Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…192193195197198…416

Comments

  • Options
    #5822
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    I can tell the other thing that will happen now, is that some busy Gard is going to be assigned to look into the affairs of that complete nobody who brought this non story to light last year? Not for whistleblowing necessarily, there is no law against that.

    But I would be worried about the way he persisted in pretending that he was stringing a story along, whilst trying to keep his no story going. Releasing Tweets during Leo's Public Witch Trial and generally being a pain in the bollocks.

    I guarantee you some ambitious cop is going to get around to picking something illegal up there... and riding that whistleblower up the hole with it, only a matter of time.

    It is the biggest tragedy in the entire story for me. That dude sacrificed an entire business and career in health service Human Resources, in exchange for a few slaps on the back and winks and nudges from a gang of witless flutes who don't even care about him? Very very sad.

    Won't happen.


  • Options
    #5823
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Won't happen.

    In fairness if the Gardaí are going to be carrying out a thorough investigation of the matter, he will need to be invited for questioning?

    Do you reckon he is a Big Mac kind of dude, or maybe he is into chicken rolls or Burger King?


  • Options
    #5824
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    In fairness if the Gardaí are going to be carrying out a thorough investigation of the matter, he will need to be invited for questioning?

    Do you reckon he is a Big Mac kind of dude, or maybe he is into chicken rolls or Burger King?

    Did you just jump into the story today, in an all out defence of the chosen one, without any actual research?
    Chay Bowes, a former interim chief executive of the NAGP, made a complaint to gardai about the leak in November. Gardai have taken a statement from him and have examined his mobile phone which contained copies of WhatsApp conversations showing the contact between Varadkar and Ó Tuathail. “The gardai have interviewed me and reviewed all the relevant data I had,” Bowes confirmed yesterday.

    I hope Bowes made back up copies, I hear the Gardai don't look after phones that well. Odd one gets lost I've heard.


  • Options
    #5825
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Yeah, don't you know that the real reason there is criminality involved is that Leo didn't fill out paper Form S16F in triplicate with seven days notice and copy it to the correct authorising officer so therefore he wasn't entitled to the document.

    Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document? Should be an easy enough question.


  • Options
    #5826
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document? Should be an easy enough question.

    What does confidential mean in a legal sense?

    Was confidential written on the document? Yes
    Does this have any legal connotations? Have asked this question of posters many times and have yet to get a single coherent response.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5827
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    blanch152 wrote: »
    What does confidential mean in a legal sense?

    Was confidential written on the document? Yes
    Does this have any legal connotations? Have asked this question of posters many times and have yet to get a single coherent response.

    Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document?


  • Options
    #5828
    Floppybits
    Registered Users Posts: 7,649 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document? Should be an easy enough question.

    He has been jumping through hoops since the story broke trying to claim the document wasn't confidential. This is even after Varadkar has admitted it was confidential.


  • Options
    #5829
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document?


    CONFIDENTIAL

    I have just marked this post as confidential. It is a confidential post. You are not authorised to share it.

    What does confidential mean on that document in a legal sense? Any more than me marking this post as confidential?


  • Options
    #5830
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    blanch152 wrote: »
    CONFIDENTIAL

    I have just marked this post as confidential. It is a confidential post. You are not authorised to share it.

    What does confidential mean on that document in a legal sense? Any more than me marking this post as confidential?

    Bloody hell, it's a very simple question, are you saying it wasn't a confidential document?
    There are only 2 possible answers (that I know of) yes or no.


  • Options
    #5831
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    Bloody hell, it's a very simple question, are you saying it wasn't a confidential document?
    There are only 2 possible answers (that I know of) yes or no.

    Is my post confidential, do you accept that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5832
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Floppybits wrote: »
    He has been jumping through hoops since the story broke trying to claim the document wasn't confidential. This is even after Varadkar has admitted it was confidential.

    I suppose the question there would be who is it confidential for and would it be confidential for a GP representative to see a GP agreement? I don't have the answer to that, but maybe someone of a legal background might. Basically what defines the confidentiality and who can see the contents of such a confidential document? If it is all the parties of the agreement, then sharing it with the head of NAGP wouldn't actually be an issue, as it was an agreement for all GPs, not just the 20% that were under the IMO.


  • Options
    #5833
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    CONFIDENTIAL

    I have just marked this post as confidential. It is a confidential post. You are not authorised to share it.

    What does confidential mean on that document in a legal sense? Any more than me marking this post as confidential?

    Brilliant :)
    The laws of physics are up for debate now i imagine.
    There is a government. They were having negotiations with a union. There was a confidential negotiation document. LV took it and passed it to a pal, the head of a rival union.
    This is what LV confessed to.
    I know we don't do accountability but by the logic of your comment we could let The Sun have access to MM personal emails, I mean what is confidential? :):)


  • Options
    #5834
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Is my post confidential, do you accept that?

    I'm assuming you're not going to answer


  • Options
    #5835
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    I suppose the question there would be who is it confidential for and would it be confidential for a GP representative to see a GP agreement? I don't have the answer to that, but maybe someone of a legal background might. Basically what defines the confidentiality and who can see the contents of such a confidential document? If it is all the parties of the agreement, then sharing it with the head of NAGP wouldn't actually be an issue, as it was an agreement for all GPs, not just the 20% that were under the IMO.

    Now, we are getting somewhere.

    We also have the issue as to whether it is a document covered by the Official Secrets Act before it is finalised. We also have the issue as to the difference between marking a document as confidential, and the legal definition of a confidential document.

    If Varadkar had passed around a lunch menu for preferences at Cabinet, marked it confidential and then given it to a journalist, would that also be a breach of the Official Secrets Act?

    People are losing their sh!t over something that they can't even define in a legal sense.

    We have someone who three and a half months ago proclaimed that Varadkar had committed an illegal act, and who still can't tell us which law was broken.


  • Options
    #5836
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    James Brown wrote: »
    Brilliant :)
    The laws of physics are up for debate now i imagine.
    There is a government. They were having negotiations with a union. There was a confidential negotiation document. LV took it and passed it to a pal, the head of a rival union.
    This is what LV confessed to.
    I know we don't do accountability but by the logic of your comment we could let The Sun have access to MM personal emails, I mean what is confidential? :):)

    Other than the word confidential being written at the top (same as my post), what evidence do you possess that it met any legal definition of confidential?


  • Options
    #5837
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    I suppose the question there would be who is it confidential for and would it be confidential for a GP representative to see a GP agreement? I don't have the answer to that, but maybe someone of a legal background might. Basically what defines the confidentiality and who can see the contents of such a confidential document? If it is all the parties of the agreement, then sharing it with the head of NAGP wouldn't actually be an issue, as it was an agreement for all GPs, not just the 20% that were under the IMO.

    It was a confidential negotiation document between the health department and the IMO.
    It was passed to a rival union.
    That was wrong. Varadkar apologised.
    Any legal implications will be looked at.


  • Options
    #5838
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Other than the word confidential being written at the top (same as my post), what evidence do you possess that it met any legal definition of confidential?

    It met that criteria for government. It was there's to consider confidential.
    Any legal issues, if there are any will be investigated. Doesnt take away from Leo being wrong and apologising.
    In a job if your office marks something confidential you should treat it as such less you be reprimanded or fired.
    Too bad our government don't have such standards.


  • Options
    #5839
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Other than the word confidential being written at the top (same as my post), what evidence do you possess that it met any legal definition of confidential?

    It gets worser and worser, presumably obtuse is the edict that has issued from Mount St


  • Options
    #5840
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    James Brown wrote: »
    It was a confidential negotiation document between the health department and the IMO.
    It was passed to a rival union.
    That was wrong. Varadkar apologised.
    Any legal implications will be looked at.

    I'm pretty sure it was the actual agreement that was shared, not a negotiation document? Perhaps I am remembering wrong, but I am almost certain it was the draft of the actual GP agreement itself.


  • Options
    #5841
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    James Brown wrote: »
    It met the criteria for government. It was there's to consider confidential.
    Any legal issues, if there are any will be investigated. Doesnt take away from Leo being wrong and apologising.

    Great, you can set out the criteria for me then, and which piece of legislation they come from.


    You can?


    Can't you?


    I mean, you said there are criteria, right?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5842
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    It gets worser and worser, presumably obtuse is the wdict that has issued from Mount St

    So you are another poster who doesn't have the first clue about what firstly makes a civil service document a civil service document and secondly, what makes one confidential.

    There has been an awful lot of spoofing since the start of this thread about confidentiality and illegality and thousands of posts later, we are no wiser as to the legal basis of the confidentiality or even the possible piece of legislation that was broken.


  • Options
    #5843
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Great, you can set out the criteria for me then, and which piece of legislation they come from.


    You can?


    Can't you?


    I mean, you said there are criteria, right?

    It was considered confidential by government. Leo is in government.
    I knew you were trying to set this trap :)


  • Options
    #5844
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    blanch152 wrote: »
    So you are another poster who doesn't have the first clue about what firstly makes a civil service document a civil service document and secondly, what makes one confidential.

    There has been an awful lot of spoofing since the start of this thread about confidentiality and illegality and thousands of posts later, we are no wiser as to the legal basis of the confidentiality or even the possible piece of legislation that was broken.

    I'll try just one last time, and there are only 2 possible answers, YES or NO.
    Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document.


  • Options
    #5845
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    So you are another poster who doesn't have the first clue about what firstly makes a civil service document a civil service document and secondly, what makes one confidential.

    There has been an awful lot of spoofing since the start of this thread about confidentiality and illegality and thousands of posts later, we are no wiser as to the legal basis of the confidentiality or even the possible piece of legislation that was broken.

    Made up stuff.
    We don't know if laws were broken its being investigated.
    We do know he leaked a confidential document. He apologised.
    You are trying to suggest that unless its drafted into legislation there is no such thing as confidential :)


  • Options
    #5846
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    James Brown wrote: »
    It was considered confidential by government. Leo is in government.
    I knew you were trying to set this trap :)

    On what legal basis did the government consider it confidential? If the government did indeed consider it confidential.

    https://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/welcome/

    "Iris Oifigiúil is the official means used by the Government for announcing appointments to public offices and publishing proclamations, statutory instruments, appointment of receivers to companies, etc."

    Maybe you could link me to the relevant issue of Iris Oifigiul where the government published its proclamation that this document was confidential?


  • Options
    #5847
    Floppybits
    Registered Users Posts: 7,649 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    This is madness what I am reading here, people actually questioning when a confidential document is actually confidential and then trying to compare it to a lunch menu. This is comical Ali stuff and I would ask those questioning it if say it was lets say a SF minister that did this would you be dogmatic in you defense of that minister or would you be looking for that minister to either step aside or to be sacked?

    As for a confidential document, well if it says confidential on it and it hasn't been officially made public then it is confidential and should not be shared. I know that in my job if I got a document with Confidential written on it that I would not be sharing it my mate or anyone who is not suppose to see it and if I did pass on a confidential document to someone who wasn't suppose to have then the company would be in their right to sack me. Simple as that.


  • Options
    #5848
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    I'll try just one last time, and there are only 2 possible answers, YES or NO.
    Are you saying it wasn't a confidential document.

    How is it possible to know whether a document is confidential or not, until the legal basis of confidentiality has been made clear?


  • Options
    #5849
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    blanch152 wrote: »
    How is it possible to know whether a document is confidential or not, until the legal basis of confidentiality has been made clear?

    Is that yes or no?


  • Options
    #5850
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    blanch152 wrote: »
    There has been an awful lot of spoofing since the start of this thread

    There sure as hell has been, and you don't have to look very far to see who the spoofers are.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5851
    jammiedodgers
    Registered Users Posts: 1,411 ✭✭✭jammiedodgers


    Why did Leo apologise for leaking a confidential document if it wasn't a confidential document?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement