has a “very good relationship” with Mr Varadkar and said she does not believe he is “vindictive”.

However, she also said “no amount of boyos messing in the background” will stop her being dedicated to Fine Gael and insisted her career has been “interrupted rather than stopped".

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/no-ill-feelings-between-me-and-leo-varadkar-kate-oconnell-39085191.html

How long did that take me to find? 10 seconds.

Is that really it? Have you thrown in the towel? Admitted that you have nothing to say about the GP agreement?

skimpydoo wrote: »

As asked before, if it was in the public domain why did Simon ask for a copy?

Because, as Simon's internal email states, it was still being subject to tweaks.

As the agreement had been concluded for weeks, these tweaks were presumably very small.

I don't know if anyone has done an enumeration of the differences between the draft, and the final copy. I would guess they were small because nobody has brought up any actual differences as a point. I believe the party that cannot be mentioned was given the draft copy to mull over the differences. I dunno, maybe there was some copyediting.

Oh maybe there were substantive differences and people care so little about the agreement they cannot be bothered to bring them up.

Deleted User wrote: »

When exactly did he ask for a copy?

April 15th if I remember correctly. Two days before the NAGP top brass learned about the draft copy.

Johnthemanager · 22-03-2021 12:03AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Or simply the fact that other posters aren’t researching their “facts” before they post.
Facts are that the document was in the public domain before Leo gave it to his former friend. It had been already approved by government.

Your getting very worked up over nothing then!

FrancieBrady · 22-03-2021 12:14AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/no-ill-feelings-between-me-and-leo-varadkar-kate-oconnell-39085191.html

How long did that take me to find? 10 seconds.

Is that really it? Have you thrown in the towel? Admitted that you have nothing to say about the GP agreement?

Because, as Simon's internal email states, it was still being subject to tweaks.

As the agreement had been concluded for weeks, these tweaks were presumably very small.

I don't know if anyone has done an enumeration of the differences between the draft, and the final copy. I would guess they were small because nobody has brought up any actual differences as a point. I believe the party that cannot be mentioned was given the draft copy to mull over the differences. I dunno, maybe there was some copyediting.

Oh maybe there were substantive differences and people care so little about the agreement they cannot be bothered to bring them up.

April 15th if I remember correctly. Two days before the NAGP top brass learned about the draft copy.

This is such a boring subject I am now going to turn it back over to the bickering here.

Over and out

leoooooootheeeeeeeeeeeeeleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak :cool::cool::eek::eek::eek:

Front page news again tomorrow for the story NOBODY is interested in.

JeffKenna · 22-03-2021 12:18AM

Kate really stuck the boot in there.

Suckit · 22-03-2021 12:22AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/no-ill-feelings-between-me-and-leo-varadkar-kate-oconnell-39085191.html

How long did that take me to find? 10 seconds.

Is that really it? Have you thrown in the towel? Admitted that you have nothing to say about the GP agreement?

Far from it. I wasn't linking for her comments, I was replying to yours (particularly the quoted ones) that nobody was interested in this on many levels, yet it keeps trundling on and gaining more and more attention. Fine Gael in Turmoil and many senior figures are worried.. Nobody is interested.. :rolleyes:
Keep kidding yourself that nobody is interested in it. Keep kidding yourself that it was just a 'mistake' that Leo had to go to such lengths to get a document marked confidential, and then to put it in a taxi and send it to a rival group.
That is a lot of effort to go to, to get something to somebody when he could have just had him read the press release.
Leo himself has admitted he was wrong.

RandomName2 · 22-03-2021 12:29AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Front page news again tomorrow for the story NOBODY is interested in.

Without reading it I bet there isn't a single mention of any of the contents of the agreement, and mention of differences between the draft and the final copy, anything about dates, about the impact of the leak, about why NAGP wasn't party to the discussion, or any of the other relevant data.

Nobody in interested in it for itself.

You aren't. Clearly you have no interest in the story. Your only interest is that there is a story, but its contents are irrelevant to your position.

Suckit wrote: »

Keep kidding yourself that nobody is interested in it.

Literally nobody outside of doctors, the HSE, and the Department of Health had any interest in the GP agreement for itself.

Edit: this reminds me of way back when Snodaigh had the printing costs. Nobody cared about the cost of the printing, or what he was printing, or why he was printing. It was just an excuse to attack the party that shall not be named. #snodaighHasLoddaInk

blanch152 · 22-03-2021 12:35AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

According to the poll in today's paper 52% think he should stand aside, from all duties until this is done. Hardly SF and a few individuals.

I would think that Fine Gael would be happy with 48% of the electorate backing them, twice what they got in the general election.

FrancieBrady · 22-03-2021 12:37AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Without reading it I bet there isn't a single mention of any of the contents of the agreement, and mention of differences between the draft and the final copy, anything about dates, about the impact of the leak, about why NAGP wasn't party to the discussion, or any of the other relevant data.

Nobody in interested in it for itself.

You aren't. Clearly you have no interest in the story. Your only interest is that there is a story, but its contents are irrelevant to your position.

The contents of the agreement are NOT the story, has that not occured to you yet?

Suckit · 22-03-2021 12:38AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Literally nobody outside of doctors, the HSE, and the Department of Health had any interest in the GP agreement for itself.

You are not seeing the bigger picture.
Especially if you think this is all about who was interested in the GP agreement itself back when it was being negotiated.

Also, I would imagine it was more to do with people not knowing so much about it, as opposed to not being interested in it.

RandomName2 · 22-03-2021 12:46AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The contents of the agreement are NOT the story, has that not occured to you yet?

It occurred to me aged ago.

It has long been apparent that nobody here is interested in the ethics, in the consequences for healthcare, for the NAGP, or IMO. Nobody here is even really interested in the legality of the disclosure of the GP agreement to the NAGP.

Clearly those who are against Varadkar want there to be legal ramifications, but they clearly aren't interested to discover whether there are legal ramifications, or what they may entail.

The party that shall not be named has stated they don't actually care if what Varadkar did was illegal or not, which, well.. is honest at least.

It has never been about Leo Varadkar leaking a document.
It has always been about Leo Varadkar leaking a document.

JeffKenna · 22-03-2021 12:56AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

It occurred to me aged ago.

It has long been apparent that nobody here is interested in the ethics, in the consequences for healthcare, for the NAGP, or IMO. Nobody here is even really interested in the legality of the disclosure of the GP agreement to the NAGP.

Clearly those who are against Varadkar want there to be legal ramifications, but they clearly aren't interested to discover whether there are legal ramifications, or what they may entail.

The party that shall not be named has stated they don't actually care if what Varadkar did was illegal or not, which, well.. is honest at least.

It has never been about Leo Varadkar leaking a document.
It has always been about Leo Varadkar leaking a document.

Really? From what I can see that's what most people here are interested in. The few denying any wrongdoing, even after Leo himself apologised, are the ones not interested in the ethics of the whole thing.

shtpEdthePlum · 22-03-2021 12:57AM

blanch152 wrote: »

I would think that Fine Gael would be happy with 48% of the electorate backing them, twice what they got in the general election.

Lol, nobody in the entire poll was undecided? That's incredible.

Oh wait it was 43%

FrancieBrady · 22-03-2021 01:02AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

It occurred to me aged ago.

It has long been apparent that nobody here is interested in the ethics, in the consequences for healthcare, for the NAGP, or IMO. Nobody here is even really interested in the legality of the disclosure of the GP agreement to the NAGP.

Clearly those who are against Varadkar want there to be legal ramifications, but they clearly aren't interested to discover whether there are legal ramifications, or what they may entail.

The party that shall not be named has stated they don't actually care if what Varadkar did was illegal or not, which, well.. is honest at least.

It has never been about Leo Varadkar leaking a document.
It has always been about Leo Varadkar leaking a document.

I have no idea what you are on about tbh.

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

Comments