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

Ireland2021

Leo is a liar

Blanch is a liar

Could Blanch be Leo?

blanch152

weldoninhio wrote: »

Varadkar has said that he has been advised that he didn't break the law. Solicitors can misinterpret things, that's what the investigation will establish.

If, god forbid, Mary Lou is our next Taoiseach, you'll be happy with her passing on confidential security information to the Army Council, fully legally, then?? No difference whatsoever. Same law would apply to any Taoiseach.

That is one of my fears about Mary-Lou becoming Taoiseach is that those links with the Army Council remain in place and she would be free to share such confidential security information.

shatners bassoon

blanch152 wrote: »

Varadkar has said he didn't break the law.

I have set out several ways of demonstrating that the OSA either did not cover him or allowed him to release the document. Only one of them needs to be correct in order for Varadkar to be cleared.

Ultimately, if Varadkar, as Taoiseach, cannot sanction the release of a document, it begs the question, who can?

In essence, that means the OSA doesn't apply to him as the ultimate arbiter on what is confidential and what can be released.

Finally, there is a contradiction between the two bits in bold. You state that Varadkar has said that the Village were manifestly wrong to say the OSA applied to him which appears to be the statement that you were looking for earlier in the post.

There's no contradiction because the 'exception' he sought to rely on doesn't exist, as explained to you repeatedly and as Senior Counsel advised The Village. If you read the Act (that's the Official Secrets Act, 1963, just in case you forget again), this very clear.

My point is that at no stage has he claimed that he authorised himself to release the document. Why not?

McMurphy

shatners bassoon wrote: »

There's no contradiction because the 'exception' he sought to rely on doesn't exist, as explained to you repeatedly and as Senior Counsel advised The Village. If you read the Act (that's the Official Secrets Act, 1963, just in case you forget again), this very clear.

My point is that at no stage has he claimed that he authorised himself to release the document. Why not?

There's also the elephant in the room that is Leo himself admitted, and apologised for leaking the document.

Leo doesn't strike me as the type to apologise, and admit to wrongdoing, If he didn't need to. Comical Ali stuff going on in here.

Floppybits

Ireland2021 wrote: »

Leo is a liar

Blanch is a liar

Could Blanch be Leo?

Not possible and this maybe hard to believe but Blanch is a green supporter

blanch152

shatners bassoon wrote: »

There's no contradiction because the 'exception' he sought to rely on doesn't exist, as explained to you repeatedly and as Senior Counsel advised The Village. If you read the Act (that's the Official Secrets Act, 1963, just in case you forget again), this very clear.

My point is that at no stage has he claimed that he authorised himself to release the document. Why not?

The claim that the Act doesn't apply to him could be in the form that the act of releasing the document is self-authorisation.

Floppybits

blanch152 wrote: »

The claim that the Act doesn't apply to him could be in the form that the act of releasing the document is self-authorisation.

But he didn't release the document, he leaked it to his mate. As you like to do can you point to where Leo Varadkar released the document into the public and therefore removed the confidentiality?

FrancieBrady

Working class heroes wrote: »

I'm interested.....

What are you telling me for? Go ahead and engage with it so.

Muahahaha

jammiedodgers wrote: »

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

Because it is Schrodingers Confidential Document according to some on here

Ireland2021 wrote: »

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Ken Keelin and The Assistant Commissioner John O’Driscoll are looking after the case
. 2 of the most experienced cops in the land

Nothing to see here

I assume since you feel so strongly about the wasting of police time, and nothing is too see you have complained to the relevant bodies?

My god that gave me a laugh, John o'Driscoll is the Assistant Commissioner in charge of Organised and Serious Crime. I suppose you could say he's the man for the job given that Leo and Zero Craics leaking of the document was both organised and serious. And that they are now both known to Gardai

I cant wait to hear Paul Reynolds report that one on RTE, "The Tanaiste and former Taoiseach, who is known to Gardai......"

blanch152

Floppybits wrote: »

But he didn't release the document, he leaked it to his mate. As you like to do can you point to where Leo Varadkar released the document into the public and therefore removed the confidentiality?

Again, nothing in the Act to say he can't authorise a limited release, and certainly as I have pointed out, there is an argument that he did so to further the interests of the State in accordance with the Act.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, if there is only a common law infringement on confidentiality, why are the Gardai investigating, when the action should be taken by the injured party (if any)?

Your answer only helps the argument that there is nothing to see here, other than bluster.

We are not the authorities. Bring your complaints to the authorities. It's complete hypocrisy Blanch. If it was a shinner or Clare Daly or Gino you'd be on here talking about letting the Garda investigate and if there's nothing there what's the problem? Are you concerned the Garda might waste their time or that they might find something? You are putting in a lot of work on this, above and beyond.

James Brown

McMurphy wrote: »

I don't know if it's already been mentioned on here, or has been overlooked.

Debbie McCann of the MOS stated in her article that Leo was under a criminal investigation, not a preliminary investigation. I think the mirror reported similar though I'd have to go back and check.

Apparently she's got very good sources within AGS, not sure off the veracity of that claim, but thought it worth pointing out regardless.

Time will tell.

Not a peep out of RTE on it. Ran by shinners...

FrancieBrady

No doubt the Gardai are also looking at this under the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act and SIPO will be investigating whether it breaches the Dáil's own Code of Conduct.

I.E. It is pointless for amateur barristers to be defending a case here until the outcome of the investigation is known. We all have our opinions until then.

James Brown

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Just about sums everything up succinctly.

A total an utter waste of time and state resources.... at a time when they are badly needed elsewhere. All to appease a rotten opposition front bench who are hell bent on whipping up guttersnipe politics to create an outrage... for their own benefit.

At a time that we are in the middle of a national health crisis, where the Gards have limited resources, compelling them to orchestrate a nothing investigation, to blow wind on a few newspaper column inches, is both petty and scraping the barrel of democracy to their own ends.

It is sickening how low they will stoop, to throw mud at the government. I wouldn't mind if they could come up with something constructive and relevant? But itching and squealing over something that happened over 2 years ago and is no longer relevant, is a blatant attempt to sabotage the workings of the current government. Orchestrated by current sitting TD's with far too much time on their hands. Shame on them.

Passing a confidential government document to a pal, is that 'guttersnipe politics'?

The only faux outrage is here in your comment.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Let us have a closer look at the Official Secrets Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/act/1/enacted/en/html

It has been surmised that the Act does not define confidential. However, it does state in Section 2 (3) that:

"(3) A certificate given by a Minister under his seal that any official code word or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information specified or indicated in the certificate is secret or confidential shall be conclusive evidence of the fact so certified."

The first question from the Gardai is whether the Minister did so certify the document as confidential. If not, there is immediately doubt as to the confidential nature of the document in a legal sense.

Then there is Section 4.

Subsection (1) states:

"(1) A person shall not communicate any official information to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it."

So far so good, a person cannot communicate any official information, unless authorised to do so. So how can you be authorised?

"(4) In this section “duly authorised” means authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority."

Ah, "a Minister" can authorise it, not "the" Minister. Essentially, if Varadkar is covered by the Act, (and we will come to that in a minute), then he could authorise himself to issue it, it didn't have to be Harris.

Are Ministers covered by the OSA? A good question, and not clear.

"“public office” means an office or employment which is wholly remunerated out of the Central Fund or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or an appointment to, or employment under, any commission, committee or tribunal set up by the Government or a Minister for the purposes of any inquiry, but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas."

They are certainly excluded from some elements of the Act, under this definition. Does that apply in full to all elements?

Finally, even if all of the above applies to Varadkar, that the document was confidential, that he is covered by the Act, etc. there is still one further saving clause in Section 4(1) where it states "when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it." He was Taoiseach at the time, and if he believed it was in the interest of the State in securing a deal with doctors that he was justified in sharing a confidential document covered by the OSA, then there was no offence. Hard to believe that the courts would second-guess the Taoiseach on this point.

This will all be shown to be a fuss about nothing. I have gone over this before in this thread, and there was little rebuttal the last time. I would be interested in any basis for a different opinion. I also think that is why Pearse has backed down from SF allegations of criminality.

It's the authorities you need to convince Blanch. I'm sure you know more than they do. They obviously thought it warranted an investigation. And it's not to appease anyone as the story was months ago. FF/FG/Greens are already damaged as is Leo.

Muahahaha

Rows Grower wrote: »

That was a startling statistic to read, hard to imagine such a decline in popularity in such a short time. Had to check it to be sure and discovered it's actually 76 to 35.

Those numbers are so bad you would have to imagine the only way is up but then you've got the Leo factor still hanging around like a bad smell.

A once powerful party decimated in such a short time, incredible really.

76 down to 35 is actually an astonishing decline. In football terms 76 points could win you the Premier League but 35 points will almost certainly get a team relegated from it. If Leo were a Premier League manager he would have been long since sacked. Its remarkable that Fine Gael have persisted with him as leader for so long, I mean how much more failure are they willing to tolerate?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Varadkar has said he didn't break the law.

I have set out several ways of demonstrating that the OSA either did not cover him or allowed him to release the document. Only one of them needs to be correct in order for Varadkar to be cleared.

Ultimately, if Varadkar, as Taoiseach, cannot sanction the release of a document, it begs the question, who can?

In essence, that means the OSA doesn't apply to him as the ultimate arbiter on what is confidential and what can be released.

Finally, there is a contradiction between the two bits in bold. You state that Varadkar has said that the Village were manifestly wrong to say the OSA applied to him which appears to be the statement that you were looking for earlier in the post.

Varadkar tells lies.

You keep trying to invent things to save Leo. He did not sanction the release. He cadged a copy and sent it to a pal on the sly to try win over votes/support. Him deciding to slip it to his pal was not official in anyway. As you have used before, he can act off his own back. Be it talking out of school about Debenham workers or slipping confidential documents to a pal.

IAMAMORON

Muahahaha wrote: »

76 down to 35 is actually an astonishing decline. In football terms 76 points could win you the Premier League but 35 points will almost certainly get a team relegated from it. If Leo were a Premier League manager he would have been long since sacked. Its remarkable that Fine Gael have persisted with him as leader for so long, I mean how much more failure are they willing to tolerate?

Compares politics to soccer.

Oh dear.....

Quantum Erasure

76 would win you a frame of snooker, but it wouldn't be much good in darts

Muahahaha

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Compares politics to soccer.

Oh dear.....

You could compare it to anything. Imagine a CEO had a turnover of 100m and it went down to 50m, he would be sacked. Leo has halved FGs seats yet hasnt suffered the same fate. I guess some parties have such low standards that they'll tolerate such poor performances by their leader, theres no other reason for it. They should have had Coveney like the party membership voted for but they're not a democratic party and the memberships views dont matter all that much.

IAMAMORON

Muahahaha wrote: »

You could compare it to anything. Imagine a CEO had a turnover of 100m and it went down to 50m, he would be sacked. Leo has halved FGs seats yet hasnt suffered the same fate. I guess some parties have such low standards that they'll tolerate such poor performances by their leader, theres no other reason for it. They should have had Coveney like the party membership voted for but they're not a democratic party and the memberships views dont matter all that much.

I'm out.

Start a Leo bashing thread instead?

I am sure you can find time to fling some more mud around on that one.

McMurphy

James Brown wrote: »

Varadkar tells lies.

This is what Varadkar actually said. He said his legal advice was he broke no law.

No shït Sherlock.

Would any lawyer on this planet advise their client to say "I maybe/definitely did break the law" before they've even spoken with police?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No doubt the Gardai are also looking at this under the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act and SIPO will be investigating whether it breaches the Dáil's own Code of Conduct.

I.E. It is pointless for amateur barristers to be defending a case here until the outcome of the investigation is known. We all have our opinions until then.

We shall see which opinions were most informed and which were speculative.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

We shall see which opinions were most informed and which were speculative.

Your track record in here is so far dismal (for lack of a better word to describe it)

Never take up Clairvoyance blanch.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

We shall see which opinions were most informed and which were speculative.

I would say it's unlikely he broke the law because FF/FG have the game rigged in their favour, but the Garda will not investigate something unless there is a possibility or something untoward. Maybe their isn't but it's their duty to investigate.
Kinda funny, head of the law and order party being investigated for criminality and FG saying the Garda are wrong to bother investigating

CrazyFather1

So how are we getting along today?
Any ground breaking revelations?
Or is it still along the lines of Leo = Bad?

Muahahaha

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I'm out.

Start a Leo bashing thread instead?

I am sure you can find time to fling some more mud around on that one.

Are the facts too hard to take? In no position in the private sector could you expect to keep your job when the metrics show you're pretty awful at it. Leo seems to buck that trend and no one in FG is calling for his head. Like I said they are clearly a party who tolerate low standards, the actual job of a leader is to grow their vote, not split it in half.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No doubt the Gardai are also looking at this under the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act and SIPO will be investigating whether it breaches the Dáil's own Code of Conduct.

I.E. It is pointless for amateur barristers to be defending a case here until the outcome of the investigation is known. We all have our opinions until then.

There will be nothing out of SIPO on this, all they are is a toothless organistation with no actual powers that would change things. They are toothless because the very people who introduced the Ethics in Public Office Act (Fine Gael) wanted it that way and made it so.

blanch152

James Brown wrote: »

I would say it's unlikely he broke the law because FF/FG have the game rigged in their favour, but the Garda will not investigate something unless there is a possibility or something untoward. Maybe their isn't but it's their duty to investigate.
Kinda funny, head of the law and order party being investigated for criminality and FG saying the Garda are wrong to bother investigating

They investigated Gerry Adams for membership of the IRA, for protecting child abusers and for directing terrorism. Would you agree that there is a possibility of something untoward in that regard?

Working class heroes

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What are you telling me for? Go ahead and engage with it so.

Cop on. Read your post. You took it on yourself to speak for everyone.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

They investigated Gerry Adams for membership of the IRA, for protecting child abusers and for directing terrorism. Would you agree that there is a possibility of something untoward in that regard?

Ha
Brilliant

Totally, yes.
I think he was in the IRA. I'd say he had some sway yeah.

FYI: this is you deflecting and hiding behind shinners.