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

Options
1…100101103105106…417

Comments

  • Options
    #3062
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users Posts: 7,357 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    smurgen wrote: »
    What's he leaving himself open to? Sounds threatening.

    Yeah I'm threatening him on Boards:)

    Jesus this is giving me a laugh tonight thanks.

    JJ threatens the village on Boards, call the cops:)


  • Options
    #3063
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users Posts: 7,357 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    That will be for the Gardai to decide, not us.

    Seems you lads have already decided that since Saturday.


  • Options
    #3064
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    So if you apologise for breaking the laws it's fine. Some message for a head of government to send out we're in serious trouble as a country. Total banana republic.

    https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1324065476562083841?s=19


  • Options
    #3065
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,716 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    Seems you lads have already decided that since Saturday.

    My opinion is that he did.

    It doesn't matter what his motives were, he shared a document with vested interests who were not entitled to it.


  • Options
    #3066
    Leftwaffe
    Registered Users Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭Leftwaffe


    Does anyone actually know for sure if he broke the law or not? Because if he didn't then this is getting swept under the table, it's nearly done already.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3067
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    smurgen wrote: »
    So if you apologise for breaking the laws it's fine. Some message for a head of government to send out we're in serious trouble as a country. Total banana republic.

    https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1324065476562083841?s=19

    So you're saying Leo broke the law!
    Thats a pretty serious judgement right there Smurge.
    And then end with a banana Republic remark.


  • Options
    #3068
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Redordeadqwwer wrote: »
    Does anyone actually know for sure if he broke the law or not? Because if he didn't then this is getting swept under the table, it's nearly done already.

    The village magazine legal advise,is that he did


    Cant imagine too many countries,where its legal to distribute confidential papers to 3rd parties.....but we hold drink-drivers and lockdown breakers to account,while this behaviour is cheered on as normal/acceptable??




    Honestly i could not name another country,what carries on like this


  • Options
    #3069
    sabat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,896 ✭✭✭sabat


    I'd be happy enough for him to get away with this one with his card marked for the future because when his most serious crimes become public, the full spectrum of politicians, civilians and law will be gunning for him. His happy-clappy rainbow persona has been utterly discombobulated and he's been outed as the vain, shallow, amoral tosser he really is.


  • Options
    #3070
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,716 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    So you're saying Leo broke the law!
    Thats a pretty serious judgement right there Smurge.
    And then end with a banana Republic remark.

    If it 'was wrong' that he shared a document, then it was wrong because it is against the rules/legislation, therefore illegal.


  • Options
    #3071
    ChikiChiki
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭ChikiChiki


    TheSheriff wrote: »
    Agree with you here, the messages are really telling, healthcare is all about €, yet these people are all over our TVs feigning compassion.

    I really hope his time as the media's go to medic is over.

    Aye, clearly he is all about the money and access to power.

    Direct Provision is another one that really concerns me. Huge amounts of taxpayer expenditure siphoned towards these centre with no coherant plan for the poor occupants.

    I'm wondering are there some skeletons in this area.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3072
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    If it 'was wrong' that he shared a document, then it was wrong because it is against the rules/legislation, therefore illegal.

    A foul in a football match is against the rules and regulations, but not illegal statute wise.
    Big statement to to say someone broke the law as you mean it.


  • Options
    #3073
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,716 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    A foul in a football match is against the rules and regulations, but not illegal statute wise.
    Big statement to to say someone broke the law as you mean it.

    It's 'wrong' because he gave a documentt marked Confidential to a vested interest.
    It is wrong because he should not have done that.

    Legislation governs what he should and should not do. He contravened.

    If he didn't then it wasn't wrong.


  • Options
    #3074
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    A foul in a football match is against the rules and regulations, but not illegal statute wise.
    Big statement to to say someone broke the law as you mean it.

    Ah yeah, my five aside on a Friday night rules were drawn up by an legislative assembly.


  • Options
    #3075
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It's 'wrong' because he gave a documentt marked Confidential to a vested interest.
    It is wrong because he should not have done that.

    Legislation governs what he should and should not do. He contravened.

    If he didn't then it wasn't wrong.

    He admitted it was wrong and not best practice, and imo that could and maybe should have damned him on it's own, it has many others.
    But that's still a step from saying or proclaiming it was illegal.


  • Options
    #3076
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,716 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    He admitted it was wrong and not best practice, and imo that could and maybe should have damned him on it's own, it has many others.
    But that's still a step from saying or proclaiming it was illegal.

    :) If it was 'wrong' it cannot be anything other than a contravention of very clear legislation, they even write it on the document.

    If he didn't contravene the legislation then it WASN'T wrong.


  • Options
    #3077
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    He admitted it was wrong and not best practice, and imo that could and maybe should have damned him on it's own, it has many others.
    But that's still a step from saying or proclaiming it was illegal.

    It was illegal. Was for the benefit of his friend. Answer me this. If the details were public why didn't he whatsapp a link to the public info? Why would the head of a government personally send a document marked confidential not for circulation to someone?


  • Options
    #3078
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    :) If it was 'wrong' it cannot be anything other than a contravention of very clear legislation, they even write it on the document.

    If he didn't contravene the legislation then it WASN'T wrong.

    That's a matter for higher than me or thee to decide though, and it doesn't look like anyone in the political arena is stepping up and pushing for that either.
    Guaranteed if it happened it'd be defended.


  • Options
    #3079
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    smurgen wrote: »
    It was illegal. Was for the benefit of his friend. Answer me this. If the details were public why didn't he whatsapp a link to the public info? Why would the head of a government personally send a document marked confidential not for circulation to someone?

    An envelope marked private and confidential is not a legal document. I get them all the time.


  • Options
    #3080
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,716 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    That's a matter for higher than me or thee to decide though, and it doesn't look like anyone in the political arena is stepping up and pushing for that either.
    Guaranteed if it happened it'd be defended.

    On what grounds? He admitted it was 'wrong. The Taoiseach has said it was wrong.

    If there was no breach, quite simply, it wasn't wrong.


  • Options
    #3081
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    An envelope marked private and confidential is not a legal document. I get them all the time.

    It was a contract.not an envelope. And a contract is a legal document. Varadkar said himself it was a contract.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3082
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    On what grounds? He admitted it was 'wrong. The Taoiseach has said it was wrong.

    If there was no breach, quite simply, it wasn't wrong.

    Wrong Francie isn't always illegal or there'd a lot of us in court fairly regularly.


  • Options
    #3083
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    Wrong Francie isn't always illegal or there'd a lot of us in court fairly regularly.

    Back to the original defense. If the details were public at the time why didn't he send his friend a link to the public available information?


  • Options
    #3084
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    smurgen wrote: »
    Back to the original defense. If the details were public at the time why didn't he send his friend a link to the public available information?

    But the document was shown to hundreds of people ,

    Here were told the imo this and imo that ,why would an organisation who apparently only represent 20% of gp's be the only ones being talked to .

    Seems odd
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #3085
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,716 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    Wrong Francie isn't always illegal or there'd a lot of us in court fairly regularly.

    Maybe you should if you too have shared Confidential documents.

    That's nothing to do with this case in which Varadkar and his Taoiseach have admitted that what was done was 'wrong'.

    If it was wrong, it was wrong because it was a breach of the legislation. Because you might have done it too does not excuse in this case.


  • Options
    #3086
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 68,716 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Gatling wrote: »
    But the document was shown to hundreds of people ,

    Here were told the imo this and imo that ,why would an organisation who apparently only represent 20% of gp's be the only ones being talked to .

    Seems odd

    Immaterial in fairness. The Framework was that the NDGP were not involved in the contract negotiations.


  • Options
    #3087
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    smurgen wrote: »
    It was a contract.not an envelope. And a contract is a legal document. Varadkar said himself it was a contract.

    I get them all the time Smurge, contracts, envelopes, marked clearly as being so, I help draw them up even sometimes.
    And the fact that private and confidential is marked as such is not a claim of legal status and doesn't affect the statutory rights of the individual who shares or receives it.
    The legislation itself that governs whether the law is breached or not is the only legal aid as to whether the law has been breached, not correspondence marked private and confidential.


  • Options
    #3088
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    Gatling wrote: »
    But the document was shown to hundreds of people ,

    Here were told the imo this and imo that ,why would an organisation who apparently only represent 20% of gp's be the only ones being talked to .

    Seems odd

    If that's the case why didn't the O'TUATHAIL go to one of the hundreds of people? Why go to the head of the country at the time?


  • Options
    #3089
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    I get them all the time Smurge, contracts, envelopes, marked clearly as being so, I help draw them up even sometimes.
    And the fact that private and confidential is marked as such is not a claim of legal status and doesn't affect the statutory rights of the individual who shares or receives it.
    The legislation itself that governs whether the law is breached or not is the only legal aid as to whether the law has been breached, not correspondence marked private and confidential.

    If this was the case,why was varadkar going to such efforts to say he was free to distribute it under the offial secrets act??

    (Such advise is disputed btw)

    Seems to me,your comparing apples and oranges


  • Options
    #3090
    SouthWesterly
    Registered Users Posts: 6,727 ✭✭✭SouthWesterly


    smurgen wrote: »
    So if you apologise for breaking the laws it's fine. Some message for a head of government to send out we're in serious trouble as a country. Total banana republic.

    https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1324065476562083841?s=19

    Particularly since LV said it would be a very serious issue if a civil servant had done it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3091
    Nobotty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Nobotty


    smurgen wrote: »
    It was illegal. Was for the benefit of his friend. Answer me this. If the details were public why didn't he whatsapp a link to the public info? Why would the head of a government personally send a document marked confidential not for circulation to someone?

    You can't actually say it was illegal
    Innocent of that at least until prosecuted and convicted and to be honest chances of that are zero craic... IMO (see what I did there :D)
    If you say its illegal without due process saying it was,this site and you could be sued


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement