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

Options
1…292293295297298…417

Comments

  • Options
    #8822
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,303 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Marine Layer wrote: »
    It is very relevant that no crime was admitted because at this point there isn't one
    Its also relevant to state that you back tracked in a discussion
    The latter may of course be an uncomfortable truth for you

    If you don't want to accept that I clarified what I said. So be it. Doesn't change a single thing. Take it handy.


  • Options
    #8823
    shatners bassoon
    Registered Users Posts: 187 ✭✭shatners bassoon


    I'm curious, is there anyone in the thread who thinks that an investigation is justified but that the facts don't support a criminal charge?

    Separately, for the pro FG / anti SF brigade, in particular Blach, Maryanne, Pintman et al:

    1. Why was a full investigation initiated? Do you think the opposition are 'at fault' for this and if so, what is your opinion of the Gardai's role?

    2. Do you think there's a party on the planet who would not seek to score political points if the deputy head of government was the subject of a police investigation?


  • Options
    #8824
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    If you don't want to accept that I clarified what I said. So be it. Doesn't change a single thing. Take it handy.

    I don't believe you wanted to clarify at all tbh
    An untruth was confronted with a truth
    It's that simple
    Lets move on


  • Options
    #8825
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Here's one , if the DPP decide to prosecute, what then for Leo, considering he's admitted, and apologised for leaking a confidential document to his friend?

    How would he plead?


  • Options
    #8826
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,303 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Here's one , if the DPP decide to prosecute, what then for Leo, considering he's admitted, and apologised for leaking a confidential document to his friend?

    How would he plead?

    Could he claim that a fair trial is prejudiced/impossible because...well...because he has already confessed to it?

    Very unprecedented situation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8827
    shatners bassoon
    Registered Users Posts: 187 ✭✭shatners bassoon


    Don't get either of your points here. If charged he's going to plead not guilty and seek to rely on various legal arguments relating to the legislation to try to escape conviction.

    Whether that works is another question.


  • Options
    #8828
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,302 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    shatners bassoon wrote: »
    I'm curious, is there anyone in the thread who thinks that an investigation is justified but that the facts don't support a criminal charge?

    Separately, for the pro FG / anti SF brigade, in particular Blach, Maryanne, Pintman et al:

    1. Why was a full investigation initiated? Do you think the opposition are 'at fault' for this and if so, what is your opinion of the Gardai's role?

    2. Do you think there's a party on the planet who would not seek to score political points if the deputy head of government was the subject of a police investigation?


    Once a complaint has been made to the Gardai, it must be investigated. I hold the view that the investigation is a waste of Garda time and effort and will ultimately go nowhere, as there will not be a conviction based on the publicly available evidence. Of course, there may be other evidence that we are unaware of. If so, so be it.

    As for other jurisdictions, we only have to look North and see that the precedent of not stepping aside was set by Michelle O'Neill and Conor Murphy when they were under police investigation for criminal behaviour.


  • Options
    #8829
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,302 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You interjected to state that because the government believed it was not a crime it was somehow not one.

    The government have no say in the matter. The wrongdoing that Varadkar confessed to will be determined as a crime or not by the Gardai handing a file n what they discover to the DPP and he decides if it was a crime under two pieces of legislation.

    So the Gardai and the DPP now determine what it a crime and what is not?

    When did the judiciary fail to have a say in this? Your lack of understanding of the process has been shown up more than once.


  • Options
    #8830
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    McMurphy wrote: »
    Here's one , if the DPP decide to prosecute, what then for Leo, considering he's admitted, and apologised for leaking a confidential document to his friend?

    How would he plead?

    I don't know
    What I do know is the government are so confident in that not happening that they've moved on
    Someone stepping aside would be an indication that they weren't
    Instead rather than set a precedent/opportunity for any Tom dick or Paddy Cosgrave to disrupt government they moved on whilst letting the process play out
    Their action is really that simple


  • Options
    #8831
    shatners bassoon
    Registered Users Posts: 187 ✭✭shatners bassoon


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Once a complaint has been made to the Gardai, it must be investigated. I hold the view that the investigation is a waste of Garda time and effort and will ultimately go nowhere, as there will not be a conviction based on the publicly available evidence. Of course, there may be other evidence that we are unaware of. If so, so be it.

    As for other jurisdictions, we only have to look North and see that the precedent of not stepping aside was set by Michelle O'Neill and Conor Murphy when they were under police investigation for criminal behaviour.

    1. The Gardai are obliged to look into the matter, they're not obliged to open a full-blown investigation which, as repeated ad nauseum by you and others in the thread, is not the same as an initial enquiry. You've already lost the argument on this regardless of whether any charges are brought. You said there was nothing in it. Clearly there is.

    2. I didn't ask about stepping aside. I asked whether you think FG or any other party in any other jurisdiction would seek to draw voters' attention to the fact that a deputy leader in an opposing party is under criminal investigation for political gain.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8832
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,303 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    So the Gardai and the DPP now determine what it a crime and what is not?

    When did the judiciary fail to have a say in this? Your lack of understanding of the process has been shown up more than once.

    The Gardai will prepare a file and the DPP will decide if a crime has been committed and prepare charges, Varadkar will either admit guilt or defend himself.
    You cannot 'charge' somebody with a crime if you don't think he/she committed one or if there is insufficient evidence...charges are dropped in that instance.

    The judge/jury will decide if the evidence backs up what a DPP has decided.

    What have I got wrong in my 'understanding'?


  • Options
    #8833
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,303 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Once a complaint has been made to the Gardai, it must be investigated. I hold the view that the investigation is a waste of Garda time and effort and will ultimately go nowhere, as there will not be a conviction based on the publicly available evidence. Of course, there may be other evidence that we are unaware of. If so, so be it.

    As for other jurisdictions, we only have to look North and see that the precedent of not stepping aside was set by Michelle O'Neill and Conor Murphy when they were under police investigation for criminal behaviour.

    Point of information: Surely the 'precedent' if such a thing is relevant to anything here, was set by Arlene Foster?


  • Options
    #8834
    zanador
    Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭zanador


    shatners bassoon wrote: »
    I'm curious, is there anyone in the thread who thinks that an investigation is justified but that the facts don't support a criminal charge?

    Separately, for the pro FG / anti SF brigade, in particular Blach, Maryanne, Pintman et al:

    1. Why was a full investigation initiated? Do you think the opposition are 'at fault' for this and if so, what is your opinion of the Gardai's role?

    2. Do you think there's a party on the planet who would not seek to score political points if the deputy head of government was the subject of a police investigation?

    I think he should step aside and then if he's found innocent just step back in. It's not a huge deal in that way, happens all the time and shows the public that there is transparency and not closed ranks. Whatever the reasons for, feelings on, he's under criminal investigation and holds public office.

    Point two, I hate politics for that reason - the idea of 'scoring points'. In my little utopia it's about doing what's right.

    I can't remember if it was Denmark or Germany but when their health minister got covid they called in their shadow minister rather than their junior one due to their experience.


  • Options
    #8835
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You cannot 'charge' somebody with a crime if you don't think he/she committed one or if there is insufficient evidence...charges are dropped in that instance.

    Or noone is charged at all in which case there is nothing to drop
    Important to include that too
    The justice system is not a charade to be used for political purposes
    You'd swear the opposite with what I've had to reply to here

    It really is that simple


  • Options
    #8836
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,302 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    zanador wrote: »
    I think he should step aside and then if he's found innocent just step back in. It's not a huge deal in that way, happens all the time and shows the public that there is transparency and not closed ranks. Whatever the reasons for, feelings on, he's under criminal investigation and holds public office.

    Point two, I hate politics for that reason - the idea of 'scoring points'. In my little utopia it's about doing what's right.

    I can't remember if it was Denmark or Germany but when their health minister got covid they called in their shadow minister rather than their junior one due to their experience.

    It doesn't happen all the time, it didn't happen in the North earlier this year and last.

    Where it would be necessary for him to step aside would be if the Dail voted to censure him.


  • Options
    #8837
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,302 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The Gardai will prepare a file and the DPP will decide if a crime has been committed and prepare charges, Varadkar will either admit guilt or defend himself.
    You cannot 'charge' somebody with a crime if you don't think he/she committed one or if there is insufficient evidence...charges are dropped in that instance.

    The judge/jury will decide if the evidence backs up what a DPP has decided.

    What have I got wrong in my 'understanding'?

    The DPP doesn't decide if a crime has been committed. If the DPP believes that a crime has been committed, and believes that there is sufficient evidence to lay criminal charges against a person for that crime, then charges will be brought. He doesn't decide that a crime has been committed.

    The first task of the Court is to rule on the issue of whether a crime has been committed. In the extremely unlikely event that this goes to court, Varadkar will plead not guilty on the basis that no crime was committed. The DPP will have to prove to the judge that the relevant law was broken.

    It is the same in every case. If someone is accused of robbery in court and claims that they were donated the goods in question, the DPP has to prove first that there actually was a crime.

    You are just trying to frame a narrative in advance by putting forward misguided concepts.


  • Options
    #8838
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,303 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Marine Layer wrote: »
    Or noone is charged at all in which case there is nothing to drop
    Important to include that too
    The justice system is not a charade to be used for political purposes
    You'd swear the opposite with what I've had to reply to here

    It really is that simple

    The Tanaiste has confessed to wrongdoing in leaking a confidential document.
    Gardai are investigating to find evidence and to present that evidence to the DPP who will decide if it is a crime under 2 pieces of legislation.

    At any time, those proceedings may stop, as long as they are in train, this is a story, political or otherwise.

    You are wilfully missing the 'if' in all of this. If no evidence or insufficient evidence is found, there will be no charges. If evidence is found, charges will be made. If the evidence is found to be insufficient by the judge/jury, the charges will be dropped. If the evidence is found to prove the crime, he will be found guilty as charged.


  • Options
    #8839
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,303 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The DPP doesn't decide if a crime has been committed. If the DPP believes that a crime has been committed, and believes that there is sufficient evidence to lay criminal charges against a person for that crime, then charges will be brought. He doesn't decide that a crime has been committed.

    The first task of the Court is to rule on the issue of whether a crime has been committed. In the extremely unlikely event that this goes to court, Varadkar will plead not guilty on the basis that no crime was committed. The DPP will have to prove to the judge that the relevant law was broken.

    It is the same in every case. If someone is accused of robbery in court and claims that they were donated the goods in question, the DPP has to prove first that there actually was a crime.

    You are just trying to frame a narrative in advance by putting forward misguided concepts.

    The DPP will review the evidence collected by the Gardai and will not proceed if he/she believes no crime was committed, if he/she believes a crime was committed he/she will prosecute.

    How is that any different to what I said?


  • Options
    #8840
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,302 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The DPP will review the evidence collected by the Gardai and will not proceed if he/she believes no crime was committed, if he/she believes a crime was committed he/she will prosecute.

    How is that any different to what I said?
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The Gardai will prepare a file and the DPP will decide if a crime has been committed and prepare charges, Varadkar will either admit guilt or defend himself.
    You cannot 'charge' somebody with a crime if you don't think he/she committed one or if there is insufficient evidence...charges are dropped in that instance.

    The judge/jury will decide if the evidence backs up what a DPP has decided.

    What have I got wrong in my 'understanding'?


    The difference between believing and deciding is obvious.


  • Options
    #8841
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,302 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The Tanaiste has confessed to wrongdoing in leaking a confidential document.
    Gardai are investigating to find evidence and to present that evidence to the DPP who will decide if it is a crime under 2 pieces of legislation.

    At any time, those proceedings may stop, as long as they are in train, this is a story, political or otherwise.

    You are wilfully missing the 'if' in all of this. If no evidence or insufficient evidence is found, there will be no charges. If evidence is found, charges will be made. If the evidence is found to be insufficient by the judge/jury, the charges will be dropped. If the evidence is found to prove the crime, he will be found guilty as charged.

    Please provide a link to where the Tanaiste confessed to wrongdoing in leaking a confidential document.

    This has been exhausted many many times and your error has been pointed out to you time and again. The Tanaiste stated that the way in which he shared a document was wrong, but he did not say that the act of sharing the document was wrong.

    There is an important distinction which you are repeatedly ignoring.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8842
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,303 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Please provide a link to where the Tanaiste confessed to wrongdoing in leaking a confidential document.

    This has been exhausted many many times and your error has been pointed out to you time and again. The Tanaiste stated that the way in which he shared a document was wrong, but he did not say that the act of sharing the document was wrong.

    There is an important distinction which you are repeatedly ignoring.

    I don't recognise the distinction.

    The method (leaking it) is the issue.


  • Options
    #8843
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Due process needs to be followed. Kangaroo courts might appeal to some folks, but those days are over in Ireland.


  • Options
    #8844
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,303 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The difference between believing and deciding is obvious.

    ??

    decide, determine, settle, rule, resolve mean to come or cause to come to a conclusion

    The DPP makes a decision on whether to proceed or not. i.E. He/she decides to prosecute because he/she decides a crime was committed. If he/she has insufficient evidence he/she is compelled to decide no crime was committed.

    The judge/jury decides whether the evidence backs up that or not by weighing up the defence and prosecution's case.


  • Options
    #8845
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The Tanaiste has confessed to wrongdoing in leaking a confidential document.
    Gardai are investigating to find evidence and to present that evidence to the DPP who will decide if it is a crime under 2 pieces of legislation.

    At any time, those proceedings may stop, as long as they are in train, this is a story, political or otherwise.

    You are wilfully missing the 'if' in all of this. If no evidence or insufficient evidence is found, there will be no charges. If evidence is found, charges will be made. If the evidence is found to be insufficient by the judge/jury, the charges will be dropped. If the evidence is found to prove the crime, he will be found guilty as charged.
    Yeah,if I had a Fanny,I'd be a woman
    That type of charade?
    The justice system is not a charade
    The government are so confident in their position on this that noone is stepping aside
    No president created for any tom dick or paddy cosgrave to in their opinion spuriously interupt government in any way
    They've moved on and let the process play out
    It really is that simple


  • Options
    #8846
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,303 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Marine Layer wrote: »
    Yeah,if I had a Fanny,I'd be a woman
    That type of charade?
    The justice system is not a charade
    The government are so confident in their position on this that noone is stepping aside
    No president created for any tom dick or paddy cosgrave to in their opinion spuriously interupt government in any way
    They've moved on and let the process play out
    It really is that simple

    The government are out of the game - irrelevant.


  • Options
    #8847
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,284 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Marine Layer wrote: »
    Yeah,if I had a Fanny,I'd be a woman
    That type of charade?
    The justice system is not a charade
    The government are so confident in their position on this that noone is stepping aside
    No president created for any tom dick or paddy cosgrave to in their opinion spuriously interupt government in any way
    They've moved on and let the process play out
    It really is that simple

    well that is one way to describe having a brass neck.


  • Options
    #8848
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The government are out of the game - irrelevant.

    I didn't say the government had anything to do with the process
    They are just continuing confident in the opinion that no crime exists and letting the process instigated by a competitor of theirs or any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave play out like a huge percentage of investigations that dont conclude a crime always do
    The justice system is not a game
    It really is that simple


  • Options
    #8849
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,303 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Marine Layer wrote: »
    I didn't say the government had anything to do with the process
    They are just continuing confident in the opinion that no crime exists and letting the process instigated by a competitor of theirs or any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave play out like a huge percentage of investigations that dont conclude a crime always do
    The justice system is not a game
    It really is that simple

    Irrelevant again.


  • Options
    #8850
    skimpydoo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,873 ✭✭✭skimpydoo


    Marine Layer wrote: »
    I don't know
    What I do know is the government are so confident in that not happening that they've moved on
    Someone stepping aside would be an indication that they weren't
    Instead rather than set a precedent/opportunity for any Tom dick or Paddy Cosgrave to disrupt government they moved on whilst letting the process play out
    Their action is really that simple
    If this investigation was in non Covid times, the government would not be moving on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8851
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,302 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    ??

    decide, determine, settle, rule, resolve mean to come or cause to come to a conclusion

    The DPP makes a decision on whether to proceed or not. i.E. He/she decides to prosecute because he/she decides a crime was committed. If he/she has insufficient evidence he/she is compelled to decide no crime was committed.

    The judge/jury decides whether the evidence backs up that or not by weighing up the defence and prosecution's case.

    The DPP decides to prosecute because s/he believes a crime was committed. Any decision on whether a crime was committed is for a court of law.

    Stop digging.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement