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

FrancieBrady · 14-04-2021 4:02pm

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

It won't get before a judge if the DPP decides there is no crime. You can't have it both ways.

blanch152 · 14-04-2021 4:56pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It won't get before a judge if the DPP decides there is no crime. You can't have it both ways.

Again, he doesn't decide that there is no crime.

He examines the evidence and if he believes there is insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution he decides not to bring one.

Take the Omagh bombing. That crime was committed. The criminals were identified and sued in court and they lost.

The prosecution service believed it didn't have enough evidence to bring a prosecution against some of them, tried and failed in others, but it didn't decide that there was no crime and in the cases where they didn't bring proceedings, they didn't decide that they hadn't committed a crime.

Suckit · 14-04-2021 5:15pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, he doesn't decide that there is no crime.

He examines the evidence and if he believes there is insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution he decides not to bring one.

Take the Omagh bombing. That crime was committed. The criminals were identified and sued in court and they lost.

The prosecution service believed it didn't have enough evidence to bring a prosecution against some of them, tried and failed in others, but it didn't decide that there was no crime and in the cases where they didn't bring proceedings, they didn't decide that they hadn't committed a crime.

Not exactly.
IIRC The evidence is gathered and compiled by the Gardaí, they send it to the DPP and the DPP then decides whether or not any laws have been broken.
Then the DPP decides whether or not criminal charges are to be brought.
If not, it doesn't mean he didn't commit any offence, as it is pretty obvious he broke many rules.

McMurphy · 14-04-2021 5:50pm

If memory serves me correctly, I think you'll find a poster on this thread has numerous posts across others that even if a defendant is acquitted, their thoughts are that, that doesn't necessarily mean they're innocent, merely "that there just wasn't enough evidence to secure a conviction" or words to that effect.

The same mental gymnastics can be applied here if Leo isn't even charged, considering he's admitted and apologised for leaking the confidential document to his friend.

FrancieBrady · 14-04-2021 6:04pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, he doesn't decide that there is no crime.

He examines the evidence and if he believes there is insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution he decides not to bring one.

Take the Omagh bombing. That crime was committed. The criminals were identified and sued in court and they lost.

The prosecution service believed it didn't have enough evidence to bring a prosecution against some of them, tried and failed in others, but it didn't decide that there was no crime and in the cases where they didn't bring proceedings, they didn't decide that they hadn't committed a crime.

The DPP = The Director of Public Prosecutions who prosecutes when he/she decides a crime has been committed.

We know Omagh was a crime, and we know breaking the Official Secrets Act or the Corruption Act is a crime. What the DPP will decide is 'is what Leo done a breach of that legislation...i.e. Is it a crime? He will prosecute on the basis of that 'decision'. We are awaiting his 'decision' on that.
All the judge/jury will do is decide if the evidence presented verifies his decision that it was a crime and find Leo guilty or not, of the crime.

I am not answering another post that just twists the facts above around and goes at it again.

14-04-2021 6:05pm

McMurphy wrote: »

If memory serves me correctly, I think you'll find a poster on this thread has numerous posts across others that even if a defendant is acquitted, their thoughts are that, that doesn't necessarily mean they're innocent, merely "that there just wasn't enough evidence to secure a conviction" or words to that effect.

The same mental gymnastics can be applied here if Leo isn't even charged, considering he's admitted and apologised for leaking the confidential document to his friend.

Not if theres no charge
If theres a crime,the case is open and shut,he would be charged
Acquittal only comes in to it if hes charged and wins a trial
You can see my other posts as regards what the government think the possibility is of him being charged
They've moved on

14-04-2021 6:19pm

McMurphy wrote: »

If memory serves me correctly, I think you'll find a poster on this thread has numerous posts across others that even if a defendant is acquitted, their thoughts are that, that doesn't necessarily mean they're innocent, merely "that there just wasn't enough evidence to secure a conviction" or words to that effect.

The same mental gymnastics can be applied here if Leo isn't even charged, considering he's admitted and apologised for leaking the confidential document to his friend.

That's right. Innocence is presumed, not established. Even miscarriage of justice findings are not findings of innocence.

It is an important presumption though, deserving of respect, and not a legal nicety.

There is an undeniable political aspect to the Varadkar allegations. Hypotheticals are somewhat feeble, but it's probably true that we'd all argue an opposite position if the man accused were on the Left. The legal process shouldn't be a political football.

FrancieBrady · 14-04-2021 7:23pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's right. Innocence is presumed, not established. Even miscarriage of justice findings are not findings of innocence.

It is an important presumption though, deserving of respect, and not a legal nicety.

There is an undeniable political aspect to the Varadkar allegations. Hypotheticals are somewhat feeble, but it's probably true that we'd all argue an opposite position if the man accused were on the Left. The legal process shouldn't be a political football.

Of course there is a political aspect, he is accused of using and abusing a political office and privilege. He has not been sanctioned, despite confessing to wrongdoing by his own and two other political parties.

Monkey arris · 14-04-2021 7:46pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's right. Innocence is presumed, not established. Even miscarriage of justice findings are not findings of innocence.

It is an important presumption though, deserving of respect, and not a legal nicety.

There is an undeniable political aspect to the Varadkar allegations. Hypotheticals are somewhat feeble, but it's probably true that we'd all argue an opposite position if the man accused were on the Left. The legal process shouldn't be a political football.

Is it not that he did leak, but we don't know if it was a crime? If you confess to something you are not innocent regardless of any charge of criminality down the line.

15-04-2021 3:48pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course there is a political aspect, he is accused of using and abusing a political office and privilege. He has not been sanctioned, despite confessing to wrongdoing by his own and two other political parties.

That's not really the point.

The question of criminality should be one that is as far away from politics and political loyalties as possible.

From an objective viewpoint, there are valid arguments to be made that Varadakar, as Taoiseach, did or did not have the right to share the document.

If it were a member of a Left Government who shared it, many of us would be arguing that the Government acts collectively, they are one organism except where statute devolves power to individual ministers, and that the Taoiseach, especially, had a constitutional right to share that document as a matter of policy.

I do not believe anyone who says their view would be the exact same if this leak were committed by a Minister with a shared party/political allegiance.

Monkey arris · 15-04-2021 4:02pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's not really the point.

The question of criminality should be one that is as far away from politics and political loyalties as possible.

From an objective viewpoint, there are valid arguments to be made that Varadakar, as Taoiseach, did or did not have the right to share the document.

If it were a member of a Left Government who shared it, many of us would be arguing that the Government acts collectively, they are one organism except where statute devolves power to individual ministers, and that the Taoiseach, especially, had a constitutional right to share that document as a matter of policy.

I do not believe anyone who says their view would be the exact same if this leak were committed by a Minister with a shared party/political allegiance.

He leaked to his friend. It was a private negotiation. He apologised. Criminal or not, it was behaviour wordy of apologising for. There are many situations where you can behave inappropriately without engaging in criminality. Sharing a confidential paper with an outside party would be one, unless you are breaching a contract or legislation or an act.
He is not innocent. We are waiting to see if he's criminal.

caveat emptor · 15-04-2021 4:48pm

Why is it taking so long? He practically apologised for it. Must be the longest running investigation of nothing that will ultimately come to nothing, thereby restoring our faith in the criminal justice system.

I guess he was right when he said he won't be charged ages ago. I was naive to think the investigation precedes the findings though.

skimpydoo · 17-04-2021 4:29pm

I wonder what will be coming out in tomorrows papers.

17-04-2021 4:53pm

skimpydoo wrote: »

I wonder what will be coming out in tomorrows papers.

Probably what was supposed to come out last Sunday. And the Sunday before that. And the Sunday before that.......

TestIcicle · 17-04-2021 5:19pm

I am the employee of a large UK based newspaper (though I myself am Irish, co Wexford originally) I have it on very good authority that there's a major, major story about to break on Leo Varadkar, probably in tomorrow's papers.

I'm not at liberty to give further information just yet, but its directly related to this debacle. Leo knows that the news will break imminently.

costacorta · 17-04-2021 5:25pm

TestIcicle wrote: »

I am the employee of a large UK based newspaper (though I myself am Irish, co Wexford originally) I have it on very good authority that there's a major, major story about to break on Leo Varadkar, probably in tomorrow's papers.

I'm not at liberty to give further information just yet, but its directly related to this debacle. Leo knows that the news will break imminently.

I hope you’re correct on this as I’ve seen guys creaming themselves with excitement over the last 2 months telling us big news breaking only to see the same rubbish repeated .

Will check back to you within 12 hrs to either congratulate you or to tell you change your sources .

skimpydoo · 17-04-2021 5:26pm

Wow we have a bunch of comedians.

costacorta · 17-04-2021 5:39pm

skimpydoo wrote: »

Wow we have a bunch of comedians.

You mean the guys with the breaking news stories ?? Or the guys who are still waiting for the sensational new stories??.

sabat · 17-04-2021 5:41pm

TestIcicle wrote: »

I am the employee of a large UK based newspaper (though I myself am Irish, co Wexford originally) I have it on very good authority that there's a major, major story about to break on Leo Varadkar, probably in tomorrow's papers.

I'm not at liberty to give further information just yet, but its directly related to this debacle. Leo knows that the news will break imminently.

If you're not talking bollocks, could it be a 'bring down the government' story?

shatners bassoon · 17-04-2021 6:16pm

TestIcicle wrote: »

I am the employee of a large UK based newspaper (though I myself am Irish, co Wexford originally) I have it on very good authority that there's a major, major story about to break on Leo Varadkar, probably in tomorrow's papers.

I'm not at liberty to give further information just yet, but its directly related to this debacle. Leo knows that the news will break imminently.

Hahaha, the drama!

TestIcicle · 17-04-2021 6:32pm

"Will check back to you within 12 hrs to either congratulate you or to tell you change your sources "

I didn't say it will definitely be published tomorrow, possibly it will, but I'm not 100% on that just yet.

"If you're not talking bollocks, could it be a 'bring down the government' story?"
Hard to say, one thing I'm sure of though leos backers and cheerers will have lots of egg on faces.
I repeat, from what I heard, leo knows that journalists are aware of what's about to come out, my understanding is he became aware during the early part of last week.

That is about as much as I'm prepared to say at the minute.
Remember who gave you lot in here the tip off.

caveat emptor · 17-04-2021 6:39pm

TestIcicle wrote: »

"Will check back to you within 12 hrs to either congratulate you or to tell you change your sources "

I didn't say it will definitely be published tomorrow, possibly it will, but I'm not 100% on that just yet.

"If you're not talking bollocks, could it be a 'bring down the government' story?"
Hard to say, one thing I'm sure of though leos backers and cheerers will have lots of egg on faces.
I repeat, from what I heard, leo knows that journalists are aware of what's about to come out, my understanding is he became aware during the early part of last week.

That is about as much as I'm prepared to say at the minute.
Remember who gave you lot in here the tip off.

Considering you've 2 posts to your username I'd say it's an attempt to bury my post showing an elected official and member of government prejusticed any investigation into him which sat there for last 24 hours.

I wan't to believe you, I just don't. I will apologies of course if it transpires.

costacorta · 17-04-2021 6:51pm

TestIcicle wrote: »

"Will check back to you within 12 hrs to either congratulate you or to tell you change your sources "

I didn't say it will definitely be published tomorrow, possibly it will, but I'm not 100% on that just yet.

"If you're not talking bollocks, could it be a 'bring down the government' story?"
Hard to say, one thing I'm sure of though leos backers and cheerers will have lots of egg on faces.
I repeat, from what I heard, leo knows that journalists are aware of what's about to come out, my understanding is he became aware during the early part of last week.

That is about as much as I'm prepared to say at the minute.
originally) I have it on very good authority that there's a major, major story about to break on Leo Varadkar, probably in tomorrow's papers. Remember who gave you lot in here the tip off.

You’re really keeping your options open so !! Probably but then again might not ?

I think it’s safe to say another false alarm

jmcc · 17-04-2021 8:22pm

TestIcicle wrote: »

I am the employee of a large UK based newspaper (though I myself am Irish, co Wexford originally) I have it on very good authority that there's a major, major story about to break on Leo Varadkar, probably in tomorrow's papers.

I'm not at liberty to give further information just yet, but its directly related to this debacle. Leo knows that the news will break imminently.

In the immortal words of Hannibal Lector: If so, goody, goody.

Regards...jmcc

blanch152 · 17-04-2021 8:40pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DPP = The Director of Public Prosecutions who prosecutes when he/she decides a crime has been committed.

We know Omagh was a crime, and we know breaking the Official Secrets Act or the Corruption Act is a crime. What the DPP will decide is 'is what Leo done a breach of that legislation...i.e. Is it a crime? He will prosecute on the basis of that 'decision'. We are awaiting his 'decision' on that.
All the judge/jury will do is decide if the evidence presented verifies his decision that it was a crime and find Leo guilty or not, of the crime.

I am not answering another post that just twists the facts above around and goes at it again.

Again, nonsense.

We know with the evidence of our eyes that a crime was committed in Omagh.

We don't know that a crime was committed in breaking the OSA. A big difference.

skimpydoo · 17-04-2021 8:40pm

jmcc wrote: »

In the immortal words of Hannibal Lector: If so, goody goody.

Regards...jmcc

Anyone for Chianti?

zanador · 17-04-2021 8:47pm

skimpydoo wrote: »

Anyone for Chianti?

Does it go with popcorn?

shtpEdthePlum · 17-04-2021 8:54pm

caveat emptor wrote: »

Considering you've 2 posts to your username I'd say it's an attempt to bury my post showing an elected official and member of government prejusticed any investigation into him which sat there for last 24 hours.

I wan't to believe you, I just don't. I will apologies of course if it transpires.

I hope you're wrong!

Makes the evening a bit more interesting anyway even if it's shyte

McMurphy · 17-04-2021 9:28pm

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

I hope you're wrong!

Makes the evening a bit more interesting anyway even if it's shyte

Won't be long to find out of there's any truth to it, or if it's just a messer acting the maggot. Broadsheet.ie usually have the Sunday papers on their site around 11pm on Saturday nights from memory.

jmcc · 17-04-2021 9:50pm

Sunday Times:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzNA_ZAUYAkqPgR?format=jpg&name=medium

Regards...jmcc

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

Comments