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

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

Correct and as I respectfully suggested, perhaps take your own advice on that matter and wait for their conclusion
You jumped the gun and stated something non factual,that he admitted a crime
No crime has been determined,ergo none admitted
Furthermore,the government are confident there was no crime
We could run around the houses on that all night to no avail but it would be a fruitless carry on,lets agree to disagree
No one is unaware of our positions

You interjected to state that because the government believed it was not a crime it was somehow not one.

The government have no say in the matter. The wrongdoing that Varadkar confessed to will be determined as a crime or not by the Gardai handing a file n what they discover to the DPP and he decides if it was a crime under two pieces of legislation.

FrancieBrady

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Just popped in to see the lay of the land.

I see Leo is still living rent free in your heads lads.

Sure look, whatever helps and all that:)

As long as Leo is under criminal investigation that almost if not unprecedented event will be a subject of conversation.

Jinglejangle69

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As long as Leo is under criminal investigation that almost if not unprecedented event will be a subject of conversation.

And as I said enjoy:)

This auld Abú system is very comprehensive. They've the parents down as worth a visit to the door. Jesus, starting to think the auld fella might be turning 'green'.


Phone numbers as well. :mad:

Ten of Swords

blanch152 wrote: »

Now that you have introduced whataboutery SF into the discussion, there is a precedent...

No, no there isn't

Starting to wonder if this thread has run it's course tbh. Can we stay on topic or not?

skimpydoo

Deleted User wrote: »

This auld Abú system is very comprehensive. They've the parents down as worth a visit to the door. Jesus, starting to think the auld fella might be turning 'green'.


Phone numbers as well. :mad:

What has this got to do with Leo leaking a confidential document? Me thinks it might be more deflection.

skimpydoo

skimpydoo wrote: »

What has this got to do with Leo leaking a confidential document? Me thinks it might be more deflection.

You're right.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You interjected to state that because the government believed it was not a crime it was somehow not one. .

I stated a fact
You stated an untruth
It really is that simple

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

I stated a fact
You stated an untruth
It really is that simple

You misunderstood and it was clarified.

What I stated is relevant, what you stated is not. It doesn't matter if the government believe he poops gold pellets. If it is found to be a crime he has already confessed to committing it.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You misunderstood and it was clarified.

What I stated is relevant, what you stated is not. It doesn't matter if the government believe he poops gold pellets. If it is found to be a crime he has already confessed to committing it.

I did not mis understand
YOU stated an untruth
YOU then backtracked
YOU then dished out irrelevant advice that you hadn't taken yourself
It really is that simple

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

I did not mis understand
YOU stated an untruth
YOU then backtracked
YOU then dished out irrelevant advice that you hadn't taken yourself
It really is that simple

Clarified/backtracked, have it whatever way you want, doesn't change the truth of this:

What I stated is relevant, what you stated is not. It doesn't matter if the government believe he poops gold pellets. If it is found to be a crime he has already confessed to committing it.

It is very relevant that no crime was admitted because at this point there isn't one
Its also relevant to state that you back tracked in a discussion
The latter may of course be an uncomfortable truth for you

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

It is very relevant that no crime was admitted because at this point there isn't one
Its also relevant to state that you back tracked in a discussion
The latter may of course be an uncomfortable truth for you

If you don't want to accept that I clarified what I said. So be it. Doesn't change a single thing. Take it handy.

shatners bassoon

I'm curious, is there anyone in the thread who thinks that an investigation is justified but that the facts don't support a criminal charge?

Separately, for the pro FG / anti SF brigade, in particular Blach, Maryanne, Pintman et al:

1. Why was a full investigation initiated? Do you think the opposition are 'at fault' for this and if so, what is your opinion of the Gardai's role?

2. Do you think there's a party on the planet who would not seek to score political points if the deputy head of government was the subject of a police investigation?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you don't want to accept that I clarified what I said. So be it. Doesn't change a single thing. Take it handy.

I don't believe you wanted to clarify at all tbh
An untruth was confronted with a truth
It's that simple
Lets move on

McMurphy

Here's one , if the DPP decide to prosecute, what then for Leo, considering he's admitted, and apologised for leaking a confidential document to his friend?

How would he plead?

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

Here's one , if the DPP decide to prosecute, what then for Leo, considering he's admitted, and apologised for leaking a confidential document to his friend?

How would he plead?

Could he claim that a fair trial is prejudiced/impossible because...well...because he has already confessed to it?

Very unprecedented situation.

shatners bassoon

Don't get either of your points here. If charged he's going to plead not guilty and seek to rely on various legal arguments relating to the legislation to try to escape conviction.

Whether that works is another question.

blanch152

shatners bassoon wrote: »

I'm curious, is there anyone in the thread who thinks that an investigation is justified but that the facts don't support a criminal charge?

Separately, for the pro FG / anti SF brigade, in particular Blach, Maryanne, Pintman et al:

1. Why was a full investigation initiated? Do you think the opposition are 'at fault' for this and if so, what is your opinion of the Gardai's role?

2. Do you think there's a party on the planet who would not seek to score political points if the deputy head of government was the subject of a police investigation?

Once a complaint has been made to the Gardai, it must be investigated. I hold the view that the investigation is a waste of Garda time and effort and will ultimately go nowhere, as there will not be a conviction based on the publicly available evidence. Of course, there may be other evidence that we are unaware of. If so, so be it.

As for other jurisdictions, we only have to look North and see that the precedent of not stepping aside was set by Michelle O'Neill and Conor Murphy when they were under police investigation for criminal behaviour.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You interjected to state that because the government believed it was not a crime it was somehow not one.

The government have no say in the matter. The wrongdoing that Varadkar confessed to will be determined as a crime or not by the Gardai handing a file n what they discover to the DPP and he decides if it was a crime under two pieces of legislation.

So the Gardai and the DPP now determine what it a crime and what is not?

When did the judiciary fail to have a say in this? Your lack of understanding of the process has been shown up more than once.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Here's one , if the DPP decide to prosecute, what then for Leo, considering he's admitted, and apologised for leaking a confidential document to his friend?

How would he plead?

I don't know
What I do know is the government are so confident in that not happening that they've moved on
Someone stepping aside would be an indication that they weren't
Instead rather than set a precedent/opportunity for any Tom dick or Paddy Cosgrave to disrupt government they moved on whilst letting the process play out
Their action is really that simple

shatners bassoon

blanch152 wrote: »

Once a complaint has been made to the Gardai, it must be investigated. I hold the view that the investigation is a waste of Garda time and effort and will ultimately go nowhere, as there will not be a conviction based on the publicly available evidence. Of course, there may be other evidence that we are unaware of. If so, so be it.

As for other jurisdictions, we only have to look North and see that the precedent of not stepping aside was set by Michelle O'Neill and Conor Murphy when they were under police investigation for criminal behaviour.

1. The Gardai are obliged to look into the matter, they're not obliged to open a full-blown investigation which, as repeated ad nauseum by you and others in the thread, is not the same as an initial enquiry. You've already lost the argument on this regardless of whether any charges are brought. You said there was nothing in it. Clearly there is.

2. I didn't ask about stepping aside. I asked whether you think FG or any other party in any other jurisdiction would seek to draw voters' attention to the fact that a deputy leader in an opposing party is under criminal investigation for political gain.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So the Gardai and the DPP now determine what it a crime and what is not?

When did the judiciary fail to have a say in this? Your lack of understanding of the process has been shown up more than once.

The Gardai will prepare a file and the DPP will decide if a crime has been committed and prepare charges, Varadkar will either admit guilt or defend himself.
You cannot 'charge' somebody with a crime if you don't think he/she committed one or if there is insufficient evidence...charges are dropped in that instance.

The judge/jury will decide if the evidence backs up what a DPP has decided.

What have I got wrong in my 'understanding'?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Once a complaint has been made to the Gardai, it must be investigated. I hold the view that the investigation is a waste of Garda time and effort and will ultimately go nowhere, as there will not be a conviction based on the publicly available evidence. Of course, there may be other evidence that we are unaware of. If so, so be it.

As for other jurisdictions, we only have to look North and see that the precedent of not stepping aside was set by Michelle O'Neill and Conor Murphy when they were under police investigation for criminal behaviour.

Point of information: Surely the 'precedent' if such a thing is relevant to anything here, was set by Arlene Foster?

zanador

shatners bassoon wrote: »

I'm curious, is there anyone in the thread who thinks that an investigation is justified but that the facts don't support a criminal charge?

Separately, for the pro FG / anti SF brigade, in particular Blach, Maryanne, Pintman et al:

1. Why was a full investigation initiated? Do you think the opposition are 'at fault' for this and if so, what is your opinion of the Gardai's role?

2. Do you think there's a party on the planet who would not seek to score political points if the deputy head of government was the subject of a police investigation?

I think he should step aside and then if he's found innocent just step back in. It's not a huge deal in that way, happens all the time and shows the public that there is transparency and not closed ranks. Whatever the reasons for, feelings on, he's under criminal investigation and holds public office.

Point two, I hate politics for that reason - the idea of 'scoring points'. In my little utopia it's about doing what's right.

I can't remember if it was Denmark or Germany but when their health minister got covid they called in their shadow minister rather than their junior one due to their experience.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot 'charge' somebody with a crime if you don't think he/she committed one or if there is insufficient evidence...charges are dropped in that instance.

Or noone is charged at all in which case there is nothing to drop
Important to include that too
The justice system is not a charade to be used for political purposes
You'd swear the opposite with what I've had to reply to here

It really is that simple

blanch152

zanador wrote: »

I think he should step aside and then if he's found innocent just step back in. It's not a huge deal in that way, happens all the time and shows the public that there is transparency and not closed ranks. Whatever the reasons for, feelings on, he's under criminal investigation and holds public office.

Point two, I hate politics for that reason - the idea of 'scoring points'. In my little utopia it's about doing what's right.

I can't remember if it was Denmark or Germany but when their health minister got covid they called in their shadow minister rather than their junior one due to their experience.

It doesn't happen all the time, it didn't happen in the North earlier this year and last.

Where it would be necessary for him to step aside would be if the Dail voted to censure him.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Gardai will prepare a file and the DPP will decide if a crime has been committed and prepare charges, Varadkar will either admit guilt or defend himself.
You cannot 'charge' somebody with a crime if you don't think he/she committed one or if there is insufficient evidence...charges are dropped in that instance.

The judge/jury will decide if the evidence backs up what a DPP has decided.

What have I got wrong in my 'understanding'?

The DPP doesn't decide if a crime has been committed. If the DPP believes that a crime has been committed, and believes that there is sufficient evidence to lay criminal charges against a person for that crime, then charges will be brought. He doesn't decide that a crime has been committed.

The first task of the Court is to rule on the issue of whether a crime has been committed. In the extremely unlikely event that this goes to court, Varadkar will plead not guilty on the basis that no crime was committed. The DPP will have to prove to the judge that the relevant law was broken.

It is the same in every case. If someone is accused of robbery in court and claims that they were donated the goods in question, the DPP has to prove first that there actually was a crime.

You are just trying to frame a narrative in advance by putting forward misguided concepts.

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

Or noone is charged at all in which case there is nothing to drop
Important to include that too
The justice system is not a charade to be used for political purposes
You'd swear the opposite with what I've had to reply to here

It really is that simple

The Tanaiste has confessed to wrongdoing in leaking a confidential document.
Gardai are investigating to find evidence and to present that evidence to the DPP who will decide if it is a crime under 2 pieces of legislation.

At any time, those proceedings may stop, as long as they are in train, this is a story, political or otherwise.

You are wilfully missing the 'if' in all of this. If no evidence or insufficient evidence is found, there will be no charges. If evidence is found, charges will be made. If the evidence is found to be insufficient by the judge/jury, the charges will be dropped. If the evidence is found to prove the crime, he will be found guilty as charged.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The DPP doesn't decide if a crime has been committed. If the DPP believes that a crime has been committed, and believes that there is sufficient evidence to lay criminal charges against a person for that crime, then charges will be brought. He doesn't decide that a crime has been committed.

The first task of the Court is to rule on the issue of whether a crime has been committed. In the extremely unlikely event that this goes to court, Varadkar will plead not guilty on the basis that no crime was committed. The DPP will have to prove to the judge that the relevant law was broken.

It is the same in every case. If someone is accused of robbery in court and claims that they were donated the goods in question, the DPP has to prove first that there actually was a crime.

You are just trying to frame a narrative in advance by putting forward misguided concepts.

The DPP will review the evidence collected by the Gardai and will not proceed if he/she believes no crime was committed, if he/she believes a crime was committed he/she will prosecute.

How is that any different to what I said?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DPP will review the evidence collected by the Gardai and will not proceed if he/she believes no crime was committed, if he/she believes a crime was committed he/she will prosecute.

How is that any different to what I said?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Gardai will prepare a file and the DPP will decide if a crime has been committed and prepare charges, Varadkar will either admit guilt or defend himself.
You cannot 'charge' somebody with a crime if you don't think he/she committed one or if there is insufficient evidence...charges are dropped in that instance.

The judge/jury will decide if the evidence backs up what a DPP has decided.

What have I got wrong in my 'understanding'?

The difference between believing and deciding is obvious.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Tanaiste has confessed to wrongdoing in leaking a confidential document.
Gardai are investigating to find evidence and to present that evidence to the DPP who will decide if it is a crime under 2 pieces of legislation.

At any time, those proceedings may stop, as long as they are in train, this is a story, political or otherwise.

You are wilfully missing the 'if' in all of this. If no evidence or insufficient evidence is found, there will be no charges. If evidence is found, charges will be made. If the evidence is found to be insufficient by the judge/jury, the charges will be dropped. If the evidence is found to prove the crime, he will be found guilty as charged.

Please provide a link to where the Tanaiste confessed to wrongdoing in leaking a confidential document.

This has been exhausted many many times and your error has been pointed out to you time and again. The Tanaiste stated that the way in which he shared a document was wrong, but he did not say that the act of sharing the document was wrong.

There is an important distinction which you are repeatedly ignoring.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Please provide a link to where the Tanaiste confessed to wrongdoing in leaking a confidential document.

This has been exhausted many many times and your error has been pointed out to you time and again. The Tanaiste stated that the way in which he shared a document was wrong, but he did not say that the act of sharing the document was wrong.

There is an important distinction which you are repeatedly ignoring.

I don't recognise the distinction.

The method (leaking it) is the issue.

Due process needs to be followed. Kangaroo courts might appeal to some folks, but those days are over in Ireland.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The difference between believing and deciding is obvious.

??

decide, determine, settle, rule, resolve mean to come or cause to come to a conclusion

The DPP makes a decision on whether to proceed or not. i.E. He/she decides to prosecute because he/she decides a crime was committed. If he/she has insufficient evidence he/she is compelled to decide no crime was committed.

The judge/jury decides whether the evidence backs up that or not by weighing up the defence and prosecution's case.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Tanaiste has confessed to wrongdoing in leaking a confidential document.
Gardai are investigating to find evidence and to present that evidence to the DPP who will decide if it is a crime under 2 pieces of legislation.

At any time, those proceedings may stop, as long as they are in train, this is a story, political or otherwise.

You are wilfully missing the 'if' in all of this. If no evidence or insufficient evidence is found, there will be no charges. If evidence is found, charges will be made. If the evidence is found to be insufficient by the judge/jury, the charges will be dropped. If the evidence is found to prove the crime, he will be found guilty as charged.

Yeah,if I had a Fanny,I'd be a woman
That type of charade?
The justice system is not a charade
The government are so confident in their position on this that noone is stepping aside
No president created for any tom dick or paddy cosgrave to in their opinion spuriously interupt government in any way
They've moved on and let the process play out
It really is that simple

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

Yeah,if I had a Fanny,I'd be a woman
That type of charade?
The justice system is not a charade
The government are so confident in their position on this that noone is stepping aside
No president created for any tom dick or paddy cosgrave to in their opinion spuriously interupt government in any way
They've moved on and let the process play out
It really is that simple

The government are out of the game - irrelevant.

ohnonotgmail

Marine Layer wrote: »

Yeah,if I had a Fanny,I'd be a woman
That type of charade?
The justice system is not a charade
The government are so confident in their position on this that noone is stepping aside
No president created for any tom dick or paddy cosgrave to in their opinion spuriously interupt government in any way
They've moved on and let the process play out
It really is that simple

well that is one way to describe having a brass neck.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The government are out of the game - irrelevant.

I didn't say the government had anything to do with the process
They are just continuing confident in the opinion that no crime exists and letting the process instigated by a competitor of theirs or any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave play out like a huge percentage of investigations that dont conclude a crime always do
The justice system is not a game
It really is that simple

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

I didn't say the government had anything to do with the process
They are just continuing confident in the opinion that no crime exists and letting the process instigated by a competitor of theirs or any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave play out like a huge percentage of investigations that dont conclude a crime always do
The justice system is not a game
It really is that simple

Irrelevant again.

skimpydoo

Marine Layer wrote: »

I don't know
What I do know is the government are so confident in that not happening that they've moved on
Someone stepping aside would be an indication that they weren't
Instead rather than set a precedent/opportunity for any Tom dick or Paddy Cosgrave to disrupt government they moved on whilst letting the process play out
Their action is really that simple

If this investigation was in non Covid times, the government would not be moving on.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

??

decide, determine, settle, rule, resolve mean to come or cause to come to a conclusion

The DPP makes a decision on whether to proceed or not. i.E. He/she decides to prosecute because he/she decides a crime was committed. If he/she has insufficient evidence he/she is compelled to decide no crime was committed.

The judge/jury decides whether the evidence backs up that or not by weighing up the defence and prosecution's case.

The DPP decides to prosecute because s/he believes a crime was committed. Any decision on whether a crime was committed is for a court of law.

Stop digging.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The DPP decides to prosecute because s/he believes a crime was committed. Any decision on whether a crime was committed is for a court of law.

Stop digging.

It won't get before a judge if the DPP decides there is no crime. You can't have it both ways.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It won't get before a judge if the DPP decides there is no crime. You can't have it both ways.

Again, he doesn't decide that there is no crime.

He examines the evidence and if he believes there is insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution he decides not to bring one.

Take the Omagh bombing. That crime was committed. The criminals were identified and sued in court and they lost.

The prosecution service believed it didn't have enough evidence to bring a prosecution against some of them, tried and failed in others, but it didn't decide that there was no crime and in the cases where they didn't bring proceedings, they didn't decide that they hadn't committed a crime.

Suckit

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, he doesn't decide that there is no crime.

He examines the evidence and if he believes there is insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution he decides not to bring one.

Take the Omagh bombing. That crime was committed. The criminals were identified and sued in court and they lost.

The prosecution service believed it didn't have enough evidence to bring a prosecution against some of them, tried and failed in others, but it didn't decide that there was no crime and in the cases where they didn't bring proceedings, they didn't decide that they hadn't committed a crime.

Not exactly.
IIRC The evidence is gathered and compiled by the Gardaí, they send it to the DPP and the DPP then decides whether or not any laws have been broken.
Then the DPP decides whether or not criminal charges are to be brought.
If not, it doesn't mean he didn't commit any offence, as it is pretty obvious he broke many rules.

McMurphy

If memory serves me correctly, I think you'll find a poster on this thread has numerous posts across others that even if a defendant is acquitted, their thoughts are that, that doesn't necessarily mean they're innocent, merely "that there just wasn't enough evidence to secure a conviction" or words to that effect.

The same mental gymnastics can be applied here if Leo isn't even charged, considering he's admitted and apologised for leaking the confidential document to his friend.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, he doesn't decide that there is no crime.

He examines the evidence and if he believes there is insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution he decides not to bring one.

Take the Omagh bombing. That crime was committed. The criminals were identified and sued in court and they lost.

The prosecution service believed it didn't have enough evidence to bring a prosecution against some of them, tried and failed in others, but it didn't decide that there was no crime and in the cases where they didn't bring proceedings, they didn't decide that they hadn't committed a crime.

The DPP = The Director of Public Prosecutions who prosecutes when he/she decides a crime has been committed.

We know Omagh was a crime, and we know breaking the Official Secrets Act or the Corruption Act is a crime. What the DPP will decide is 'is what Leo done a breach of that legislation...i.e. Is it a crime? He will prosecute on the basis of that 'decision'. We are awaiting his 'decision' on that.
All the judge/jury will do is decide if the evidence presented verifies his decision that it was a crime and find Leo guilty or not, of the crime.

I am not answering another post that just twists the facts above around and goes at it again.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

If memory serves me correctly, I think you'll find a poster on this thread has numerous posts across others that even if a defendant is acquitted, their thoughts are that, that doesn't necessarily mean they're innocent, merely "that there just wasn't enough evidence to secure a conviction" or words to that effect.

The same mental gymnastics can be applied here if Leo isn't even charged, considering he's admitted and apologised for leaking the confidential document to his friend.

Not if theres no charge
If theres a crime,the case is open and shut,he would be charged
Acquittal only comes in to it if hes charged and wins a trial
You can see my other posts as regards what the government think the possibility is of him being charged
They've moved on

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

If memory serves me correctly, I think you'll find a poster on this thread has numerous posts across others that even if a defendant is acquitted, their thoughts are that, that doesn't necessarily mean they're innocent, merely "that there just wasn't enough evidence to secure a conviction" or words to that effect.

The same mental gymnastics can be applied here if Leo isn't even charged, considering he's admitted and apologised for leaking the confidential document to his friend.

That's right. Innocence is presumed, not established. Even miscarriage of justice findings are not findings of innocence.

It is an important presumption though, deserving of respect, and not a legal nicety.

There is an undeniable political aspect to the Varadkar allegations. Hypotheticals are somewhat feeble, but it's probably true that we'd all argue an opposite position if the man accused were on the Left. The legal process shouldn't be a political football.

FrancieBrady

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's right. Innocence is presumed, not established. Even miscarriage of justice findings are not findings of innocence.

It is an important presumption though, deserving of respect, and not a legal nicety.

There is an undeniable political aspect to the Varadkar allegations. Hypotheticals are somewhat feeble, but it's probably true that we'd all argue an opposite position if the man accused were on the Left. The legal process shouldn't be a political football.

Of course there is a political aspect, he is accused of using and abusing a political office and privilege. He has not been sanctioned, despite confessing to wrongdoing by his own and two other political parties.