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

LawBoy2018 · 31-10-2020 5:33pm

noodler wrote: »

It's definitely true that the main contents of the contract were in the media before it was signed (and subsequently published)

The contract was lucrative, roughly 50m per annum increases to GPs for four years so IMO would have had huge incentive to put that out to their members and media to show they were doing a good job.

There doesn't really seem to have been any negative effect from it (other than, or course, if it was technically illegal) bit doesn't help him given his recent criticism for budget leaks.

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1322576881309392900

Goldrickssan · 31-10-2020 5:34pm

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1322576881309392900

Yikes.

Not good Leo buddy. Might want to brush up the Europe CV.

smurgen · 31-10-2020 5:34pm

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1322576881309392900

Largely public is not public. There's a reason why the watermark on the front says confidential not for circulation. I'm learning more to him being gone from this now

hotmail.com · 31-10-2020 5:35pm

This story isn't exactly the sexiest of stories and may get forgotten amidst such a busy news week.

Leo may survive.

JohnnyFlash · 31-10-2020 5:36pm

Complete non-story as I mentioned earlier. All the usual lads fell for a bit of fake outrage again. Must be disappointing for you all to see it fizzle out. Word for the wise, men (always men), The Phoenix and The Village aren't reliable journalistic sources. A Shinner and Loony Left pamphlet respectively.

noodler · 31-10-2020 5:36pm

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1322576881309392900

True - not saying the entire Contract was public.

There are two important aspects to it that were public, if memory serves, that it would pay 210m over the period and that it would add a few Chronic Disease Management services to the GP's offerings.

I don't want to belittle the small print but they really were the headlines.

Vetch · 31-10-2020 5:37pm

smurgen wrote: »

Largely public is not public. There's a reason why the watermark on the front says confidential not for circulation. I'm learning more to him being gone from this now

Confidentiality is time-specific though. Just because something has confidential/not for circulation written on it at time of writing doesn't mean it's always confidential.

ExMachina1000 · 31-10-2020 5:38pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Interesting. I suppose when you cant back up your original point, the only go to option then is snark.

You are on a one man mission to tell everyone with an opinion that they are wrong. It's not cool

golfball37 · 31-10-2020 5:38pm

Why would someone in the WhatsApp group ask if they were genuine, if as Leo claims now, they were already in the public domain?

smurgen · 31-10-2020 5:38pm

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Complete non-story as I mentioned earlier. All the usual lads fell for a bit of fake outrage again. Must be disappointing for you all to see it fizzle out. Word for the wise, men (always men), The Phoenix and The Village aren't reliable journalistic sources. A Shinner and Loony Left pamphlet respectively.

Hahahahahaha

Bubbaclaus · 31-10-2020 5:39pm

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

You are on a one man mission to tell everyone with an opinion that they are wrong. It's not cool

You can't have an opinion on the law if you haven't even bothered to read the short Act that you are claiming is broken.

Its like having an opinion on a film you haven't seen.

noodler · 31-10-2020 5:40pm

golfball37 wrote: »

Why would someone in the WhatsApp group ask if they were genuine, if as Leo claims now, they were already in the public domain?

The pdf of the contract wasn't.

The amount of money it was paying and the new CDM services GP would offer under it were.

Edit: Time stamp of messages will be key but the above definitely known way before contract agreed/announced/published

Phoebas · 31-10-2020 5:41pm

The key thing that this hinges on is was the deal done or was it still under negotiation.

If it was still under negotiation then Leo would be wrong to share it. If it was a done deal then it's a completely different thing.

LawBoy2018 · 31-10-2020 5:41pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You can't have an opinion on the law if you haven't even bothered to read the short Act that you are claiming is broken.

Its like having an opinion on a film you haven't seen.

We have both read the relevant legislation and have two different opinions. The law is always open to different interpretations.

s1ippy · 31-10-2020 5:41pm

31-10-2020 5:42pm

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Complete non-story as I mentioned earlier. All the usual lads fell for a bit of fake outrage again. Must be disappointing for you all to see it fizzle out. Word for the wise, men (always men), The Phoenix and The Village aren't reliable journalistic sources. A Shinner and Loony Left pamphlet respectively.

"Divert. Distract. Deflect."

FG Playbook 101.

TCM · 31-10-2020 5:43pm

Deleted User wrote:

How can Micheal Martin look his family in the eye when he's letting Varadkar take a piss in his mouth daily.

I thought it was Trump who did that sort of thing.

LawBoy2018 · 31-10-2020 5:44pm

Phoebas wrote: »

The key thing that this hinges on is was the deal done or was it still under negotiation.

If it was still under negotiation then Leo would be wrong to share it. If it was a done deal then it's a completely different thing.

The document states "subject to amendments/changes" which would indicate that it wasn't finalised.

Bubbaclaus · 31-10-2020 5:45pm

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

We have both read the relevant legislation and have two different opinions. The law is always open to different interpretations.

Your opinion that the Taoiseach is not a member of the Oireachtas is a bit mad and I don't think is open for interpretation, but that's besides the point of my post. I was responding to a poster that was claiming he had broken "Section 4 or 5" of the Act and hadnt even read it, and then got snarky about it.

smurgen · 31-10-2020 5:46pm

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

The document states "subject to amendments/changes" which would indicate that it wasn't finalised.

There's also a great big watermark saying confidential not for circulation on it. Not best practices eh

Higgins5473 · 31-10-2020 5:47pm

Phoebas wrote: »

The key thing that this hinges on is was the deal done or was it still under negotiation.

If it was still under negotiation then Leo would be wrong to share it. If it was a done deal then it's a completely different thing.

Not really completely different, he’s already admitted it was wrong. One is bad, the other one is worse. Either way, he did something he shouldn’t have, to what degree is yet to be uncovered.

thomas 123 · 31-10-2020 5:48pm

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Complete non-story as I mentioned earlier. All the usual lads fell for a bit of fake outrage again. Must be disappointing for you all to see it fizzle out. Word for the wise, men (always men), The Phoenix and The Village aren't reliable journalistic sources. A Shinner and Loony Left pamphlet respectively.

Can you share a full list of reliable journalistic sources in Ireland?

Fann Linn · 31-10-2020 5:48pm

#notanormalparty

LawBoy2018 · 31-10-2020 5:50pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Your opinion that the Taoiseach is not a member of the Oireachtas is a bit mad and I don't think is open for interpretation, but that's besides the point of my post. I was responding to a poster that was claiming he had broken "Section 4 or 5" of the Act and hadnt even read it, and then got snarky about it.

Can show me evidence to the contrary? My opinion is that Leo Varadkar TD = A member of the Oireachtas. Leo Varadkar Taoiseach = Not a member of the Oireachtas.

I would love to hear the opinion of someone actually qualified to answer this question.

Infini · 31-10-2020 5:51pm

Why is it that this story comes from "village idiot magazine" and its going to go something like this....

Jinglejangle69 · 31-10-2020 5:52pm

Fann Linn wrote: »

#notanormalparty

LOL the irony

smurgen · 31-10-2020 5:53pm

His excuse is hilarious.he's after digging a bigger hole and none of his explanation makes sense.

Is it the job of the Taoiseach to take it upon himself to text for an address then courier over information to someone's home to keep them informed on something he says many already knew?

Phoebas · 31-10-2020 5:53pm

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

The document states "subject to amendments/changes" which would indicate that it wasn't finalised.

True, but whether or not the IMO, the DoH and the HSE had made an agreement by the date in question is a simple matter of fact. So, we don't need to rely on indications; we just need that fact known.

Higgins5473 wrote: »

Not really completely different, he’s already admitted it was wrong. One is bad, the other one is worse. Either way, he did something he shouldn’t have, to what degree is yet to be uncovered.

One has implications for Varadkar. The other is chip wrapper.

Pintman Paddy Losty · 31-10-2020 5:57pm

Strong statement by An Tánaiste. I'd say there's a few very worried people in the Village magazine. They're not going to like the letters heading their way.

timmyntc · 31-10-2020 5:57pm

Infini wrote: »

Why is it that this story comes from "village idiot magazine" and its going to go something like this....

Late to the party - Leo already confirmed the authenticity of the article. He only disputes whether it was illegal or not

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

Comments