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

s1ippy

IngazZagni wrote: »

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

You'd think that for somebody vehemently defending Leo you'd have actually looked at the evidence that's been put out instead of just flailing around outraged.

Cluedo Monopoly

McMurphy wrote: »

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

Wow I never saw that one before. Lovely.

TheChizler

WicklaWolf wrote: »

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

Nope. Unless MOT has the other person saved as a contact with his own name, and is having a backwards conversation with the other person from their point of view while calling the other person his own name.

JohnnyFlash

Lot of anger here. Some posters appear to be doubling down.

blanch152

shatners bassoon wrote: »

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?

Firstly, if the Taosieach cannot authorise it, there is no higher office in the land. Self-authorisation is obvious from the legislation. Secondly, even if by some quirk, it isn't, there was a reference to a Cabinet decision that the Government should continue engagement with the NAGP, that is sufficient authorisation.

Who decides on the interests of the State? The government, led by the Taoiseach. The presumption therefore is that the Taoiseach is acting in the interests of the State. It would be a very high threshold to prove he wasn't, especially in a case like this. Saying it is open to debate isn't enough.

IngazZagni

s1ippy wrote: »

You'd think that for somebody vehemently defending Leo you'd have actually looked at the evidence that's been put out instead of just flailing around outraged.

But I just learned the screenshot you sent did not involve Leo Varadkar. How is Varadkar supposed to know O Tuathails personal opinion of the IMO from a private message he wasn’t involved in?

Jinglejangle69

IngazZagni wrote: »

But I just learned the screenshot you sent did not involve Leo Varadkar. How is Varadkar supposed to know O Tuathails personal opinion of the IMO from a private message he wasn’t involved in?

Simple facts.

McMurphy

timmyntc wrote: »

Thats between Chay Bowes & MOT, not Varadkar.

Sorry, misleading tweet if so.

Yesterday instead of publishing on @VillageMagIRE we passed more evidence to @IrishTimes & @rtenews

These 12 new exchanges are now being published for the 1st time & include exchanges between @LeoVaradkar & @DrZeroCraic

Make your own mind up. More on:
https://t.co/eypjBxzLln https://t.co/zwht0mJO2W

atticu wrote: »

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

Ah yeah..... Actually, on closer inspection, it's a photo of a buffalo's arse. Easy mistake to make.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

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

So Matt O'Toole and Chas Bowes, both involved in a rival organisation to the IMO, discuss destroying the IMO, and this is relevant, how?

timmyntc

McMurphy wrote: »

Sorry, misleading tweet if so.

...
These 12 new exchanges are now being published for the 1st time & include exchanges between @LeoVaradkar & @DrZeroCraic
...

it includes a conversation between Leo & MOT. It doesn't say that they all are.
Only 1 pic out of the 4 are between Leo & MOT. (The one with Leo's name at the top)

Jinglejangle69

McMurphy wrote: »

Sorry, misleading tweet if so.






Ah yeah..... Actually, on closer inspection, it's a photo of a buffalo's arse. Easy mistake to make.

That's why using twitter as gospel is dangerous.

s1ippy

IngazZagni wrote: »

But I just learned the screenshot you sent did not involve Leo Varadkar. How is Varadkar supposed to know O Tuathails personal opinion of the IMO from a private message he wasn’t involved in?

I never said Leo was supposed to know that, I did say he shouldn't have leaked confidential documents about a rival organisation to a friend. That the friend wanted to destroy the union represented in the talks just further bolsters why he was doing entirely the wrong thing to leak them, despite his whole "if it's a crime to love one's country" shtick.

Jinglejangle69

IngazZagni wrote: »

Like?

I'm agreeing with you.

Simple facts like it's not Leo in that conversation.

We need to stick to the facts.

atticu

McMurphy wrote: »

Sorry, misleading tweet if so.






Ah yeah..... Actually, on closer inspection, it's a photo of a buffalo's arse. Easy mistake to make.

I am guessing that you have never heard of photoshop.
It will blow your mind when you find out what can be done with a photo.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Sorry, misleading tweet if so.

Ah yeah..... Actually, on closer inspection, it's a photo of a buffalo's arse. Easy mistake to make.

Yes, it appears you have been duped into thinking that the texts were between Leo and Matt. Looks deliberate on Village Magazine's part, but it all consists of Matt's version of his interactions with Harris and Varadkar, and is second-hand information.

Disgraceful mud-slinging by Village, but not surprising that they have found patsys to repeat it as if it came directly from Leo.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, it appears you have been duped into thinking that the texts were between Leo and Matt. Looks deliberate on Village Magazine's part, but it all consists of Matt's version of his interactions with Harris and Varadkar, and is second-hand information.

Disgraceful mud-slinging by Village, but not surprising that they have found patsys to repeat it as if it came directly from Leo.

Is there a denial from Leo?

McMurphy

atticu wrote: »

I am guessing that you have never heard of photoshop.
It will blow your mind when you find out what can be done with a photo.

I have heard of it.

I'd say the likes of this was produced using it.



This is just the FG equivalent of screaming "FAKE NEWS".

s1ippy

I'd imagine there won't be a denial, that the hard copies of these sceengrabs are retrievable in WhatsApp for the legal proceedings and there are more to come.

IngazZagni

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

I'm agreeing with you.

Simple facts like it's not Leo in that conversation.

We need to stick to the facts.

Apologies. It actually shocked me when a poster suggested that tweet involved Leo because that would have changed everything.

It was still wrong what he did though.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, it appears you have been duped into thinking that the texts were between Leo and Matt. Looks deliberate on Village Magazine's part, but it all consists of Matt's version of his interactions with Harris and Varadkar, and is second-hand information.

Disgraceful mud-slinging by Village, but not surprising that they have found patsys to repeat it as if it came directly from Leo.

Did you say just something about being "duped", and mistake village magazine, and a tweet from Chay Bowes in the same post Blanch?

Village magazine didn't tweet that, chay bowes tweeted it.

twowheelsonly

blanch152 wrote: »

Firstly, if the Taosieach cannot authorise it, there is no higher office in the land. Self-authorisation is obvious from the legislation. Secondly, even if by some quirk, it isn't, there was a reference to a Cabinet decision that the Government should continue engagement with the NAGP, that is sufficient authorisation.

Who decides on the interests of the State? The government, led by the Taoiseach. The presumption therefore is that the Taoiseach is acting in the interests of the State. It would be a very high threshold to prove he wasn't, especially in a case like this. Saying it is open to debate isn't enough.

You seem to be very tied up on this point, that of the Taoiseach being pretty much self governing and by extension can pretty much do as he likes without the approval of anybody.
Thankfully he's not, and is answerable to the House and to the people of Ireland. He may claim to have acted in the interest of all but the fact remains that he went against all the policies of negotiation, went against his own Government and even went against a Union of which he was previously a member. He did all this by sending those documents to a third party who was not entitled at that time to have them.
He's a leak which makes him untrustworthy and unsuitable for the position of Tánaiste or his Ministerial portfolio. His "nothing of this nature" comment was very telling and basically an admittance that he has spoken out of turn before.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

Did you say just something about being "duped", and mistake village magazine, and a tweet from Chay Bowes in the same post Blanch?

Village magazine didn't tweet that, chay bowes tweeted it.

Last I checked, Village confirmed that Chay Bowes was working with them on the story. Maybe you missed that.

Allinall

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Please show me where I did this?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Last I checked, Village confirmed that Chay Bowes was working with them on the story. Maybe you missed that.

So they're responsible for each and every tweet he puts out on his personal twitter account?

I'd be very careful about a "last time I checked someone was working with someone else" line in a thread about the then Taoiseach leaking information through back channels blanch.

If that's your new bar, who else is Ultimately responsible for Leo's actions?

zerosugarbuzz

Pierce Doherty and Leo going at it on leaders questions just now, rte1

Nobotty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is there a denial from Leo?

There is a catch all statement from Vradakar about defamation
We've just worked out in this thread another stick he has to beat the Village with
Woeful incompetence on their part ,its been like that from the start because they should have waited for a better time to use this,if downfall and FG damage was their game

Instead,it looks like to me that personal dislike ruled the roost here
It definitely isn't clever
Clever would have been in the middle of an election and if the allegations weren't true,damage to a campaign would have been done before it could be un done

Its no use at all now
None

shatners bassoon

blanch152 wrote: »

Firstly, if the Taosieach cannot authorise it, there is no higher office in the land. Self-authorisation is obvious from the legislation. Secondly, even if by some quirk, it isn't, there was a reference to a Cabinet decision that the Government should continue engagement with the NAGP, that is sufficient authorisation.

Who decides on the interests of the State? The government, led by the Taoiseach. The presumption therefore is that the Taoiseach is acting in the interests of the State. It would be a very high threshold to prove he wasn't, especially in a case like this. Saying it is open to debate isn't enough.

Varadkar hasn't addressed any of the exceptions under the act. If it's his position that he has the power to self-authorise the release of confidential documentation (which, let's be clear, would render the Taoiseach immune to any action under the Act, regardless of the nature of the breach provided it was authorised by the very person communicating the information) then he should state that clearly.

To definitively claim that 'a reference to a Cabinet decision that the Government should continue engagement with the NAGP...is sufficient authorisation' for Leo to send a confidential document directly to a friend in that organisation without the knowledge of the other parties involved is ridiculous.

Finally, the executive absolutely does not decide what is in the best interests of the state as referred to in legislation.

What's your opinion on Leo claiming that the the Village were 'manifestly' wrong to suggest that the legislation applies to him?

Jinglejangle69

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Pierce Doherty and Leo going at it on leaders questions just now, rte1

Sure what else is there to discuss.

Only covid, economy, education, housing etc

McMurphy

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Pierce Doherty and Leo going at it on leaders questions just now, rte1

Doherty is trying to get Leo to confirm or deny very specific questions about correspondence between himself and MOT.

can't help get the feeling that they have further screen grabs and are trying to steer Leo into s scenario where he'll have contradicted himself.

atticu

McMurphy wrote: »

I have heard of it.

I'd say the likes of this was produced using it.



This is just the FG equivalent of screaming "FAKE NEWS".

I do apologise, I didn’t realise that you thought they were true.

Seeing as you believe them, let me know when you would like to buy some magic beans.