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

skimpydoo

skimpydoo wrote: »

This describes what happened in a nutshell. So any FG/Leo supporter on here care to try and defend this? None of the above mentions SF so don't try and muddy the waters by bringing them into it.

When exactly did Simon Harris ask to see the document? Before it was finalised or afterwards?

Suckit

Rosita wrote: »

Good day for Harris in the context of a future leadership contest. Comes across as a man of honour who had the opportunity for leaking but didn't take it. He was a Coveney supporter in the previous one so he might let him have the next one.

I think it's safe to completely reword that, starting with "A very bad day for Harris".
He never had the opportunity for leaking, and it seems that was because it was believed he definitely would have. He went looking...

Suckit

Deleted User wrote: »

When exactly did Simon Harris ask to see the document? Before it was finalised or afterwards?

Before. As he asked before Leo did, and Leo says in his texts that it wasn't finished after he leaked it.

skimpydoo

Deleted User wrote: »

When exactly did Simon Harris ask to see the document? Before it was finalised or afterwards?

Before it was finalised. Do you think it was afterwards?:rolleyes:

micosoft

skimpydoo wrote: »

This describes what happened in a nutshell. So any FG/Leo supporter on here care to try and defend this? None of the above mentions SF so don't try and muddy the waters by bringing them into it.

Not even Leo is defending it? He apologised for it.

You've bizarrely made up the idea that this was a contract between the government and the IMO when it's the GP contract that all GP's got. Even within this there is no possibility that any person or indeed party gained from it and the only possible downside was a Union refusing to sign or holding out because they thought better terms were available. It was a union negotiation where leaking terms to the other unions has generally happened to avoid that. Leaks by both parties by the way. No one has pointed out who benefited other than the Irish Public who didn't have to deal with industrial action by the GP community.

It was wrong but probably a 1 or a 1.5 out of 10 in terms of "scandals". And that is comparing to the current scandals in the UK, Germany and up North. Not whataboutery - but actual perspective. Something missed in a thread with thousands of posts.

The only strange thing seems to be the extraordinary orchestration and magnification of anything involving Varadkar right down to the hashtags. Almost like some party is importing the astroturfing tactics of certain US players. As such I realise this thread will go on and on and if answerable case is likely to be found, switch to "political policing".

skimpydoo

skimpydoo wrote: »

Before it was finalised. Do you think it was afterwards?:rolleyes:

The actual dates are important, if you know them?

Rows Grower

Muahahaha wrote: »

I was just wondering where the FG heads are now to continue on their tall stories that a document literally marked on the front page 'Confidential- Not for Circulation' wasnt actually a confidential document at all :rolleyes:

Now it turns out that it was so confidential that even Simon Harris' own civil servants were refusing to give him a copy.

This is an irrefutable abuse of power by Leo.

His ongoing denial on the airwaves that he has done anything illegal is only compounding the problem.

FrancieBrady

micosoft wrote: »

Not even Leo is defending it? He apologised for it.

You've bizarrely made up the idea that this was a contract between the government and the IMO when it's the GP contract that all GP's got. Even within this there is no possibility that any person or indeed party gained from it and the only possible downside was a Union refusing to sign or holding out because they thought better terms were available. It was a union negotiation where leaking terms to the other unions has generally happened to avoid that. Leaks by both parties by the way. No one has pointed out who benefited other than the Irish Public who didn't have to deal with industrial action by the GP community.

It was wrong but probably a 1 or a 1.5 out of 10 in terms of "scandals". And that is comparing to the current scandals in the UK, Germany and up North. Not whataboutery - but actual perspective. Something missed in a thread with thousands of posts.

The only strange thing seems to be the extraordinary orchestration and magnification of anything involving Varadkar right down to the hashtags. Almost like some party is importing the astroturfing tactics of certain US players. As such I realise this thread will go on and on and if answerable case is likely to be found, switch to "political policing".

#LeavePoorLeoAlone?

Suckit

Deleted User wrote: »

The actual dates are important, if you know them?

10th of April he asked Harris for them.

McMurphy

micosoft wrote: »

Not even Leo is defending it? He apologised for it.

You've bizarrely made up the idea that this was a contract between the government and the IMO when it's the GP contract that all GP's got. Even within this there is no possibility that any person or indeed party gained from it and the only possible downside was a Union refusing to sign or holding out because they thought better terms were available. It was a union negotiation where leaking terms to the other unions has generally happened to avoid that. Leaks by both parties by the way. No one has pointed out who benefited other than the Irish Public who didn't have to deal with industrial action by the GP community.

It was wrong but probably a 1 or a 1.5 out of 10 in terms of "scandals". And that is comparing to the current scandals in the UK, Germany and up North. Not whataboutery - but actual perspective. Something missed in a thread with thousands of posts.

The only strange thing seems to be the extraordinary orchestration and magnification of anything involving Varadkar right down to the hashtags. Almost like some party is importing the astroturfing tactics of certain US players. As such I realise this thread will go on and on and if answerable case is likely to be found, switch to "political policing".

I'm pretty sure he was/is actually, he's insisting the document was already in the public domain, it wasn't really confidential anyway, and sure his legal team (defence) have told him "he did nothing wrong or illegal"

That has the Gards so peeved - it was mentioned in today's article that senior gardai are annoyed, citing he shouldn't be going around commenting on the case or the likely outcome of same.

I did think this would have blown over initially, as this is Ireland etc, but now I'm not so sure. I think Leo may actually be changed with this, and if so that's a good thing.

Not because he's fg leader, but because it will show the rest of the world we haveb actually grown up as a country, and prove that white collar crime and corruption is actually punishable here.

jimmycrackcorm

Rows Grower wrote: »

This is an irrefutable abuse of power by Leo.

His ongoing denial on the airwaves that he has done anything illegal is only compounding the problem.

But it is irrefutable. Shinners will try to muddy the waters as much as possible before the garda investigation will be completed. But at the end of the day, the law is very clear in this. It's been posted several times already.

skimpydoo

Deleted User wrote: »

The actual dates are important, if you know them?

All I know is that it was before and no way it was afterwards.

skimpydoo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But it is irrefutable. Shinners will try to muddy the waters as much as possible before the garda investigation will be completed. But at the end of the day, the law is very clear in this. It's been posted several times already.

How have the Shinners tried to muddy the waters?

Suckit

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But it is irrefutable. Shinners will try to muddy the waters as much as possible before the garda investigation will be completed. But at the end of the day, the law is very clear in this. It's been posted several times already.

This really doesn't seem to need 'the Shinners' to muddy anything, and anyone in their right mind should be questioning this.

It seems FG's first port of call when caught doing wrong is to blame everyone else.

McMurphy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But it is irrefutable. Shinners will try to muddy the waters as much as possible before the garda investigation will be completed. But at the end of the day, the law is very clear in this. It's been posted several times already.

You wouldn't mind clarifying what it's clear on, and how it may come into this case?

skimpydoo

Suckit wrote: »

This really doesn't seem to need 'the shinners' and anyone in their right mind should be questioning this.

It seems FG's first port of call when caught doing wrong is to blame everyone else.

Who me:D. Look at Shinner over there.

Northernlily

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But it is irrefutable. Shinners will try to muddy the waters as much as possible before the garda investigation will be completed. But at the end of the day, the law is very clear in this. It's been posted several times already.

Let's leave political affiliation out of the core topic that is being discussed.

@Boards Admin. As a floating voter, I'm really getting sick of the lack of moderation on the site. Too many threads are allowed descend into childish nonsense with FGers blaming SF and SF blaming FG etc etc. Makes the place painful to read.

RandomName2

Muahahaha wrote: »

I was just wondering where the FG heads are now to continue on their tall stories that a document literally marked on the front page 'Confidential- Not for Circulation' wasnt actually a confidential document at all :rolleyes:

Now it turns out that it was so confidential that even Simon Harris' own civil servants were refusing to give him a copy.

Hi guy from the party that I won't name,

Muahahaha wrote: »

Harris (their boss) asks them for a copy of the contract. The senior civil servants refuse to give it to him "because of the sensitivity of the negotiations".

That wasn't what was stated. Simon Harris asked if the document had been finalized and if he could have a copy. He received a curt reply which I quote verbatim

The agreement document has not yet been finalised

That makes no mention of confidentially.

Quite honestly I am curious why the minister of Health was excluded from discussions about a GP agreement, but nobody is actually interested in the important questions here. I honesty can only make guesses as to the reason behind this. Certainly Harris didn't seem to be treated with much respect in the matter.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Leo the Leak

Ah, back to primary school levels of assessment I see. Is he smelly, too?

Suckit wrote: »

He never had the opportunity for leaking

This. He apparently promised Ó'Tuathail a copy but never had a copy to give. Whether he would have given a copy, or at what point he would have given a copy, had he had a copy to give, is anyone's guess.

skimpydoo wrote: »

Before it was finalised. Do you think it was afterwards?:rolleyes:

Clearly it was before it was finalized. Leo's party has stated that there were only very minor changes made after this point. I wouldn't take this at face value, but nobody has made any serious effort to argue otherwise so I'd say that's pretty close to the mark.

Mind you, the party that must not be named on April 16th 2019, once it was disclosed to the Dail, was very unhappy that they had not received an advance copy.

I welcome the opportunity to speak. This is a deal that was done two weeks ago, so it is unfortunate that I did not have more detail in advance of the debate. I hope in his concluding remarks that the Minister will commit to a longer debate once we have had the opportunity to digest the contents of the agreement.

Varadkar states that Ó'Tuathail received the copy on about the 15th or 16th. I'm going to say that 15th is more likely accurate. Either way the negotiations had been concluded for two weeks prior, as the party that shall not be named attests to.

Hm.. the party that shall not be named had a lot of moaning about it not being very substantial, but merely an update to pre-existing agreements. I bet they wish they could have Dail records scrubbed.

For the record, the IMO itself apparently announced on the 5th of April that the agreement was concluded.

Again corroborating what we already know, that the agreement had been concluded for weeks.

So what does this tell us?

• That the GP agreement was to all intents and purposes finalized by the time it was sent to GPs belonging to the NAGP.
• That everyone accepts that by mid-April that the agreement was essentially concluded.
• That the NAGP obtained no financial advantage from knowing about the contents of the agreement before the entire thing went up on the internet.
• That Simon Harris was seemingly not in charge of his own department.
• That neither Varadkar nor the party that cannot be named cannot stop repeating the same soundbites on this, over, and over again.

Simon Harris was asked by the Gardai about the leak and he stated he didn't disclose anything to any third parties? I knew this in mid February because it was reported upon then. The only interesting thing in that article is that the Gardai is pissed off with Varadkar giving interviews on the topic.

Larbre34

The choice is simple enough.

People can either back Sinn Féin on this and destabilise the Government and by extension the Country at this worst possible time.

Or, people who follow FF, Greens, Labour, Soc Dems etc will be driven to back Leo and FG and judge this for what it is, a foolish but ultimately harmless error.

I suspect myself the Guards won't find anything to pursue a serious case, but you can be sure there are already press releases written ready to decry that because it won't suit some people's agendae.

This is about pragmatism, not politics and I think the Irish people will see through flimsy attempts to shape this as something different to what it is.

LessOutragePlz

Larbre34 wrote: »

The choice is simple enough.

People can either back Sinn Féin on this and destabilise the Government and by extension the Country at this worst possible time.

Or, people who follow FF, Greens, Labour, Soc Dems etc will be driven to back Leo and FG and judge this for what it is, a foolish but ultimately harmless error.

I suspect myself the Guards won't find anything to pursue a serious case, but you can be sure there are already press releases written ready to decry that because it won't suit some people's agendae.

This is about pragmatism, not politics and I think the Irish people will see through flimsy attempts to shape this as something different to what it is.

So what you're saying is that it's okay to let the leader of our government at the time commit a potentially criminal offence because it was "harmless" and it shouldn't be investigated any further because of the pandemic?

golfball37

Larbre34 wrote: »

The choice is simple enough.

People can either back Sinn Féin on this and destabilise the Government and by extension the Country at this worst possible time.

Or, people who follow FF, Greens, Labour, Soc Dems etc will be driven to back Leo and FG and judge this for what it is, a foolish but ultimately harmless error.

I suspect myself the Guards won't find anything to pursue a serious case, but you can be sure there are already press releases written ready to decry that because it won't suit some people's agendae.

This is about pragmatism, not politics and I think the Irish people will see through flimsy attempts to shape this as something different to what it is.

The government can go on without him, in fact the distraction of him will be gone and they can plough ahead with their important work. Unless of course he is bigger than the govt and above reproach on ethical grounds? If that’s the case this government isn’t worth persisting with

skimpydoo

Larbre34 wrote: »

The choice is simple enough.

People can either back Sinn Féin on this and destabilise the Government and by extension the Country at this worst possible time.

Or, people who follow FF, Greens, Labour, Soc Dems etc will be driven to back Leo and FG and judge this for what it is, a foolish but ultimately harmless error.

I suspect myself the Guards won't find anything to pursue a serious case, but you can be sure there are already press releases written ready to decry that because it won't suit some people's agendae.

This is about pragmatism, not politics and I think the Irish people will see through flimsy attempts to shape this as something different to what it is.

If they get away with this now, what else can they get away with and use the pandemic as an excuse not to look into as we can't have an election.

McMurphy

Muhahaha wrote:

Harris (their boss) asks them for a copy of the contract. The senior civil servants refuse to give it to him "because of the sensitivity of the negotiations"

RandomName2 wrote: »

,
That wasn't what was stated. Simon Harris asked if the document had been finalized and if he could have a copy. He received a curt reply which I quote verbatim



That makes no mention of confidentially.

Quite honestly I am curious why the minister of Health was excluded from discussions about a GP agreement, but nobody is actually interested in the important questions here. I honesty can only make guesses as to the reason behind this. Certainly Harris didn't seem to be treated with much respect in the matter.
.

Were we reading different articles, or did you even read the one published today?



He was refused by civil servants from within his very own department because "of the sensitivity of negotiations with the medical authority" at the time.

FrancieBrady

Larbre34 wrote: »

The choice is simple enough.

People can either back Sinn Féin on this and destabilise the Government and by extension the Country at this worst possible time.

Or, people who follow FF, Greens, Labour, Soc Dems etc will be driven to back Leo and FG and judge this for what it is, a foolish but ultimately harmless error.

I suspect myself the Guards won't find anything to pursue a serious case, but you can be sure there are already press releases written ready to decry that because it won't suit some people's agendae.

This is about pragmatism, not politics and I think the Irish people will see through flimsy attempts to shape this as something different to what it is.

That's utter rubbish. The only reason the government would be in trouble is if FG took the hump because he had to go.

Suckit

Suckit wrote: »

10th of April he asked Harris for them.

5 whole days AFTER the IMO outlined the deal in a fairly detailed press release?

Larbre34

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

So what you're saying is that it's okay to let the leader of our government at the time commit a potentially criminal offence because it was "harmless" and it shouldn't be investigated any further because of the pandemic?

If it was criminal. I think it might have been a mere misdemeanour. Certainly it wasn't for corrupt reasons.

We'll see what the Guards come up with, but really it's only SF and a few private individuals keeping this going for vexatious and self serving reasons.

FrancieBrady

Larbre34 wrote: »

If it was criminal. I think it might have been a mere misdemeanour. Certainly it wasn't for corrupt reasons.

We'll see what the Guards come up with, but really it's only SF and a few private individuals keeping this going for vexatious and self serving reasons.

According to the poll in today's paper 52% think he should stand aside, from all duties until this is done. Hardly SF and a few individuals.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

Were we reading different articles, or did you even read the one published today?

I read the article, I am capable of reading.

Now the same question of you. I quoted verbatim.

I assume that that is the journalist's personal interpretation of the Department's statement to mean that it was too confidential, that is that because it was still being edited that it couldn't be disclosed. I consider it to have been just a snub however. If I had been Harris I would have been absolutely livid to be honest.

Muahahaha

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hi guy from the party that I won't name,

sorry what party are you saying Im from, this is news to me as Im sure plenty of posters on here can attest.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

I read the article, I am capable of reading.

Now the same question of you. I quoted verbatim.

I assume that that is the journalist's personal interpretation of the Department's statement to mean that it was too confidential, that is that because it was still being edited that it couldn't be disclosed. I consider it to have been just a snub however. If I had been Harris I would have been absolutely livid to be honest.

You said the reason he was refused was because it wasn't finalized, that's not the reason stated in the article.

I don't know why you would want to try and argue an assumption vs what's in the actual article tbh, but have at it.

I agree with you about Harris though, he was treated with contempt by civil servants within the very department he was supposedly in charge of, and how he gritted his teeth and voted confidence in Leo, despite all we know now is well beyond me.