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

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

An error of judgment doesn’t equate to a criminal act.

No Maryanne...just NO.
He confessed after being outed in the media to 'wrongdoing'. Excusing that as an error of judgement is just that...an excuse. We would never have found out about it from him, he covered it up.

It remains to be seen if it is a criminal act.

zerosugarbuzz

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Going down rabbit holes is not my favourite pastime..

Ok, so just one of those " I have nothing to say so I'll say something stupid" statements, grand!

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No Maryanne...just NO.
He confessed after being outed in the media to 'wrongdoing'. Excusing that as an error of judgement is just that...an excuse. We would never have found out about it from him, he covered it up.

It remains to be seen if it is a criminal act.

The usual dancing on the head of a pin on which these threads invariably end up .

Brendan Bendar

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Ok, so just one of those " I have nothing to say so I'll say something stupid" statements, grand!

Good decision, in my opinion.

Not just a pretty face, buddy.

smurgen

Another unnecessary photo opp/marketing ploy. What a liability.

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1368134152948756483?s=19

Nobotty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He confessed to wrongdoing himself Maryanne. When are you going to accept that?

The wrong wont be seen as a mortal sin by his base especially in the way he spun it and is mostly forgotten Id expect by that orbit

He hasn't confessed to a crime though because he's confident there wasnt one,Id expect he's not going to be shunned by any foreign agency or leader when he becomes Taoiseach again at the end of next year
We already know he relishes the idea of opposition so after more than a decade in some govenment position or other and 3 or 4 years as Taoiseach,ye'll finally be rid
Patience

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Guilty until proven innocent? Even before a criminal investigation?

Standing aside so as not to hinder any investigation would be standard procedure.


https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1360870783128600576?s=19

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Standing aside so as not to hinder any investigation would be standard procedure.


https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1360870783128600576?s=19

Another Twitter dump from an unreliable source.

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

Another unnecessary photo opp/marketing ploy. What a liability.

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1368134152948756483?s=19

What has this to do with the story in the village?

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Another Twitter dump from an unreliable source.

The same Debbie McCann that AGS had supporting them in the Charleton tribunal, re the Maurice McCabe saga is now "an unreliable source"

You clearly have literally no idea who, or what you're even talking about Maryanne.

D.Q

smurgen wrote: »

Another unnecessary photo opp/marketing ploy. What a liability.

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1368134152948756483?s=19

Like palatine with his death star.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

The same Debbie McCann that AGS had supporting them in the Charleton tribunal, re the Maurice McCabe saga is now "an unreliable source"

You clearly have literally no idea who, or what you're even talking about Maryanne.

I don’t consider Mick Caul a reliable source.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

I don’t consider Mick Caul a reliable source.

Dafuq you talking about - Mick Caul only tweeted something about an article Debbie McCann was the author of.

Wouldn't that be like you posting a source to something you espoused on here and then your reliability be called into question, as opposed to the author of the article you linked to

Did you think this through before you posted it?

Brendan Bendar

McMurphy wrote: »

Dafuq you talking about - Mick Caul only tweeted something about an article Debbie McCann was the author of.

Wouldn't that be like you posting a source to something you espoused on here and then your reliability be called into question, as opposed to the author of the article you linked to

Did you think this through before you posted it?

Anything that Mick Caul puts his name near whoever wrote it should be taken with a grain of salt .

One trick pony.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Dafuq you talking about - Mick Caul only tweeted something about an article Debbie McCann was the author of.

Wouldn't that be like you posting a source to something you espoused on here and then your reliability be called into question, as opposed to the author of the article you linked to

Did you think this through before you posted it?

“An Garda Síochána has received correspondence which is currently being assessed to determine what if any Garda action is required.’” quote from Ms McCanns article.

“what if any Garda action”. A big difference from being the subject of a criminal investigation.

Nobotty

Thats the same article that you screenshot the day before yesterday Mc
To which I replied,its a British rag
Actually owned by an Ardent Tory Brexiteer who hates Vradakar for that reason
So which one of ye is Mick Caul on boards?
Is it you Mc

Strange bedfellows Tories and Shinners!

Brendan Bendar

Nobotty wrote: »

Thats the same article that you screenshot the day before yesterday Mc
To which I replied,its a British rag
Actually owned by an Ardent Tory Brexiteer who hates Vradakar for that reason
So which one of ye is Mick Caul on boards?
Is it you Mc

Strange bedfellows Tories and Shinners!

Both useless parties, in my opinion.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

“An Garda Síochána has received correspondence which is currently being assessed to determine what if any Garda action is required.’” quote from Ms McCanns article.

“what if any Garda action”. A big difference from being the subject of a criminal investigation.

What if any Garda action is required on the 'correspondence'.

They received the 'correspondence' as part of their criminal investigation.

Seems simple enough to me.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What if any Garda action is required on the 'correspondence'.

They received the 'correspondence' as part of their criminal investigation.

Seems simple enough to me.

Wrong. They are looking into the correspondence in order to decide what, if any action should be taken. NO criminal investigation.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wrong. They are looking into the correspondence in order to decide what, if any action should be taken. NO criminal investigation.

You don't know that Maryanne, they are investigating to see if there are criminal charges to be brought

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Wrong. They are looking into the correspondence in order to decide what, if any action should be taken. NO criminal investigation.

You can try as hard as you want.
They are only looking at correspondence because they are conducting a criminal investigation.

James Brown

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Guilty until proven innocent? Even before a criminal investigation?

He confessed ffs. The deed is done. Its just was it illegal?
This is the problem with folk trying to water it down and excuse it.
Its a fair point. Who'd want to be involved in a confidential negotiation with Varadkar telling a pal or taking selfies and tweeting nonsense.

markodaly

James Brown wrote: »

He confessed ffs. The deed is done..

I think people are wildly exaggerating what happened here and what he actually admitted and apologised for.

But I suppose any port in a storm.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

I think people are wildly exaggerating what happened here and what he actually admitted and apologised for.

But I suppose any port in a storm.

They are not but pretend they are if you like.
He leaked, it was confidential. Was it illegal is the only query.

Fann Linn

markodaly wrote: »

I think people are wildly exaggerating what happened here and what he actually admitted and apologised for.

But I suppose any port in a storm.

So why are the Gardai still investigating?

Suckit

Fann Linn wrote: »

So why are the Gardai still investigating?

If we are to believe some posters here, it could be that they are simply homophobic, racist or both.

Floppybits

Suckit wrote: »

If we are to believe some posters here, it could be that they are simply homophobic, racist or both.

Ah sure according to some on here the guards have nothing better to do only waste their time looking into this.

RandomViewer

Suckit wrote: »

If we are to believe some posters here, it could be that they are simply homophobic, racist or both.

So if Coveney had leaked the document it wouldn't have been an issue?

McMurphy

RandomViewer wrote: »

So if Coveney had leaked the document it wouldn't have been an issue?

Ah sure he has glasses and overcame a speech impediment.


You're not thinking outside the box random!

Floppybits

RandomViewer wrote: »

So if Coveney had leaked the document it wouldn't have been an issue?

If Pearse Doherty had leaked a document would this be OK?