FF/FG/Green Government - part 2

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The precedent being set if there is no sanction here. The issue is more important than a single politician's career.

https://mobile.twitter.com/colettebrowne/status/1323208287265955841

:P

Colette Browne........Francie.... please.

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

:P

Colette Browne........Francie.... please.

Another SF shill Brendi?


Can you answer where you are specifically on this.

Do you think the precedent that a member of government can do whatever they like if they think they are doing it with the best of intentions?

Is that a satisfactory excuse for wrongdoing going forward?

That is a view...do you have one on it or are you going to continue with the deflectionary antics?

Brendan Bendar

Deleted User wrote: »

He was Taoiseach and he gave confidential contract information to a rival.
How do you think that would be dealt with in a corporate setting?

The leader of the country hamstrung the country's own situation in dealing with a vendor body, he gave confidential details from one private deal to their rival.

This is not trivial.

Let’s not jump to any conclusions here .

Look... The Tanaiste is making a statement tomorrow.

He has voluntarily agreed to this, so I am going to wait and evaluate the real issues, not speculation from folk with no real information other than guesswork.

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Another SF shill Brendi?


Can you answer where you are specifically on this.

Do you think the precedent that a member of government can do whatever they like if they think they are doing it with the best of intentions?

Is that a satisfactory excuse for wrongdoing going forward?

That is a view...do you have one on it or are you going to continue with the deflectionary antics?

Answered that below Francie, pre-empted your attempt to try to accuse deflectionary antics.

One step ahead of you Francie, ....as usual.:D

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Answered that below Francie, pre-empted your attempt to try to accuse deflectionary antics.

One step ahead of you Francie, ....as usual.:D

Where did you give a view on the setting of a precedent 'that a member of government can do what he likes as long as it is in his/her view with the best of intentions'.

They either can or they can't? Are they governed by the law like everyone else?

Nobotty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The precedent being set if there is no sanction here. The issue is more important than a single politician's career.

https://mobile.twitter.com/colettebrowne/status/1323208287265955841

If anything, I'd say this will tighten up leaking to journalists which would be a disaster for them
Nearly every cabinet meeting now,there's a scramble as to who tweets something first
I'd say too whatsapping and couriering over docs to the press isn't a preferred leaking method

Vradakar is going to be told that he's not allowed to brief even publicly any government decision or policy now
Might only last a few months because Martin doesn't want an election
But that will drive Vradakar the narcissist to a padded cell
A very appropriate punishment:D

FrancieBrady

Nobotty wrote: »

If anything, I'd say this will tighten up leaking to journalists which would be a disaster for them
Nearly every cabinet meeting now,there's a scramble as to who tweets something first
I'd say too whatsapping and couriering over docs to the press isn't a preferred leaking method

Vradakar is going to be told that he's not allowed to brief even publicly any government decision or policy now
Might only last a few months because Martin doesn't want an election
But that will drive Vradakar the narcissist to a padded cell
A very appropriate punishment:D

Well I haven't decided as I said, what the more preferable outcome is here. Varadkar, the serial self publicist gone or FG being led into the next election with an allegation of sleaze and corruption hanging over them.

We know how some here treat allegations as proof if they are made about others.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well I haven't decided as I said, what the more preferable outcome is here. Varadkar, the serial self publicist gone or FG being led into the next election with an allegation of sleaze and corruption hanging over them.

We know how some here treat allegations as proof if they are made about others.

Well two major resignations and two lesser ones is proof admission wise isn't it I'd say?
Same of course if Leo goes, then sleaze is admitted, might not go down that road so the FG Leo one would only be an alleged one as compared to an admitted one.
Who would call Leo a law breaker publicly on a hustings?
Not sure that'd go unnoticed or without fear of repercussion.

Nobotty

Nobotty wrote: »

If anything, I'd say this will tighten up leaking to journalists which would be a disaster for them
Nearly every cabinet meeting now,there's a scramble as to who tweets something first
I'd say too whatsapping and couriering over docs to the press isn't a preferred leaking method

Vradakar is going to be told that he's not allowed to brief even publicly any government decision or policy now
Might only last a few months because Martin doesn't want an election
But that will drive Vradakar the narcissist to a padded cell
A very appropriate punishment:D

Everyone is trying to play that this was just like a leak to journalists, it was not.

This was a calculated move to improve the negotiation status of a non government body, run by a friend, against a competitor body, and all orchestrated by the leader of the government.

Just proves that FG don't give a damn about white collar cheats.
To them the only cheats to be dealt with are working class, while they get free reign.

Learned nothing from Lowry or, more recently, Bailey

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did you give a view on the setting of a precedent 'that a member of government can do what he likes as long as it is in his/her view with the best of intentions'.

They either can or they can't? Are they governed by the law like everyone else?

Who said that the can do anything they like?

The Official Secrets Act allows a Minister or the Taosieach to declassify a confidential document. Which bit of that is so hard to understand?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Who said that the can do anything they like?

The Official Secrets Act allows a Minister or the Taosieach to declassify a confidential document. Which bit of that is so hard to understand?

As I asked you in the other thread, please point to the section that gives a Taoiseach permission to secretly act to declassify a document.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Well two major resignations and two lesser ones is proof admission wise isn't it I'd say?
Same of course if Leo goes, then sleaze is admitted, might not go down that road so the FG Leo one would only be an alleged one as compared to an admitted one.
Who would call Leo a law breaker publicly on a hustings?
Not sure that'd go unnoticed or without fear of repercussion.

Who would need to call Leo a lawbreaker on the hustings...plenty of ways to ventilate what happened without mentioning Leo specifically.

Who knows the Taoiseach could take on himself to reveal something confidential in the public interest before leaving office. Apparently we can have a free for all in that regard if Leo faces no sanction.

Nobotty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Everyone is trying to play that this was just like a leak to journalists, it was not.

This was a calculated move to improve the negotiation status of a non government body, run by a friend, against a competitor body, and all orchestrated by the leader of the government.

Just proves that FG don't give a damn about white collar cheats.
To them the only cheats to be dealt with are working class, while they get free reign.

Learned nothing from Lowry or, more recently, Bailey

I know what you're saying but in order to run with that,you need to be able to prove the document was renegotiated
Can you?
Can the village?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who would need to call Leo a lawbreaker on the hustings...plenty of ways to ventilate what happened without mentioning Leo specifically.

Who knows the Taoiseach could take on himself to reveal something confidential in the public interest before leaving office. Apparently we can have a free for all in that regard if Leo faces no sanction.

Well, according to the Official Secrets Act, that is the case.

Now, if he was doing it for personal gain, then it is covered under the Corruption Act.

But to answer your question, if the Taoiseach believes that it is in the public interest to declassify a confidential document and release it to the public, then surely it is his duty to do so?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, according to the Official Secrets Act, that is the case.

Now, if he was doing it for personal gain, then it is covered under the Corruption Act.

But to answer your question, if the Taoiseach believes that it is in the public interest to declassify a confidential document and release it to the public, then surely it is his duty to do so?

Going by your reading, there are no secrets when it comes to the Taoiseach. He/she now only has to say it was in the country's interests and that is that.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Going by your reading, there are no secrets when it comes to the Taoiseach. He/she now only has to say it was in the country's interests and that is that.

No, I didn't say that either. Stop making things up.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I didn't say that either. Stop making things up.

???

blanch152 wrote:

But to answer your question, if the Taoiseach believes that it is in the public interest to declassify a confidential document and release it to the public, then surely it is his duty to do so?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

No, I didn't say that either. Stop making things up.

Ah.... The little question mark at the end just means you were asking/hoping it's okay, not saying it in a matter of fact way so.

blanch152 wrote: »

.

But to answer your question, if the Taoiseach believes that it is in the public interest to declassify a confidential document and release it to the public, then surely it is his duty to do so?

Bishop of hope

It looks like it's swinging on tomoros statement and questions for Leo and whether the Greens swallow his story and stick it through.
I think FF are already in acceptance or at least shivering against any push for him to go.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-has-confidence-in-varadkar-amid-controversy-over-document-leak-1.4397489?mode=amp

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

It looks like it's swinging on tomoros statement and questions for Leo and whether the Greens swallow his story and stick it through.
I think FF are already in acceptance or at least shivering against any push for him to go.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-has-confidence-in-varadkar-amid-controversy-over-document-leak-1.4397489?mode=amp

The most worrying thing for Leo is (a guess here mind you) is that village magazine say "there's more information still to come".

Leo is probably wondering how much they have on him.

I'd guess they'll let him have his say in the Dail tomorrow, and then harpoon him if he messes up.

Wouldn't say he's been sleeping well these past few nights.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Ah.... The little question mark at the end just means you were asking/hoping it's okay, not saying it in a matter of fact way so.

Think about the opposite case.

The Taoiseach has a confidential document. It is clearly in the public interest that this document be made public (to be in the public interest, it must not have any negative effect on Ireland). If that is the case, are you suggesting he should hide that information from the public?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Think about the opposite case.

The Taoiseach has a confidential document. It is clearly in the public interest that this document be made public (to be in the public interest, it must not have any negative effect on Ireland). If that is the case, are you suggesting he should hide that information from the public?

Is posting it to a private individual in what seems to be a secret way ok with you?

Nobotty

Nobotty wrote: »

I know what you're saying but in order to run with that,you need to be able to prove the document was renegotiated
Can you?
Can the village?

Knowledge that you are already on a better track is as beneficial as knowing that you can squeeze more

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Think about the opposite case.

The Taoiseach has a confidential document. It is clearly in the public interest that this document be made public (to be in the public interest, it must not have any negative effect on Ireland). If that is the case, are you suggesting he should hide that information from the public?

I've posted about this already, but here goes again.

Leo knew what he was doing was wrong, if he had nothing to hide why courier/post the document to MOTs home address rather than do so in an official capacity?

MOT knew he shouldn't have had the document, and boasted about having them in his WhatsApp group, informing the others to take care with it and not to "leak it"


You're spinning blanch. Keep spinning.

https://twitter.com/VillageMagIRE/status/1322474110883160065?s=09

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, according to the Official Secrets Act, that is the case.

Now, if he was doing it for personal gain, then it is covered under the Corruption Act.

But to answer your question, if the Taoiseach believes that it is in the public interest to declassify a confidential document and release it to the public, then surely it is his duty to do so?

blanch152 wrote: »

Think about the opposite case.

The Taoiseach has a confidential document. It is clearly in the public interest that this document be made public (to be in the public interest, it must not have any negative effect on Ireland). If that is the case, are you suggesting he should hide that information from the public?

..but he sent it by courier to his pal. His pal was head of the NAGP.
GP's are considered private contractors is such things. The NAGP are not supposed to lobby it's membership to vote one way or another. Therefore Leo's info was sent to his pal and his pal is not supposed to solicit members of the NAGP to go a certain way in negotiations, so Leo sent his pal a confidential as yet unreleased document and the idea that it was to bring GP's on board goes against how such negotiations are supposed to take place.
In short Leo wrongly gave confidential information, off his own back, to his pal, who wasn't suppose to try push GP's one way or the other anyway.

Personal gain is not easy to quantify. If Leo gets a nice board appointment off of this we'll never know or be able to prove it. That's why we have standards and practices. 'An end to cronyism' as the man said.

Bishop of hope

Bowie wrote: »

..but he sent it by courier to his pal. His pal was head of the NAGP.
GP's are considered private contractors is such things. The NAGP are not supposed to lobby it's membership to vote one way or another. Therefore Leo's info was sent to his pal and his pal is not supposed to solicit members of the NAGP to go a certain way in negotiations, so Leo sent his pal a confidential as yet unreleased document and the idea that it was to bring GP's on board goes against how such negotiations are supposed to take place.
In short Leo wrongly gave confidential information, off his own back, to his pal, who wasn't suppose to try push GP's one way or the other anyway.

Personal gain is not easy to quantify. If Leo gets a nice board appointment off of this we'll never know or be able to prove it. That's why we have standards and practices. 'An end to cronyism' as the man said.

I love the way you come in with the extra spin.
An appointment on what board might that be, the now defunct nagp or perhaps the IMO?
Last I heard it was the nagp he sent the documents to?

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

..but he sent it by courier to his pal. His pal was head of the NAGP.
GP's are considered private contractors is such things. The NAGP are not supposed to lobby it's membership to vote one way or another. Therefore Leo's info was sent to his pal and his pal is not supposed to solicit members of the NAGP to go a certain way in negotiations, so Leo sent his pal a confidential as yet unreleased document and the idea that it was to bring GP's on board goes against how such negotiations are supposed to take place.
In short Leo wrongly gave confidential information, off his own back, to his pal, who wasn't suppose to try push GP's one way or the other anyway.

Personal gain is not easy to quantify. If Leo gets a nice board appointment off of this we'll never know or be able to prove it. That's why we have standards and practices. 'An end to cronyism' as the man said.

Explain the bit in bold to me please.

What do you mean that they are not supposed to lobby their membership to vote one way or another?

I have been a member of three trade unions during my lifetime. Each of them have on occasions advised me what was the best way to vote on something.

The rest of your post about Leo getting personal advantage is drivel.

Cluedo Monopoly

Wow, where did they get those whatsapp messages?

joeguevara

Such a non-story. You'd swear he had sent state secrets to the Chinese. Imagine if he had robbed money and only confessed to that and gave it back once it was going to be exposed by the BBC. Be more likely that Mary Lou will face the sack than Leo.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Such a non-story. You'd swear he had sent state secrets to the Chinese.

Apparently he can do that according to blanch and all he has to say is he believed it was in the national interest.