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

happyoutscan · 28-03-2021 03:06PM

I'd imagine Leo seriously regrets apologising.

McMurphy · 28-03-2021 03:08PM

happyoutscan wrote: »

I'd imagine Leo seriously regrets apologising.

His script writers didn't cover every base it would seem.

RandomName2 · 28-03-2021 03:10PM

McMurphy wrote: »

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

It is yourself who is going an entirely semantic examination of this.

Now while I would normally applaud an interrogation of the sources, I don't find the semantics actually back up your assertions, but more important is that most of this has already been covered earlier in the thread.

One issue is that from an entirely semantic point of view there is ambiguity in the statement that is impossible to resolve at this distance.

Technically the quote you use even in this post does not, again, back up your claim. This usually wouldn't be worth pointing out, but you are insisting upon a semantic evaluation. As you would say, a strange hill to die on.

Technically what he says is that he is sorry for the annoyance and controversy. That is, literally what he says. This means that, from a semantic point of view, he is sorry that the issue has blown up, got national focus, become an issue at all. It quite pointedly avoids providing an apology to the IMO for sharing the information, which makes sense, because to do so would be at odds with him saying that he should always have shared the information with the NAGP.

It is a legitimate position to say that this is not, in fact, an apology at all (although it of course is, in the classical sense at least): but you can hardly argue that, and the opposite, at the same time. Well, you can do whatever you like I suppose, but it would at least sound distinctly odd, if that's something that concerns you.

McMurphy · 28-03-2021 03:15PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

It is yourself who is going an entirely semantic examination of this.

Now while I would normally applaud an interrogation of the sources, I don't find the semantics actually back up your assertions, but more important is that most of this has already been covered earlier in the thread.

One issue is that from an entirely semantic point of view there is ambiguity in the statement that is impossible to resolve at this distance.

Technically the quote you use even in this post does not, again, back up your claim. This usually wouldn't be worth pointing out, but you are insisting upon a semantic evaluation. As you would say, a strange hill to die on.

Technically what he says is that he is sorry for the annoyance and controversy. That is, literally what he says. This means that, from a semantic point of view, he is sorry that the issue has blown up, got national focus, become an issue at all. It quite pointedly avoids providing an apology to the IMO for sharing the information, which makes sense, because to do so would be at odds with him saying that he should always have shared the information with the NAGP.

It is a legitimate position to say that this is not, in fact, an apology at all (although it of course is, in the classical sense at least): but you can hardly argue that, and the opposite, at the same time. Well, you can do whatever you like I suppose, but it would at least sound distinctly odd, if that's something that concerns you.

It's a legitimate position to say it's not actually an apology, then in brackets say (of course it is) Is this not literally what you have just done here

I think you've now reached the point where you don't know where you stand on this yourself anymore there's been so much twisting.

RandomName2 · 28-03-2021 03:22PM

McMurphy wrote: »

It's a legitimate position to say it's not actually an apology, then in brackets say (of course it is) Is this not literally what you have just done here

In the classical sense an apology is just a 'thought-out response'

Apologia literally means 'speaking in defense'.

Again, if we are getting into semantics and all

smurgen · 28-03-2021 04:21PM

McMurphy wrote: »

His script writers didn't cover every base it would seem.

Hopefully he'll get to use a mean girl quote or two when he visits the Gardai station.

skimpydoo · 28-03-2021 09:05PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

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.

That's Leo for ya. Who knows what he will do next?

skimpydoo · 28-03-2021 09:12PM

smurgen wrote: »

Hopefully he'll get to use a mean girl quote or two when he visits the Gardai station.

Like this one?

I'm sorry that people are so jealous of me. But I can't help it that I'm popular.

Or this one?

Hell, no. I did *not* leave the South Side for this!

28-03-2021 10:09PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

It does indeed.

I know that's not what you mean, but this is another tangent, and when the actual law is brought up and it doesn't suit the narrative, it's just ignored.

The law clearly states that trade unions discussing trade union matters that affect its members do not have to be registered as a lobbying motion. That makes most of Muahahaha's point above, junk.

And yes, NAGP was registered as a trade union.

I don't know what specific benefits there might be to registering a lobbying motion, but the law seems to suggest, in no uncertain terms, that registering a motion when having communications that relate to the employment/working conditions of a trade union's members, is entirely optional.

I see that SIPTU has had 92 lobbying motions recorded in the last 5 years.

I'm going to guess they contacted and received information from the government and state representatives a bit more than 92 times in 5 years however. And that's fine. That's protected under the law.

Trade unions are exempt from lobbying. Except they aren't. But they are. And anyone who disagrees is wrong as the act clearly says they're exempt. Except the act says they aren't exempt, only certain activities by them are exempt.

For someone who's incredibly condescending, it's laughable just how irrational your contributions are.

The actual Legislation is very clear, the only activity exempted is:

(f) communications forming part of, or directly related to, negotiations on terms and conditions of employment undertaken by representatives of a trade union on behalf of its members;

The NAGP was not engaged in negotiations on terms and conditions of employment, and it had no mandate (via a ballot or otherwise) to do such.

Please note that 'negotiation' and 'informal chats on how an actual negotiation between a rival trade union and the government would affect its members' are not the same thing. Please also note that 'trade union matters' are not exempted, only communications that form part of or are directly related to negotiations.

It's one thing to be wrong, it's another thing to be wrong while being this arrogant and condescending about it.

Muahahaha · 28-03-2021 10:18PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

It does indeed.

I know that's not what you mean, but this is another tangent, and when the actual law is brought up and it doesn't suit the narrative, it's just ignored.

The law clearly states that trade unions discussing trade union matters that affect its members do not have to be registered as a lobbying motion. That makes most of Muahahaha's point above, junk.

If my post is junk then tell is why did the NAGP register no less than 53 times that they lobbied the government? Its all there on the lobbyists register, emails, meetings and phone calls will many politicians. Have a read of it for yourself https://www.lobbying.ie/app/home/search?currentPage=0&pageSize=10&queryText=national%20association%20of%20general%20practitioners&subjectMatters=&subjectMatterAreas=&period=&returnDateFrom=&returnDateTo=&lobbyistId=&dpo=&publicBodys=&jobTitles=&client=

Your position is daft, on one hand you are claiming that they are not lobbyists yet the NAGP themselves think otherwise and duly registered themselves as lobbyists AND made no less than 53 returns onto the lobbyist register. Does not compute.

James Brown · 28-03-2021 10:30PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Quoting from the legislation:

Communications forming part of, or directly related to, negotiations on terms and conditions of employment undertaken by representatives of a trade union on behalf of its members.

Communications forming part of, or directly related to: yes
negotiations on terms and conditions of employment: yes
undertaken by representatives of a trade union on behalf of its members: depends

It was expected that the members of that trade union would be signing up to those terms and conditions, though that same trade union had not negotiated those terms and conditions in the first place. The purpose of providing the information to the president of the NAGP has been specifically defined as being to aid in the convincing of those members of the union to accede to that agreement.

The spirit of the law is clearly to safeguard unions conducting union business. It would be a hard job to argue that the president of the NAGP did not represent the NAGP, nor that the GP agreement did not concern GPs who were members of that union.

Just as an aside, the law also specifies that communication does not have to be in a formal setting, but can be entirely informal.

Edit: Looking more closely at the legislation, it seems that O'Tuanthail's actions can only be considered lobbying if it was done on behalf of NAGP members, but lobbying performed by trade unions (and similar organizations) are afforded a great deal of protection in relation to communication on behalf of their members.

I'll finally say on this week's effort that Varadkar and zero craic were not negotiators and therefore not privy to the confidential document and zero craic was not a lobbyist with a right to view the confidential document.
What you are selling would mean anytime there's a negotiation anyone with an interest should get a copy of any confidential negotiation document. That is not the case.

Pintman Paddy Losty · 28-03-2021 10:35PM

https://twitter.com/dubslife1/status/1376240256341663752?s=19

I see the #leotheleak crowd have taken to abusing him while he's out walking now.

It's disappointing but unsurprising that there is homophobic abuse being levelled at him on twitter.

"Him and the lad on the way back from a cruising spot" "Looks like the two boys are taking cockdown very well" etc.

I'm sure the regulars here will claim that it's staged and really it's a YFG who did it. Anything but own the barely concealed veil of homophobia in people obsession with Varadkar.

Suckit · 28-03-2021 10:41PM

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

https://twitter.com/dubslife1/status/1376240256341663752?s=19

I see the #leotheleak crowd have taken to abusing him while he's out walking now.

It's disappointing but unsurprising that there is homophobic abuse being levelled at him on twitter.

"Him and the lad on the way back from a cruising spot" "Looks like the two boys are taking cockdown very well" etc.

I'm sure the regulars here will claim that it's staged and really it's a YFG who did it. Anything but own the barely concealed veil of homophobia in people obsession with Varadkar.

I haven't watched it yet.

I would say you were sitting there waiting for something like this to deflect, shout homophobia etc.. rubbing your hands when whatever this is appeared on your twitter feed.

Nothing at all to do with the leak. But what does that matter?

EDIT - FFS..

That is poor by any standards. Desperate attempt.

McMurphy · 28-03-2021 10:43PM

That lad called him "a useless wanker". I'm not seeing the homophobic angle you're going with paddy, is it only gays that can be useless and ****?

Your man was out of line, I wouldn't lower myself to be roaring at any politician in public, further still I'd definitely not be roaring "useless wanker" at them, but that aside - you're seeing homophobic abuse where there is none that I can see.

Suckit · 28-03-2021 10:44PM

The edit doesn't appear as 'edited' because the video is about 2 seconds long. Jaysus.

Nobotty · 28-03-2021 10:44PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

If my post is junk then tell is why did the NAGP register no less than 53 times that they lobbied the government? Its all there on the lobbyists register, emails, meetings and phone calls will many politicians. Have a read of it for yourself https://www.lobbying.ie/app/home/search?currentPage=0&pageSize=10&queryText=national%20association%20of%20general%20practitioners&subjectMatters=&subjectMatterAreas=&period=&returnDateFrom=&returnDateTo=&lobbyistId=&dpo=&publicBodys=&jobTitles=&client=

Because they were an amatuerish organisation run by an obvious pack of amatuers with,it seems from the nature of various leaked whatsapp's an extremely immature inexperienced and naive person IMO heading them who happened to be friendly with an equally naive Taoiseach
Naevity on both sides thats ruined a political career
Not to the detriment of the country mind you
The country is indebted to them both for the results of their stupidity,a quickening of Madam Taoiseach's election by the next Dáil

28-03-2021 10:45PM

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

https://twitter.com/dubslife1/status/1376240256341663752?s=19

I see the #leotheleak crowd have taken to abusing him while he's out walking now.

It's disappointing but unsurprising that there is homophobic abuse being levelled at him on twitter.

"Him and the lad on the way back from a cruising spot" "Looks like the two boys are taking cockdown very well" etc.

I'm sure the regulars here will claim that it's staged and really it's a YFG who did it. Anything but own the barely concealed veil of homophobia in people obsession with Varadkar.

The video in question had no homophobic elements to it.

Of the 12 replies,

3 consisted of crying with laughter emojis
3 were negative tweets about the person shouting at Leo
1 was an ad for a charity
2 were negative about leo but didn't mention, refer to or imply anything about his sexuality
1 was a negative tweet about the act itself
1 was a comment that they thought he was under 24 hour armed protection
And the remaining one doesn't show up for me.

Why are you being misleading?

The only person so far that seems to be obsessed with Leo's sexuality is you.

28-03-2021 10:47PM

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

https://twitter.com/dubslife1/status/1376240256341663752?s=19

I see the #leotheleak crowd have taken to abusing him while he's out walking now.

It's disappointing but unsurprising that there is homophobic abuse being levelled at him on twitter.

"Him and the lad on the way back from a cruising spot" "Looks like the two boys are taking cockdown very well" etc.

I'm sure the regulars here will claim that it's staged and really it's a YFG who did it. Anything but own the barely concealed veil of homophobia in people obsession with Varadkar.

Nice try, 1 out out 10!

Bubbaclaus · 28-03-2021 10:50PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The video in question had no homophobic elements to it.

Of the 12 replies,

3 consisted of crying with laughter emojis
3 were negative tweets about the person shouting at Leo
1 was an ad for a charity
2 were negative about leo but didn't mention, refer to or imply anything about his sexuality
1 was a negative tweet about the act itself
1 was a comment that they thought he was under 24 hour armed protection
And the remaining one doesn't show up for me.

Why are you being misleading?

The only person so far that seems to be obsessed with Leo's sexuality is you.

Pretty sure he is on about these types of tweets.

https://twitter.com/_boyscrytoo/status/1376251349906681857?s=19

Pintman Paddy Losty · 28-03-2021 10:54PM

Read the quote tweets lads. I'm not making it up. There's a very sinister element to the way he is attacked.

28-03-2021 10:56PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Pretty sure he is on about these types of tweets.

https://twitter.com/_boyscrytoo/status/1376251349906681857?s=19

Cool, I went through the 15 quote tweets now too:

9 are crying with laughter emojis
1 said they should have stopped and asked him some questions
1 said "Looks like the two boys are taking cockdown very well."
1 said "Him and the lad on the way back from the cruising spot"
1 commented on his boyfriends socks
& 2 were random comments

So that's 2 tweets out of 27 (i'm unsure if cockdown is actually a compliment, but will assume it's a slur). Sure does prove that he's being targeted and harassed out of a thinly-veiled homophobic obsession with him and not because of his behaviour and actions.

AdrianBalboa · 28-03-2021 10:59PM

“ i'm unsure if cockdown is actually a compliment”

Do me a favour. One homophobic tweet reply is one too many, and Leo doesn’t deserve to be jeered at while out for a walk in his personal time like that.

Suckit · 28-03-2021 11:00PM

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Read the quote tweets lads. I'm not making it up. There's a very sinister element to the way he is attacked.

Not worth the deflection..

https://i.postimg.cc/YC1M609K/Screenshot-2021-03-28-Dubs-life-on-Twitter.png

Fann Linn · 28-03-2021 11:01PM

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Read the quote tweets lads. I'm not making it up. There's a very sinister element to the way he is attacked.

Or one gob****e shouting at two lads out for a walk Paddy.

28-03-2021 11:02PM

AdrianBalboa wrote: »

“ i'm unsure if cockdown is actually a compliment”

Do me a favour. One homophobic tweet reply is one too many, and Leo doesn’t deserve to be jeered at while out for a walk in his personal time like that.

'Do me a favour,' don't be dishonest and create strawmans.

I never suggested Leo deserved to be jeered at, nor did I say any level of homophobic abuse is acceptable.
I was replying to someone who conflated disliking or having an issue with Varadkar's behaviour with being homophobic, and implied that a 'barely concealed veil of homophobia' was prevalent.

Anything but own the barely concealed veil of homophobia in people obsession with Varadkar.

28-03-2021 11:08PM

Surprised there wasn't more pirate flags and #think32 in the profiles tbh.

Suckit · 28-03-2021 11:09PM

I'm pretty sure Leo has been more insulting to others, on the record than anything in that tweet or comments.

But not sure what the issue is, because if that tweet gets x amount of likes, Leo will say he was all for it anyway.

28-03-2021 11:13PM

Suckit wrote: »

I'm pretty sure Leo has been more insulting to others, on the record than anything in that tweet or comments.

Any examples?

James Brown · 28-03-2021 11:24PM

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

https://twitter.com/dubslife1/status/1376240256341663752?s=19

I see the #leotheleak crowd have taken to abusing him while he's out walking now.

It's disappointing but unsurprising that there is homophobic abuse being levelled at him on twitter.

"Him and the lad on the way back from a cruising spot" "Looks like the two boys are taking cockdown very well" etc.

I'm sure the regulars here will claim that it's staged and really it's a YFG who did it. Anything but own the barely concealed veil of homophobia in people obsession with Varadkar.

'Own'? The idea that we've FG on the one hand and everyone critical of FG all part of the same homogeneous group on the other is worryingly simplistic.
If you can find any homophobia report it.

Suckit · 28-03-2021 11:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Any examples?

Plenty. And I am glad you asked.

First, could you please point to a 'nasty' comment under that tweet that was made before I posted and I will happily provide one *worse that was made by Leo.

*subject to popular consensus if the comment linked is debatable.

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

Comments