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…267268270272273…416

Comments

  • #8072
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Maybe Leo will speak up for the fella, didn't he say whistleblowers are distinguished?

    You're not trying to equate whistleblowers blowing the whistle on wrongdoings within a state dept (protected by protective disclosure legislation) ≠ that of passing confidential information for the main reason that your pal requested you to pass him it are you :confused:

    IMG-20210325-224954.jpg

    And we have the name of the assistant Leo got to obtain said documents, will the dept of health and the dept of Taoiseach be advocating prosecution as per the statement made above to RTE?

    Curious your thoughts on this random.

    So, are you saying that O’Toole should be investigated too?


  • #8073
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So, are you saying that O’Toole should be investigated too?

    He most likely is already being investigated Maryanne.

    This isn't "news".
    Gardai have yet to speak to the Tanaiste or Dr O Tuathail as part of the investigation. Both have said they will fully comply with the investigation


  • #8074
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    McMurphy wrote: »
    He most likely is already being investigated Maryanne.

    This isn't "news".

    But, there’s nothing in the Garda statements saying that there’s an investigation into O’Toole. Speaking to someone as part of an investigation into another doesn’t mean that both may have done wrong and are both subject of investigation.


  • #8075
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    But, there’s nothing in the Garda statements saying that there’s an investigation into O’Toole. Speaking to someone as part of an investigation into another doesn’t mean that both may have done wrong and are both subject of investigation.

    But it's in the legislation. It has already been discussed here on the thread.

    Look up the official secrets act, it's in the RTE statement above too, links to a barrister outlining the potential repercussions for both the person passing the document, and those who received it are in the thread, just yesterday.

    Again this isn't a new development, it's been covered multiple times on the thread already.


  • #8076
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    McMurphy wrote: »
    But it's in the legislation. It has already been discussed here on the thread.

    Look up the official secrets act, it's in the RTE statement above too, links to a barrister outlining the potential repercussions for both the person passing the document, and those who received it are in the thread, just yesterday.

    Again this isn't a new development, it's been covered multiple times on the thread already.

    Yep, I’ve read that, yet O’Toole isn’t the subject of an investigation. Merely a possible witness.


  • Advertisement
  • #8077
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yep, I’ve read that, yet O’Toole isn’t the subject of an investigation. Merely a possible witness.

    How do you establish someone is a witness, without first investigating their role in the whole thing:confused:
    Deleted User wrote: »
    So, are you saying that O’Toole should be investigated too?


  • #8078
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    McMurphy wrote: »
    How do you establish someone is a witness, without first investigating their role in the whole thing:confused:

    Get up the yard. You’re talking nonsense. By your reckoning, I can be the subject of a criminal investigation simply by witnessing a crime?


  • #8079
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So, are you saying that O’Toole should be investigated too?

    Explained already that he is part of the investigation......
    He most likely is already being investigated Maryanne.

    This isn't "news".
    Gardai have yet to speak to the Tanaiste or Dr O Tuathail as part of the investigation. Both have said they will fully comply with the investigation
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Get up the yard. You’re talking nonsense. By your reckoning, I can be the subject of a criminal investigation simply by witnessing a crime?

    Oh dear..... Pick a point and stick with it please.


  • #8080
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Explained already that he is part of the investigation......







    Oh dear..... Pick a point and stick with it please.

    Still no proof that O’Toole is the subject of any investigation. Stick to the facts, please.


  • #8081
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Still no proof that O’Toole is the subject of any investigation. Stick to the facts, please.

    Been a tough auld slog spinning for Leo and his exploits Maryanne, I get that.

    However, lets not lose sight of what you were querying.
    Maryanne wrote:
    So, are you saying that O’Toole should be investigated too?

    If you're asking if he's a suspect in the criminal investigation, that's a different question, one which I can't answer as of yet, it'll hopefully become a lot more clearer once he's "helped police with their investigation"

    If you think OTuathail (whom you have previously thrown under the bus on this thread) isn't part of the investigation, an investigation that revolves around two key players, Leo and OTuathail, well then that's just ridiculous to the level that it's hardly worth responding to.


  • Advertisement
  • #8082
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    McMurphy wrote: »
    He most likely is already being investigated Maryanne.

    This isn't "news".
    McMurphy wrote: »
    Been a tough auld slog spinning for Leo and his exploits Maryanne, I get that.

    However, lets not lose sight of what you were querying.



    If you're asking if he's a suspect in the criminal investigation, that's a different question, one which I can't answer as of yet, it'll hopefully become a lot more clearer once he's "helped police with their investigation"

    If you think OTuathail (whom you have previously thrown under the bus on this thread) isn't part of the investigation, an investigation that revolves around two key players, Leo and OTuathail, well then that's just ridiculous to the level that it's hardly worth responding to.

    So, you’re agreeing that O’Toole isn’t being investigated. Thanks.


  • #8083
    thomas 123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭thomas 123


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    So, you’re agreeing that O’Toole isn’t being investigated. Thanks.

    You agreeing what the blog post that the NAGP was released days before was not equal to the 110 doc yet?


  • #8084
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Here's an email from the 17th that shows Simon Harris, the actual minister for health was still trying to get his hands on this document.

    https://twitter.com/nwl88444048/status/1375000815639932929?s=19

    The first email is from someone called Sarah Bardon, looking for a copy of the document, not Simon Harris.


  • #8085
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    FrancieBrady wrote: »

    They will do the same with Leo if the Gardai decide not to press charges.

    As opposed to?


  • #8086
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    markodaly wrote: »
    The first email is from someone called Sarah Bardon, looking for a copy of the document, not Simon Harris.

    That email from Sarah Bardon is dated the 15th, (I said the 17th) she's one of Simons advisers/assistants who got fobbed off, resulting in Harris himself sending an email two days later.

    Already discussed by myself here in this post dated 23/03/21.


  • #8087
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,543 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    markodaly wrote: »
    As opposed to?

    Accepting that what he did was wrong. The Gardai and DPP deciding to not press charges does not change that.
    Just as the Inquiry into Frances Fitzgerald did not exonerate her from misleading the Dáil.


  • #8088
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    McMurphy wrote: »
    That email from Sarah Bardon is dated the 15th, (I said the 17th) she's one of Simons advisers/assistants who got fobbed off, resulting in Harris himself sending an email two days later.

    Already discussed by myself here in this post dated 23/03/21.

    Yes, I read that post, a lot of conjecture, and painting by numbers going on there. The dates also dont match up with the facts.


  • #8089
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Accepting that what he did was wrong. The Gardai and DPP deciding to not press charges does not change that.
    Just as the Inquiry into Frances Fitzgerald did not exonerate her from misleading the Dáil.

    Not best practice, he already admitted to this, but we can give the hangman the day off. :)

    However, I still see you are banging on about FF. She was totally exonerated in the inquiry. If people feel strongly about it, open a new thread about it.


  • #8090
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    markodaly wrote: »
    The first email is from someone called Sarah Bardon, looking for a copy of the document, not Simon Harris.

    She's a Special Advisor in the Department of Health.


  • #8091
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    markodaly wrote: »
    Not best practice, he already admitted to this, but we can give the hangman the day off. :)

    However, I still see you are banging on about FF. She was totally exonerated in the inquiry. If people feel strongly about it, open a new thread about it.

    Not for misleading the Dail and having Leo mislead the dail. Stick to the facts please.
    This repeated lie, (a lie at this stage) is akin to saying the Hamburgler was never stealing hamburgers because he was exonerated regarding fathering one of the Fry kids.


  • Advertisement
  • #8092
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,543 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    markodaly wrote: »
    Not best practice, he already admitted to this, but we can give the hangman the day off. :)

    However, I still see you are banging on about FF. She was totally exonerated in the inquiry. If people feel strongly about it, open a new thread about it.

    Not for misleading the Dáil, evidenced here many many times.

    You are doing what I said would happen if Leo is not charged with an offence.


    QED


  • #8093
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    markodaly wrote: »
    Yes, I read that post, a lot of conjecture, and painting by numbers going on there. The dates also dont match up with the facts.

    What dates exactly?


  • #8094
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    skimpydoo wrote: »
    All I am looking for is a name nothing more and nothing less. Once I have a name I can go research this Taoiseach and what he might have done. I have tried looking through the 8000 plus posts and could not find anything.

    Has happened loads of times, every single time there has been a national pay agreement since 1987, the "confidential" documents have been shared with PDFORRA and GRA countless times, even though they are not part of the negotiations. It is standard practice.


  • #8095
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Accepting that what he did was wrong. The Gardai and DPP deciding to not press charges does not change that.
    Just as the Inquiry into Frances Fitzgerald did not exonerate her from misleading the Dáil.

    So when the police and the prosecution decline to press charges, that still means a politician subject to an investigation should step down, is that what you are saying?


  • #8096
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,543 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    So when the police and the prosecution decline to press charges, that still means a politician subject to an investigation should step down, is that what you are saying?

    Depending on the gravity of what he/she has already confessed to and apologised for. Yes.

    I think this particular offender should have stepped down regardless of the outcome of a criminal investigation.


  • #8097
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Depending on the gravity of what he/she has already confessed to and apologised for. Yes.

    I think this particular offender should have stepped down regardless of the outcome of a criminal investigation.

    Leo had no problems in the world calling on Denis Naugthen to consider his position, and he was never the subject of a criminal investigation.


  • #8098
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,444 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    blanch152 wrote: »
    So when the police and the prosecution decline to press charges, that still means a politician subject to an investigation should step down, is that what you are saying?
    Should politicians only step down after a successful prosecution or are there times when they should go regardless?


  • #8099
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Depending on the gravity of what he/she has already confessed to and apologised for. Yes.

    I think this particular offender should have stepped down regardless of the outcome of a criminal investigation.

    What if they said one thing to a TV programme and a different story under oath as a witness in a court case? By telling two different stories, they have obviously confessed to being at least a liar, and possibly a perjurer, and are therefore untrustworthy?


  • #8100
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Should politicians only step down after a successful prosecution or are there times when they should go regardless?

    Of course there are times when they should go regardless. Dara Calleary was correct to step down as he was aware of the new restrictions when he attended Golfgate. Ditto Michelle O'Neill should have stepped down after the Bobby Storey funeral.

    In this particular case, the issue does rest on whether there was a crime. If Varadkar didn't break the law because he was allowed share the document with another union representative, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with what he did.


  • Advertisement
  • #8101
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    There is no'rub' and I have no idea what SF will do.

    The facts seem to be that no 'material gain or advantage needs to be proven' according to the legislation.
    If the act was illegal then that is it.

    Is there any update on my query about these facts? Can anybody provide a link to the facts that are mentioned here.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement