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

1314315317319320416

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,525 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Who? Who wants him to stand aside?

    There were calls for him to stand aside from Paul Murphy, SF, Ogra FF and FF, here is what one FFer said:
    Sligo-Leitrim TD Marc MacSharry told TheJournal.ie that he hasn’t spoke to anyone in the party about their attitude, but said “the reality is if a minister is the subject of a criminal investigation prudence demands that they should step aside albeit temporarily pending the conclusion of the investigation”.


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


    There were calls for him to stand aside from Paul Murphy, SF, Ogra FF and FF, here is what one FFer said:

    The nauseating hypocrisy from Sinn Fein on this one stinks. Where were the calls for Conor Murphy and Michelle O'Neill to stand aside while under investigation?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,525 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The nauseating hypocrisy from Sinn Fein on this one stinks. Where were the calls for Conor Murphy and Michelle O'Neill to stand aside while under investigation?

    You only asked the question to get SF into the thread. Transparent as usual.


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


    Beasty wrote: »
    You can stand aside on a temporary basis, which is entirely in line with what Francie is saying

    EDIT: a "permanent" measure is typically described as "stepping back" or "standing back"

    Google stand aside.


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


    Maybe for some sectors where there is evidence of a crime. This isn’t the case here. More a persons dissatisfaction with their government’s performance. A serious case of sour grapes.

    What are you on about Maryanne, there's no evidence of a crime being committed because the DPP haven't decided if one may have been committed to begin with, however there is an active criminal investigation taking place currently by the Gardai.

    If FF/FG hadn't become FFG, there would most definitely be an expectation for Leo to be standing aside temporarily while the investigation was taking place, and you can bet your bottom euro that FG would be calling for any other political representatives from other party's to be doing so if their members were in the same boat as Leo.

    This holier than thou persona has been blown right out of the water forever more.


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


    You only asked the question to get SF into the thread. Transparent as usual.

    Sorry, but that one's on you:
    There were calls for him to stand aside from Paul Murphy, SF, Ogra FF and FF, here is what one FFer said:


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You only asked the question to get SF into the thread. Transparent as usual.

    Double standards from the accusers would be relevant
    We can probably give you absolution Francie as you're probably going to tell us you called for MoN to step aside so its ok then?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    There were calls for him to stand aside from Paul Murphy, SF, Ogra FF and FF, here is what one FFer said:

    Ah, Paul Murphy. That fine, upstanding model of correctness. He may have been found not guilty of false imprisonment of Joan Burton and her aide, but that doesn’t excuse his deplorable behaviour during the Jobstown Incident.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,525 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Sorry, but that one's on you:

    Ye, which should have answered your question. But you as usual wanted to get a dig in and deflect.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    McMurphy wrote: »
    What are you on about Maryanne, there's no evidence of a crime being committed because the DPP haven't decided if one may have been committed to begin with, however there is an active criminal investigation taking place currently by the Gardai.

    If FF/FG hadn't become FFG, there would most definitely be an expectation for Leo to be standing aside temporarily while the investigation was taking place, and you can bet your bottom euro that FG would be calling for any other political representatives from other party's to be doing so if their members were in the same boat as Leo.

    This holier than thou persona has been blown right out of the water forever more.

    Innocent until proven guilty. No evidence of a crime so no need to stand aside.


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


    Here is an example. It's a temporary measure JJ.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-38527042

    Ive just given you an example of what stand aside means from the Cambridge dictionary.

    And if you Google it you get numerous explanations that it means resign.

    You quote a BBC article.

    Stand aside means resign.

    The fact is people here want him resign( stand aside in real terms) for something he could be innocent of.

    Not the way a civlised society operates.


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


    Cambridge dictionary.

    stand aside
    — phrasal verb with stand verb
    UK /stænd/ US /stænd/
    stood | stood

    to leave a job or position so that someone else can have it instead:
    It's time he stood aside and let a more qualified person do the job.

    to step sideways to make a space for someone else:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,525 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Double standards from the accusers would be relevant
    We can probably give you absolution Francie as you're probably going to tell us you called for MoN to step aside so its ok then?

    No I didn't. Being investigated for breaking regs is slightly different to a criminal investigation under two pieces of legislation. It's reflected in the penalties.

    I didn't call for LV to stand aside either btw...I think it's great having him as somebody being investigated. Hope he stays were he is to lead them into the next election tbh.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,525 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Innocent until proven guilty. No evidence of a crime so no need to stand aside.

    There is a confession and evidence of what he did and witnesses.

    The DDP will make the decision on whether it is a crime or not. Not you, me or a Garda source, who frankly, knowing the Indo could be the cleaner.


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


    Innocent until proven guilty. No evidence of a crime so no need to stand aside.

    There is an active criminal investigation which when concluded, a file will be sent to the DPP who will decide whether or not a crime may have been committed, therefore claiming there's no evidence is absolutely mind numbingly pointless.

    He would be expected to step aside to facilitate the criminal investigation.

    If a carer was accused of roughing up your grandmother in her nursing home, you obviously would have no bother leaving that carer in place looking after your granny while they were investigated I would assume?*

    *Btw it's a hypothetical question before you deflect with your granny is dead and gone etc etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,525 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Ive just given you an example of what stand aside means from the Cambridge dictionary.

    And if you Google it you get numerous explanations that it means resign.

    You quote a BBC article.

    Stand aside means resign.

    The fact is people here want him resign( stand aside in real terms) for something he could be innocent of.

    Not the way a civlised society operates.

    Oh JJ please!


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


    No I didn't. Being investigated for breaking regs is slightly different to a criminal investigation under two pieces of legislation. It's reflected in the penalties.

    I didn't call for LV to stand aside either btw...I think it's great having him as somebody being investigated. Hope he stays were he is to lead them into the next election tbh.

    Excusing double standards as usual.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,525 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Excusing double standards as usual.

    No, I think all parties are weak on sanctioning wrong doing even when somebody confesses to it.

    FG FF and the Greens proving they will circle the wagons if needed too.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,211 ✭✭✭✭Suckit




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    No, I think all parties are weak on sanctioning wrong doing even when somebody confesses to it.

    FG FF and the Greens proving they will circle the wagons if needed too.

    Huge difference of course between taking a shortcut to inform a gp representative of what's in a contract the government would like signed by as many as possible to improve the health service and corruption of course
    This is classed by our government as something they won't allow create a precedent that can be used by any Tom Dick or Paddy Cosgrave to disrupt the running of the country
    Ergo the government have moved on letting the process play out :)


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Lots of wagon circling going on!


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Lots of wagon circling going on!

    Needs something new
    All that's being posted here is repetition of opinions or people trying to get a rise out of each other


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,532 ✭✭✭jmcc


    Ergo the government have moved on letting the process play out :)
    Seems a bit more complex than that. Initially, it was the government position that this was an FG problem rather than an FFG problem. Then there was the FG claim that there was nothing to see. The Village Magazine published WhatsApp chats that effectively landed Varadkar and his friend O'Tuathail in the crap. Then there was the claim that there was nothing to see and the Gardai were wasting their time. The Gardai took a look and then upgraded the investigation into a full criminal investigation. Varadkar and O'Tuathail were questioned under caution. Now Kate O'Connell has been interviewed as a witness and Bernard Durkan is to give a sworn statement this week. There were other members of the Oireachtas health committee but there's no news on whether they were asked for witness statements.The Gardai still have not submitted a file to the DPP on this case. No amount of handwaving and blaming Paddy Cosgrave will deflect from the reality that this is making FG and by extention the FFG government look bad.

    Regards...jmcc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,525 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Huge difference of course between taking a shortcut to inform a gp representative of what's in a contract the government would like signed by as many as possible to improve the health service and corruption of course
    This is classed by our government as something they won't allow create a precedent that can be used by any Tom Dick or Paddy Cosgrave to disrupt the running of the country
    Ergo the government have moved on letting the process play out :)

    The 'government' are out of the equation. What happens next has nothing to do with them or Tom Dick r anyone else other than the Gardai and the DPP.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The 'government' are out of the equation. What happens next has nothing to do with them or Tom Dick r anyone else other than the Gardai and the DPP.

    The government are 100% in the equation when deciding what does or does not disrupt the business of government
    Much to the disappointment of any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave who may try via instigating processes like what's playing out
    Ergo, they've moved on :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,525 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The government are 100% in the equation when deciding what does or does not disrupt the business of government
    Much to the disappointment of any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave who may try via instigating processes like what's playing out
    Ergo, they've moved on :)

    If they locked up Michael MArtin this morning the government will keep functioning.

    Any chance you could stop with the waffle about this? The government circled the wagons and it has moved beyond them.
    The government is working away but this STILL hangs over it.

    They will be brought back in if this is adjudged to be a crime or worthy of prosecution.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    If they locked up Michael MArtin this morning the government will keep functioning.

    Any chance you could stop with the waffle about this? The government circled the wagons and it has moved beyond them.
    The government is working away but this STILL hangs over it.

    They will be brought back in if this is adjudged to be a crime or worthy of prosecution.

    I will continue with the facts thanks,for as long as you continue to opinion your wishes :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,525 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I will continue with the facts thanks,for as long as you continue to opinion your wishes :)

    The government continues to function...we know this fact. They always do until they are no longer able and collapse. They are just ignoring Leo's predicament because it is out of their hands, they, like us are bystanders as a process of criminal investigation and DDP consideration completes.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That of course is your opinion
    It is mine that some here wish to have an innocent man tried and convicted of a crime that doesnt to our knowledge exist
    The governments position is,they've moved on,content that there's no crime and closing the door to any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave disrupting the running of the country for a crime they believe not to exist
    Proper order in my opinion :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 187 ✭✭shatners bassoon


    Needs something new
    All that's being posted here is repetition of opinions or people trying to get a rise out of each other

    ...
    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
    It should also be pointed out though that one of those two could have been a super spreader disease event leading to deaths and the other is believed by the government not to be a crime at all,only a process that any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave could stir up
    Wonder which is which?
    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
    It seems simple enough actually

    They dont want to set a precedent whereby any Tom Dick or Paddy Cosgrave can engineer a process like the one thats ongoing and unseat a Minister in cases where they don't believe the accusation that a crime happened,and certainly have no regard for the bonifidé's of the accusers
    If they did,their government would be gone
    They must be very confident of the outcome
    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
    The government don't believe a crime was committed and have moved on letting the process (they appear very confident) instigatable by any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave play out
    No crime has been admitted to
    Not really
    Outside of Sinn Féin and those typically virulently anti Vradakar,this is spun as a process any Tom Dick or Paddy Cosgrave could get rolling against anyone including a Taoiseach
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if when its concluded,several will speak to put what they see as misinformation about it to bed
    Also as I said in the government thread,I think relying on it as a political football in the next election would be a mistake as its got too many angles for the then Taoiseach Vradakar to mince it,chief among them,its disgruntled originators and of course the opportunity to highlight the advantages of getting as many to sign up to the gp contract as did
    Jaysis...

    Could we get back on topic now
    I'll start
    The reason no one has stepped aside over this document thing,is the government believe no crime happened and don't want to be seen to be entertaining what they see as spurious processes instigated by any Tom Dick or Paddy Cosgrave designed to disrupt government
    They've moved on and let the process play out
    No tender hooks from the government,right from the start, when faced with what they believe to be mischief making posibilties available to any Tom ,Dick or Paddy Cosgrave
    They're steadfast
    But sure,they've nothing to protect,believing there to be no crime
    Its more a case of preventing any Tom Dick or Paddy Cosgrave with a vandetta instigating investigations of what they believe not to be true
    It seems the Times source has confirmed them right on that
    No Crime,no charge
    It really is that simple
    Here I've stuck to the known facts, that the government are confident that there's no crime and that they've moved on, letting the process that can be instigated by any Tom dick or Paddy cosgrave play out
    The government who are in possession of the facts, have decided that this is not the stuff for precedent setting, opening the door for any Tom dick or Paddy Cosgrave to disrupt the business of running the country
    This is classed by our government as something they won't allow create a precedent that can be used by any Tom Dick or Paddy Cosgrave to disrupt the running of the country
    Ergo the government have moved on letting the process play out :)
    The government don't want to set a precedent where any Tom Dick or Paddy Cosgrave can disrupt the important business of the running of the country by setting in train processes like the one that's ongoing that they believe to have no basis
    It's not, because they have all the facts of the matter and are confident in their decision that processes like this that can be instigated by any Tom dick or paddy Cosgrave should not be allowed create a government disrupting precedent
    Ergo, they've moved on :)
    Much to the disappointment of any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave who may try via instigating processes like what's playing out
    Ergo, they've moved on :)

    The FineGaelBot3000 needs some fine tuning.

    Edit: missed another one while I was putting it together!

    6034073


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement