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

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

That's an awsome call on fact.
Hope, you have more to back it up than village had!

You are guessing - fact.

There's an easy way for you to disprove that fact.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Simon Harris, Sunday morning past.

https://twitter.com/SimonHarrisTD/status/1325351243615756289?s=19

FG main page since Sunday.......


https://twitter.com/FineGael?s=09





I'm not joking here, I think we're literally seeing a political party imploding in front of our eyes with nothing left on them at all except Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein.

They're stumbling from one PR disaster to the other on Twitter, it's actually cringeworthy.

Holy moley 12 of the last 13 FG tweets are solely focused at dissing shinners....they are at graham lenihan levels of going in too deep :pac:



15 years in power and nothing positive to point at,have now simply taken to aping ian paisley and ranting about shinners....

Has this tactic ever worked,didnt it ultimately cause the collaspe of the PDs

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

Simon Harris, Sunday morning past.

https://twitter.com/SimonHarrisTD/status/1325351243615756289?s=19

FG main page since Sunday.......


https://twitter.com/FineGael?s=09





I'm not joking here, I think we're literally seeing a political party imploding in front of our eyes with nothing left in them at all except "attack Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein, Sinn Fein."

They're stumbling from one PR disaster to the other on Twitter, it's actually cringeworthy.

Their Facebook is a similar mess. Either their PR team know something we don't but I can't see anything other than the electorate telling to take a hike for definite next time.

I said it before, FF could be the ones to gain here, Martin has been surprising since taking the Taoiseach job, keeping a low profile, but he has a very difficult year to navigate if this show stays on the rails.

seamus

Scoondal wrote: »

So the parliament of Ireland states they have condidence in a Tanaiste that leaked official government documents ? And there is no sanction against such an action. So any government minister can leak confidential government papers now with impunity.
What is going on ?

None of them are surprised Scoondal, that's what's going on.

They're all at it, govt, opposition, all of them. Happily giving info to journalists on the sly, giving the nod to their mates about insider info.

Leo got rumbled, but his colleagues aren't shocked or surprised, they're commiserating.

Some people are expecting the Dail to be reacting like a partner discovering an affair. In reality it's more like someone at an AA meeting admitting they got hammered last week. "Yeah, been there, you were foolish, but you've atoned, you'll get past this."

Lads, ye are clutching at straws. Leo won the vote of confidence. Get over it.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

None of them are surprised Scoondal, that's what's going on.

They're all at it, govt, opposition, all of them. Happily giving info to journalists on the sly, giving the nod to their mates about insider info.

Leo got rumbled, but his colleagues aren't shocked or surprised, they're commiserating.

Some people are expecting the Dail to be reacting like a partner discovering in an affair. In reality it's more like someone at an AA meeting admitting they got hammered last week. "Yeah, been there, you were foolish, but you've atoned, you'll get past this."

Mild differemce between leaking info to journalist,who have to protect their sources (and never be found out),and leaking confidential negociation info to 3rd parties??



The fact the dail.supports this,shows what a jokeshop.of a parliment it is and what a joke of a country we are

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are guessing - fact.

There's an easy way for you to disprove that fact.

I'm not guessing anything!
You're the one saying Leo got some material gain from it as fact.
You can't twist out of that.
I'm just wondering where your proof of your fact is coming from?

McMurphy

seamus wrote: »

None of them are surprised Scoondal, that's what's going on.

They're all at it, govt, opposition, all of them. Happily giving info to journalists on the sly, giving the nod to their mates about insider info.

Leo got rumbled, but his colleagues aren't shocked or surprised, they're commiserating.

Some people are expecting the Dail to be reacting like a partner discovering an affair. In reality it's more like someone at an AA meeting admitting they got hammered last week. "Yeah, been there, you were foolish, but you've atoned, you'll get past this."

Leo didn't get caught giving info to a journalist, he got caught slipping information to a rival organisation in a govt deal.


Potential gold dust in the right hands and in the right scenario.

atticu

McMurphy wrote: »

I have to tender for contracts in my job all the time, the industry I'm in has a limited enough number in the trade, all competing for the same client's.

Now let's say there's 3 of us that operate in the greater Leinster area with large hubs/warehousing facilities there. We'd usually be given a list of specific products and services by our clients for their specific needs (lucky enough they all tend to be broadly the same)

The way it works is - I'll draw up an excel sheet with pricing, ETA of product and or service being on site/job completion, and credit terms.

If I had some fella on the inside handing me over my competitors excel sheet with pricing etc, I think we can both agree I'd have one ****ing hell of an advantage over the others. Even a 1% reduction in margin might be enough to swing the deal in my favour.

All's needed is the basic info and you can use it as your foundation.

Do you actually believe that this is how government tenders work?

A simple yes or no will do.

McMurphy

atticu wrote: »

Do you actually believe that this is how government tenders work?

A simple yes or no will do.

No, you can tell that by the way I didn't say i work for this govt, a foreign govt, nor mentioned govt in my post. It doesn't matter a shiny shyte whether it's a govt tender, a private company tender, if you have managed to obtain leaked information about a rival organisation in a deal, you've a tremendous advantage and headstart in that tendering process, and none of your goalpost moving, lame white washing attempt, or even flat out lying - pish is going to change that fact either I'm afraid.

Have you ever thought anymore of your Photoshop claim brainfarts btw?:D

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I'm not guessing anything!
You're the one saying Leo got some material gain from it as fact.
You can't twist out of that.
I'm just wondering where your proof of your fact is coming from?

No I didn't and I challenge yo now to find where I said it.

I said I don't know if he did or not and the only way of finding out is a criminal investigation.

It is immaterial anyway as the law does not require evidence of a gain by disclosing confidential files. It assumes it.

You have though claimed categorically that he didn't gain by it...you have no way of proving other tha by accepting his word.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Mild differemce between leaking info to journalist,who have to protect their sources (and never be found out),and leaking confidential negociation info to 3rd parties??



The fact the dail.supports this,shows what a jokeshop.of a parliment it is and what a joke of a country we are

In a nutshell what happened and being fudged all week by the Leoites.

atticu

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

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

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

McMurphy wrote: »

: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.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Not really explaining how a politician can somehow get involved in the whole EU OJ, civil service tendering, office of the comptroller and auditor general process and use if for personal or financial gain.



You'd know all about the huge amount of oversight and overhead involved in State contracts if you've ever tendered for one.

McMurphy wrote: »

I have to tender for contracts in my job all the time, the industry I'm in has a limited enough number in the trade, all competing for the same client's.

Now let's say there's 3 of us that operate in the greater Leinster area with large hubs/warehousing facilities there. We'd usually be given a list of specific products and services by our clients for their specific needs (lucky enough they all tend to be broadly the same)

The way it works is - I'll draw up an excel sheet with pricing, ETA of product and or service being on site/job completion, and credit terms.

If I had some fella on the inside handing me over my competitors excel sheet with pricing etc, I think we can both agree I'd have one ****ing hell of an advantage over the others. Even a 1% reduction in margin might be enough to swing the deal in my favour.

All's needed is the basic info and you can use it as your foundation.

atticu wrote: »

Do you actually believe that this is how government tenders work?

A simple yes or no will do.

McMurphy wrote: »

No, you can tell that by the way I didn't say i work for this govt, a foreign govt, nor mentioned govt in my post. It doesn't matter a shiny shyte whether it's a govt tender, a private company tender, if you have leaked information from a rival organisation in a deal, you've a tremendous advantage, and none of your goalpost moving, flat out lying pish is going to cut it here either I'm afraid.
D

Not really following the conversation, are you.

I notice that Johnny was talking about government tendering, and you decided to discuss something else.

OK.

At least we now have a measure of your understanding of government tendering.

Jinglejangle69

Was this 3rd party negotiating with the government at the time?

atticu

McMurphy wrote: »

Have you ever thought anymore of your Photoshop claim brainfarts btw?:D

Do you have any proof that those ‘messages’ are real?

McMurphy

atticu wrote: »

Not really following the conversation, are you.

I notice that Johnny was talking about government tendering, and you decided to discuss something else.

OK.

At least we now have a measure of your understanding of government tendering.

It doesn't matter if it was a govt tender, a private tender or a chicken tender - the point was made about a competitor in a tendering process obtaining leaked information.

What part of that do you want to dispute, or why are you even posting about it?

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No I didn't and I challenge yo now to find where I said it.

I said I don't know if he did or not and the only way of finding out is a criminal investigation.

It is immaterial anyway as the law does not require evidence of a gain by disclosing confidential files. It assumes it.

You have though claimed categorically that he didn't gain by it...you have no way of proving other tha by accepting his word.

But you're implying he did or must have, if you're saying now you can't prove he did or its not fact you're bull****ting.
Disagreeing with someone's version of a story and implying they're lying is an accusation against that person. If he happens to not be proven wrong then his story is taken as fact.
In other words he is innocent of that charge until proven guilty.
So unless you can prove otherwise as I said, you're bull****ting.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But you're implying he did or must have, if you're saying now you can't prove he did or its not fact you're bull****ting.
Disagreeing with someone's version of a story and implying they're lying is an accusation against that person. If he happens to not be proven wrong then his story is taken as fact.
In other words he is innocent of that charge until proven guilty.
So unless you can prove otherwise as I said, you're bull****ting.

He is the guy that has confessed to wrong doing. Nobody disputes this. It is perfectly fair and reasonable to ask did he gain from it? There is no accusation there other than in a guilty mind. There is a question.

I don't and cannot know if he did or not. That is going to take an inquiry.

Based only on his word (a person who has admitted to wrongdoing) you have accepted his word. That is fine. But it is a guess at best.

McMurphy

atticu wrote: »

Do you have any proof that those ‘messages’ are real?

Do you honestly believe Chay Bowes would release "faked/photoshopped" screenshots into the public domain, and in which he was very publicly making very serious allegations against the now Tanaiste, then Taoiseach, including exchanges between Leo himself and MOT, and between Bowes and MOT, and not once did anyone, either DrZeroCraic, Varadkar or Anyone else yet cry foul and claim the texts were faked, and issue legal proceedings?

Would you let someone fake texts about you in which they made serious allegations, release them in public and have to face a no confidence motion on the back of them?

I wouldn't.

And I think anyone who propagates or ascribes to such nonsense would do well to make a hat out of bacofoil and head over to the CT forum, because quite franky it's lunacy territory.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He is the guy that has confessed to wrong doing. Nobody disputes this. It is perfectly fair and reasonable to ask did he gain from it? There is no accusation there other than in a guilty mind. There is a question.

I don't and cannot know if he did or not. That is going to take an inquiry.

Based only on his word (a person who has admitted to wrongdoing) you have accepted his word. That is fine. But it is a guess at best.

Jesus, you’d swear that he’d confessed to Murder!

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus, you’d swear that he’d confessed to Murder!

Would you? That would be down to your sensationalist reading of the post I'd swear.

WicklaWolf

Wow Fine Gael's entire social media contributions are attacks on Sinn Fein.
I thought they were going to focus on the important issues like housing, health and the pandemic.
That was part of their defence last night....Ahhh the hypocrisy!
They appear quite desperate.

For Forks Sake

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Leo must be raging that this still has so much traction. He seems very unpopular on twitter overall. So much for topping the polls in popularity, very much seems he who pays the piper names the tune.

there's your first mistake

James Brown

Scoondal wrote: »

So the parliament of Ireland states they have condidence in a Tanaiste that leaked official government documents ? And there is no sanction against such an action. So any government minister can leak confidential government papers now with impunity.
What is going on ?

'Ah but the shinners...' apparently.

jelem

Once again the corrupt FF and FG whom purposefully did not put Sanctions in place
with the data protection Act like other eu countries did..
Sanctions as criminal charges for breaches of act
Sanctions as heavy monetary fines for breaches of act.
Only competant in criminal acts and theft of tax payers money as large pay\perkspension etc.
whilst utter failures in all else and nothing to hold them to account.

Bubbaclaus

jelem wrote: »

Once again the corrupt FF and FG whom purposefully did not put Sanctions in place
with the data protection Act like other eu countries did..
Sanctions as criminal charges for breaches of act
Sanctions as heavy monetary fines for breaches of act.
Only competant in criminal acts and theft of tax payers money as large pay\perkspension etc.
whilst utter failures in all else and nothing to hold them to account.

This post has given me an annurism.

If you are referring to GDPR, there are very heavy fines in place for major breaches.

jelem

Wrong - try reading\learning some facts and if want produce evidence of charges with the relevant
irish legislation.
So far matters have been prosecuted under "other" legislation.
(such as banks alleged destruction of data) Fraud charges raised not data protection.

jelem

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

This post has given me an annurism.

If you are referring to GDPR, there are very heavy fines in place for major breaches.

data protection.ie = "The DPC is the Irish supervisory authority" also recall
varadka on the "card issue" stated would change law to allow breaking GDPR
for the service card.
No teeth set on purpose just like ccpc and comreg etc. you another blind person
who has been led a merry dance of fake protection and fail to Read the print.

cj maxx

Sorry but I can’t read through the whole thread atm but what is the story? Saucy allegations of mundane stuff?

jelem

cj maxx wrote: »

Sorry but I can’t read through the whole thread atm but what is the story? Saucy allegations of mundane stuff?

lol government individuals passing data to third parties was the recent issue.
i did notice someone posted leo closet hetero haha