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

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You should probably listen to Varadkar's apology, particularly the part where he said he would have invited him in to officially meet and present it to him if he had the opportunity to redo it.

I'm not taking the piss at all. I'm giving my thoughts based on the facts available.

Why would he do anything differently at all if what he did do was entirely appropriate and above board,?


Same question as to why the guards have taken a statement from Harris and possibly will be taking same from Leo.

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I'm giving my thoughts based on the facts available.

Have a look at the facts available, they're all over the place, I presume you are taking the p1ss



ON 6 APRIL 2019, the then-Taoiseach Leo Varadkar issued a press release to welcome a long-awaited agreement on a new contract with GPs across the country.

The €210 million deal, although not yet signed, marked a major step given the protracted nature of the years-long manoeuvering between the HSE, the Department of Health and the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO).

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

What, never? /Sarcasm.

The analogy was to do with this bit.



If an employee in my organisation (that would be Leo) was found to have passed a quotation/details of an agreed contract to a competitor (rival gp group in this case) they'd be out the door quicker than they could tippex out the word "confidential" bubbs.

Zero craic was the head of a rival organisation, they weren't privy to the details of the contract, hence why Leo sent him the details in an underhanded way.


This is what he (Leo) apologised for, and that the Gards will be basing their investigation on should it be decided one is merited.

You know this. Trying to ok or normalise something Leo himself has apologised for, and a statement has been taken from the then health minister for is just making yourself look silly, but have at it.

In your role, would the confidential agreement apply to that competitor also? Silly comparisons are not doing your view any favours.

Very tiresome reading all these poor analogies that make no sense in the context of the actual discussion.

Bubbaclaus

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Have a look at the facts available, they're all over the place, I presume you are taking the p1ss



ON 6 APRIL 2019, the then-Taoiseach Leo Varadkar issued a press release to welcome a long-awaited agreement on a new contract with GPs across the country.

The €210 million deal, although not yet signed, marked a major step given the protracted nature of the years-long manoeuvering between the HSE, the Department of Health and the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO).

I'm fully aware there was several years of manoeuvering between those 3 groups. Is the above meant to disprove what I said or something?

It even says "a long-awaited agreement on a new contract with GPs across the country.", which is my point. GPs are a party to the agreement.

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It even says "a long-awaited agreement on a new contract with GPs across the country.", which is my point. GPs are a party to the agreement.

The IMO were party to the agreement, they were involved in years of discussions with HSE and Dept of Health.

Post up just one link that shows Zero Craics crowd were involved in the negotiations

Bubbaclaus

Cute Hoor wrote: »

The IMO were party to the agreement, they were involved in years of discussions with HSE and Dept of Health.

Post up just one link that shows Zero Craics crowd were involved in the negotiations

You seem confused. At no point have I said they were involved in the negotiations.

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You seem confused. At no point have I said they were involved in the negotiations.

Ah OK, explain to me what you mean by 'party to the agreement'

Bubbaclaus

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Ah OK, explain to me what you mean by 'party to the agreement'

Why were you responding to me if you haven't been reading my posts properly? GPs are a party of the agreement. At the time, NAGP represented 40% of the countries GPs.

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why were you responding to me if you haven't been reading my posts properly? GPs are a party of the agreement. At the time, NAGP represented 40% of the countries GPs.

Can you explain to me exactly what you mean by 'party to the agreement', and apologies if you explained it earlier as I obviously didn't see it.

Bubbaclaus

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Can you explain to me exactly what you mean by 'party to the agreement', and apologies if you explained it earlier as I obviously didn't see it.

OK.

Typically in these types of agreements, the contents of the agreement will apply to two or more parties.

GPs would be one of such parties for this particular one.

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

OK.

Typically in these types of agreements, the contents of the agreement will apply to two or more parties.

GPs would be one of such parties for this particular one.

My understanding is all GPs, irrespective of their unions or no unions were going to be impacted by the agreement, but I still don't understand your term 'party to the agreement'

Bubbaclaus

Cute Hoor wrote: »

My understanding is all GPs, irrespective of their unions or no unions were going to be impacted by the agreement, but I still don't understand your term 'party to the agreement'

That is what I was referring to. They are literally a party to the agreement. They are one of the parties to the agreement i.e they are tied to the terms of the agreement.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You should probably listen to Varadkar's apology, particularly the part where he said he would have invited him in to officially meet and present it to him if he had the opportunity to redo it.

I'm not taking the piss at all. I'm giving my thoughts based on the facts available.

The facts are he leaked a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and the health department.
His excuse or his brazenness are another matter.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I'm fully aware there was several years of manoeuvering between those 3 groups. Is the above meant to disprove what I said or something?

It even says "a long-awaited agreement on a new contract with GPs across the country.", which is my point. GPs are a party to the agreement.

It was a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and Health department. Nobody else's business. Varadkar's pal was looking for the inside scoop and Varadkar gave it to him to try garner support from his pal's members.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

That is what I was referring to. They are literally a party to the agreement. They are one of the parties to the agreement i.e they are tied to the terms of the agreement.

Not to the confidential negotiation document Varadkar leaked.

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

The facts are he leaked a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and the health department.
His excuse or his brazenness are another matter.

Why does it suddenly become "another matter" once I answer your question specifically on it?

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Why does it suddenly become "another matter" once I answer your question specifically on it?

Because him doubling down or having a neck like a jockey's bollocks doesn't change what he did.

You've yet to accept the facts. You are conflating the GP agreement with the IMO confidential negotiation document.

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

That is what I was referring to. They are literally a party to the agreement. They are one of the parties to the agreement i.e they are tied to the terms of the agreement.

Ah OK, they are tied to the terms of the agreement. My understanding of 'party to the agreement' would have been that they were part of the negotiations leading up to agreeing the final document.

Which leads me back to where I was some time ago, Varadkar had absolutely no right whatsoever to give Zero Craic, any other union, or any individual unaffiliated GP, a document marked CONFIDENTIAL emanating from years of negotiation with the IMO, HSE and Dept of Health until all of the i's had been dotted and all t's crossed with agreement from all negotiating partners that the document could then be released. Absolutely no right.

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

Because him doubling down or having a neck like a jockey's bollocks doesn't change what he did.

You've yet to accept the facts. You are conflating the GP agreement with the IMO confidential negotiation document.

Perhaps I am. Where is the GP agreement then if what was leaked was simply a negotiation document after negotiations had ended? Would they really have declared job done based purely on a negotiation document at the time?

And thanks for actually having a genuine post and discussion with that comment, rather than claiming im talking nonsense/taking the piss or shouting capitals at me which happens too frequently on here.

Bubbaclaus

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Ah OK, they are tied to the terms of the agreement. My understanding of 'party to the agreement' would have been that they were part of the negotiations leading up to agreeing the final document.

Which leads me back to where I was some time ago, Varadkar had absolutely no right whatsoever to give Zero Craic, any other union, or any individual unaffiliated GP, a document marked CONFIDENTIAL emanating from years of negotiation with the IMO, HSE and Dept of Health until all of the i's had been dotted and all t's crossed with agreement from all negotiating partners that the document could then be released. Absolutely no right.

In your opinion, I assume, rather than having any legal basis for that?

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

In your opinion, I assume, rather than having any legal basis for that?

Basic common sense would tell you that, it would be the most basic understanding of anybody who was ever involved in remotely sensitive negotiations or indeed any negotiations. It would have been the first point on the agenda for the first and every subsequent meeting.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Perhaps I am. Where is the GP agreement then if what was leaked was simply a negotiation document after negotiations had ended? Would they really have declared job done based purely on a negotiation document at the time?

And thanks for actually having a genuine post and discussion with that comment, rather than claiming im talking nonsense/taking the piss or shouting capitals at me which happens too frequently on here.

What do you mean by 'simply'? Is the play now to downplay the importance of the document?
It's irrelevant. I'm not dodging this question nor was I the one we seem the have moved on from regarding Varadkar's neck. It was a confidential document between the IMO and Health and Varadkar passed it to his pal, the head of a rival union.
I'm having trouble taking you seriously but I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.
To recap we've had what does 'confidential' even mean, it wasn't illegal, confused with the GP agreement claiming it was open to any GP and now the discussion seems to be moving to the importance of the document.

Varadkar leaked a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and Health department to his pal, the head of a rival union.

Floppybits

James Brown wrote: »

What do you mean by 'simply'? Is the play now to downplay the importance of the document?

This has always been the case, since this broke we have had, sure it was in the public, the Taoiseach can do what he wants, when is confidential actually mean confidential and well the last few posts on this arguing that the union not involved in the negotiations were involved by osmosis.

Now when the supporters of Varadkar denying that a precedent has been set.

James Brown

Floppybits wrote: »

This has always been the case, since this broke we have had, sure it was in the public, the Taoiseach can do what he wants, when is confidential actually mean confidential and well the last few posts on this arguing that the union not involved in the negotiations were involved by osmosis.

Now when the supporters of Varadkar denying that a precedent has been set.

It's hard for some to conceive the bigger picture. Too bogged down in party loyalty the real issue is a top government minister passing a confidential document to his pal under these circumstance being shrugged off, opens the door to further abuse and cronyism, like FF/FG needed any help in that department.

Floppybits

James Brown wrote: »

It's hard for some to conceive the bigger picture. Too bogged down in party loyalty the real issue is a top government minister passing a confidential document to his pal under these circumstance being shrugged off, opens the door to further abuse and cronyism, like FF/FG needed any help in that department.

And they will be the first to be looking for a head on a plate if someone from another party was to do the same if they were in government. Sure we had a minister lose his job in the last government for having a dinner at a bidders house but seemingly it is different rules for FG.

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

What do you mean by 'simply'? Is the play now to downplay the importance of the document?
It's irrelevant. I'm not dodging this question nor was I the one we seem the have moved on from regarding Varadkar's neck. It was a confidential document between the IMO and Health and Varadkar passed it to his pal, the head of a rival union.
I'm having trouble taking you seriously but I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.
To recap we've had what does 'confidential' even mean, it wasn't illegal, confused with the GP agreement claiming it was open to any GP and now the discussion seems to be moving to the importance of the document.

Varadkar leaked a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and Health department to his pal, the head of a rival union.

Apologies if you have taken offence to my use of the word simply, don't let it take away from my question that I would genuinely like an answer to.

Bubbaclaus

Floppybits wrote: »

And they will be the first to be looking for a head on a plate if someone from another party was to do the same if they were in government. Sure we had a minister lose his job in the last government for having a dinner at a bidders house but seemingly it is different rules for FG.

Back to the examples with bidding/tendering again. If he had leaked a document to a rival group involved in a bidding/tendering process then I would fully agree with you.

Whatisthisnow

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Back to the examples with bidding/tendering again. If he had leaked a document to a rival group involved in a bidding/tendering process then I would fully agree with you.

So what your saying is its ok to leak certain things

The FG way

Bubbaclaus

Whatisthisnow wrote: »

So what your saying is its ok to leak certain things

The FG way

I'll only respond to your posts from your other account

Fann Linn

Floppybits wrote: »

And they will be the first to be looking for a head on a plate if someone from another party was to do the same if they were in government. Sure we had a minister lose his job in the last government for having a dinner at a bidders house but seemingly it is different rules for FG.

Jack Chambers being called out for his and his govt's hypocrisy on that very issue tonight. Excusing LV because he made an 'error of judgement ' when leaking documents to his mates but calling for Gordon Elliot to be held fully accountable for being in a distasteful photo.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Apologies if you have taken offence to my use of the word simply, don't let it take away from my question that I would genuinely like an answer to.

I didn't take offence just pointing out it looks like you are attempting a new tactic in an effort to excuse Varadkar.
I answered. It's not relevant. It's a side issue not related to what Varadkar did. How important you feel the document might be has no bearing. And frankly I don't care. The IMO and department of health deemed it confidential. That makes it confidential.

Do you now accept it was a confidential negotiation document between the IMO and Dept. of Health and Varadkar passed it to his pal, the head of a rival union? You've yet to acknowledge that.