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

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

So, as of now, no law has been broken, to the best of anyone’s knowledge.

It has been alleged the law has been broken, the matter needs to be investigated to determine if this allegation is correct.
Should the evidence indicate the law has been broken then it is up to the DPP whether the matter should be brought before the courts.
Only until such time as the courts have made their ruling can it be said with certainty if the law has been broken or not.

This is generally (with some exceptions e.g. fixed notice penalties) how it is determined if the law has been broken.

If none has then an investigation would clear that up wouldn't it?

timmyntc

IngazZagni wrote: »

Does anybody here believe the NAGP shouldn’t have had access to the full document at all? Even Sinn Fein wanted the NAGP to have access to this material. However if the IMO were asked for permission it would most likely have created a massive issue as the IMO wouldn’t want a rival union to have any influence.

It was a shortcut and a poor error of judgement but I honestly believe it was done for genuine reasons. Can you imagine the outrage if GPs had refused to sign the agreement because the NAGP campaigned against it due to being kept out of the loop?

Of all juicy political scandals this is pretty dry.

The NAGP should have been included in negotiations, yes.
But they weren't. The Govt were negotiating with one union, and then Leo leaking the outcome of said negotiations to another union.

It doesn't look great.

FrancieBrady

Allinall wrote: »

Once again you are asking me to prove a negative.

It's disingenuous.

Your original claim was that

"Michael Martin is refusing to allow anybody with the power to look at it (the Attorney general) give an opinion."

You have offered nothing to back up this claim.

He rejected a call in the Dáil to request the AG to investigate.

WTF?

blanch152

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It has been alleged the law has been broken, the matter needs to be investigated to determine if this allegation is correct.
Should the evidence indicate the law has been broken then it is up to the DPP whether the matter should be brought before the courts.
Only until such time as the courts have made their ruling can it be said with certainty if the law has been broken or not.

This is generally (with some exceptions e.g. fixed notice penalties) how it is determined if the law has been broken.

If none has then an investigation would clear that up wouldn't it?

There is no evidence that the law has been broken.

stockshares

timmyntc wrote: »

The NAGP should have been included in negotiations, yes.
But they weren't. The Govt were negotiating with one union, and then Leo leaking the outcome of said negotiations to another union.

It doesn't look great.

Does anyone know why the NAGP weren't included?

Was it because Gov were aware of the way it was being run or was it pure bias towards IMO.

Bannasidhe

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no evidence that the law has been broken.

That cannot be stated with certainty until the matter has been investigated.
There is certainly evidence. The Tánaiste has admitted sending a confidential document. That is in the Dáil record.

Which is possibly better evidence then social welfare inspectors use to justify entering the homes of Lone Parent recipients during a level 5 lockdown, yet that is happening.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no evidence that the law has been broken.

Nor will there be until somebody with investigative powers looks for it.

Until then, we all have equally valid 'opinions'.

Nobotty

timmyntc wrote: »

The NAGP should have been included in negotiations, yes.
But they weren't. The Govt were negotiating with one union, and then Leo leaking the outcome of said negotiations to another union.

It doesn't look great.

They absolutely should have been in the full loop yes but Leo being Leo decided to get as many gp's as possible to sign before the Euro and council elections
Tool was the Tool there in that

Mcsharry and o'Cuiv and now Cowen like a lot of FF hate the coalition
I personally like a lot of the country don't understand their hatred for the right-wing of their party FG
But its driving last nights PP meetings shouting
The 3 of them undermining their partys co leader's position on the co Teesh Leo doesn't make any difference unless and until the Gardaí charge Leo
And that won't be happening

CarProblem

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Apart from Leo learning to not trust slimeballs like Matt Tool. Apart from cranks like Chay whathisname being condemned to social welfare for the rest of his life, lets be honest, given that this is such a non-story no one will be buying the book either

We also learned that not only is Varadkar an arrogant spoofer with zero substance and competence, caring more about social media likes and being "hip with the kids" that anything else, but he's also an untrustworthy snake

Don't forget that bit

IngazZagni

FrancieBrady wrote: »

McSharry nailing it. This is not 'leaking to the press or giving a steer', this is 'leaking a confidential official state secret'.

But surely the head a union representing GP’s should have some sort of access to this material about contracts for GP’s? The fact they weren’t involved at all is an issue too. It’s not like some random confidential documents being leaked to someone that has nothing to do with the content. The negotiations had concluded at this stage too.

timmyntc wrote: »

The NAGP should have been included in negotiations, yes.
But they weren't. The Govt were negotiating with one union, and then Leo leaking the outcome of said negotiations to another union.

It doesn't look great.

They committed to keeping them in the loop, not necessarily be part of the negotiations. That’s on the record.
So it would be ok to invite them in after the negotiations in an official capacity to see details? What if the IMO refused? Why should the IMO dictate everything?

It does look bad no doubt but so does going against your word on keeping a union in the loop.

What would have happened if this wasn’t leaked? This is a big question. I personally believe very little apart from some GP’s initially voting against the deal. No one ended up better off here either financially (excluding the pay rise in the contract) or otherwise.

timmyntc

stockshares wrote: »

Does anyone know why the NAGP weren't included?

Was it because Gov were aware of the way it was being run or was it pure bias towards IMO.

Didn't have a license for negotiations - which led to members leaving & contributed to their debts which ultimately led them to liquidation.

O'Tuathails plan to get the contract & put it to members was presumably to boost membership in the union & stop things falling apart.

s1ippy

IngazZagni wrote: »

But surely the head a union representing GP’s should have some sort of access to this material about contracts for GP’s? The fact they weren’t involved at all is an issue too. It’s not like some random confidential documents being leaked to someone that has nothing to do with the content. The negotiations had concluded at this stage too.




They committed to keeping them in the loop, not necessarily be part of the negotiations. That’s on the record.
So it would be ok to invite them in after the negotiations in an official capacity to see details? What if the IMO refused? Why should the IMO dictate everything?

It does look bad no doubt but so does going against your word on keeping a union in the loop.

What would have happened if this wasn’t leaked? This is a big question. I personally believe very little apart from some GP’s initially voting against the deal. No one ended up better off here either financially (excluding the pay rise in the contract) or otherwise.

When the health minister is keeping them at arm's length and the Taoiseach, knowing that they want to "destroy" the union in talks, secretly goes over the health minister's head for a mate, it's a different story.

twowheelsonly

timmyntc wrote: »

The NAGP should have been included in negotiations, yes.
But they weren't. The Govt were negotiating with one union, and then Leo leaking the outcome of said negotiations to another union.

It doesn't look great.

This is it, all day long.

The Government chose to deal with the IMO only. They chose not to deal with the NAGP. In my opinion they should have been dealing with both and therefore would have been covering the majority of GPs in the country but that's not what they chose to do as is their right.

Leo however chose to share the document with NAGP, therefore stepping outside the negotiation boundaries set by his own Government and knowingly doing so. This fella is now Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. His credibility and integrity are shot and totally incompatible with both of his current roles.

FrancieBrady

IngazZagni wrote: »

But surely the head a union representing GP’s should have some sort of access to this material about contracts for GP’s? The fact they weren’t involved at all is an issue too. It’s not like some random confidential documents being leaked to someone that has nothing to do with content. The negotiations had concluded at this stage too.

Not important.

They were NOT included in the Framework. What role somebody personally thought they should have is irrelevant here.

They committed to keeping them in the loop, not necessarily be part of the negotiations. That’s on the record.
So it would be ok to invite them in after the negotiations in an official capacity to see details? What if the IMO refused? Why should the IMO dictate everything?

It does look bad no doubt but so does going against your word on keeping a union in the loop.

What would have happened if this wasn’t leaked? This is a big question. I personally believe very little apart from some GP’s initially voting against the deal. No one ended up better off here either financially (excluding the pay rise in the contract) or otherwise.

Hindsight doesn't work here either. You do not share Official State Secrets because you have (at the time) no idea what effect that will have.

IngazZagni

s1ippy wrote: »

When the health minister is keeping them at arm's length and the Taoiseach, knowing that they want to "destroy" the union in talks, secretly goes over the health minister's head for a mate, it's a different story.

How does he know they want to destroy the IMO? What evidence do you have of this? Outrageous suggestion.

Allinall

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He rejected a call in the Dáil to request the AG to investigate.

WTF?

He refused to ask the AG to investigate. He did not refuse to allow him to investigate.

there is a massive difference, of which I am sure you are fully aware.

McMurphy

IngazZagni wrote: »

How does he know they want to destroy the IMO? What evidence do you have of this? Outrageous suggestion.

"I'd love to destroy IMO too" is a bit of a giveaway.

Bannasidhe

stockshares wrote: »

Does anyone know why the NAGP weren't included?

Was it because Gov were aware of the way it was being run or was it pure bias towards IMO.

The official reason is NAGP were not signed up to a framework for contract negotiations with the Department of Health, or under the umbrella of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

Good outline about them here: https://www.thejournal.ie/national-association-of-general-practitioners-leo-varadkar-leak-5252202-Nov2020/

But even if they were a recognised 'union', what Varadkar did would be equivalent to govt engaging in a lengthy and fractious negotiation with ASTI and at the 11th hour, when the deal was very nearly done but not signed, the Taoiseach was privately asked by a friend to send him a copy - a friend who had been turned down by the minister of education.
Without telling anyone the Taoiseach then sent a copy, warning it was confidential, via unofficial channels keeping no records to a friend high up in a rival union.

shatners bassoon

blanch152 wrote: »

Using that analogy, we can't be certain that you aren't a mass murderer and a pedophile and it would be ok to accuse you of same.

That argument just doesn't wash. There is no evidence that a law has been broken. The senior counsel opinion obtained by the Village magazine supports the view that Varadkar could have authorised himself to share the document. That he didn't follow best practice in doing so doesn't make it a crime.

No it wouldn't, because there's no evidence to suggest that I'm a mass murderer and a paedophile. If there was, I would expect the matter to be investigated.

The purpose of obtaining counsel's opinion was to refute Leo's statement that it is "manifestly wrong" to suggest that he broke the act because the definition of "public office" specifically excludes members of the Oireachtas. The opinion confirms that in fact, Leo is manifestly wrong on this point. I'm still staggered that he / his legal team even sought to make this argument. You don't need to be senior counsel to figure out that he's incorrect here. You just need to read the act. At best it's an embarrassing error by him and his solicitor. At worst, it's deliberately misleading.

The remainder of the opinion merely restates the relevant contents of the act and the exceptions, namely, that releasing information is acceptable if the person:

- is duly authorised to communicate the official information – “duly authorised” here means (S.4(4)) authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority to communicate the official information, or

-communicates the official information in the course of or in accordance with his or her duties as the holder of a public office (not including membership of the Oireachtas), or

-when it is his or her duty in the interest of the State to communicate it.

My understanding is that Leo has never claimed that he was authorised to do so. He has made the argument that it was in the public interest. This is open to debate.

There is more than enough here to warrant investigation. Why not just have the AG review matters and give an opinion?

McMurphy

IngazZagni wrote: »

Is Leo Varadkar part of this conversation?

As far as I know, that conversation is between MOT and Leo. I'm not sure how they got access to screenshots of Leo's phone, but he's never came out and dispute that it's from his (Leo's) phone.


Edit here's details of the tweet.


https://twitter.com/BowesChay/status/1323985047343562752?s=19


And more here. .


https://drive.google.com/file/d/11Uy5vmEwqoxLfhGaq2DDFQy3DDyNJk-L/view

Jinglejangle69

What was said about Leo been on the IMO side?

Surely he wouldn't leak something if it was going to harm the IMO and he knew it??

FrancieBrady

Allinall wrote: »

He refused to ask the AG to investigate. He did not refuse to allow him to investigate.

there is a massive difference, of which I am sure you are fully aware.

So you believe the AG is free to independently investigate a Taoiseach or Minister. I don't. Why? Because I am not aware of it ever happening in the history of the State.

The Taoiseach or the Cabinet need to 'request' it. That is why the Taoiseach was asked to instigate an AG investigation in the Dáil. If anyone else could request it that would have happened.

Now, instead of arrogantly jumping up and down claiming I am wrong, go prove I am wrong by backing it up. Otherwise scroll on.

IngazZagni

McMurphy wrote: »

"I'd love to destroy IMO too" is a bit of a giveaway.

Is that really a screenshot from Leo’s phone? How has someone managed to screenshot the Taoiseachs phone? What a massive security breach.
What was Leo’s response to this and had the document been sent before or after this message?

timmyntc

McMurphy wrote: »

"I'd love to destroy IMO too" is a bit of a giveaway.

Thats between Chay Bowes & MOT, not Varadkar.

Jinglejangle69

IngazZagni wrote: »

Is that really a screenshot from Leo’s phone? How has someone managed to screenshot the Taoiseachs phone? What a massive security breach.
What was Leo’s response to this and had the document been sent before or after this message?

Don't think that's Leo's conversation.

There is two different ones

WicklaWolf

IngazZagni wrote: »

Is that really a screenshot from Leo’s phone? How has someone managed to screenshot the Taoiseachs phone? What a massive security breach.
What was Leo’s response to this and had the document been sent before or after this message?

It's a screenshot of Maitiu O'Ts phone. He probably took it and sent it on.

Jinglejangle69

timmyntc wrote: »

Thats between Chay Bowes & MOT, not Varadkar.

Yep.

Lot of incorrect stuff here, surprised posters here still don't know the simple details seems they are here 24/7.

Let's stick to the facts.

TheChizler

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Don't think that's Leo's conversation.

There is two different ones

Best get that cleared up, plenty people have taken Leo offering MOT a job from it.

Gregor Samsa

McMurphy wrote: »

As far as I know, that conversation is between MOT and Leo. I'm not sure how they got access to screenshots of Leo's phone, but he's never came out and dispute that it's from his (Leo's) phone.

There's no screenshots from Leo's phone, and no claim that there is. They're all from Chay Bowes' phone, or MOT's phone (who seems to have screen-dumped everything he ever did on his phone to Bowes).

atticu

IngazZagni wrote: »

Is that really a screenshot from Leo’s phone? How has someone managed to screenshot the Taoiseachs phone? What a massive security breach.
What was Leo’s response to this and had the document been sent before or after this message?

If you believe that is a screenshot of anyone’s phone, then I have some magic beans that you are probably interested in buying.