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

Suckit

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?

Far from it. I wasn't linking for her comments, I was replying to yours (particularly the quoted ones) that nobody was interested in this on many levels, yet it keeps trundling on and gaining more and more attention. Fine Gael in Turmoil and many senior figures are worried.. Nobody is interested.. :rolleyes:
Keep kidding yourself that nobody is interested in it. Keep kidding yourself that it was just a 'mistake' that Leo had to go to such lengths to get a document marked confidential, and then to put it in a taxi and send it to a rival group.
That is a lot of effort to go to, to get something to somebody when he could have just had him read the press release.
Leo himself has admitted he was wrong.

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Without reading it I bet there isn't a single mention of any of the contents of the agreement, and mention of differences between the draft and the final copy, anything about dates, about the impact of the leak, about why NAGP wasn't party to the discussion, or any of the other relevant data.

Nobody in interested in it for itself.

You aren't. Clearly you have no interest in the story. Your only interest is that there is a story, but its contents are irrelevant to your position.

Suckit wrote: »

Keep kidding yourself that nobody is interested in it.

Literally nobody outside of doctors, the HSE, and the Department of Health had any interest in the GP agreement for itself.

Edit: this reminds me of way back when Snodaigh had the printing costs. Nobody cared about the cost of the printing, or what he was printing, or why he was printing. It was just an excuse to attack the party that shall not be named. #snodaighHasLoddaInk

blanch152

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.

I would think that Fine Gael would be happy with 48% of the electorate backing them, twice what they got in the general election.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

Without reading it I bet there isn't a single mention of any of the contents of the agreement, and mention of differences between the draft and the final copy, anything about dates, about the impact of the leak, about why NAGP wasn't party to the discussion, or any of the other relevant data.

Nobody in interested in it for itself.

You aren't. Clearly you have no interest in the story. Your only interest is that there is a story, but its contents are irrelevant to your position.

The contents of the agreement are NOT the story, has that not occured to you yet?

Suckit

RandomName2 wrote: »

Literally nobody outside of doctors, the HSE, and the Department of Health had any interest in the GP agreement for itself.

You are not seeing the bigger picture.
Especially if you think this is all about who was interested in the GP agreement itself back when it was being negotiated.

Also, I would imagine it was more to do with people not knowing so much about it, as opposed to not being interested in it.

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The contents of the agreement are NOT the story, has that not occured to you yet?

It occurred to me aged ago.

It has long been apparent that nobody here is interested in the ethics, in the consequences for healthcare, for the NAGP, or IMO. Nobody here is even really interested in the legality of the disclosure of the GP agreement to the NAGP.

Clearly those who are against Varadkar want there to be legal ramifications, but they clearly aren't interested to discover whether there are legal ramifications, or what they may entail.

The party that shall not be named has stated they don't actually care if what Varadkar did was illegal or not, which, well.. is honest at least.

It has never been about Leo Varadkar leaking a document.
It has always been about Leo Varadkar leaking a document.

JeffKenna

RandomName2 wrote: »

It occurred to me aged ago.

It has long been apparent that nobody here is interested in the ethics, in the consequences for healthcare, for the NAGP, or IMO. Nobody here is even really interested in the legality of the disclosure of the GP agreement to the NAGP.

Clearly those who are against Varadkar want there to be legal ramifications, but they clearly aren't interested to discover whether there are legal ramifications, or what they may entail.

The party that shall not be named has stated they don't actually care if what Varadkar did was illegal or not, which, well.. is honest at least.

It has never been about Leo Varadkar leaking a document.
It has always been about Leo Varadkar leaking a document.

Really? From what I can see that's what most people here are interested in. The few denying any wrongdoing, even after Leo himself apologised, are the ones not interested in the ethics of the whole thing.

shtpEdthePlum

blanch152 wrote: »

I would think that Fine Gael would be happy with 48% of the electorate backing them, twice what they got in the general election.

Lol, nobody in the entire poll was undecided? That's incredible.

Oh wait it was 43%

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

It occurred to me aged ago.

It has long been apparent that nobody here is interested in the ethics, in the consequences for healthcare, for the NAGP, or IMO. Nobody here is even really interested in the legality of the disclosure of the GP agreement to the NAGP.

Clearly those who are against Varadkar want there to be legal ramifications, but they clearly aren't interested to discover whether there are legal ramifications, or what they may entail.

The party that shall not be named has stated they don't actually care if what Varadkar did was illegal or not, which, well.. is honest at least.

It has never been about Leo Varadkar leaking a document.
It has always been about Leo Varadkar leaking a document.

I have no idea what you are on about tbh.

Suckit

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no idea what you are on about tbh.

I think it is an attempt at implying that they are the only one with morals and anyone that dislikes/disagrees with what Leo did are not upset because of what he did, everyone else are just spiteful little misfits getting in the way and trying to ruin an honest to goodness mans career.

bobbysands81

blanch152 wrote: »

I would think that Fine Gael would be happy with 48% of the electorate backing them, twice what they got in the general election.

You are hilarious!!!

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no idea what you are on about tbh.

Really?

Really?

Okay, let me spell it out for you so.

I came back just to see if anybody quoted the post where I go into detail about the timings in relation to the leak. Naturally nobody did, didn't because nobody cares about the details concerning the leak.

If this was a rank-and-file TD do you think anybody would care? The story would likely never see the light of day, or if it did, he'd get a rap on the knuckles and that would be it.

The only interest in it is because it features the leader of the second most popular party in the country. The party that you support sees it as its main rival (correctly) so that's why they are gunning for Varadkar. It is fine, from their position, that there has been no significant updates in relation to this story: in fact it is more useful to them if it is not resolved quickly. They have no interest in whether what Varadkar did was wrong, or illegal (they have clearly stated the latter, one can infer the former). The people here are of the same position. Again this is self-evident.

Fine Gael members seeking to obtain a position for themselves will likely maneuver to make the most of the situation too.

It's kind of the reverse position of Barry Cowan, where the controversy was on him, but he currently makes noises about how Martin should be replaced (clearly for the interests of the party and not related to being sacked :rolleyes:)

So that's the reason more serious political issues are left gathering dust as it does not serve expediency. If not already, it would be enough to make you cynical.

I mean you know this already, the feigned 'I have no idea what you mean about this being an issue only because it concerns the Tanaiste' is the sort of bigh brow comeback that will only get a vacuous thumbs up from your own crowd.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

Really?

Really?

I came back just to see if anybody quoted the post where I go into detail about the timings in relation to the leak. Naturally nobody did, didn't because nobody cares about the details concerning the leak.

If this was a rank-and-file TD do you think anybody would care? The story would likely never see the light of day, or if it did, he'd get a rap on the knuckles and that would be it.

The only interest in it is because it features the leader of the second most popular party in the country. The party that you support sees it as its main rival (correctly) so that's why they are gunning for Varadkar. It is fine that there has been no significant updates in relation to this story: in fact it is more useful to them if it is not resolved quickly. They have no interest in whether what Varadkar did was wrong, or illegal (they have clearly stated the latter, one can infer the former). The people here are of the same position. Again this is self-evident.

Fine Gael members seeking to obtain a position for themselves will likely maneuver to make the most of the situation too.

It's kind of the reverse position of Barry Cowan, where the controversy was on him, but he currently makes noises about how Martin should be replaced (clearly for the interests of the party and not related to being sacked :rolleyes:)

So that's the reason more serious political issues are left gathering dust as it does not serve expediency. If not already, it would be enough to make you cynical.

Nobody is interested in you trying the case. Leave that to Gardai, The DPP and the courts if it comes to trial maybe?

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is interested in you trying the case. Leave that to Gardai, The DPP and the courts if it comes to trial maybe?

I take it back. You were better off with the feigned ignorance.

I have made no pronouncement in relation to legality. I have many times said I do not know whether what was done was illegal. Many, many times. I have stated that the legal aspects are a matter for the Gardai, and that they should be left do their work in relation to it.

I talked about details of the leak, but you aren't interested in details of the leak. You never have been. This thread is a waste of time because it is only interested in that there was a Leo Varadkar story in the Village, but not interested in the story itself. It makes a mockery of discussion.

jmcc

It is fascinating to see FGers sharpening the knives (or stillettos) for Varadkar. The front page of the Cork Examiner seems to the start of it and there may be a lot of FG candidates who blame Varadkar and Charlie Flanagan (the Black and Tans commemorator) for costing them their seats. The party does seem to be in a very tricky position. Having Varadkar step down while the criminal investigation is on-going is the right thing to do but it would possibly result in a leadership change that could become permanent. Leaving Varadkar as leader may start reducing FG's support in the polls with soft votes drifting away towards FF. Both FF and the Greens have said it is an FG problem. Could it bring down the FFG goverment?

Regards...jmcc

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

I take it back. You were better off with the feigned ignorance.

I have made no pronouncement in relation to legality. I have many times said I do not know whether what was done was illegal. Many, many times. I have stated that the legal aspects are a matter for the Gardai, and that they should be left do their work in relation to it.

I talked about details of the leak, but you aren't interested in details of the leak. You never have been. This thread is a waste of time because it is only interested in that there was a Leo Varadkar story in the Village, but not interested in the story itself. It makes a mockery of discussion.

Why would I be interested in the details of a GP contract when I am not involved in Health?

This isn't about the details of the contract, it is about trusting somebody in government.

McMurphy

Suckit wrote: »

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

From that article.

This is it really.

"Regardless of what anyone says they're all worried, what happens if he's brought in for questioning, under caution, that'll be leaked, then if a file gets sent to DPP, even if they don't prosecute that's another moment, how long does it go on for?

Death by a thousand cuts.

blanch152

RandomName2 wrote: »

Really?

Really?

Okay, let me spell it out for you so.

I came back just to see if anybody quoted the post where I go into detail about the timings in relation to the leak. Naturally nobody did, didn't because nobody cares about the details concerning the leak.

If this was a rank-and-file TD do you think anybody would care? The story would likely never see the light of day, or if it did, he'd get a rap on the knuckles and that would be it.

The only interest in it is because it features the leader of the second most popular party in the country. The party that you support sees it as its main rival (correctly) so that's why they are gunning for Varadkar. It is fine, from their position, that there has been no significant updates in relation to this story: in fact it is more useful to them if it is not resolved quickly. They have no interest in whether what Varadkar did was wrong, or illegal (they have clearly stated the latter, one can infer the former). The people here are of the same position. Again this is self-evident.

Fine Gael members seeking to obtain a position for themselves will likely maneuver to make the most of the situation too.

It's kind of the reverse position of Barry Cowan, where the controversy was on him, but he currently makes noises about how Martin should be replaced (clearly for the interests of the party and not related to being sacked :rolleyes:)

So that's the reason more serious political issues are left gathering dust as it does not serve expediency. If not already, it would be enough to make you cynical.

I mean you know this already, the feigned 'I have no idea what you mean about this being an issue only because it concerns the Tanaiste' is the sort of bigh brow comeback that will only get a vacuous thumbs up from your own crowd.

The details are not of interest to those engaged in a mob-led witch-hunt.

I asked months ago about the legal definition of confidentiality in a government context and they ran away from the discussion. Putting confidential in big letters on a document (or on a boards post) does not make that document confidential under the Official Secrets Act.

The only responses seemed to be along the lines of it's confidential because we (or someone else) say it is.

timmyntc

blanch152 wrote: »

The details are not of interest to those engaged in a mob-led witch-hunt.

I asked months ago about the legal definition of confidentiality in a government context and they ran away from the discussion. Putting confidential in big letters on a document (or on a boards post) does not make that document confidential under the Official Secrets Act.

The only responses seemed to be along the lines of it's confidential because we (or someone else) say it is.

I very much doubt you or anyone else here is privy as to what makes a confidential document confidential. However I'd hazard a guess and say that government departments dont stamp confidential on documents that arent.

The details arent of interest to those who find the details inconvenient - such as those defending Varadkars actions and preaching to us that "There's nothing to see here".
But it's the details that got us here in the first place - if we didnt care about the details, confidential or not confidential - then we wouldnt be where we are today. There would be no outrage, no investigation.

What Varadkar did was reprehensible - not because it was Varadkar - but because it was an elected member of the Dail leaking important documents about a pay negotiation, to another union not even involved in the negotiations.
The fact that you are willing to totally dismiss this because it involves your favourite football player political leader is shocking.

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

I very much doubt you or anyone else here is privy as to what makes a confidential document confidential. However I'd hazard a guess and say that government departments dont stamp confidential on documents that arent.

The details arent of interest to those who find the details inconvenient - such as those defending Varadkars actions and preaching to us that "There's nothing to see here".
But it's the details that got us here in the first place - if we didnt care about the details, confidential or not confidential - then we wouldnt be where we are today. There would be no outrage, no investigation.

What Varadkar did was reprehensible - not because it was Varadkar - but because it was an elected member of the Dail leaking important documents about a pay negotiation, to another union not even involved in the negotiations.
The fact that you are willing to totally dismiss this because it involves your favourite football player political leader is shocking.

Details of which were announced via a press release a good 10 days earlier.

thomas 123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Details of which were announced via a press release a good 10 days earlier.

Any source comparing exactly what was discussed to the document?

As was stated in the dail many changes were made after the alleged release.

Release likely based on meetings, negotiations and discussions also and not the actual final document.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The details are not of interest to those engaged in a mob-led witch-hunt.

I asked months ago about the legal definition of confidentiality in a government context and they ran away from the discussion. Putting confidential in big letters on a document (or on a boards post) does not make that document confidential under the Official Secrets Act.

The only responses seemed to be along the lines of it's confidential because we (or someone else) say it is.

Why are you trying the case blanch?
That isn't your job or competence. Leave that to the Gardai, the DPP and the courts.

timmyntc

Deleted User wrote: »

Details of which were announced via a press release a good 10 days earlier.

Is that why the Dept of Health refused to release the document to the head of department (Minister Harris)?

Here was me thinking it was because of confidentiality - but I guess its actually that they wanted to save paper and Harris could re-use the content of the press release.

thomas 123

timmyntc wrote: »

Is that why the Dept of Health refused to release the document to the head of department (Minister Harris)?

Here was me thinking it was because of confidentiality - but I guess its actually that they wanted to save paper and Harris could re-use the content of the press release.

Strange leo didn’t direct Dr Tut to that also, I know I wouldn’t have been arsed posting something if I could send a link.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Details of which were announced via a press release a good 10 days earlier.

I know this has been asked already from you on numerous occasions, don't think you ever answered so I'll try again.

Why did Leo apologise for something that you seem to think was public knowledge?
Why did officials from Simon Harris' department not even let him have a copy?
Why did O'Toole have to go asking civil servants, then the health minister and finally the Taoiseach (who obliged) for documents you seem to think were already in the public domain?
Why did Leo courier the documents to O'Toole, rather than through official channels?

Lastly, and probably most importantly.

Why do the Gardai have varadkar as the main suspect of a criminal investigation?**



**Skip the rest if you want, but pay particular attention to this one please.

shatners bassoon

blanch152 wrote: »

The details are not of interest to those engaged in a mob-led witch-hunt.

I asked months ago about the legal definition of confidentiality in a government context and they ran away from the discussion. Putting confidential in big letters on a document (or on a boards post) does not make that document confidential under the Official Secrets Act.

The only responses seemed to be along the lines of it's confidential because we (or someone else) say it is.

Stop bull****ting. It was explained in detail to you, you just didn't want to listen.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

I know this has been asked already from you on numerous occasions, don't think you ever answered so I'll try again.

Why did Leo apologise for something that you seem to think was public knowledge?

McMurphy going for the dogged 'you keep ignoring my questions' routine. Somewhat unfortunate given the camp that you are in.

As you already know, because it was reported back last November, Varadkar apologized for the method of disemminating the material

He said he sent it on a “confidential basis”, believing that publication of the agreement was imminent. Varadkar said he should have called the NAGP in for a briefing and gone through the document line by line, instead of passing it on in an informal manner.

“That’s the way it should have been done, I didn’t do it that way,” said Varadkar, adding he knew sending it in the post to Ó Tuathail “was a short cut”.
He told the Dáil that he was honouring a political commitment that the NAGP would be kept briefed on the negotiations.

“Rivalry between the organisations was often bitter, and it made agreement harder to achieve and held back progress.

“The NAGP wanted to be at the table. Some GPs were members of both organisations, some of neither. Ultimately, Government decided to deal with the IMO alone, as our long-standing negotiating partner and ICTU affiliate. The Opposition was very critical of this at the time.

“We committed, however, to keep the NAGP engaged, involved and informed as to the progress and outcome of negotiations,” said the Tánaiste.

https://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-nagp-leak-5253595-Nov2020/


This is all verifiable. Indeed Simon Harris had promised NAGP a copy.

Incidentally I think he is right. That wasn't the correct way to give out that information - it was unprofessional. Quick? Yes. Getting personal brownie points with NAGP? Presumably an aim.

McMurphy wrote: »

Why did officials from Simon Harris' department not even let him have a copy?

We have already been through this. At this point it is incumbant upon you to do some work on the matter rather than repeat the same questions. If you believe the information I provided to be incorrect it is up to yourself to disprove it. It is not up to anyone here to do that work for you. I mean I know that your question is for the purposes of rhetoric anyway, but we can pretend objectivity for a moment.

McMurphy wrote: »

Why do the Gardai have varadkar as the main suspect of a criminal investigation?

Because there has been a complaint lodged to the police about Varadkar. It would be strange in the extreme were he not the person questioned in this regard, particularly since he has openly admitted to sending the documents to NAGP. The point is to determine whether there was anything illegal in doing so.

Ya know, one might be forgiven for thinking that wasn't a serious question McMurphy, and that you are more interested in

McMurphy wrote: »

Death by a thousand cuts.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would I be interested in the details [about] a GP contract when I am not involved in Health?

And you should stop thanking this ^ guy by the way. You are encouraging him to think he can sustain a point.

blanch152

shatners bassoon wrote: »

Stop bull****ting. It was explained in detail to you, you just didn't want to listen.

Nobody has ever detailed the process for deciding whether a particular document is confidential or not. For example, this document can by FOI'd by anyone and they will get a copy. However, you would not get a copy of the security file on the PIRA through FOI. Why? Because there is a difference in what is meant by confidential.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody has ever detailed the process for deciding whether a particular document is confidential or not. For example, this document can by FOI'd by anyone and they will get a copy. However, you would not get a copy of the security file on the PIRA through FOI. Why? Because there is a difference in what is meant by confidential.

A criminal investigation is underway which will assess if this man is to be trusted with any confidential information. Who knows what he has handed over to vested interests.

And we need to know.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

We have already been through this. At this point it is incumbant upon you to do some work on the matter rather than repeat the same questions. If you believe the information I provided to be incorrect it is up to yourself to disprove it. It is not up to anyone here to do that work for you. I mean I know that your question is for the purposes of rhetoric anyway, but we can pretend objectivity for a moment.

We covered the information you provided being incorrect yesterday, despite an article clearly stating the reasons Harris was refused a copy, you insisted it didn't say that at all, and had to be pulled by me and corrected on it. You didn't even say thanks to me for doing so either.

Because there has been a complaint lodged to the police about Varadkar. It would be strange in the extreme were he not the person questioned in this regard, particularly since he has openly admitted to sending the documents to NAGP. The point is to determine whether there was anything illegal in doing so.

Ya know, one might be forgiven for thinking that wasn't a serious question McMurphy, and that you are more interested in

I thought they'd only be obliged "to open a preliminary inquiry", y'know, to see if the original complaint from Bowes was worth pursuing?

Enter the senior whistleblower from within the dept of health, and next thing you know it's a full blown criminal investigation, with the Gards telling the Tanaiste to STFU and stop trying to pre judge the case.

I imagine thats another unprecedented event in our states history?

And you should stop thanking this ^ guy by the way. You are encouraging him to think he can sustain a point.

Stop trying to tell me who I can thank, um..... Thanks very much.