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

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

They did have the full gist, Leo even admitted to it.

Yiz were all here the other day waiting with rubbing hands for the late instalment of the revelations as we're SF probably, but were desperately disappointed, as we're SF I'd say, when all it done was made a, hames of the entire case it proposed to have outed.
A disaster.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Yiz were all here the other day waiting with rubbing hands for the late instalment of the revelations as we're SF probably, but were desperately disappointed, as we're SF I'd say, when all it done was made a, hames of the entire case it proposed to have outed.
A disaster.

This is more rubbish. The VoNC would have happened regardless of what was published.

Dempo1

gadarnol wrote: »

I see from the Village article that Varadkar seems to be abandoning his interest in suing for defamation. So the legal angle of the leak being decided depends if the Gardai decide to pursue an investigation and onto DPP etc.

FG are getting ahead of themselves winning a predictable vote. Their next turn in the spotlight is the constitutional crisis brought about by their man Woulfe. He hasn’t gone away.... yet.

Leo's Judge going nowhere, at €230k + a year would you blame him. He'll hold out as there is Zero this government can do to dismiss him, even the chief justice messed up any potential impeachment as any such move would end up before the very court who've shown Bias.

Just another farcical mess which will end in a handsome payoff and substantial pension for another FG lacky.

gadarnol

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

‘Confessed’ ..? very calculated use of hyperbolic language Francie.

Implication there is that some kind of crime was committed.

Noticed...... I say again....noticed.

I disagree. Confess is very appropriate and doesn’t carry a criminal implication. Varadkar for forced to confess wrongdoing in leaking the document. He was reprimanded verbally for that. Whether a crime was committed or not may well depend on the outcome of a Garda investigation if begun processed and then prosecuted successfully or not by the DPP. If we don’t get that far it remains hanging there.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Yiz were all here the other day waiting with rubbing hands for the late instalment of the revelations as we're SF probably, but were desperately disappointed, as we're SF I'd say, when all it done was made a, hames of the entire case it proposed to have outed.
A disaster.

The motion was tabled before the village magazine said anything about Mondays WhatsApps, and Mondays WhatsApps were never mentioned last night.

For the second time today, you made a brain fart post, deal with it.

Brendan Bendar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Whom does LV suggest "regulates" the press?
How does LV define "regulation"?
Are the courts where one may sue them not good enough for LV or does he wish to see some govt appointed editor regulator 'overseeing' licencing who can publish ?

How very Oliver Cromwell.

Hmmm... who regulates Boards ?

Fantastic folk who give their time to ensure the place doesn’t turn into the Wild West and have a series of rules.

The Press are just a bigger version, and ,without regulation would very quickly descend into a Wild West.

What I am saying succinctly is that any media outlets which are not regulated would quickly descend into a free for all with no standards, no rules just click bait and rubbish without any fact checking.


Have a think about that, and then think about what would happen if Boards
decided to go wild and let any headbanger post whatever the like on its platform.

Hmmmm

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

The motion was tabled before the village magazine said anything about Mondays WhatsApps, and Mondays WhatsApps were never mentioned last night.

For the second time today, you made a brain fart post, deal with it.

Quite clear what the directive is...keep insinuating that SF AND The Village are in cahoots here. If you know the history of The Village there must have been a Paulian conversion in it's editorial suite for that to happen.

gadarnol

Dempo1 wrote: »

Leo's Judge going nowhere, at €230k + a year would you blame him. He'll hold out as there is Zero this government can do to dismiss him, even the chief justice messed up any potential impeachment as any such move would end up before the very court who've shown Bias.

Just another farcical mess which will end in a handsome payoff and substantial pension for another FG lacky.

Very hard to pass on the job alright. There’s nothing they can do and after supporting Varadkar in the VoC impeaching your man would really take the biscuit. MM will hide behind the lack of process now; the classic FF solution would be to leave him there, appoint a hape of new SC judges and make sure the Woulfe of Clifden has no cases to judge. A very highly paid stapler loader if you will. It’s better than Netflix!

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

The motion was tabled before the village magazine said anything about Mondays WhatsApps, and Mondays WhatsApps were never mentioned last night.

For the second time today, you made a brain fart post, deal with it.

Maybe if the shinners had seen it before they ran with the motion they'd have reconsidered their calling for the vote?
Not me that needs to deal with brain farts Mc.
Political brain fart of the week so far is belonging to SF.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Maybe if the shinners had seen it before they ran with the motion they'd have reconsidered their calling for the vote?
Not me that needs to deal with brain farts Mc.
Political brain fart of the week so far is belonging to SF.

That makes no sense whatsoever, I had to clarify resignations for you earlier, now it seems I have to clarify the MONC too



The NC motion wasn't about Mondays WhatsApps, nor was it from the previous ones either, it was tabled after Leo confirmed he leaked a confidential document to his pal, and then concocted a bullsht story as to why, after the revelation's exposed him doing so.

What don't you get about that?

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever, I had to clarify resignations for you earlier, now it seems I have to clarify the MONC too



The NC motion wasn't about Mondays WhatsApps, nor was it from the previous ones either, it was tabled after Leo confirmed he leaked a confidential document to his pal, and then concocted a bullsht story as to why, after the revelation's exposed him doing so.

What don't you get about that?

You might want to rephrase that.

https://www.politico.eu/article/irelands-deputy-leader-rejects-claim-he-leaked-confidential-documents/

Brain fart?

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

You might want to rephrase that.

https://www.politico.eu/article/irelands-deputy-leader-rejects-claim-he-leaked-confidential-documents/

Brain fart?

Aaaaand pivots to something else.

Lol, so Leo comfirms he leaked the document, but Leo says the document wasn't confidential?

So, I've two follow up questions.


Who gives Leo the right to decide whether or not what he passed to his pal was confidential or not, weren't you on here earlier on a different thread trying to question who made another party judge and jury to demand resignations?

Secondly, you yourself are on this very thread saying Leo should have been made resign.

What do you think he needed to resign for?

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

Aaaaand pivots to something else.

Lol, so Leo comfirms he leaked the document, but Leo says the document wasn't confidential?

So, I've two follow up questions.


Who gives Leo the right to decide whether or not what he passed to his pal was confidential or not, weren't you on here earlier on a different thread trying to question who made another party judge and jury to demand resignations?

Secondly, you yourself are on this very thread saying Leo should have been made resign.

What do you think he needed to resign for?

Mc, I'm not pivoting.
You're saying Leo said something Leo didn't say.
I think he should have yes and as I said I believe if it was a lesser one he probably would have had to.
If he, worked in my office and posted a clients contract to othee interested contractors knowingly he'd be gone.
That doesn't Chang the political fact he didn't or won't or that a no confidence motion was never going to be won against him.
It doesn't Change the fact that SF were used in the game of Cosgrave and Bowes.
If SF had gotten the full facts they might well have been advised that being used in a vendatta battle was stupid, and they have fallen foul of it.
They are the ones who came out worst out of the whole episode

JohnnyFlash

Lot of anger here. Might have to go on the Twitter machine and see what all-day merchants like Mick Caul and Roman Shortall are saying about this. I’d say the veins are popping out in the neck.

Imagine using up a vote of no confidence on this issue? As I said earlier, whatever one of the strategists (Maybe one of SF’s 200 employees) came up with the idea would want to be disappeared.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Mc, I'm not pivoting.
You're saying Leo said something Leo didn't say.
I think he should have yes and as I said I believe if it was a lesser one he probably would have had to.
If he, worked in my office and posted a clients contract to othee interested contractors knowingly he'd be gone.
That doesn't Chang the political fact he didn't or won't or that a no confidence motion was never going to be won against him.
It doesn't Change the fact that SF were used in the game of Cosgrave and Bowes.
If SF had gotten the full facts they might well have been advised that being used in a vendatta battle was stupid, and they have fallen foul of it.
They are the ones who came out worst out of the whole episode

What utter self serving nonsense because you talked yourself into a hole.

Leo admitted under questioning in the Dail that the document was confidential and he shared it in a confidential way.

His defence was that he did it in the nation's interest.

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Lot of anger here. Might have to go on the Twitter machine and see what all-day merchants like Mick Caul and Roman Shortall are saying about this. I’d say the veins are popping out in the neck.

Imagine using up a vote of no confidence on this issue? As I said earlier, whatever one of the strategists (Maybe one of SF’s 200 employees) came up with the idea would want to be disappeared.

If posting to Twitter or here is taking you 'all day' you are doing it all wrong.

I managed to do a full days sales and still posted here. Time management software is what you need Johnny.

awec

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Village taking a broadside at our media. Not unjustified IMO.

https://villagemagazine.ie/where-do-the-press-and-fine-gael-stand-on-the-intimidation-of-village-and-its-whistleblower/

This is all getting very silly now.

JohnnyFlash

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If posting to Twitter or here is taking you 'all day' you are doing it all wrong.

I managed to do a full days sales and still posted here. Time management software is what you need Johnny.

Explain how that time management software works, Francie. Haven’t a clue. Does it alert you when someone posts or something? Sounds mighty. Or do you put in 2 minute slots every 10 minutes for internet activity and it reminds you of that?

Not very tech savvy I’m afraid.

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Mc, I'm not pivoting.
You're saying Leo said something Leo didn't say.

Ok, so you thought the Shinners tabled the motion on the back of the village announcing they had more info this week, I pointed out that was rubbish and explained, and you then ignored that and instead moved on to Leo claiming the document he admitted to leaking saying it wasn't confidential (not like Leo has skin in the game) that's not pivoting?

I think he should have yes and as I said I believe if it was a lesser one he probably would have had to.
If he, worked in my office and posted a clients contract to othee interested contractors knowingly he'd be gone.
That doesn't Chang the political fact he didn't or won't or that a no confidence motion was never going to be won against him.
It doesn't Change the fact that SF were used in the game of Cosgrave and Bowes.
If SF had gotten the full facts they might well have been advised that being used in a vendatta battle was stupid, and they have fallen foul of it.
They are the ones who came out worst out of the whole episode

You don't think the opposition just hold someone accountable for leaking information to a rival organisation in a government deal, ok so fair enough.

I like how people working in your office would be held to a higher standard than that of Taoiseach though, so we're all cool.

JohnnyFlash

awec wrote: »

This is all getting very silly now.

I’d say little Paddy Cosgrave is hopping up and down on the spot with rage and tearing strips out of one of his handmade Aran jumpers.

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Explain how that time management software works, Francie. Haven’t a clue. Does it alert you when someone posts or something? Sounds mighty. Or do you put in 2 minute slots every 10 minutes for internet activity and it reminds you of that?

Not very tech savvy I’m afraid.

Google is your friend Johnny. Just telling you, help is available if you are spending all day on Twitter.

Brendan Bendar

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I’d say little Paddy Cosgrave is hopping up and down on the spot with rage and tearing strips out of one of his handmade Aran jumpers.

That idiot bit off more than he could chew, John.

The State need to scope out those tossers now.

RandomViewer

Will all those with failed government tenders start to ask questions?

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Looks like a failed smear to me, not too many believe Leo broke the law.
SF had egg on their face after a not even close vote last night.
There was more time in the debate criticising them than Leo, a lot of their old mistakes thrown back in their faces.
A backfire.

What smear? He was accused of something, he admitted to.
If he did or did not break the law was up to the law to state. It's no smear to suggest he may have IMO. However what he did was the issue for me, any fall out wouldn't dismiss it.
FG attacked SF instead of defending what Varadkar did. As I say, imagine you're an SD, Labour, PBP supporter or not affiliated to any party, FG rattling off the usual at SF wouldn't be acceptable I'd imagine.
Yes, by FG when challenged on shrugging off what Varadkar did. Kinda my point.

RandomViewer

FG attacking SF in government in the North but their sister party the DUP and every other party is in government in the North as well

James Brown

RandomViewer wrote: »

Will all those with failed government tenders start to ask questions?

This is it.
We can't trust FG/Varadkar in confidential matters and negotiations. And seemingly that's okay with FF/Greens.

JohnnyFlash

RandomViewer wrote: »

Will all those with failed government tenders start to ask questions?

Explain to us all how politicians can influence the outcome of Government contracts and tenders.

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Google is your friend Johnny. Just telling you, help is available if you are spending all day on Twitter.

Heh heh.....

Cute Hoor

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Explain to us all how politicians can influence the outcome of Government contracts and tenders.

Well I think you start by giving the Confidential/not for circulation documents to your buddies, and then you take it from there

McMurphy

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Well I think you start by giving the Confidential/not for circulation documents to your buddies, and then you take it from there

:pac:

Fairly pertinent point some people here have difficulties comprehending it would seem. But remember, it's not confidential if Leo says it's not.