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…270271273275276…416

Comments

  • #8162
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    I doubt if Siptu or ICTU side stepped normal negotiation procedures

    You believe that whenever SIPTU or ICTU has asked anything of a minister or Taoiseach that they filed this as lobbying? I find it hard to believe that you believe this. Now if you are saying that you wouldn't have to file this as lobbying, because not doing so is normal negotiation procedures, then we would both appear to be correct.
    Fann Linn wrote: »
    or delegates, and asked the sitting Taoiseaach of the day for confidential documents regarding other unions.

    That directly affected members of their own union as those union members would be signing up to said confidential document? Way to deflect in relation to the actual lobbying legislation.


  • #8163
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    skimpydoo wrote: »
    If O'Tuathill was doing things above board why didn't he go through the proper channels. He could have had a private meeting with Leo in the Dail, where he would have been brought through the document. Since this was not done, Leo is now in quite a pickle.

    If we are still talking about lobbying, the legislation states that there are no such thing as proper channels. Email, face-to-face, and formal meetings are all considered as basically one and the same.

    If we are talking more generally then there's a couple of answers, chief of which that O'Tuanthail simply didn't care.
    skimpydoo wrote: »
    Also no point saying saying trade unions don't have to register as lobbyists, since the NAGP was not registered to take part in negotiations.

    Again, as the legislation states, trade unions appear to be exempt from this when the matters concerns employment conditions of their union. GPs who were members of the NAGP were clearly going to have their working conditions impacted by the new contract.


  • #8164
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    skimpydoo wrote: »
    Not long now till we see tomorrow's newspapers. Is a certain politician ****ting bricks as he knows more is about to come out? Look out for the deflection pieces. Look a squirrel over there.

    Anything of interest in the newspapers?


  • #8165
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,119 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    skimpydoo wrote: »
    Not long now till we see tomorrow's newspapers. Is a certain politician ****ting bricks as he knows more is about to come out? Look out for the deflection pieces. Look a squirrel over there.

    Any squirrels around?


  • #8166
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    You believe that whenever SIPTU or ICTU has asked anything of a minister or Taoiseach that they filed this as lobbying? I find it hard to believe that you believe this. Now if you are saying that you wouldn't have to file this as lobbying, because not doing so is normal negotiation procedures, then we would both appear to be correct.



    That directly affected members of their own union as those union members would be signing up to said confidential document? Way to deflect in relation to the actual lobbying legislation.

    Just like most people reading this thread find it "hard to believe" that you believe Leo's apology was for how he leaked the agreement to OTuathail, rather than for leaking it at all.

    It would be like someone apologisng to a judge for robbing a naggin in his coat pocket instead of his back pocket.

    He was caught, fessed up and apologised - over to the peelers and the DPP now. Simple as that.


  • Advertisement
  • #8167
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,119 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Just like most people reading this thread find it "hard to believe" that you believe Leo's apology was for how he leaked the agreement to OTuathail, rather than for leaking it at all.

    It would be like someone apologisng to a judge for robbing a naggin in his coat pocket instead of his back pocket.

    He was caught, fessed up and apologised - over to the peelers and the DPP now. Simple as that.


    Peelers?

    Can you explain that please, thanks.


  • #8168
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    Peelers?

    Can you explain that please, thanks.

    Very welcome to explain, yeah.
    Peelers was the name given to the first police officers. They were named after Sir Robert Peel who introduced them, first in Ireland, and then in England. They were also known as Bobbies in England.

    It's a slang word for the police, like "cops/rozzers/etc etc" both in Ireland and England.


  • #8169
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,119 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Very welcome to explain, yeah.



    It's a slang word for the police both in Ireland and England.

    It's a slang for An Garda Síochána?

    Learn something new every day, thanks.


  • #8170
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    It's a slang for An Garda Síochána?

    Learn something new every day, thanks.

    Not specifically, no.

    It's a slang word for police in general. Not just for the guards.


  • #8171
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    It's a slang for An Garda Síochána?

    Learn something new every day, thanks.

    If you ever did Irish history at school you'd have known that!


  • Advertisement
  • #8172
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,119 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    If you ever did Irish history at school you'd have known that!

    Yeah mad how I have never heard anyone refer to the Gards as the peelers.

    There ya go, every day is a learning day!


  • #8173
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    Yeah mad how I have never heard anyone refer to the Gards as the peelers.

    There ya go, every day is a learning day!

    It's in the national and secondary school history books!


  • #8174
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    Peelers?

    Can you explain that please, thanks.

    “ peeler
    a member of her majesty's constabulary: a police officer; especially in the United Kingdom and Australia. Derived from the name of Sir Robert Peel who developed the Metropolitan Police Act in 1928 which proved to be the foundation for the modern police force in Britain.”

    It’s a British thing. Never in all my many years heard it used in Ireland.


  • #8175
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    Yeah mad how I have never heard anyone refer to the Gards as the peelers.

    There ya go, every day is a learning day!
    ,
    Where I'm originally from (Derry/Donegal) it's more common to refer to the guards (or indeed the old RUC or the more recent incarnation PSNI) as the peelers.

    It's a term Drew Harris would be fairly familiar with I'm sure.

    Anyway enough deflection, back to Leo.

    Time is running out, expect him to be charged or not in the next week or two, I'd say he's in awful shape mentally. He looked like he was fairly deflated and disheveled on the telly during the week. Mind you I believe his TV appearance was after him appearing to try and pre-empt his own case by telling us the DPP wouldn't charge him. So he was possibly after being lifted out of it by someone for that class act.


  • #8176
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,119 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    “ peeler
    a member of her majesty's constabulary: a police officer; especially in the United Kingdom and Australia. Derived from the name of Sir Robert Peel who developed the Metropolitan Police Act in 1928 which proved to be the foundation for the modern police force in Britain.”

    It’s a British thing. Never in all my many years heard it used in Ireland.
    Me neither especially in 2021 when referring to An Garda síochána.

    Great to learn these new things every day Mary isn't it!?


  • #8177
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,119 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    McMurphy wrote: »
    ,
    Where I'm originally from (Derry/Donegal) it's more common to refer to the guards (or indeed the old RUC or the more recent incarnation PSNI) as the peelers.

    It's a term Drew Harris would be fairly familiar with I'm sure.

    Anyway enough deflection, back to Leo.

    Time is running out, expect him to be charged or not in the next week or two, I'd say he's in awful shape mentally. He looked like he was fairly deflated and disheveled on the telly during the week. Mind you I believe his TV appearance was after him appearing to try and pre-empt his own case by telling us the DPP wouldn't charge him. So he was possibly after being lifted out of it by someone for that class act.

    Sure as you said its with the peelers and DPP now so let's wait.

    I'm not spending my Sunday going around and around, have other plans.

    But I know you enjoy it so have fun:)


  • #8178
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Just like most people reading this thread find it "hard to believe" that you believe Leo's apology was for how he leaked the agreement to OTuathail, rather than for leaking it at all.

    I am replying to this just to indicate that I have read it, but I no longer believe that discussion of this is constructive. It has been clearly explained, multiple times. It was actually one of the most clear aspects in relation to all this, so I can only assume your confusion to be vexatious.


  • #8179
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    Me neither especially in 2021 when referring to An Garda síochána.

    Great to learn these new things every day Mary isn't it!?

    Here's more from the Irish times, if it's a history lesson you're after and not just a deflection.
    A conference marking 200 years of Irish policing is being held this weekend in Co Tipperary where Sir Robert Peel carried out his first experiments in professional policing. "Constables, Peelers and Civic Guards", will be addressed by prominent figures including the former RUC Chief Constable, Sir John Hermon.

    AGS website.
    The tradition of organised policing in Ireland can be traced back to the establishment of the County Constabulary in 1822. The County Constabulary was a uniformed police force formed on a regional basis.

    Before this there existed a basic police force known as The Peace Preservation Force. This had been set up in 1816 through an act of the Westminster Parliament. This act was sponsored by Robert Peel, the Chief Secretary for Ireland.


  • #8180
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    I am replying to this just to indicate that I have read it, but I no longer believe that discussion of this is constructive. It has been clearly explained, multiple times. It was actually one of the most clear aspects in relation to all this, so I can only assume your confusion to be vexatious.

    That's unfortunate for you.


    His apology for leaking is a fairly important detail in the whole thread, and it is extremely "constructive" to discuss it.

    You're trying to sell a pup "that Leo apologised for his method of leaking" rather than that he apologised for leaking it.

    I'm going to hold off on a moderator telling posters to refrain from posting about his apology all the same.


  • #8181
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    McMurphy wrote: »
    That's unfortunate for you.


    His apology for leaking is a fairly important detail in the whole thread, and it is extremely "constructive" to discuss it.

    You're trying to sell a pup "that Leo apologised for his method of leaking" rather than that he apologised for leaking it.

    I'm going to hold off on a moderator telling posters to refrain from posting about his apology all the same.

    He is not selling anyone a pup. It is in black and white in Varadkar's Dail statement, that is freely available on record if you wish to read again. It was clearly very carefully worded along with his legal team, to ensure he was careful as to what he was and, crucially, was not apologising for.

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not trying to be disingenuous by claiming someone literally quoting from a statement is "selling a pup".


  • Advertisement
  • #8182
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    He is not selling anyone a pup. It is in black and white in Varadkar's Dail statement, that is freely available on record if you wish to read again. It was clearly very carefully worded along with his legal team, to ensure he was careful as to what he was and, crucially, was not apologising for.

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not trying to be disingenuous by claiming someone literally quoting from a statement is "selling a pup".

    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.

    So if he called zero craic in, in a formal matter (formal is the complete and utter opposite of informal) to go through it line by line, he wouldn't be leaking it.
    not according to the prescribed, official, or customary way or manner; irregular; unofficial: informal proceedings. suitable to or characteristic of casual and familiar, but educated, speech or writing.

    Yeah, anyone deliberately trying to misrepresent his apology as for his method, rather than for leaking it - period, is trying to sell a pup.

    I'm quite happy to stand over that.

    Lastly, can you formally and officially "leak" something behind the rest of your cabinets backs,?

    That's an oxymoron, right?


  • #8183
    shtpEdthePlum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 556 ✭✭✭shtpEdthePlum


    McMurphy wrote: »
    That's unfortunate for you.


    His apology for leaking is a fairly important detail in the whole thread, and it is extremely "constructive" to discuss it.

    You're trying to sell a pup "that Leo apologised for his method of leaking" rather than that he apologised for leaking it.

    I'm going to hold off on a moderator telling posters to refrain from posting about his apology all the same.
    If the method by which he leaked it was illegal (which it looks like it was), he's going to have a hard time defending himself, having publicly apologised for wrongdoing.


  • #8184
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    McMurphy wrote: »
    So if he called zero craic in, in a formal matter (formal is the complete and utter opposite of informal) to go through it line by line, he wouldn't be leaking it.

    Yeah, anyone deliberately trying to misrepresent his apology as for his method, rather than for leaking it - period, is trying to sell a pup.

    I'm quite happy to stand over that.

    Bringing in O'Toole to walk him through the document line by line is still "leaking" the contents of the document. A document doesn't need to be handed over in hard copy for it to be a leak. So clearly he wasn't apologising for giving him the details, if his alternative solution was also giving him the details.

    And his statement and comments in the Dail are clearly carefully worded in line with that.

    Stand over all you want, doesn't mean you won't be corrected when it's inaccurate.


  • #8185
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    Bringing in O'Toole to walk him through the document line by line is still "leaking" the contents of the document. A document doesn't need to be handed over in hard copy for it to be a leak. So clearly he wasn't apologising for giving him the details, if his alternative solution was also giving him the details.

    And his statement and comments in the Dail are clearly carefully worded in line with that.

    Stand over all you want, doesn't mean you won't be corrected when it's inaccurate.

    As I said you are being disingenuous (or are you implying Leo's apology was disingenuous?)

    Leo's apologising for sharing information with OTuathail in an informal and underhanded way, IE - leaking it.

    Isn't it mad how no pundits, be it on the radio/TV or journalist have interpreted it this way?

    Just seems to be the yarn being spun on here.


  • #8186
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    It will make for spectacular entertainment if Leo uses this line of defence in court assuming it goes this far.

    My client isn't sorry for the leak judge, just that he leaked it in an informal and underhanded way.

    He realises now that he should have leaked this information to zero craic in a formal and transparent way.

    Judge: WTF:confused:


  • #8187
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    McMurphy wrote: »
    As I said you are being disingenuous (or are you implying Leo's apology was disingenuous?)

    Leo's apologising for sharing information with OTuathail in an informal and underhanded way, IE - leaking it.

    Isn't it mad how no pundits, be it on the radio/TV or journalist have interpreted it this way?

    Just seems to be the yarn being spun on here.

    Sounds pretty implausible to me that someone would believe that Varadkar would apologise for sharing the contents with O'Toole and then 2 minutes later state how he alternatively would share the exact same contents with O'Toole at the exact same time.


  • #8188
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Round and round and round we go. Nothing new until the outcome of the investigation. I’m out. Slán go fóill.


  • #8189
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Round and round and round we go. Nothing new until the outcome of the investigation. I’m out. Slán go fóill.

    Yeah think I'm the same. Going around in circles is just pointless for all concerned.


  • #8190
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    McMurphy wrote: »
    That's unfortunate for you.


    His apology for leaking is a fairly important detail in the whole thread, and it is extremely "constructive" to discuss it.

    You're trying to sell a pup "that Leo apologised for his method of leaking" rather than that he apologised for leaking it.

    I'm going to hold off on a moderator telling posters to refrain from posting about his apology all the same.

    Here are some answers given on the topic. If you choose to interpret the word manner as not meaning manner, but meaning something different instead, being told the same thing another dozen of times is not really likely to make any further progress.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116702036&postcount=8178
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116694394&postcount=8088
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116671003&postcount=7841
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116670663&postcount=7836
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116659368&postcount=7731
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116655033&postcount=7691

    That's goign back a few weeks.

    Just taking a guess here. I'd say that 'he appologized for giving the information to NoCraic' someone responds by saying 'no, he clearly sees nothing wrong with having given the information. See, here's a quote of him saying that he only finds the manner in which it was done was wrong.'

    Has done the rounds about a dozen.. two dozen times on this thread.

    You complain about this being pedanticism in one of your posts on the matter, but I would throw this right back at you.

    The salient point is that Varadkar felt that NAGP should have had this information. There is never any point, as far as I'm aware, where he says he should not have provided O'Thuantail with this information.

    You contest that 'manner' is indivisible from the provision of information in itself, which is fairly undermined by Varadkar saying that what he should have done was invite him to government buildings and go through the document with him line-by-line instead. You read into this, that he is saying more than he is actually saying on this point, whereas what he is actually saying is that there was nothing inherently wrong with providing the information to O'Thuanthail.

    It consequently makes this a bit nonsensical to continue saying the same things on the matter. Neither is neither to change the other's mind.


  • Advertisement
  • #8191
    McMurphy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Here are some answers given on the topic. If you choose to interpret the word manner as not meaning manner, but meaning something different instead, being told the same thing another dozen of times is not really likely to make any further progress.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116702036&postcount=8178
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116694394&postcount=8088
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116671003&postcount=7841
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116670663&postcount=7836
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116659368&postcount=7731
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116655033&postcount=7691

    That's goign back a few weeks.

    Just taking a guess here. I'd say that 'he appologized for giving the information to NoCraic' someone responds by saying 'no, he clearly sees nothing wrong with having given the information. See, here's a quote of him saying that he only finds the manner in which it was done was wrong.'

    Has done the rounds about a dozen.. two dozen times on this thread.

    You complain about this being pedanticism in one of your posts on the matter, but I would throw this right back at you.

    The salient point is that Varadkar felt that NAGP should have had this information. There is never any point, as far as I'm aware, where he says he should not have provided O'Thuantail with this information.

    You contest that 'manner' is indivisible from the provision of information in itself, which is fairly undermined by Varadkar saying that what he should have done was invite him to government buildings and go through the document with him line-by-line instead. You read into this, that he is saying more than he is actually saying on this point, whereas what he is actually saying is that there was nothing inherently wrong with providing the information to O'Thuanthail.

    It consequently makes this a bit nonsensical to continue saying the same things on the matter. Neither is neither to change the other's mind.


    This specific part of his apology (which isn't really an apology according to some) makes it quite clear what he's apologised for, and to whom.

    Some of you guys pick the oddest of hills to die on.

    Leo Varadkar. wrote:

    “I do regret it and I am sorry for the controversy and annoyance that my actions have caused including to members of the medical profession, the IMO, my colleagues in Government and to the House.”

    He's specifically apologising to the IMO because he shared the details of the agreement made with them to Dr Zero Craic, the head of the rival organisation. Not because of how he shared it.

    Mind you, it's an extraordinary thing to apologise for if he was always allowed to leak it anyway, and even stranger too that the Guards have initiated a full blown criminal investigation over something a Tanaiste did as Taoiseach, if he has always been authorised to do what he did all along anyway. I'm surprised no-one has even come out from Leo's legal corner claiming this from the beginning, would have cleared the whole thing up in one foul swoop so it would have. **;)**

    In your and a few others heads Leo's apology might be "carefully crafted words" ie an apology that isn't really an apology. I suspect carefully crafted non apologies will butter no parsnips with the judge if it gets that far though.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement