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

Floppybits

McMurphy wrote: »

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.

Harris was only health minister in name only, Leo was the one in charge there pulling the strings there. Similar to giving McEntee the justice minister job so she would do his bidding in appointing Woulfe. There is no way on earth Harris was ready or capable of being minister for health.

Now the question is has Harris misled the Dàil in his defence of Varadkar? The more this goes on the more damage it is doing to the whole FG party.

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

The above posters are now threadbanned (except the one at the very top!)

JeffKenna threadban lifted following assurances over future posting

Beasty

Northernlily wrote: »

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.

Never comment on moderation in-thread. PM me if you wish to discuss. However first of all report any posts you have an issue with and they will be looked at. If you do not report they probably will not be

Can someone please tell me why a document can be considered confidential when the agreement it contains was published by the IMO in a press release days before our Taoiseach sent it to an interested party?

Anyone?

Larbre34

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

The "Irish" Mail of Sunday?

Readership, 17. Editorial standards, zero.

skimpydoo

Larbre34 wrote: »

The "Irish" Mail of Sunday?

Readership, 17. Editorial standards, zero.

If this was in another paper, which one would you trust?

RandomName2

Larbre34 wrote: »

The "Irish" Mail of Sunday?

Readership, 17. Editorial standards, zero.

Ah that's not really fair. Well okay it's relatively fair, but in general independent media is fine. The problem is that very small polls are notoriously inaccurate, and are always biased in favor of people who are willing to be polled. Furthermore this doesn't even provide a particularly convincing margin. So with a really big margin of error, and a slight majority in the actual poll, the value of this is minimal.

Even were if the value of this poll were not minimal, it wouldn't have any bearing on the moral aspects of this case (which personally I think are close to zero, and I've seen no-one really try to argue otherwise) or the legality of the incident (which I honestly don't know about).

FrancieBrady

Larbre34 wrote: »

The "Irish" Mail of Sunday?

Readership, 17. Editorial standards, zero.

Ah right...this would be a bad poll so.

Larbre34

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah right...this would be a bad poll so.

Who the **** is 'Ireland Thinks'?

I ask because they ran this poll for this bad paper.

Bad paper, bad research, small poll, bad poll.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone please tell me why a document can be considered confidential when the agreement it contains was published by the IMO in a press release days before our Taoiseach sent it to an interested party?

Anyone?

Obviously, no one can explain. Goodnight.

ooter

Why did zero craic ask to see the document if the agreement had already been published?

Suckit

ooter wrote: »

Why did zero craic ask to see the document if the agreement had already been published?

Why did civil servants refuse to give it to Simon if he could read it in the paper?
Why did they also sneak it out to Leo who put it in a taxi for O'Tuathaill, if all Leo had to do was tell him to look at the press release...


I bet they're feeling real stupid now..

Floppybits

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously, no one can explain. Goodnight.

Here is one for you

Why if the document was no longer confidential could Harris not get a copy of it and why did Varadkar when he got a copy of it leak to his not friend friend via back channels? Why not just tell one of the many many many highly paid advisors or civil servants to send a copy via proper channels? Then all this would have been avoided. Can you answer that?

RandomName2

Okay so I've looked through this ****fest. 510 pages this thread has. Has nobody been arsed to do this before now? Has it just been leoootheeeleaaak from the usual crowd? He's got to go now. He's done for. It's even more illegal now. He's toast.

Okay so...

The GP agreement was concluded by April 6th.

Source
https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/media/pressrel/gp-contract-launch.html

Source
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30915934.html

Source
https://www.imo.ie/news-media/news-press-releases/2019/statement-imo-reaches-210/index.xml

Ó Tuathail seems to have received a copy of the draft agreement on the 16th or 17th of April

Source
https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*G451xkNZQcVUNy6Fjd-Jbw.png
(check the time stamp)

'Well maybe he had it for weeks and just didn't mention it?'
Just before anybody makes that bull**** retort think about the implication. This would mean that Ó Tuathail didn't share it with anybody else in NAGP for weeks. It is clear that the top brass (literally labeled 'Inner Sanctum') only heard that Ó Tuathail had a copy of the draft a full day after the Dail had received it and discussed it.

'Maybe the image has been doctored'

The only people who could have doctored that image would have been The Village. Right.


Look I always stated that nobody was interested in this. Nobody is interested in the GP agreement. Nobody is interested in why NAGP wasn't at the table. Nobody is interested in the IMO's current position. Nobody is interested in the moral or ethical implications of any of this. Nobody is interested in any sense or logic. It is the most painfully transparent hatchet job I've seen.

The Children's Hospital. There. If you want a real scandal get off your arses and do some work. You're a bunch of lazy whingers.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look I always stated that nobody was interested in this. Nobody is interested in the GP agreement. Nobody is interested in why NAGP wasn't at the table. Nobody is interested in the IMO's current position. Nobody is interested in the moral or ethical implications of any of this. Nobody is interested in any sense or logic. It is the most painfully transparent hatchet job I've seen.

Gardai seem fairly 'interested'.

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gardai seem fairly 'interested'.

There has been a complaint. They have to do due diligence and investigate it.

nialler1978

Quote: Maryanne84
Can someone please tell me why a document can be considered confidential when the agreement it contains was published by the IMO in a press release days before our Taoiseach sent it to an interested party?

Anyone?


Obviously, no one can explain. Goodnight.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Obviously, no one can explain. Goodnight.

In a political thread with back and forth of nitpicking, and generally just nonsensical sniping on this and that it’s usually easy enough to get someone to take some kind of bait.

You should really take stock of this, for your own dignity, so I have a small suggestion if I may..., when nobody replies and when you start quoting yourself and replying to yourself, it’s not a great reflection of your previous post history or your general frame of mind. Just a gentle nudge in the right direction.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

There has been a complaint. They have to do due diligence and investigate it.

They are conducting a criminal investigation into a high ranking minister and Tanaiste.

skimpydoo

[QUOTE=RandomName2;116652359
Look I always stated that nobody was interested in this. Nobody is interested in the GP agreement. Nobody is interested in why NAGP wasn't at the table. Nobody is interested in the IMO's current position. Nobody is interested in the moral or ethical implications of any of this. Nobody is interested in any sense or logic. It is the most painfully transparent hatchet job I've seen.

The Children's Hospital. There. If you want a real scandal get off your arses and do some work. You're a bunch of lazy whingers.[/QUOTE]

If nobody is interested, why is it trending on social media? why is it on the front page of The Sunday Times? and why has it gotten a lot of pages on here?

nialler1978

nialler1978 wrote: »

Quote: Maryanne84
Can someone please tell me why a document can be considered confidential when the agreement it contains was published by the IMO in a press release days before our Taoiseach sent it to an interested party?

Anyone?


Obviously, no one can explain. Goodnight.



In a political thread with back and forth of nitpicking, and generally just nonsensical sniping on this and that it’s usually easy enough to get someone to take some kind of bait.

You should really take stock of this, for your own dignity, so I have a small suggestion if I may..., when nobody replies and when you start quoting yourself and replying to yourself, it’s not a great reflection of your previous post history or your general frame of mind. Just a gentle nudge in the right direction.

Or simply the fact that other posters aren’t researching their “facts” before they post.
Facts are that the document was in the public domain before Leo gave it to his former friend. It had been already approved by government.

jammiedodgers

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone please tell me why a document can be considered confidential when the agreement it contains was published by the IMO in a press release days before our Taoiseach sent it to an interested party?

Anyone?

Why did he apologise for leaking it if it was already published?

skimpydoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Or simply the fact that other posters aren’t researching their “facts” before they post.
Facts are that the document was in the public domain before Leo gave it to his former friend. It had been already approved by government.

As asked before, if it was in the public domain why did Simon ask for a copy?

Suckit

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look I always stated that nobody was interested in this. Nobody is interested in the GP agreement. Nobody is interested in why NAGP wasn't at the table. Nobody is interested in the IMO's current position. Nobody is interested in the moral or ethical implications of any of this. Nobody is interested in any sense or logic. It is the most painfully transparent hatchet job I've seen.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40248653.html

skimpydoo

skimpydoo wrote: »

As asked before, if it was in the public domain why did Simon ask for a copy?

When exactly did he ask for a copy?

skimpydoo

Deleted User wrote: »

When exactly did he ask for a copy?

He asked before Leo was given a copy.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

When exactly did he ask for a copy?

Why are you trying to exonerate somebody who has already confessed and apologised for this?

RandomName2

Suckit wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40248653.html

Former Fine Gael TD Kate O’Connell has insisted there is “no ill feeling” between her and Taoiseach Leo Varadkar after his controversial decision not to select her for the Seanad election.

Ms O’Connell said she has a “very good relationship” with Mr Varadkar and said she does not believe he is “vindictive”.

However, she also said “no amount of boyos messing in the background” will stop her being dedicated to Fine Gael and insisted her career has been “interrupted rather than stopped".

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/no-ill-feelings-between-me-and-leo-varadkar-kate-oconnell-39085191.html

How long did that take me to find? 10 seconds.

Is that really it? Have you thrown in the towel? Admitted that you have nothing to say about the GP agreement?

skimpydoo wrote: »

As asked before, if it was in the public domain why did Simon ask for a copy?

Because, as Simon's internal email states, it was still being subject to tweaks.

As the agreement had been concluded for weeks, these tweaks were presumably very small.

I don't know if anyone has done an enumeration of the differences between the draft, and the final copy. I would guess they were small because nobody has brought up any actual differences as a point. I believe the party that cannot be mentioned was given the draft copy to mull over the differences. I dunno, maybe there was some copyediting.

Oh maybe there were substantive differences and people care so little about the agreement they cannot be bothered to bring them up.

Deleted User wrote: »

When exactly did he ask for a copy?

April 15th if I remember correctly. Two days before the NAGP top brass learned about the draft copy.

Johnthemanager

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Or simply the fact that other posters aren’t researching their “facts” before they post.
Facts are that the document was in the public domain before Leo gave it to his former friend. It had been already approved by government.

Your getting very worked up over nothing then!

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/no-ill-feelings-between-me-and-leo-varadkar-kate-oconnell-39085191.html

How long did that take me to find? 10 seconds.

Is that really it? Have you thrown in the towel? Admitted that you have nothing to say about the GP agreement?



Because, as Simon's internal email states, it was still being subject to tweaks.

As the agreement had been concluded for weeks, these tweaks were presumably very small.

I don't know if anyone has done an enumeration of the differences between the draft, and the final copy. I would guess they were small because nobody has brought up any actual differences as a point. I believe the party that cannot be mentioned was given the draft copy to mull over the differences. I dunno, maybe there was some copyediting.

Oh maybe there were substantive differences and people care so little about the agreement they cannot be bothered to bring them up.



April 15th if I remember correctly. Two days before the NAGP top brass learned about the draft copy.

This is such a boring subject I am now going to turn it back over to the bickering here.

Over and out

leoooooootheeeeeeeeeeeeeleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak :cool::cool::eek::eek::eek:

Front page news again tomorrow for the story NOBODY is interested in.

JeffKenna

Kate really stuck the boot in there.