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

Nobotty

smurgen wrote: »

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?

Because he's a tool

Bishop of hope

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Because the details were already in the public domain, it wasn't a secret. But his, sharing of the contract, the written copy of it, shouldn't have been sent to a friend or rival organisation before even the IMO received their official copy.

smurgen

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Because the details were already in the public domain, it wasn't a secret. But his, sharing of the contract, the written copy of it, shouldn't have been sent to a friend or rival organisation before even the IMO received their official copy.

Why didn't he direct him to info in public domain? Why wouldn't O'Tuathail seek info available from the public domain? I want to know the weather tomorrow morning but I think I'll ask Google instead of asking Michael D to contact Met Eireann for me.

Nobotty

Nobotty wrote: »

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 )
If you say its illegal without due process saying it was,this site and you could be sued

If you were to say quote the village magazine and their legal advise saying it was illegal,who gets sued then


Varadkar clearly been leaking all sorts,hes not gonna sue anyone,same as gerry adams isnt going to sue anyone for saying he was in the ira,as civil cases allow all sorts of irrelevant info be aired publically and whatever shred of a reputation he has left would be wiped out

Bishop of hope

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Because the details were already in the public domain, it wasn't a secret. But his, sharing of the contract, the written copy of it, shouldn't have been sent to a friend or rival organisation before even the IMO received their official copy.

This contract was not published for one month until after it was leaked??


This 3rd party seen this document before the dail,quite how people parrot the line it was in public domain,when its wasnt is beyond me

Bishop of hope

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This contract was not published for one month until after it was leaked??


This 3rd party seen this document before the dail,quite how people parrot the line it was in public domain,when its wasnt is beyond me

But that's the case and the defence too.
But as I said, the fact that the document had private and confidential or the envelope that yous all have your eyes on as evidence, is worthless in legal terms.

smurgen

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But that's the case and the defence too.
But as I said, the fact that the document had private and confidential or the envelope that yous all have your eyes on as evidence, is worthless in legal terms.

But is was a draft contract. So stating where negotiations were going. If it wasn't confidential why couldn't O'Tuathail himself order one?

Bullocks

I reckon this story is dying on its feet , the Village didn't come out with anything new despite their promises of more to follow and the US elections are keeping the newspapers full without looking for any more news . Could be a lucky time for Leo for this to air

weldoninhio

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.

Varadkar admitted, under questioning, that it was still a confidential document when he sent it

Bishop of hope

weldoninhio wrote: »

Varadkar admitted, under questioning, that it was still a confidential document when he sent it

OK I get that, but he didn't admit breaking the law.
He had plenty of time to prepare his respnse and admitting wrong is not an admittance of breaking the law.

smurgen

weldoninhio wrote: »

Varadkar admitted, under questioning, that it was still a confidential document when he sent it

Michael refusing to consult the AG on whether Varadkar broke the law.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-dismisses-calls-for-ag-to-be-consulted-over-whether-varadkar-broke-law-1.4400051?mode=amp

weldoninhio

smurgen wrote: »

Michael refusing to consult the AG on whether Varadkar broke the law.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-dismisses-calls-for-ag-to-be-consulted-over-whether-varadkar-broke-law-1.4400051?mode=amp

They really are being shown up as clinging onto power no matter what. None of them have the country's best interests at heart. It's pathetic. And people still support and back them.

Bishop of hope

weldoninhio wrote: »

They really are being shown up as clinging onto power no matter what. None of them have the country's best interests at heart. It's pathetic. And people still support and back them.

I'm not defending what leo did weld.
My interaction came with smurgen claiming Leo broke the law.
That's a big claim and it's not at all clear he did.
I'm not saying absolutely he didn't either!
Either way imo he has proven to be at least untrustworthy and selfish and if I was having dealings with him I'd be wary of what I'd share with him again.
I said it before, I think if it was a lesser minister he would have been forced out and probably should.

smurgen

weldoninhio wrote: »

They really are being shown up as clinging onto power no matter what. None of them have the country's best interests at heart. It's pathetic. And people still support and back them.

It's their defenders that get me. Tell us that we get the politicians we deserve after elections while defending them to the hilt any time there's a scandal. The same people that wheel out victims in a grotesque exploitation before any election and then defend sealing the records of victims when it suits them.

weldoninhio

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'm not defending what leo did weld.
My interaction came with smurgen claiming Leo broke the law.
That's a big claim and it's not at all clear he did.
I'm not saying absolutely he didn't either!
Either way imo he has proven to be at least untrustworthy and selfish and if I was having dealings with him I'd be wary of what I'd share with him again.
I said it before, I think if it was a lesser minister he would have been forced out and probably should.

I wasn't thinking of you when I posted. There have been posters in here since the minute it broke defending Leo, even before details came out.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

OK I get that, but he didn't admit breaking the law.
He had plenty of time to prepare his respnse and admitting wrong is not an admittance of breaking the law.

If it was wrong, it was a breach. If it was a breach then he broke the law.

If it wasn't a breach then it was not wrong.

McMurphy

weldoninhio wrote: »

I wasn't thinking of you when I posted. There have been posters in here since the minute it broke defending Leo, even before details came out.

The best one on here by a country mile was the poster who played the bully card because a magazine with journalists had information about Leo.

The next day they were posting stats about how many covid deaths and hospital admittance figures the north had in some kind of macabre competition.

Relevance to Leo Varadkar getting caught passing sensitive documents to the head of a rival organisation in a govt deal who should not have had them?

Cult.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If it was wrong, it was a breach. If it was a breach then he broke the law.

If it wasn't a breach then it was not wrong.

So say he broke the law and no ifs, ands, buts, or maybes!

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So say he broke the law and no ifs, ands, buts, or maybes!

In my opinion he broke the law.

thomas 123

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In my opinion he broke the law.

I don’t know why you should be strong armed into passing your opinion, if only we had a dedicated, law enforcement / investigation type group of people who could look into this.

FrancieBrady

Almost a week now, still a top story on Morning Ireland...you know what they say about that, not good, not good.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In my opinion he broke the law.

And that's a cop out!

thomas 123

Bishop of hope wrote: »

And that's a cop out!

So what do you suggest? Can you confirm he did not break any laws without it being your opinion?

FrancieBrady

thomas 123 wrote: »

I don’t know why you should be strong armed into passing your opinion, if only we had a dedicated, law enforcement / investigation type group of people who could look into this.

Well it seems the circled wagons won't allow anyone who might have an expert opinion or authority look at it. You would wonder why, if they are so sure of themselves.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-dismisses-calls-for-ag-to-be-consulted-over-whether-varadkar-broke-law-1.4400051?mode=amp

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

And that's a cop out!

How is it a cop out?

Bishop of hope

thomas 123 wrote: »

So what do you suggest? Can you confirm he did not break any laws without it being your opinion?

Read back, covered that.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How is it a cop out?

Because that doesn't state he broke the law.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Because that doesn't state he broke the law.

Ffs bishop they have said in their opinion he broke the law, opinions are all anyone have until a court ruling says otherwise, stop with the pedantry.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Because that doesn't state he broke the law.

Completely dis-ingenuous there Bish.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Completely dis-ingenuous there Bish.

You yes.
State just them four words, Leo broke the Law.
Stating it as your opinion Francie, doesn't mean he did and you know it:)