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

skimpydoo · 30-03-2021 10:00PM

James Brown wrote: »

This will only bring down the government if he's charged and MM and ER show some ethics, which I don't expect.

When was the last time a government TD showed some ethics? It's not in their makeup or vocabulary.

James Brown · 30-03-2021 10:02PM

skimpydoo wrote: »

When was the last time a government TD showed some ethics? It's not in their makeup or vocabulary.

Roisin Shortall quitting Labour because they sat on their hands while FG got all crony.

skimpydoo · 30-03-2021 10:06PM

James Brown wrote: »

Roisin Shortall quitting Labour because they sat on their hands while FG got all crony.

Well spotted, but that's once in a lifetime and I don't know a FF or FG TD who would do what she did.

RandomName2 · 30-03-2021 10:47PM

skimpydoo wrote: »

When was the last time a government TD showed some ethics? It's not in their makeup or vocabulary.

Depends on whether you are talking principle or ethics. The first is usually clear, the second usually subjective.

Boland and Haughey for instance quit the Dail based predominantly on principle. Jim McDaid also quit as a TD based on principal. Technically.

For leaving a governing party (without resigning as TDs) we similarly have Lucinda Creighton (or Peadar Toibin similarly from a non-governing party).

Personally I wouldn't have time for any of these decisions, or any of the politicians (Creighton and Toibin aren't all that bad, but I probably wouldn't vote for either of their parties)

In terms of ethics I would consider Desmond O'Malley a worthwhile candidate.

As for Roisin Shorthall resigning due to ethics due to the 'cronyism' of Fine Gael, I think the fact that her party was rapidly hemorrhaging support would have had some bearing. They chose to back those water charges, they chose to say that 'you just say things to get elected', they chose to meddle ineffectively in education. They were also unfortunate to be taking charge at one of the worst times, economically. If we are looking for any resignation that was not motivated by either a large degree of expediency, or by being forced, I think the candidates would be very few indeed.

blanch152 · 30-03-2021 10:57PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the charge is that he gained political advantage (eg. NAGP didn't stand candidates against FG) then that will be enough. If the charge is that somebody else received advantage from the act of leaking the document, the same applies.
The 'burden' falls on the defendant to disprove that. The significant change that has been made prosecution of corruption cases easier in Ireland.

Not a word of that is wrong.

It has to be PROOF that he gained political advantage. That is where your misunderstanding arises from.

The whole premise of your post is wrong.

But, as Pintman said, how many times does it have to be explained to you?

Peter Flynt · 30-03-2021 11:13PM

blanch152 wrote: »

It has to be PROOF that he gained political advantage. That is where your misunderstanding arises from.

The whole premise of your post is wrong.

But, as Pintman said, how many times does it have to be explained to you?

Perhaps Varadkar wasn't looking for political advantage as he was sending a document to a 29 year old gay man who he may have a sexual interest in?

I don't recall any former Tanaiste sending documents to 29 year old females....

jmcc · 31-03-2021 04:49AM

It is fascinating to watch a crude attempt to shift the focus from Varadkar's action of leaking a confidential document to his friend to Varadkar's sexuality. The attempt to portray Varadkar as some kind of gay martyr who is is being held to a standard that would not apply if he was hetrosexual is laughable. It is an increasingly desperate attempt to deflect. Here are the facts:

Government (Department of Health) in contract negotiation with IMO, a competitor to NAGP.

NAGP sends a letter to FG TDs which mentions NAGP members campaigning against FG in election. (NAGP/Heydon letter - February 2019)

O'Tuathail asks Simon Harris for copy of Government/IMO contract even though NAGP is not a party to these negotiations. Harris does not provide a copy of the confidential contract document. (April 2019)

O'Tuathail asks Leo Varadkar, the then taoiseach, for a copy of the Government/IMO contract. Varadkar gets a copy of the confidential contract document the same day and asks O'Tuathail for his home (not NAGP business address) and has the confidential document sent to O'Tuathail's home address. The confidential document is a draft as the contract between the government and the IMO has not been finalised. (10 April 2019)

Varadkar asks in e-mail when the IMO is publishing the contract and distributing it to its members. E-mail arguably shows that Varadkar is aware that the confidential document is not yet in the public domain. (10 April 2019)

O'Tuathail announces to other NAGP "inner sanctum" members that he has a copy of the confidential government/IMO contract. Simon Harris, Minister for Health, still trying to get a copy of draft contract but NAGP, an organisation not party to the contract negotiations, has a copy that was leaked to O'Tuathail by Leo Varadkar. NAGP "inner sanctum" members aware that leaked document must remain "confidential". (approximately 17 April 2019)

NAGP went into voluntary liquidation in May 2019.

Regards...jmcc

McMurphy · 31-03-2021 08:08AM

jmcc wrote: »

It is fascinating to watch a crude attempt to shift the focus from Varadkar's action of leaking a confidential document to his friend to Varadkar's sexuality. The attempt to portray Varadkar as some kind of gay martyr who is is being held to a standard that would not apply if he was hetrosexual is laughable. It is an increasingly desperate attempt to deflect. Here are the facts:

Government (Department of Health) in contract negotiation with IMO, a competitor to NAGP.

NAGP sends a letter to FG TDs which mentions NAGP members campaigning against FG in election. (NAGP/Heydon letter - February 2019)

O'Tuathail asks Simon Harris for copy of Government/IMO contract even though NAGP is not a party to these negotiations. Harris does not provide a copy of the confidential contract document. (April 2019)

O'Tuathail asks Leo Varadkar, the then taoiseach, for a copy of the Government/IMO contract. Varadkar gets a copy of the confidential contract document the same day and asks O'Tuathail for his home (not NAGP business address) and has the confidential document sent to O'Tuathail's home address. The confidential document is a draft as the contract between the government and the IMO has not been finalised. (10 April 2019)

Varadkar asks in e-mail when the IMO is publishing the contract and distributing it to its members. E-mail arguably shows that Varadkar is aware that the confidential document is not yet in the public domain. (10 April 2019)

O'Tuathail announces to other NAGP "inner sanctum" members that he has a copy of the confidential government/IMO contract. Simon Harris, Minister for Health, still trying to get a copy of draft contract but NAGP, an organisation not party to the contract negotiations, has a copy that was leaked to O'Tuathail by Leo Varadkar. NAGP "inner sanctum" members aware that leaked document must remain "confidential". (approximately 17 April 2019)

NAGP went into voluntary liquidation in May 2019.

Regards...jmcc

This is it in a nutshell jmcc, it is important not to lose track of the facts of what took place here and not let the thread be dragged off on a tangent about "homophobia"

One comment here from user Ha Long Bay says "it's common for users to set up accounts named after Leos partner"

Hạ Long Bay wrote: »

Unfortunately it's fairly common and unexpected on here for example posters creating accounts using the Tánaiste's partners name as a username.

But they gave no examples to back up their claim - just how "common" is it for users to do this?

To me, and I'm sure the vast, vast majority of Irish electorate, Leo's sexuality is a complete and utter irrelevance, what any adult gets up to with any other adult is completely and utterly fine with me, that goes for politicians of any hue, or anyone else. I'm farily liberal, work away and enjoy yourselves lads and ladies.

It shouldn't be allowed to be used to derail this thread however, and once again the people I note keep bringing up his sexuality are those defending him and trying to brush his leaking documents under the carpet.

Hopefully the mods will clamp down on it.

Bubbaclaus · 31-03-2021 08:19AM

McMurphy wrote: »

One comment here from user Bubbaclaus says "it's common for users to set up accounts named after Leos partner"
But they gave no examples to back up their claim - just how "common" is it for users to do this?

Sorry McMurphy, are you making things up once again? If you are going to claim I said something then quote my post.

McMurphy wrote: »

It shouldn't be allowed to be used to derail this thread however, and once again the people I note keep bringing up his sexuality are those defending him and trying to brush his leaking documents under the carpet.

Hopefully the mods will clamp down on it.

I find it pretty deplorable that your main issue is with the people calling out the homophobia of that poster last night, rather than the posts that poster made.

jmcc · 31-03-2021 08:40AM

McMurphy wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell jmcc, it is important not to lose track of the facts of what took place here and not let the thread be dragged off on a tangent about "homophobia"

Yep. The NAGP/Heydon letter is the actually the most damaging aspect but a lot of commentary seems to be ignoring it. The phrase "political advantage" was mentioned up-thread and the letter warns FG of the electoral implications of NAGP members campaigning against FG in elections. NAGP went into voluntary liquidation in May 2019 and I think that some of the newspaper coverage mentioned that members were holding off on paying subscriptions until they found out what the IMO contract contained.

The optics are terrible: an organisation which has members holding off paying subscriptions until they know what the IMO contract contains and which is not involved in DoH/IMO contract negotiations tries to obtain the DoH/IMO contract from the Minister for Health. The Minister for Health does not provide it. O'Tuathail then contacts his friend Varadkar, the taoiseach, for a copy of this confidential document and Varadkar obtains it and sends it to O'Tuathil's home address the same day. Varadkar does not mention that he wanted the draft contract to provide to his friend.

If it was simply to bring NAGP onboard then why didn't Varadkar send it to NAGP's business address? Was O'Tuathail a registered lobbyist for NAGP?

The board of NAGP resigned on 28 April 2019. NAGP went into voluntary liquidation with debts of 400K Euro approximately a month after Varadkar leaked the confidential document to his friend.

Regards...jmcc

McMurphy · 31-03-2021 08:58AM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Sorry McMurphy, are you making things up once again? If you are going to claim I said something then quote my post.

Check my post again.

I find it pretty deplorable that your main issue is with the people calling out the homophobia of that poster last night, rather than the posts that poster made.

I find it deplorable to imply there's homophobia where none exists. What exactly are you referring to as homophobic? Perhaps your definition and mine differ of what exactly it means to be homophobic?

Implying Leo leaked the document because Leo is gay, trying to curry flavour for another man, who is also gay, might be off the mark, but it's hardly homophobic.

If a gay man gets jealous, of his partner doing a favour for another man and says something along the line of them "only doing it to flirt" (as I'm sure happens just as much in homosexual relationships, as it undoubtedly happens in hetrosexual relationships) is that "homophobic" too?

Course it isn't.

It's a ridiculous notion.

Baggly · 31-03-2021 09:18AM

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Perhaps Varadkar wasn't looking for political advantage as he was sending a document to a 29 year old gay man who he may have a sexual interest in?

I don't recall any former Tanaiste sending documents to 29 year old females....

Mod

Dont post in this thread again.

@everyone else: if someone posts something that is an issue, report it and then leave it. Dont engage it or the thread gets clogged up with homophobic nonsense in the form of the posts you quote.

Baggly · 31-03-2021 09:32AM

Mod

Rake of posts deleted. What a waste of everyones time. In future, report and leave it. Thread veered wildly off topic because people couldnt help but engage the homephobic stuff instead of letting a mod deal with it.

Bubbaclaus · 31-03-2021 10:49AM

McMurphy wrote: »

Check my post again.

I find it deplorable to imply there's homophobia where none exists. What exactly are you referring to as homophobic? Perhaps your definition and mine differ of what exactly it means to be homophobic?

Implying Leo leaked the document because Leo is gay, trying to curry flavour for another man, who is also gay, might be off the mark, but it's hardly homophobic.

If a gay man gets jealous, of his partner doing a favour for another man and says something along the line of them "only doing it to flirt" (as I'm sure happens just as much in homosexual relationships, as it undoubtedly happens in hetrosexual relationships) is that "homophobic" too?

Course it isn't.

It's a ridiculous notion.

Well thanks for editing your post after the fact, but it is still unclear as to why you said me in the first place.

Clearly your definition of homophobic is different to mine alright if you don't think that posters stream of posts were an issue. Glad to see the mod has dealt with it and it won't be returning.

Baggly · 31-03-2021 10:52AM

Mod

GET BACK ON TOPIC FOLKS. THAT TOPIC BEING THE LEO VARADKAR STORY RE ALLEGEDLY LEAKING DOCS.

ohnonotgmail · 31-03-2021 11:10AM

blanch152 wrote: »

It has to be PROOF that he gained political advantage. That is where your misunderstanding arises from.

The whole premise of your post is wrong.

But, as Pintman said, how many times does it have to be explained to you?

there is no requirement that the advantage gained is political

a gift, consideration or advantage has been—

the word political is not mentioned.

McMurphy · 31-03-2021 11:13AM

jmcc wrote: »

Yep. The NAGP/Heydon letter is the actually the most damaging aspect but a lot of commentary seems to be ignoring it. The phrase "political advantage" was mentioned up-thread and the letter warns FG of the electoral implications of NAGP members campaigning against FG in elections. NAGP went into voluntary liquidation in May 2019 and I think that some of the newspaper coverage mentioned that members were holding off on paying subscriptions until they found out what the IMO contract contained.

The optics are terrible: an organisation which has members holding off paying subscriptions until they know what the IMO contract contains and which is not involved in DoH/IMO contract negotiations tries to obtain the DoH/IMO contract from the Minister for Health. The Minister for Health does not provide it. O'Tuathail then contacts his friend Varadkar, the taoiseach, for a copy of this confidential document and Varadkar obtains it and sends it to O'Tuathil's home address the same day. Varadkar does not mention that he wanted the draft contract to provide to his friend.

If it was simply to bring NAGP onboard then why didn't Varadkar send it to NAGP's business address? Was O'Tuathail a registered lobbyist for NAGP?

The board of NAGP resigned on 28 April 2019. NAGP went into voluntary liquidation with debts of 400K Euro approximately a month after Varadkar leaked the confidential document to his friend.

Regards...jmcc

Odd alright, considering NAGP were literally situated in Kildare street. A 2 minute walk from Leinster House.

Not a good look at all.

blanch152 · 31-03-2021 11:33AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is no requirement that the advantage gained is political

the word political is not mentioned.

Yes, of course. However, the poster was alleging political advantage and mentioned it in the post. My point was around proof of the advantage (whether political or something else) being required before the burden of proof shifts.

Rows Grower · 31-03-2021 11:38AM

There's no getting away from the fact that Leo leaked a confidential document to friend of his who had threatened to do damage to the party Leo was leader of if he didn't.

And he was caught, and what he did was against the law.

RandomName2 · 31-03-2021 11:42AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the word political is not mentioned.

Maybe it would improve his luck in the lotto.

McMurphy wrote: »

Not a good look at all.

You can refer back to previous posts without having to repost.

Trade union saber rattling in relation to work conditions is nothing new. NAGP were very vocal in their disdain for the government - you can check their many, many twitter posts complaining about the government if you want proof of this.

Asking for better work conditions for those you represent is a legitimate activity of a trade union. That's literally what they are supposed to do. We still see O'Thuanthail publicly demanding better conditions for GPs and he's not even a representative of a union any more.

Electoral threats posed by trade unions are fairly toothless tigers. What are they gonna do, run independent candidates? Nonetheless as a union member I would want my union to be bellicose than placidly accept conditions that the members were against.

Not that they were successful to that end. They weren't consulted for the GP agreement. They were frozen out. Their opposition to medical cards for under 6s were dismissed. As a pathetic gesture of good will Varadkar gave the information about the concluded agreement to the heads of NAGP. Didn't even release it to the thousands of members of the NAGP, just to the heads. Any old member of the IMO had had access to this agreement, but the NAGP were treated like lepers.

What was you point again?

McMurphy · 31-03-2021 12:00PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

You can refer back to previous posts without having to repost.

Of course you can, but the letter with the Kildare street address at the bottom is kind of pertinent to the point being made.

Hence why i reposted. It's important not to lose sight of, or to forget little details like that.

RandomName2 · 31-03-2021 12:01PM

Rows Grower wrote: »

There's no getting away from the fact that Leo leaked a confidential document to friend of his

Well knock me down with a feather.

I am not saying this is not accurate, but as I keep saying, if people are not able to post something where the salient points are nothing other than 'friend' leak' 'leo' then it's just a rehash of something that has been said over, and over again, month on month. Just bringing something up without adding anything feels like it's being brought up just for the sake of it.

Bobby Story.

Rows Grower wrote: »

who had threatened to do damage to the party Leo was leader of if he didn't.

O'Thuanthail never threatened to do damage to Fine Gael. He was a clear supporter of Fine Gael. NAGP were clearly antagonistic to the government, and threatened they would advise their members to publicly denounce Fine Gael as a party which did not favor 'patient services in the community' if they weren't included in negotiations.

And well, they weren't included in negotiations. They complained about the government in their death rattle, as Fine Gael threw earth over the corpse of the organization.

Rows Grower wrote: »

And he was caught, and what he did was against the law.

No need for an investigation lads, Rows Grower has got this all worked out already.

jmcc · 31-03-2021 12:01PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Electoral threats posed by trade unions are fairly toothless tigers.

This electoral threat happens to be in a letter to FG TDs/the Heydon letter.

As a pathetic gesture of good will Varadkar gave the information about the concluded agreement to the heads of NAGP.

No. Varadkar leaked a confidential document, the draft of the agreement that had not been finalised, to his friend O'Tuathail.

The threat followed by the leak of the confidential document is the problem for Varadkar and FG.

Regards...jmcc

RandomName2 · 31-03-2021 12:06PM

McMurphy wrote: »

Of course you can, but the letter with the Kildare street address at the bottom is kind of pertinent to the point being made.

Being that..

NAGP was antagonistic to the government?
That they wanted to be, but were not, included in negotiations?
That they said that the government's strategy was actively harmful for local healthcare?

They should have hired better PR if you didn't already know that because they said all the above, all the time, on all their social media feeds.

McMurphy · 31-03-2021 12:09PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Being that..
NAGP was antagonistic to the government?

That they wanted to be, but were not, included in negotiations?

That they said that the government's strategy was actively harmful for local healthcare?

They should have hired better PR if you didn't already know that because they said all the above, all the time, on all their social media feeds.

No, the point made was varadkar chose to send it to zero Craic home address, rather than that of NAGP Kildare street address.

(But I think you knew that)

jmcc · 31-03-2021 12:11PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Being that..
NAGP was antagonistic to the government?

That they wanted to be, but were not, included in negotiations?

That they said that the government's strategy was actively harmful for local healthcare?

They should have hired better PR if you didn't already know that because they said all the above, all the time, on all their social media feeds.

Here's another problem for Varadkar, FG and NAGP:
Members were holding off paying subscriptions until they knew what was in the DoH/IMO contract. (NAGP went into voluntary liquidation in May 2019.)

Regards...jmcc

RandomName2 · 31-03-2021 12:25PM

McMurphy wrote: »

(But I think you knew that)

I certainly did not.

So you are saying that the official letter from NAGP is interesting solely because it includes NAGP's address? Why would headed paper include one of their member's home address?

It really doesn't matter whether information is sent to someone's office or home. The important bit is sending the information. So, if the information was couriered to O'Thuanthail's GP surgery it would make zero difference to this.

It could have been sent in plain post to the NAGP office, with it being addressed specifically to O'Thuanthail. Again, this doesn't really change much. It would actually be worse as basic post would be less reliable and secure than a courier. He could have done it by registered post I suppose.

And the point.. the point.. I think this is just a repost of the 'pal' posts. Is the sum and total worth of this point is that O'Thuanthail was a friend of Varadkar's?

McMurphy · 31-03-2021 12:33PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

I certainly did not.

So you are saying that the official letter from NAGP is interesting solely because it includes NAGP's address? Why would headed paper include one of their member's home address?

It really doesn't matter whether information is sent to someone's office or home. The important bit is sending the information. So, if the information was couriered to O'Thuanthail's GP surgery it would make zero difference to this.

It could have been sent in plain post to the NAGP office, with it being addressed specifically to O'Thuanthail. Again, this doesn't really change much. It would actually be worse as basic post would be less reliable and secure than a courier. He could have done it by registered post I suppose.

And the point.. the point.. I think this is just a repost of the 'pal' posts. Is the sum and total worth of this point is that O'Thuanthail was a friend of Varadkar's?

No.......

There's a seperate issue to the contents of the letter sent to Martin Heydon by NAGP.

That being (as has already been discussed and posted just this morning) that it was interesting Leo asked for his (OTuathail) home and private address, rather than send it to him at NAGP address on Kildare street.

Note, (this has been covered today also) this followed after OTuathail made his threat about standing against fg candidates, and placing anti fg propaganda in GPs surgeries if they didn't get the information they wanted.

Followed by NAGP tweeting at the end of April 2019 that many of its members still hadn't seen this agreement, and were holding off renewing subs until they had.

NAGP went into voluntarily liquidation in May 2019.

All been covered already.

RandomName2 · 31-03-2021 02:49PM

McMurphy wrote: »

No.......
That being (as has already been discussed and posted just this morning) that it was interesting Leo asked for his (OTuathail) home and private address, rather than send it to him at NAGP address on Kildare street.

I've already answered that it doesn't actually change anything in relation to this. If you are saying it is interesting from a motivation point of view, it presumably wouldn't be in terms of secrecy. Putting it in ordinary post, addressed specifically to O'Thuanthail would be more secretive than using a courier.

McMurphy wrote: »

Note, (this has been covered today also) this followed after OTuathail made his threat about standing against fg candidates, and placing anti fg propaganda in GPs surgeries if they didn't get the information they wanted.

I don't know why this keeps getting repeated. The threat was from Chris Goodey. A bit like the 'pal' jibes, it isn't really relevant that it was from Goodey rather than O'Thuanthail, the relevance (insofar that there is any, and there is not much) is that it was NAGP. In the same way that the address at which O'Thuanthail is being used to distract, so too is the person who sent the letter to that minister (he actually sent a lot of letters, as I said, NAGP did not exactly hold back in its criticisms). Distract from what? Surely the salient aspect is the information.

As I said in the deleted post, relating to the scrubbing of the homophobic stuff, it all feels like the distraction is meant to point at back-door shenanegans without actually being specific. It isn't relevant that O'Thuanthail was a friend of Varadkar's, what matters is whether the information disclosure is in break of the Official Secrets Act, and whether material gain was afforded to Varadkar through the transaction.

McMurphy · 31-03-2021 03:05PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

I've already answered that it doesn't actually change anything in relation to this. If you are saying it is interesting from a motivation point of view, it presumably wouldn't be in terms of secrecy. Putting it in ordinary post, addressed specifically to O'Thuanthail would be more secretive than using a courier.

It's significant because it looks like Leo was sending it to OTuathail in a personal capacity, rather than sending it to him via NAGP Kildare street address - IE an official capacity.

It's like a supplier sending Xmas gifts to a purchaser from within a company to the purchasers home address. happens all the time within my industry, bottle of fancy whiskey/gin etc sent to an individual's home address to ensure they enjoy it personally.

Also, it's still to be clarified whether Leo sent it via courier/taxi (both of which I reckon would be fairly traceable) or just good old fashioned post. Not so traceable.

I don't know why this keeps getting repeated. The threat was from Chris Goodey. A bit like the 'pal' jibes, it isn't really relevant that it was from Goodey rather than O'Thuanthail, the relevance (insofar that there is any, and there is not much) is that it was NAGP. In the same way that the address at which O'Thuanthail is being used to distract, so too is the person who sent the letter to that minister (he actually sent a lot of letters, as I said, NAGP did not exactly hold back in its criticisms). Distract from what? Surely the salient aspect is the information.

As I said in the deleted post, relating to the scrubbing of the homophobic stuff, it all feels like the distraction is meant to point at back-door shenanegans without actually being specific. It isn't relevant that O'Thuanthail was a friend of Varadkar's, what matters is whether the information disclosure is in break of the Official Secrets Act, and whether material gain was afforded to Varadkar through the transaction.

My bad, I was confusing that letter and the one Zero Craic sent after the meeting that came on foot of the Goodey one.

Half a dozen of one and six of the other mind you.

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

Comments