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

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A criminal investigation is underway which will assess if this man is to be trusted with any confidential information.

No it won't. It won't make any determination of the kind. It will determine whether sending the draft GP agreement to the National Association of GPs was illegal.

A determination about ethical or practical considerations concerning Varadkar's handling of confidential information is not one that either the police, or indeed yourself, is interested in. Nobody is even pretending to be interested in ethical or practical considerations so trotting it out in this late stage as if you are, is weak in the extreme.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who knows what he has handed over to vested interests.

And we need to know.

We need to know how they get the figs in the fig rolls.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

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 on it. You didn't even say thanks either.

Stop being lazy, McMurphy. I'mve already quoted the email verbatim. Now that text may not have been the entire email. It is possible that there was addinional information that stated that the reason for Harris not being able to get a copy was due to confidentiality. However I'm not going to look up transcripts of the emails for you. Come back when you have stopped being lazy.

If you do some work and find the email transcripts, and they state that Harris was denied access due to confidentiality, then the answer is either a) that they were confidential and that disclosure would be illegal or b) that the person replying to Harris was lying.

That's all pretty self evident though, surely.

McMurphy wrote: »

I imagine thats another unprecedented event in our states history?

I honestly don't know. I would suspect that it isn't unprecedented for the Gardai to give a warning to a politician that, while what they say in the Dail is privileged (so the police cannot make a declaration one way or the other about what is said there), that what they are saying outside of that context is inappropriate and should stop. Again, I'm not going to be researching this.

McMurphy wrote: »

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

I just think its cruel to give false hope.

IngazZagni

I get the feeling from here and the likes of Twitter that people won’t believe any outcome other than guilty. I can already see the “Gardai are in FFG’s pocket” type comments.

McMurphy

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?
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.

Leo apologised for the manner in which he released the document to O’Toole.
No one seems to know when Simon Harris was asked for the document.
Leo sent the document to O’Toole at least 10 days after the talks had ended
https://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-gp-contract-nagp-scandal-5250914-Oct2020/
“ Owing to the range and complexity of the issues to be discussed, the engagement process took a significant amount of time and effort by all parties involved. Following detailed and intensive engagement, the talks finally concluded on 3 April.”
**If he’s the man suspect, why hasn’t he been questioning/arrested/charged?

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

No it won't. It won't make any determination of the kind. It will determine whether sending the draft GP agreement to the National Association of GPs was illegal.

A determination about ethical or practical considerations concerning Varadkar's handling of confidential information is not one that either the police, or indeed yourself, is interested in. Nobody is even pretending to be interested in ethical or practical considerations so trotting it out in this late stage as if you are, is weak in the extreme.



We need to know how they get the figs in the fig rolls.

The criminal investigation will allow his partners in government and the opposition to assess if he can be trusted via a properly informed vote of 'confidence'. That's if he doesn't pull the plug first himself.

He clearly hasn't the trust of the opposition atm.

RandomName2

IngazZagni wrote: »

I get the feeling from here and the likes of Twitter that people won’t believe any outcome other than guilty. I can already see the “Gardai are in FFG’s pocket” type comments.

Sure Si.. yikes I nearly said their name.. the people leading the charge against Varadkar have already made it clear that they are uninterested in whether it was illegal, and that he should resign regardless of any criminal investigation. They have been very clear on that matter.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sure Si.. yikes I nearly said their name.. the people leading the charge against Varadkar have already made it clear that they are uninterested in whether it was illegal, and that he should resign regardless of any criminal investigation. They have been very clear on that matter.

The Gardai are 'leading' the charge against Varadkar.

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Gardai are 'leading' the charge against Varadkar.

Okay, so just so that it's known, I have seen your message but no longer believe it is productive to reply.

golfball37

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sure Si.. yikes I nearly said their name.. the people leading the charge against Varadkar have already made it clear that they are uninterested in whether it was illegal, and that he should resign regardless of any criminal investigation. They have been very clear on that matter.

I both believe it wasn’t a crime and he should resign. He should have resigned on ethical reasons in November or being sacked. Whether he broke a law is no significance to me. I agree with whoever feels that way regardless of their hue.

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Who knows what anyone has handed over to vested interests.

Who knows what anyone has not handed over to vested interests or interested parties.

And we need to know.


Uhmmmm.....

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Who knows what anyone has handed over to vested interests.

Who knows what anyone has not handed over to vested interests or interested parties.

And we need to know.


Uhmmmm.....

And no doubt that is what the Gardai will be trying to find out. They are the lead on this after all.

RandomName2

golfball37 wrote: »

I both believe it wasn’t a crime and he should resign. He should have resigned on ethical reasons in November or being sacked. Whether he broke a law is no significance to me. I agree with whoever feels that way regardless of their hue.

What are the ethical issues?

I personally feel that members of the NAGP should have received the agreement, which is currently available for anyone to read. Clearly their members would be affected by the agreement, so I think it is only fair that they get access to it.

There's a very strong argument to be made that the NAGP should only have been given access to the document after the deal had been struck with the IMO, but I have already proven that that was the case.

Akesh

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.

An extremely disingenuous comment. It can be FOI'd by anyone now, but not at the time. Leo leaked the document to his mate when Simon Harris couldn't even obtain a copy.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes.



That's the only thing of substance here. There has been nothing more to say on this subject since last November, yet here we are.

...

Since November?
The Tánaiste is now under criminal investigation.
Zero Craic took PR shots for his pal/not pal Leo.
Harris was asked to leak and refused.

I think the first one warrants it be spoke about, that said, the then Taoiseach leaking a confidential government document to a pal, is kind of a deal IMO.

MM on the wireless just now said, "I didn't leak anything" in regard to where the media are getting their Covid scoops.
That's the bed FF/FG/Green have made now. Every politician is under suspicion of leaking because it's been allowed and accepted and shrugged off. This is the sad issue which goes beyond Varadkar.

skimpydoo

As much as I detest Leo It's not just because it's him. If any politician from any party had done what Leo did I would expect a thorough investigation and hopefully them resiging or being sacked.

James Brown

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.

Wasting your time.
Varadkar recognises it was confidential. As did government. As did Harris, as he was unwilling to leak when asked.
Being pedantic here won't change any of that and the Garda won't wear it either.

I take it you've never worked in an office environment at any level, or if you did, didn't last long, if you don't know what 'confidential' is.

RandomName2

James Brown wrote: »

Since November?
The Tánaiste is now under criminal investigation.

Yes, thank you for summing up all major developments that have occurred within the last 5 months in a single sentence.

James Brown wrote: »

I think the first one warrants it be spoke about, that said, the then Taoiseach leaking a confidential government document to a pal, is kind of a deal IMO.

He leaked it to the NAGP, which were always going to get it in the end anyway. The final, full document is freely available to anyone in the state. The document itself poses no sensitivity. The only sensitivity involved the negotiation of the agreement, which had been concluded weeks before NAGP got their hands on a copy. The NAGP should always have been kept up to date with developments in relation to the agreement. Their members had a right to know about what agreement would be hammered out. In the end they were only given details about the agreement after it had already been concluded with the IMO. Again, I have proven all of this in a post above.

As I said, Sinn Fein (I can't be arsed dancing around either the 'But Sinn Fein' defense or mod warning right atm) said that they should have received an advanced copy at the time that apparently everyone in the Dail received a copy of the agreement, which also coincides when the NAGP received a copy of the draft agreement. After all, argues Sinn Fein, the agreemnt with the IMO had been concluded for weeks, so of course they should have had a copy to digest its contents.

As far as I can see the only issue is that the NAGP received a draft copy and not the final copy. Nobody has been able to identify the differences between the draft and final copy, which is probably because nobody cares about this issue at all. Drop the pretense.

James Brown wrote: »

MM on the wireless just now said, "I didn't leak anything" in regard to where the media are getting their Covid scoops.
That's the bed FF/FG/Green have made now. Every politician is under suspicion of leaking because it's been allowed and accepted and shrugged off. This is the sad issue which goes beyond Varadkar.

There are only leaks in this room.

The leaks about what Simon Harris discussed with the Gardai. The leaks of someone in NAGP sending the WhatsApp messages to The Village. The leaks of internal disagreement within Fine Gael. Some of those leaks may be illegal but it is largely incidental to there being leaks in the first place. Could it be illegal that The Village obtained messages within a private conversation on WhatsApp? I doubt it, but then again, I'm not a legal expert.

Leaks are standard means of discourse within Irish politics, but it's an unprofessional way of disseminating information. If details about changes in Covid policy are going to be announced, they should be announced through official channels. I think some leaks of this nature are done to gauge public opinion before the government gives an official stamp of approval.

Larbre34

IngazZagni wrote: »

I get the feeling from here and the likes of Twitter that people won’t believe any outcome other than guilty. I can already see the “Gardai are in FFG’s pocket” type comments.

Absolutely this.

Did I see someone ask earlier, "why do the Gardaí have Varadkar as the subject of a criminal investigation?"

The answer to that is because political and personal opponents made a complaint which the Gardaí are obliged to follow up.

The tone of the question and of many comments here, as my learned friend said above, suggests that for a number of people, their mind is already made up.

I do hope we'll see some more maturity than that when this is over and An Tánaiste can get back to the work at hand, supporting the business and enterprise community in this Country.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, thank you for summing up all major developments that have occurred within the last 5 months in a single sentence.



He leaked it to the NAGP, which were always going to get it in the end anyway. The final, full document is freely available to anyone in the state. The document itself poses no sensitivity. The only sensitivity involved the negotiation of the agreement, which had been concluded weeks before NAGP got their hands on a copy. The NAGP should always have been kept up to date with developments in relation to the agreement. Their members had a right to know about what agreement would be hammered out. In the end they were only given details about the agreement after it had already been concluded with the IMO. Again, I have proven all of this in a post above.

As I said, Sinn Fein (I can't be arsed dancing around either the 'But Sinn Fein' defense or mod warning right atm) said that they should have received an advanced copy at the time that apparently everyone in the Dail received a copy of the agreement, which also coincides when the NAGP received a copy of the draft agreement. After all, argues Sinn Fein, the agreemnt with the IMO had been concluded for weeks, so of course they should have had a copy to digest its contents.

As far as I can see the only issue is that the NAGP received a draft copy and not the final copy. Nobody has been able to identify the differences between the draft and final copy, which is probably because nobody cares about this issue at all. Drop the pretense.




There are only leaks in this room.

The leaks about what Simon Harris discussed with the Gardai. The leaks of someone in NAGP sending the WhatsApp messages to The Village. The leaks of internal disagreement within Fine Gael. Some of those leaks may be illegal but it is largely incidental to there being leaks in the first place. Could it be illegal that The Village obtained messages within a private conversation on WhatsApp? I doubt it, but then again, I'm not a legal expert.

Leaks are standard means of discourse within Irish politics, but it's an unprofessional way of disseminating information. If details about changes in Covid policy are going to be announced, they should be announced through official channels. I think some leaks of this nature are done to gauge public opinion before the government gives an official stamp of approval.

Why did you ignore the rest? The criminal investigation only came to light in the past weeks.

When the health department and IMO saw fit.

It was a confidential document. Leo leaked it to his pal.

It was not ready for public consumption. It was confidential. Harris refused to 'leak' it. This ****s on your telling it was done and dusted, so no biggy. The point is it was not for public consumption or for anyone not agreed to pass it to and Leo leaked it to his pal.

IMO, before now one might assume some lower ranking admin or such might leak, or as you say floating an idea unofficially, now however it's an anything goes situation and it's par for the course to suspect the Taoiseach.

McMurphy

Larbre34 wrote: »

Absolutely this.

Did I see someone ask earlier, "why do the Gardaí have Varadkar as the subject of a criminal investigation?"

The answer to that is because political and personal opponents made a complaint which the Gardaí are obliged to follow up.

The tone of the question and of many comments here, as my learned friend said above, suggests that for a number of people, their mind is already made up.

I do hope we'll see some more maturity than that when this is over and An Tánaiste can get back to the work at hand, supporting the business and enterprise community in this Country.

If the Gardai were obliged to upgrade preliminary investigations to full blown criminal investigations on the foot of every little complaint lodged against people, they'd get relatively little time to do any other policing work I reckon.

Absolute nonsense.

FrancieBrady

Larbre34 wrote: »

Absolutely this.

Did I see someone ask earlier, "why do the Gardaí have Varadkar as the subject of a criminal investigation?"

The answer to that is because political and personal opponents made a complaint which the Gardaí are obliged to follow up.

The tone of the question and of many comments here, as my learned friend said above, suggests that for a number of people, their mind is already made up.

I do hope we'll see some more maturity than that when this is over and An Tánaiste can get back to the work at hand, supporting the business and enterprise community in this Country.

Weren't we told for weeks this was ALL this was and it would go nowhere proving it was just vexatious and trivial? Now it's a formal criminal investigation, the record hasn't changed.

In fairness to FG, at least they are in 'turmoil' about it apparently.

jammiedodgers

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.

How incompetent is Leo that he'd apologise for leaking a document that wasn't even confidential?

happyoutscan

Larbre34 wrote: »

Absolutely this.

Did I see someone ask earlier, "why do the Gardaí have Varadkar as the subject of a criminal investigation?"

The answer to that is because political and personal opponents made a complaint which the Gardaí are obliged to follow up.

The tone of the question and of many comments here, as my learned friend said above, suggests that for a number of people, their mind is already made up.

I do hope we'll see some more maturity than that when this is over and An Tánaiste can get back to the work at hand, supporting the business and enterprise community in this Country.

As someone who recently had to leave a great business behind due to spiraling insurance, would you ever go and take your head out of Leo's arse.

ooter

jammiedodgers wrote: »

How incompetent is Leo that he'd apologise for leaking a document that wasn't even confidential?

Exactly, what is he apologizing for and why did he state on numerous occasions it was an error of judgement and/or a mistake?

Muahahaha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Fine Gael well known for their fake exonerations at this stage, we even had that phantom exoneration of Fitzgerald misleading the Dail by the Charleton Report when he wasnt even allowed to investigate anything of the sort. Still nobody can show where in the Terms of Reference of the Charleton Tribunal was he even allowed to investigate her misleading the Dail yet the false claim that she was exonerated for it goes on.

As for this latest attempt to exonerate Varadkar for the leaking the not-confidential confidential document that even Simon Harris couldnt get his hands on maybe instead of dancing on the head of a pin posters here might bring their revelatory information to the Gardai? After all they clearly know more than what the Gardai do having interviewed the whistleblower and Simon Harris for several hours.

Department of Justice "The freephone number, 1800 250 025, is staffed by members of the Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation"

That will get posters straight through to the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation where they can tell the detectives that the investigation needs to be called off because the document wasnt confidential at all and Varadkar has actually been tried and then exonerated on Boards.ie.

And then hopefully by close of business today the detectives can have a bit of a party at the successful conclusion of their case. Then tomorrow they can go back to investigating the Kinahan Drug Cartel which is what they're supposed to be doing in the first place till Leo the Leak came along and diverted their resources.

blanch152

jammiedodgers wrote: »

How incompetent is Leo that he'd apologise for leaking a document that wasn't even confidential?

He apologised for the manner of sharing the document, nothing else.

Bubbaclaus

jammiedodgers wrote: »

How incompetent is Leo that he'd apologise for leaking a document that wasn't even confidential?

That's not what he apologised for though. He apologised for the manner in which it was provided, but not for actually providing it. It's a small but important distinction and some people seem to have missed that.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

He apologised for the manner of sharing the document, nothing else.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

That's not what he apologised for though. He apologised for the manner in which it was provided, but not for actually providing it. It's a small but important distinction and some people seem to have missed that.

Bicycle courier instead of limo?
Why would he apologise for the manner? Was he referring to slipping it to his pal while he wasn't supposed to?
Can youse elaborate what 'manner' means in this context?

skimpydoo

To all the FG/Leo supporters what will you say if Leo is charged and what will you say if he is found guilty?

Larbre34

skimpydoo wrote: »

To all the FG/Leo supporters what will you say if Leo is charged and what will you say if he is found guilty?

Bye Leo.