FG to still just do nothing for the next 5 years - part 2

Brendan Bendar

smurgen wrote: »

Some at FG asking us to consider Trump ��

https://twitter.com/SeanKellyMEP/status/1325196010910601216?s=19

Just stating facts, dude.

But hey, just horse up another Twitter grab, which you ‘think’ reflects badly on FG, and hope nobody notices it’s perfectly true.

golfball37

smurgen wrote: »

Some at FG asking us to consider Trump ��

https://twitter.com/SeanKellyMEP/status/1325196010910601216?s=19

And? Everything he says there is true

Bishop of hope

golfball37 wrote: »

And? Everything he says there is true

Everything anyone from FG says is arguable golfball and that's an unfortunate nick at this time too, be careful.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Everything anyone from FG says is arguable golfball and that's an unfortunate nick at this time too, be careful.

There's certainly an "arguable" (or is it contradictory?) vibe coming off the Tanaiste Bishop, seems the latest screen grab proves he was well aware of how going behind the backs of other ministers was against the "handbook"




And this isn't even the bones of the "more to come" promise from the village/Chay Bowes from what I can tell.
Roaring Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, ain't gonna work this time.....

Lot of anger out there.

Jinglejangle69

I don't like the idea of peoples private texts been splashed all over the Internet.

Yes there is questions to answer but seems nothing is private anymore.

And these people only happy for the limelight by sharing someone's personal privacy on twitter.

Just doesn't sit well with me.

Brendan Bendar

Go ahead and waste taxpayers money next Thursday, Randall, I could do with a laugh in these straitened times.





Lot of anger out there.......

McMurphy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

I don't like the idea of peoples private texts been splashed all over the Internet.

Yes there is questions to answer but seems nothing is private anymore.

And these people only happy for the limelight by sharing someone's personal privacy on twitter.

Just doesn't sit well with me.

How in under jaysis is texts on your govt provided phone private?

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Go ahead and waste taxpayers money next Thursday, Randall, I could do with a laugh in these straitened times.





Lot of anger out there.......

The vote is Tuesday Brenner, you're so angry now you don't even know what day of the week it is. :pac:

FrancieBrady

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

I don't like the idea of peoples private texts been splashed all over the Internet.

Yes there is questions to answer but seems nothing is private anymore.

And these people only happy for the limelight by sharing someone's personal privacy on twitter.

Just doesn't sit well with me.

Government business is never private JJ. Nor should it be.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Twitlit. Literature for Twits.

Talking of which, FG on this morning tweeting about scooters, and how they're technically not legal...

You'll never guess who they got to do the video?

Ah go on..... Guess......

Ok, I'll tell. Alan Farrell

https://twitter.com/FineGael/status/1325362422429831169?s=19


Yeah, that's right Alan Farrell.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/4309983/fine-gael-alan-farrell-compensation-claim-case-women-involved/

Jinglejangle69

McMurphy wrote: »

How in under jaysis is texts on your govt provided phone private?



The vote is Tuesday Brenner, you're so angry now you don't even know what day of the week it is. :pac:

Was there not anger he wasn’t using his government phone at times?

smurgen

McMurphy wrote: »

Talking of which, FG on this morning tweeting about scooters, and how they're technically not legal...

You'll never guess who they got to do the video?

Ah go on..... Guess......

Ok, I'll tell. Alan Farrell

https://twitter.com/FineGael/status/1325362422429831169?s=19


Yeah, that's right Alan Farrell.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/4309983/fine-gael-alan-farrell-compensation-claim-case-women-involved/

I hope he ain't on it. Can the country really be affording dodgy insurance claims at this time?

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

There's certainly an "arguable" (or is it contradictory?) vibe coming off the Tanaiste Bishop, seems the latest screen grab proves he was well aware of how going behind the backs of other ministers was against the "handbook"




And this isn't even the bones of the "more to come" promise from the village/Chay Bowes from what I can tell.
Roaring Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, ain't gonna work this time.....

Lot of anger out there.

Or maybe Sinn féin Roaring isn't going to work either Mc.
For me, as you Leo done wrong and it was a sackable offence imo too.
But I doubt SF will win a no confidence vote now after his surviving this week.
Sinn féin Know this too imo.

Fann Linn

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

The Lad fessed up to an error of judgement...nobody will ever get every decision right...time we moved on from this and concentrated on the more important issues of Covid and Brexit.

Opposition dooing the Irish Electorate no favours by continually raking over the coals ....

Fairytales is how a FF TD described the LV defence.

Nevin Parsnipp

Havin a laugh here at all the desperate Shinners trying to stoke up the non event concerning the Tanaiste.

And the kip "State" up North that they "govern" is going down the toobs due to mismanagement and corruption.

I suppose it keeps them amused ...while they trouser big wedges from the taxpayer ....

Bishop of hope

You know the tiktok skit of the leak (leek) under the sink, seen one last night with the leek replaced by Leo's head.

WicklaWolf

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Or maybe Sinn féin Roaring isn't going to work either Mc.
For me, as you Leo done wrong and it was a sackable offence imo too.
But I doubt SF will win a no confidence vote now after his surviving this week.
Sinn féin Know this too imo.

This is beyond SF, but someone has to hold Leo to account. If there's no sanction in any form, it's a change in direction and departure from past state procedure/precedent.

Are FF/FG voters comfortable with that?

I'm not a SF supporter, but I'm grateful they are bringing this motion on Tuesday. If FF were main opposition, the may not do the same thing.

WicklaWolf

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

The Lad fessed up to an error of judgement...nobody will ever get every decision right...time we moved on from this and concentrated on the more important issues of Covid and Brexit.

Opposition dooing the Irish Electorate no favours by continually raking over the coals ....

I understand what you're saying, but this is a bigger issue than that.

If Leo is not sanctioned, how will politicians be held accountable for leaking to their pals in future as long as they have some weak excuse.

It's a departure from past government standards regarding information sharing - or we happy to make that shift?

smurgen

WicklaWolf wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, but this is a bigger issue than that.

If Leo is not sanctioned, how will politicians be held accountable for leaking to their pals in future as long as they have some weak excuse.

It's a departure from past government standards regarding information sharing - or we happy to make that shift?

He's not reaching the standards of Fine Gael let alone Dail Eireann.

A source said Mr Varadkar described it as a “very serious matter”.

Former Finance Minister Michael Noonan went even further, saying leaks from Cabinet were a breach of the constitution and the Officials Secrets Act.

He also criticised the level leaking from the weekly Fine Gael meeting which takes place behind closed doors in Leinster House.

“He said people talking to journalists about private meetings were showing disloyalty to colleagues,” said one TD.

Mr Flanagan then told the attendance that he had recently discussed Cabinet leaks with a senior garda and there is no doubt that they are a “criminal offence”.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/ministers-warned-cabinet-leaks-are-a-criminal-offence-36891174.html

Bishop of hope

WicklaWolf wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, but this is a bigger issue than that.

If Leo is not sanctioned, how will politicians be held accountable for leaking to their pals in future as long as they have some weak excuse.

It's a departure from past government standards regarding information sharing - or we happy to make that shift?

Are you serious?
Everything is leaked, there's nothing that isn't these days be it politicians or advisors or officials in the CS.
The evidence is based on leaks and if there's decent in govt before this vote in cabinet or political party's before the vote it will be leaked.
The rights or the wrongs of it is very much at the core of this debate and it will be a sanctioning of that behaviour if Leo holds firm I agree.
But thats politics today in a nutshell.
A govt that has no leaks is hard to find imo, especially a coalition one.

smurgen

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Are you serious?
Everything is leaked, there's nothing that isn't these days be it politicians or advisors or officials in the CS.
The evidence is based on leaks and if there's decent in govt before this vote in cabinet or political party's before the vote it will be leaked.
The rights or the wrongs of it is very much at the core of this debate and it will be a sanctioning of that behaviour if Leo holds firm I agree.
But thats politics today in a nutshell.
A govt that has no leaks is hard to find imo, especially a coalition one.

Everything is leaked? Even if that was true it wouldn't be acceptable. Where we have concrete evidence of a leak like here it should be actioned.

Bishop of hope

smurgen wrote: »

Everything is leaked? Even if that was true it wouldn't be acceptable. Where we have concrete evidence of a leak like here it should be actioned.

We have concrete evidence of sharing an agreement, we can call it a leak if you want, suits me.
But the bones of it were public and it was an already agreed document and there was nothing to be gained by exchanging it.
He shouldn't have shared it the way he did no argument from me on that, he should have resigned or been sacked and no argument fro me on that either, there's a, strong case for both.
But the crux is the claim of law breaking, it appears he didn't and once he didn't then he has a defence that can be mounted and if his version accepted can be defended by those who side with him.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Are you serious?
Everything is leaked, there's nothing that isn't these days be it politicians or advisors or officials in the CS.
The evidence is based on leaks and if there's decent in govt before this vote in cabinet or political party's before the vote it will be leaked.
The rights or the wrongs of it is very much at the core of this debate and it will be a sanctioning of that behaviour if Leo holds firm I agree.
But thats politics today in a nutshell.
A govt that has no leaks is hard to find imo, especially a coalition one.

Haven't seen as much as a whisper about the twice delayed Siteserv inquiry yet.....no interest in leaking that for some reason.

smurgen

Bishop of hope wrote: »

We have concrete evidence of sharing an agreement, we can call it a leak if you want, suits me.
But the bones of it were public and it was an already agreed document and there was nothing to be gained by exchanging it.
He shouldn't have shared it the way he did no argument from me on that, he should have resigned or been sacked and no argument fro me on that either, there's a, strong case for both.
But the crux is the claim of law breaking, it appears he didn't and once he didn't then he has a defence that can be mounted and if his version accepted can be defended by those who side with him.

Nothing of what you said is back up by evidence.
1.Why didn't he send his friend a link to a publically available info if the bones of it were public?
2. No legal experts have come out saying he didn't break the law although plenty have could out saying he had.

https://villagemagazine.ie/senior-counsels-opinion-for-village-affirms-being-a-minister-does-not-exclude-you-from-the-obligations-of-the-official-secret-act/

McMurphy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Was there not anger he wasn’t using his government phone at times?

Are you asking me or telling me?

I think there was an argument that he should be conducting official business on his govt phone. He was wearing his govt hat answering that text, so I think it's safe to assume the exchange was via his govt phone, therefore no issue.

Wonder what prompted that FG councillors brother to poke his head up above the parapet?

Bishop of hope

smurgen wrote: »

Nothing of what you said is back up by evidence.
1.Why didn't he send his friend a link to a publically available info if the bones of it were public?
2. No legal experts have come out saying he didn't break the law although plenty have could out saying he had.

https://villagemagazine.ie/senior-counsels-opinion-for-village-affirms-being-a-minister-does-not-exclude-you-from-the-obligations-of-the-official-secret-act/

But that's an explainer really more than a direct accusation.
The usual ould **** will be thrown out here but no direct accusations as usual.
Wouldnt expect anything else.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But that's an explainer really more than a direct accusation.
The usual ould **** will be thrown out here but no direct accusations as usual.
Wouldnt expect anything else.

Weren't you posting links to a Sinn Fein draw you thought hadn't taken place a few days ago?

That's like the kettle telling the teapot it's got a black arse.

James Brown

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Simply pointing out how you seemed to suggest that Pieta House was a homeless charity when it’s a suicide support one. It may not have been what you meant, just pointing out that’s how it read.
I’m a director of a charity and don’t get a red cent for it. I do it for the love of what the charity does.

Here's an example of what you and JF were at the other day. Using a topic of social Crisis to try score a dig, while sidestepping the actual issue be it Regina, homelessness or suicide.
Its pretty low brow IMO.
McMurphy clarified this for you already yet you persist.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

Using a topic of social Cristis to try score a dig

some cheek, of all posters, to throw this at anyone else tbh

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

Weren't you posting links to a Sinn Fein draw you thought hadn't taken place a few days ago?

That's like the kettle telling the teapot it's got a black arse.

Jazus, with a big fat grin it was.
Did that get your goat?

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

We have concrete evidence of sharing an agreement, we can call it a leak if you want, suits me.
But the bones of it were public and it was an already agreed document and there was nothing to be gained by exchanging it.
He shouldn't have shared it the way he did no argument from me on that, he should have resigned or been sacked and no argument fro me on that either, there's a, strong case for both.
But the crux is the claim of law breaking, it appears he didn't and once he didn't then he has a defence that can be mounted and if his version accepted can be defended by those who side with him.

Leo leaked a confidential document to a pal.
You've no idea what was or wasn't to be gained by doing so.
No, people are asking was it law breaking. Some are suggesting it might. Its being looked at.
The crux of the matter is Leo leaked a confidential document to a pal. There is no defence. Plenty of excuses though.