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

Suckit · 22-03-2021 01:07AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no idea what you are on about tbh.

I think it is an attempt at implying that they are the only one with morals and anyone that dislikes/disagrees with what Leo did are not upset because of what he did, everyone else are just spiteful little misfits getting in the way and trying to ruin an honest to goodness mans career.

bobbysands81 · 22-03-2021 01:10AM

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.

You are hilarious!!!

RandomName2 · 22-03-2021 01:14AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no idea what you are on about tbh.

Really?

Really?

Okay, let me spell it out for you so.

I came back just to see if anybody quoted the post where I go into detail about the timings in relation to the leak. Naturally nobody did, didn't because nobody cares about the details concerning the leak.

If this was a rank-and-file TD do you think anybody would care? The story would likely never see the light of day, or if it did, he'd get a rap on the knuckles and that would be it.

The only interest in it is because it features the leader of the second most popular party in the country. The party that you support sees it as its main rival (correctly) so that's why they are gunning for Varadkar. It is fine, from their position, that there has been no significant updates in relation to this story: in fact it is more useful to them if it is not resolved quickly. They have no interest in whether what Varadkar did was wrong, or illegal (they have clearly stated the latter, one can infer the former). The people here are of the same position. Again this is self-evident.

Fine Gael members seeking to obtain a position for themselves will likely maneuver to make the most of the situation too.

It's kind of the reverse position of Barry Cowan, where the controversy was on him, but he currently makes noises about how Martin should be replaced (clearly for the interests of the party and not related to being sacked :rolleyes:)

So that's the reason more serious political issues are left gathering dust as it does not serve expediency. If not already, it would be enough to make you cynical.

I mean you know this already, the feigned 'I have no idea what you mean about this being an issue only because it concerns the Tanaiste' is the sort of bigh brow comeback that will only get a vacuous thumbs up from your own crowd.

FrancieBrady · 22-03-2021 01:15AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Really?

Really?

I came back just to see if anybody quoted the post where I go into detail about the timings in relation to the leak. Naturally nobody did, didn't because nobody cares about the details concerning the leak.

If this was a rank-and-file TD do you think anybody would care? The story would likely never see the light of day, or if it did, he'd get a rap on the knuckles and that would be it.

The only interest in it is because it features the leader of the second most popular party in the country. The party that you support sees it as its main rival (correctly) so that's why they are gunning for Varadkar. It is fine that there has been no significant updates in relation to this story: in fact it is more useful to them if it is not resolved quickly. They have no interest in whether what Varadkar did was wrong, or illegal (they have clearly stated the latter, one can infer the former). The people here are of the same position. Again this is self-evident.

Fine Gael members seeking to obtain a position for themselves will likely maneuver to make the most of the situation too.

It's kind of the reverse position of Barry Cowan, where the controversy was on him, but he currently makes noises about how Martin should be replaced (clearly for the interests of the party and not related to being sacked :rolleyes:)

So that's the reason more serious political issues are left gathering dust as it does not serve expediency. If not already, it would be enough to make you cynical.

Nobody is interested in you trying the case. Leave that to Gardai, The DPP and the courts if it comes to trial maybe?

RandomName2 · 22-03-2021 01:23AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is interested in you trying the case. Leave that to Gardai, The DPP and the courts if it comes to trial maybe?

I take it back. You were better off with the feigned ignorance.

I have made no pronouncement in relation to legality. I have many times said I do not know whether what was done was illegal. Many, many times. I have stated that the legal aspects are a matter for the Gardai, and that they should be left do their work in relation to it.

I talked about details of the leak, but you aren't interested in details of the leak. You never have been. This thread is a waste of time because it is only interested in that there was a Leo Varadkar story in the Village, but not interested in the story itself. It makes a mockery of discussion.

jmcc · 22-03-2021 01:29AM

It is fascinating to see FGers sharpening the knives (or stillettos) for Varadkar. The front page of the Cork Examiner seems to the start of it and there may be a lot of FG candidates who blame Varadkar and Charlie Flanagan (the Black and Tans commemorator) for costing them their seats. The party does seem to be in a very tricky position. Having Varadkar step down while the criminal investigation is on-going is the right thing to do but it would possibly result in a leadership change that could become permanent. Leaving Varadkar as leader may start reducing FG's support in the polls with soft votes drifting away towards FF. Both FF and the Greens have said it is an FG problem. Could it bring down the FFG goverment?

Regards...jmcc

FrancieBrady · 22-03-2021 02:13AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

I take it back. You were better off with the feigned ignorance.

I have made no pronouncement in relation to legality. I have many times said I do not know whether what was done was illegal. Many, many times. I have stated that the legal aspects are a matter for the Gardai, and that they should be left do their work in relation to it.

I talked about details of the leak, but you aren't interested in details of the leak. You never have been. This thread is a waste of time because it is only interested in that there was a Leo Varadkar story in the Village, but not interested in the story itself. It makes a mockery of discussion.

Why would I be interested in the details of a GP contract when I am not involved in Health?

This isn't about the details of the contract, it is about trusting somebody in government.

McMurphy · 22-03-2021 09:17AM

Suckit wrote: »

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

From that article.

This is it really.

"Regardless of what anyone says they're all worried, what happens if he's brought in for questioning, under caution, that'll be leaked, then if a file gets sent to DPP, even if they don't prosecute that's another moment, how long does it go on for?

Death by a thousand cuts.

blanch152 · 22-03-2021 10:03AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Really?

Really?

Okay, let me spell it out for you so.

I came back just to see if anybody quoted the post where I go into detail about the timings in relation to the leak. Naturally nobody did, didn't because nobody cares about the details concerning the leak.

If this was a rank-and-file TD do you think anybody would care? The story would likely never see the light of day, or if it did, he'd get a rap on the knuckles and that would be it.

The only interest in it is because it features the leader of the second most popular party in the country. The party that you support sees it as its main rival (correctly) so that's why they are gunning for Varadkar. It is fine, from their position, that there has been no significant updates in relation to this story: in fact it is more useful to them if it is not resolved quickly. They have no interest in whether what Varadkar did was wrong, or illegal (they have clearly stated the latter, one can infer the former). The people here are of the same position. Again this is self-evident.

Fine Gael members seeking to obtain a position for themselves will likely maneuver to make the most of the situation too.

It's kind of the reverse position of Barry Cowan, where the controversy was on him, but he currently makes noises about how Martin should be replaced (clearly for the interests of the party and not related to being sacked :rolleyes:)

So that's the reason more serious political issues are left gathering dust as it does not serve expediency. If not already, it would be enough to make you cynical.

I mean you know this already, the feigned 'I have no idea what you mean about this being an issue only because it concerns the Tanaiste' is the sort of bigh brow comeback that will only get a vacuous thumbs up from your own crowd.

The details are not of interest to those engaged in a mob-led witch-hunt.

I asked months ago about the legal definition of confidentiality in a government context and they ran away from the discussion. Putting confidential in big letters on a document (or on a boards post) does not make that document confidential under the Official Secrets Act.

The only responses seemed to be along the lines of it's confidential because we (or someone else) say it is.

timmyntc · 22-03-2021 10:14AM

blanch152 wrote: »

The details are not of interest to those engaged in a mob-led witch-hunt.

I asked months ago about the legal definition of confidentiality in a government context and they ran away from the discussion. Putting confidential in big letters on a document (or on a boards post) does not make that document confidential under the Official Secrets Act.

The only responses seemed to be along the lines of it's confidential because we (or someone else) say it is.

I very much doubt you or anyone else here is privy as to what makes a confidential document confidential. However I'd hazard a guess and say that government departments dont stamp confidential on documents that arent.

The details arent of interest to those who find the details inconvenient - such as those defending Varadkars actions and preaching to us that "There's nothing to see here".
But it's the details that got us here in the first place - if we didnt care about the details, confidential or not confidential - then we wouldnt be where we are today. There would be no outrage, no investigation.

What Varadkar did was reprehensible - not because it was Varadkar - but because it was an elected member of the Dail leaking important documents about a pay negotiation, to another union not even involved in the negotiations.
The fact that you are willing to totally dismiss this because it involves your favourite football player political leader is shocking.

22-03-2021 10:18AM

timmyntc wrote: »

I very much doubt you or anyone else here is privy as to what makes a confidential document confidential. However I'd hazard a guess and say that government departments dont stamp confidential on documents that arent.

The details arent of interest to those who find the details inconvenient - such as those defending Varadkars actions and preaching to us that "There's nothing to see here".
But it's the details that got us here in the first place - if we didnt care about the details, confidential or not confidential - then we wouldnt be where we are today. There would be no outrage, no investigation.

What Varadkar did was reprehensible - not because it was Varadkar - but because it was an elected member of the Dail leaking important documents about a pay negotiation, to another union not even involved in the negotiations.
The fact that you are willing to totally dismiss this because it involves your favourite football player political leader is shocking.

Details of which were announced via a press release a good 10 days earlier.

thomas 123 · 22-03-2021 10:22AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Details of which were announced via a press release a good 10 days earlier.

Any source comparing exactly what was discussed to the document?

As was stated in the dail many changes were made after the alleged release.

Release likely based on meetings, negotiations and discussions also and not the actual final document.

FrancieBrady · 22-03-2021 10:30AM

blanch152 wrote: »

The details are not of interest to those engaged in a mob-led witch-hunt.

I asked months ago about the legal definition of confidentiality in a government context and they ran away from the discussion. Putting confidential in big letters on a document (or on a boards post) does not make that document confidential under the Official Secrets Act.

The only responses seemed to be along the lines of it's confidential because we (or someone else) say it is.

Why are you trying the case blanch?
That isn't your job or competence. Leave that to the Gardai, the DPP and the courts.

timmyntc · 22-03-2021 10:32AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Details of which were announced via a press release a good 10 days earlier.

Is that why the Dept of Health refused to release the document to the head of department (Minister Harris)?

Here was me thinking it was because of confidentiality - but I guess its actually that they wanted to save paper and Harris could re-use the content of the press release.

thomas 123 · 22-03-2021 10:38AM

timmyntc wrote: »

Is that why the Dept of Health refused to release the document to the head of department (Minister Harris)?

Here was me thinking it was because of confidentiality - but I guess its actually that they wanted to save paper and Harris could re-use the content of the press release.

Strange leo didn’t direct Dr Tut to that also, I know I wouldn’t have been arsed posting something if I could send a link.

McMurphy · 22-03-2021 10:42AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Details of which were announced via a press release a good 10 days earlier.

I know this has been asked already from you on numerous occasions, don't think you ever answered so I'll try again.

Why did Leo apologise for something that you seem to think was public knowledge?
Why did officials from Simon Harris' department not even let him have a copy?
Why did O'Toole have to go asking civil servants, then the health minister and finally the Taoiseach (who obliged) for documents you seem to think were already in the public domain?
Why did Leo courier the documents to O'Toole, rather than through official channels?

Lastly, and probably most importantly.

Why do the Gardai have varadkar as the main suspect of a criminal investigation?**

**Skip the rest if you want, but pay particular attention to this one please.

shatners bassoon · 22-03-2021 10:49AM

blanch152 wrote: »

The details are not of interest to those engaged in a mob-led witch-hunt.

I asked months ago about the legal definition of confidentiality in a government context and they ran away from the discussion. Putting confidential in big letters on a document (or on a boards post) does not make that document confidential under the Official Secrets Act.

The only responses seemed to be along the lines of it's confidential because we (or someone else) say it is.

Stop bull****ting. It was explained in detail to you, you just didn't want to listen.

RandomName2 · 22-03-2021 10:59AM

McMurphy wrote: »

I know this has been asked already from you on numerous occasions, don't think you ever answered so I'll try again.

Why did Leo apologise for something that you seem to think was public knowledge?

McMurphy going for the dogged 'you keep ignoring my questions' routine. Somewhat unfortunate given the camp that you are in.

As you already know, because it was reported back last November, Varadkar apologized for the method of disemminating the material

He said he sent it on a “confidential basis”, believing that publication of the agreement was imminent. Varadkar said he should have called the NAGP in for a briefing and gone through the document line by line, instead of passing it on in an informal manner.

“That’s the way it should have been done, I didn’t do it that way,” said Varadkar, adding he knew sending it in the post to Ó Tuathail “was a short cut”.
He told the Dáil that he was honouring a political commitment that the NAGP would be kept briefed on the negotiations.

“Rivalry between the organisations was often bitter, and it made agreement harder to achieve and held back progress.

“The NAGP wanted to be at the table. Some GPs were members of both organisations, some of neither. Ultimately, Government decided to deal with the IMO alone, as our long-standing negotiating partner and ICTU affiliate. The Opposition was very critical of this at the time.

“We committed, however, to keep the NAGP engaged, involved and informed as to the progress and outcome of negotiations,” said the Tánaiste.

https://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-nagp-leak-5253595-Nov2020/

This is all verifiable. Indeed Simon Harris had promised NAGP a copy.

Incidentally I think he is right. That wasn't the correct way to give out that information - it was unprofessional. Quick? Yes. Getting personal brownie points with NAGP? Presumably an aim.

McMurphy wrote: »

Why did officials from Simon Harris' department not even let him have a copy?

We have already been through this. At this point it is incumbant upon you to do some work on the matter rather than repeat the same questions. If you believe the information I provided to be incorrect it is up to yourself to disprove it. It is not up to anyone here to do that work for you. I mean I know that your question is for the purposes of rhetoric anyway, but we can pretend objectivity for a moment.

McMurphy wrote: »

Why do the Gardai have varadkar as the main suspect of a criminal investigation?

Because there has been a complaint lodged to the police about Varadkar. It would be strange in the extreme were he not the person questioned in this regard, particularly since he has openly admitted to sending the documents to NAGP. The point is to determine whether there was anything illegal in doing so.

Ya know, one might be forgiven for thinking that wasn't a serious question McMurphy, and that you are more interested in

McMurphy wrote: »

Death by a thousand cuts.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would I be interested in the details [about] a GP contract when I am not involved in Health?

And you should stop thanking this ^ guy by the way. You are encouraging him to think he can sustain a point.

blanch152 · 22-03-2021 11:04AM

shatners bassoon wrote: »

Stop bull****ting. It was explained in detail to you, you just didn't want to listen.

Nobody has ever detailed the process for deciding whether a particular document is confidential or not. For example, this document can by FOI'd by anyone and they will get a copy. However, you would not get a copy of the security file on the PIRA through FOI. Why? Because there is a difference in what is meant by confidential.

FrancieBrady · 22-03-2021 11:08AM

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody has ever detailed the process for deciding whether a particular document is confidential or not. For example, this document can by FOI'd by anyone and they will get a copy. However, you would not get a copy of the security file on the PIRA through FOI. Why? Because there is a difference in what is meant by confidential.

A criminal investigation is underway which will assess if this man is to be trusted with any confidential information. Who knows what he has handed over to vested interests.

And we need to know.

McMurphy · 22-03-2021 11:12AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

We have already been through this. At this point it is incumbant upon you to do some work on the matter rather than repeat the same questions. If you believe the information I provided to be incorrect it is up to yourself to disprove it. It is not up to anyone here to do that work for you. I mean I know that your question is for the purposes of rhetoric anyway, but we can pretend objectivity for a moment.

We covered the information you provided being incorrect yesterday, despite an article clearly stating the reasons Harris was refused a copy, you insisted it didn't say that at all, and had to be pulled by me and corrected on it. You didn't even say thanks to me for doing so either.

Because there has been a complaint lodged to the police about Varadkar. It would be strange in the extreme were he not the person questioned in this regard, particularly since he has openly admitted to sending the documents to NAGP. The point is to determine whether there was anything illegal in doing so.

Ya know, one might be forgiven for thinking that wasn't a serious question McMurphy, and that you are more interested in

I thought they'd only be obliged "to open a preliminary inquiry", y'know, to see if the original complaint from Bowes was worth pursuing?

Enter the senior whistleblower from within the dept of health, and next thing you know it's a full blown criminal investigation, with the Gards telling the Tanaiste to STFU and stop trying to pre judge the case.

I imagine thats another unprecedented event in our states history?

And you should stop thanking this ^ guy by the way. You are encouraging him to think he can sustain a point.

Stop trying to tell me who I can thank, um..... Thanks very much.

RandomName2 · 22-03-2021 11:13AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A criminal investigation is underway which will assess if this man is to be trusted with any confidential information.

No it won't. It won't make any determination of the kind. It will determine whether sending the draft GP agreement to the National Association of GPs was illegal.

A determination about ethical or practical considerations concerning Varadkar's handling of confidential information is not one that either the police, or indeed yourself, is interested in. Nobody is even pretending to be interested in ethical or practical considerations so trotting it out in this late stage as if you are, is weak in the extreme.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who knows what he has handed over to vested interests.

And we need to know.

We need to know how they get the figs in the fig rolls.

RandomName2 · 22-03-2021 11:23AM

McMurphy wrote: »

We covered the information you provided being incorrect yesterday, despite an article clearly stating the reasons Harris was refused a copy, you insisted it didn't say that at all, and had to be pulled on it. You didn't even say thanks either.

Stop being lazy, McMurphy. I'mve already quoted the email verbatim. Now that text may not have been the entire email. It is possible that there was addinional information that stated that the reason for Harris not being able to get a copy was due to confidentiality. However I'm not going to look up transcripts of the emails for you. Come back when you have stopped being lazy.

If you do some work and find the email transcripts, and they state that Harris was denied access due to confidentiality, then the answer is either a) that they were confidential and that disclosure would be illegal or b) that the person replying to Harris was lying.

That's all pretty self evident though, surely.

McMurphy wrote: »

I imagine thats another unprecedented event in our states history?

I honestly don't know. I would suspect that it isn't unprecedented for the Gardai to give a warning to a politician that, while what they say in the Dail is privileged (so the police cannot make a declaration one way or the other about what is said there), that what they are saying outside of that context is inappropriate and should stop. Again, I'm not going to be researching this.

McMurphy wrote: »

Stop trying to tell me who I can thank, um..... Thanks very much.

I just think its cruel to give false hope.

IngazZagni · 22-03-2021 11:28AM

I get the feeling from here and the likes of Twitter that people won’t believe any outcome other than guilty. I can already see the “Gardai are in FFG’s pocket” type comments.

22-03-2021 11:33AM

McMurphy wrote: »

I know this has been asked already from you on numerous occasions, don't think you ever answered so I'll try again.

Why did Leo apologise for something that you seem to think was public knowledge?
Why did officials from Simon Harris' department not even let him have a copy?
Why did O'Toole have to go asking civil servants, then the health minister and finally the Taoiseach (who obliged) for documents you seem to think were already in the public domain?
Why did Leo courier the documents to O'Toole, rather than through official channels?

Lastly, and probably most importantly.

Why do the Gardai have varadkar as the main suspect of a criminal investigation?**

**Skip the rest if you want, but pay particular attention to this one please.

Leo apologised for the manner in which he released the document to O’Toole.
No one seems to know when Simon Harris was asked for the document.
Leo sent the document to O’Toole at least 10 days after the talks had ended
https://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-gp-contract-nagp-scandal-5250914-Oct2020/
“ Owing to the range and complexity of the issues to be discussed, the engagement process took a significant amount of time and effort by all parties involved. Following detailed and intensive engagement, the talks finally concluded on 3 April.”
**If he’s the man suspect, why hasn’t he been questioning/arrested/charged?

FrancieBrady · 22-03-2021 11:34AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

No it won't. It won't make any determination of the kind. It will determine whether sending the draft GP agreement to the National Association of GPs was illegal.

A determination about ethical or practical considerations concerning Varadkar's handling of confidential information is not one that either the police, or indeed yourself, is interested in. Nobody is even pretending to be interested in ethical or practical considerations so trotting it out in this late stage as if you are, is weak in the extreme.

We need to know how they get the figs in the fig rolls.

The criminal investigation will allow his partners in government and the opposition to assess if he can be trusted via a properly informed vote of 'confidence'. That's if he doesn't pull the plug first himself.

He clearly hasn't the trust of the opposition atm.

RandomName2 · 22-03-2021 11:41AM

IngazZagni wrote: »

I get the feeling from here and the likes of Twitter that people won’t believe any outcome other than guilty. I can already see the “Gardai are in FFG’s pocket” type comments.

Sure Si.. yikes I nearly said their name.. the people leading the charge against Varadkar have already made it clear that they are uninterested in whether it was illegal, and that he should resign regardless of any criminal investigation. They have been very clear on that matter.

FrancieBrady · 22-03-2021 11:43AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sure Si.. yikes I nearly said their name.. the people leading the charge against Varadkar have already made it clear that they are uninterested in whether it was illegal, and that he should resign regardless of any criminal investigation. They have been very clear on that matter.

The Gardai are 'leading' the charge against Varadkar.

RandomName2 · 22-03-2021 11:58AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Gardai are 'leading' the charge against Varadkar.

Okay, so just so that it's known, I have seen your message but no longer believe it is productive to reply.

golfball37 · 22-03-2021 12:36PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sure Si.. yikes I nearly said their name.. the people leading the charge against Varadkar have already made it clear that they are uninterested in whether it was illegal, and that he should resign regardless of any criminal investigation. They have been very clear on that matter.

I both believe it wasn’t a crime and he should resign. He should have resigned on ethical reasons in November or being sacked. Whether he broke a law is no significance to me. I agree with whoever feels that way regardless of their hue.

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

Comments