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

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

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 in 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.

When have I ever not acknowledged that?

The difference in perspective comes from me seeing the head of a GP union to have every expectation to see such a document that would apply to all its members. You don't. Simply differing opinions.

It is the same to me as if the ASTI had been negotiating a new teacher pay scale, and the resulting pay scales were given to the other unions following the conclusion of discussions, but before the final document was published. I have no issue with that. Others would see it warranting 10 years jail time.

ohnonotgmail

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

When have I ever not acknowledged that?

The difference in perspective comes from me seeing the head of a GP union to have every expectation to see such a document that would apply to all its members. You don't. Simply differing opinions.

.

if they have a right to see it then they go through the proper channels. they dont get their mate to slip it out under his coat.

Bubbaclaus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if they have a right to see it then they go through the proper channels. they dont get their mate to slip it out under his coat.

Absolutely. And Varadkar apologised in the Dail about not using an appropriate channel and said he should have invited him in officially to share the contents with him instead.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Absolutely. And Varadkar apologised in the Dail about not using an appropriate channel and said he should have invited him in officially to share the contents with him instead.

After it was published and in the public domain presumably?

ohnonotgmail

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Absolutely. And Varadkar apologised in the Dail about not using an appropriate channel and said he should have invited him in officially to share the contents with him instead.

well no. the minister for education should have shared the document if they felt it appropriate.

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

After it was published and in the public domain presumably?

I wouldn't have thought so. No need to do it at that point if it is already in the public domain?

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought so. No need to do it at that point if it is already in the public domain?

But Leo claimed it was already in the public domain when he passed it to zero craic, that was also repeated by Helen McEntee, and many on this thread as the first line of defence.


That was a lie so, yeah?

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

When have I ever not acknowledged that?

The difference in perspective comes from me seeing the head of a GP union to have every expectation to see such a document that would apply to all its members. You don't. Simply differing opinions.

It is the same to me as if the ASTI had been negotiating a new teacher pay scale, and the resulting pay scales were given to the other unions following the conclusion of discussions, but before the final document was published. I have no issue with that. Others would see it warranting 10 years jail time.

All the time. Since day one you've questioned the reported facts and suggested motive or the perceived importance of the document or the understanding of 'confidential' make a difference. They don't.

Opinion of the facts doesn't change the facts. You might excuse it and that's your opinion, which is fine of course.

That's fine but it's not the same. If the ASTI were negotiating with the dept. of Education and Varadkar slipped a confidential document to a pal who headed a rival union, yes that would be the same.
You seem to be saying if the details were going to come out anyway, what's the problem? Well the problem is 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.

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

But Leo claimed it was already in the public domain when he passed it to zero craic, that was also repeated by Helen McEntee, and many on this thread as the first line of defence.


That was a lie so, yeah?

You are very confrontational. What do you mean by public domain?

If you mean the details of the press releases by the IMO and Government giving all the key details, then yes that was in the public domain.

If you mean the actual document, then no it wasn't.

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

All the time. Since day one you've questioned the reported facts...

Care to provide evidence supporting where I have "questioned the reported facts" from day 1?

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You are very confrontational. What do you mean by public domain?

If you mean the details of the press releases by the IMO and Government giving all the key details, then yes that was in the public domain.

If you mean the actual document, then no it wasn't.

Was Varadkar right to give the document marked CONFIDENTIAL to his buddy zero craic when he did?

Bubbaclaus

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Was Varadkar right to give the document marked CONFIDENTIAL to his buddy zero craic when he did?

Thats not for me to decide. I've no issue with it personally, if you are looking for my personal opinion on the matter.

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Thats not for me to decide. I've no issue with it personally, if you are looking for my personal opinion on the matter.

So you think he was right?

Bubbaclaus

Cute Hoor wrote: »

So you think he was right?

I cannot answer that as it is not a binary situation. Me having no issue with it doesn't automatically mean I think he was "right".

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I cannot answer that as it is not a binary situation. Me having no issue with it doesn't automatically mean I think he was "right".

Why can't you answer it, it's a very simple question, and it's just your opinion, it's not a court of law. Do you think he was right to give it to his buddy when he did.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You are very confrontational. What do you mean by public domain?

If you mean the details of the press releases by the IMO and Government giving all the key details, then yes that was in the public domain.

If you mean the actual document, then no it wasn't.

Another way of putting it is, I don't like people trying to piss down my neck and tell me it's raining.

As stated already, the first line of defence offered by Leo, McEntee and others was that it was already in the public domain.

He couldn't leak something already in the public domain, nor should be have apologised for leaking something if it was already in the public domain, and more importantly than that what was Simon Harris doing with members of AGS for several hours making a statement about something already in the public domain?

Just a while ago, you said Varadkar apologised for how he shared the confidential documents, and how Leo said if he could, he would have did it differently? Theres not really a right way to share a confidential document with someone who isn't supposed to see it until it's in the public domain though, herein lies the problem.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to stop tying yourself in knots bubba?

Bubbaclaus

Cute Hoor wrote: »

Why can't you answer it, it's a very simple question, and it's just your opinion, it's not a court of law. Do you think he was right to give it to his buddy when he did.

But you are asking me if I think it was right, with the alternative presumably being that I think he was wrong. That is too basic a question and binary answer choice for the circumstances at play.

I think it was fine to share details of a GP agreement with.a body representing 40% of GPs, following the official announcement of an agreement being reached. I don't think he was "right" to do it, but neither do I think he was wrong. Get it?

Cute Hoor

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

But you are asking me if I think it was right, with the alternative presumably being that I think he was wrong. That is too basic a question and binary answer choice for the circumstances at play.

I think it was fine to share details of a GP agreement with.a body representing 40% of GPs, following the official announcement of an agreement being reached. I don't think he was "right" to do it, but neither do I think he was wrong. Get it?

I think he was wrong and I have no problem saying it, Varadkar knows he was wrong (and admitted it eventually), why can't you say you think (and it's only your opinion) whether he was right or wrong. There won't be repercussions for you.

smurgen

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

But you are asking me if I think it was right, with the alternative presumably being that I think he was wrong. That is too basic a question and binary answer choice for the circumstances at play.

I think it was fine to share details of a GP agreement with.a body representing 40% of GPs, following the official announcement of an agreement being reached. I don't think he was "right" to do it, but neither do I think he was wrong. Get it?

No. It's binary.

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

Another way of putting it is, I don't like people trying to piss down my neck and tell me it's raining.

As stated already, the first line of defence offered by Leo, McEntee and others was that it was already in the public domain.

He couldn't leak something already in the public domain, nor should be have apologised for leaking something if it was already in the public domain, and more importantly than that what was Simon Harris doing with members of AGS for several hours making a statement about something already in the public domain?

Just a while ago, you said Varadkar apologised for how he shared the confidential documents, and how Leo said if he could, he would have did it differently? Theres not really a right way to share a confidential document with someone who isn't supposed to see it until it's in the public domain though, herein lies the problem.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to stop tying yourself in knots bubba?

I said you are being confrontational because you are getting aggressive over me posting what I understood from Varadkar's statement in the Dail and what he said he would have done differently. If you interpreted what he said differently then maybe it would make sense for you to set it out, rather than ending every single one of your posts with some passive aggression?

Bubbaclaus

smurgen wrote: »

No. It's binary.

It must be great to live in such a basic world, but the one i am in is a bit more complex and nuanced than that.

blanch152

Cute Hoor wrote: »

I think he was wrong and I have no problem saying it, Varadkar knows he was wrong (and admitted it eventually), why can't you say you think (and it's only your opinion) whether he was right or wrong. There won't be repercussions for you.

That is a lie.

Varadkar said that the way he shared it was wrong, but he never said he was wrong to share it.

As for your relentless pursuit of posters to give black and white answers to pejorative questions, it fails to take into account all the complexities of the situation. Life isn’t black and white.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I said you are being confrontational because you are getting aggressive over me posting what I understood from Varadkar's statement in the Dail and what he said he would have done differently. If you interpreted what he said differently then maybe it would make sense for you to set it out, rather than ending every single one of your posts with some passive aggression?

Where?

There wasn't a hint of "aggression" in my posts - and if you read them that way, maybe the internet isn't the place for you.

smurgen

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

It must be great to live in such a basic world, but the one i am in is a bit more complex and nuanced than that.

The troubles is simple in your world yet something like a contract being confidential or not is nuanced. Lol.

blanch152

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.

Your understanding is flawed.

I gave an example earlier whereby the GRA and PDFORRA are parties to the national pay agreements but don’t form part of the negotiations but get copies of confidential discussion documents. All perfectly normal.

Bubbaclaus

smurgen wrote: »

The troubles is simple in your world yet something like a contract being confidential or not is nuanced. Lol.

Does this sentence even make sense? What are you trying to say?

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

Where?

There wasn't a hint of "aggression" in my posts - and if you read them that way, maybe the internet isn't the place for you.

Even this post is passive aggressive, you just can't help it.

blanch152

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Does this sentence even make sense? What are you trying to say?

I couldn’t understand it either.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Care to provide evidence supporting where I have "questioned the reported facts" from day 1?

Sure:

This was some time ago yet you are still on it today:

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

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.

Another 'nothing to see here theory':

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I'm sure if the ASTI had negotiated an agreement with the Government for all teachers and Leo had then given a copy of that agreement to the TUI there would be no story.

The only reason there is a story here is because the NAGP were never given official status to represent GPs, despite the GPs in their membership being double that of the IMO. The real story here is why NAGP werent given a seat at the table for the earlier negotiations, not why were they given a copy once it was done.

A standard in these parts:

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

In your opinion indeed. I can see the imagination is running in over drive, even bring his sexuality into it.

This is your first post in the thread:

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I'm a bit confused here. Does that tweet by the village magazine show the extent of their evidence for the story? If so, then I can understand why none of the mainstream news published it.

Whether it's true or not, there is nothing in those screenshots that points to any wrongdoing. I hope there is some actual damning evidence in the article itself? Cos otherwise they took a major legal risk here.

It's fair to say you've covered all the bases.
So as I say, since day one all you've done is question the reported facts, dismiss and supply excuses.
If you think he did nothing wrong in your opinion, that's cool, but at least you accept he slipped a confidential negotiation document to his pal, head of a rival union.

Cute Hoor

Originally Posted by blanch152 View Post
It is a simple matter to me. The Taoiseach has the responsibility of deciding what is best.

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a lie.

Varadkar said that the way he shared it was wrong, but he never said he was wrong to share it.

As for your relentless pursuit of posters to give black and white answers to pejorative questions, it fails to take into account all the complexities of the situation. Life isn’t black and white.

It sure isn't black & white for some people, grey, welcome back, there would be no need for relentless pursuit if people gave simple responses rather than waffling and evasion. Still waiting for your answer btw.

Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has apologised in the Dáil for his error of judgment in releasing a confidential document agreed with the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) to the President of a rival GP group last year.