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

RandomName2 wrote: »

Not sure where you are getting 11th from. If I remember correctly it was 15th/16th.

He said he posted the document to Dr Ó Tuathail between April 11th and 16th 2019 on a confidential basis believing that it would be published in full imminently.

jammiedodgers wrote: »

If it was in the public domain why did O'Tuathail have to request a copy from the Taoiseach?



So the Gardaí are only investigating because of the inappropiate manner he shared it?



Your link to the debate contains the following -

Dempo1 wrote: »

Hmmm, this is going to get ugly. Taoiseachs response at best, Tepid, Jim o callaghan (well predictable), Greens really quite but the most interesting titbit, the Village highlighting the Dail record at the time, we're of all people "Stephen Donnelly, then in opposition" clearly stated as opposition health spokesperson "he had no sight or copy of the offending document in the Month of April, suggesting the opposite of what Leo stated, namely the document was widely circulated and in the public domain.

I sense a spot of Electioneering over the coming days.

Kind of Ironic, Leo's infamous and well known habit of leaking is about to bite him and even more Ironic a fellow Doctor the cause.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh McMurphy, glad to see you are back to that.

So you agree that the NAGP did not have access to the agreement before the 17th of April, and that O'Tuathail most likely received it on the 16th?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Let's analyze what is meant by 'public domain' because it has never been defined here.

Public domain usually refers to copyright. To that end the GP agreement almost certainly would fit under that as "a work prepared by an officer or employee" of the government "as part of that person's official duties."

That's not what is being meant here though.

What is meant is pretty vague. It had been debated by public representatives by this time, and well reported.

Does this mean it was in the 'public domain'?

Or if we are to define it as something easily accessible by any member of the public clearly this was not the case.

You say this is farcical. In many ways I agree: when one looks into the substance of the charge it ends up in the splitting of hairs concerning dates, the amount of details about the GP agreement which had already been announced in media, the amount of copyediting that was conducted between the draft and final copy.

If one takes a step back and looks at the ethical implications.. well there don't really appear to be any.



First thing, the NAGP was clearly opposed to the government. All of their publications were of that vein, so attacking the government in relation to its handling of the agreement out of hand is to be expected.

They had long been making the claim that the government was willfully keeping many doctors in the dark about the substance of the GP agreement. Even before receivning a copy of the agreement it is hard to gauge how sincere this assertion was given that the IMO had already published the most substantive points.

After having received a copy of the agreement, the NAGP may have chosen not to send it to all its members. Why it would choose not to do so is as much your guess as mine. Clearly they didn't want to give credit to the government giving them a copy. Their antipathy towards the IMO and imminent financial demise would naturally have had a bearing on this of course.

I am unsure if the IMO casually shared the agreement with all of its members. The NAGP implies that they did.

On face value this complaint from the NAGP is simply that the agreement should be sent to all of its members.



This is waffle



Look maybe 'Inner Sanctum' means different things to you and I, but this whole thing is about OThuanthail sharing this with NAGP members on WhatsApp, and he did so on 17th April. These members were almost certainly the top brass of the NAGP. I infer this because the group is literally named NAGP Inner Sanctum. Clearly the 17th April was the first that these members had set eyes on the document.



Given the financial position the union was in, members would have been forgiven for bailing. Even with full renewal those fees couldn't save that sinking ship.

However, former Independent TD and GP Michael Harty revealed he had seen more details of the deal.

The County Clare deputy told the Dáil he had a copy of the agreement in his possession, and said the agreement was “still under discussion at IMO meetings”.

“I may have an advantage, being an IMO member, in that I have in my possession a document which outlines, in broad brush strokes, what is contained in the agreement,” he said.

It would be another month before the full detail was announced. The Department of Health published the entire text of the IMO deal on 17 May 2019.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm going to go through this statement, line by line, for your benefit.


It is good to get the detail
Details of the agreement presumably


but I find this exercise very frustrating. The outline of the deal was agreed about two weeks ago.
This means that the IMO agreement had been concluded for weeks, so there was no reason for the actual document to be sent around.


The GPs have not seen it, the public have not seen it, and we have not seen it. We are being given pages of facts and figures now. We have not seen them before.
This is saying that they are currently being given the details, but should have received them before this date. He is saying that it is very difficult to give an informed opinion without time to digest the details of the agreement, an opinion echoed by other members.


I have asked the Department for them and I have asked the HSE. We have been denied access to any of the detail. We are sort of expected to stand up here now and respond.
He is saying that they should have been sent the agreement in advance, and that debating the details of the agreement with such little notice is unreasonable.


I agree with him. I don't see any real reason the agreement couldn't have been sent in advance. Small potatoes though.

However, former Independent TD and GP Michael Harty revealed he had seen more details of the deal.

The County Clare deputy told the Dáil he had a copy of the agreement in his possession, and said the agreement was “still under discussion at IMO meetings”.

“I may have an advantage, being an IMO member, in that I have in my possession a document which outlines, in broad brush strokes, what is contained in the agreement,” he said.

It would be another month before the full detail was announced. The Department of Health published the entire text of the IMO deal on 17 May 2019.