Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…254255257259260…416

Comments

  • Options
    #7682
    Jinglejangle69
    Registered Users Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    jammiedodgers wrote: »
    Maitiu O Tuathail's Twitter handle

    https://twitter.com/DrZeroCraic

    Thanks.


  • Options
    #7683
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,470 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    Can someone explain this zero craic reference?

    Don’t give them any opportunity to spread out these stupid attempts to make these pseudonyms go viral,Jingle.

    That’s what they want.


  • Options
    #7684
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    James Brown wrote: »
    Why did you ignore the rest? The criminal investigation only came to light in the past weeks.

    There was nothing else of import. Perhaps the vote of no confidence, but that was window dressing. Either way there has been no major new information since between November and last week.
    James Brown wrote: »
    When the health department and IMO saw fit.

    No? The Department of Health as a whole has made no decision and the IMO has made no move whatsoever.
    James Brown wrote: »
    It was a confidential document. Leo leaked it to his pal.

    He leaked it to the NAGP. Just some random person in the NAGP who was a pall of Varadkar? No, the pall happened to the president of the National Association of General Practitioners. He leaked it to the NAGP.

    James Brown wrote: »
    It was not ready for public consumption.

    The National Association of General Practitioners is not exactly the public. I mean, from a legal point of view you are likely correct, but let's not pretend that the National Association of General Practitioners was not a relevant party in the General Practitioners agreement.
    James Brown wrote: »
    It was confidential.

    That is apparently true, and the salient point.
    James Brown wrote: »
    Harris refused to 'leak' it.

    This is demonstrably false and I am embarrassed that you have to be told as much. Again.
    James Brown wrote: »
    This ****s on your telling it was done and dusted, so no biggy.

    What does? The deal had been concluded for weeks. I posted proof of this. You are apparently too lazy to address the proof I posted. I will not engage in the white noise machine.
    James Brown wrote: »
    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.

    Either something is right or wrong. It should hardly matter who does it, unless you have an eye to popularity polls of course.


  • Options
    #7685
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


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

    He didn't. He appologized for the manner that NAGP accessed the document, not that they accessed the document. This is correct. NAGP should have been included in the discussion, but not via courier and WhatsApp.


  • Options
    #7686
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Jinglejangle69 wrote: »
    Can someone explain this zero craic reference?

    It's easier to type zero craic (his Twitter handle) than his actual name (Maitiú Ó Tuathail) and I don't particularly want to anglicize his name if he doesn't do that himself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7687
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    James Brown wrote: »
    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?

    The answer to this has already been posted.

    I am beginning to see how we have got to 516 pages.


  • Options
    #7688
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    McMurphy wrote: »
    He wasted money couriering it probably, when he could've whatsapped zero craic a link to the relevant website which had the information he was after probably.

    Seeing as it was in the public domain and all.

    Even though Leo himself concedes that it wasn't.

    I can't tell when it was uploaded to a publicly accessible HSE website. I gave it a shot, but it's unclear exactly how early it went up. Given how slow the HSE operates I'd say it took them a while to upload it anyway.

    I don't know whether the Dail is considered to be the public domain. Again, I'm no legal expert. However the members of the Dail were apparently given/forwarded the agreement on the 16th if I remember correctly, which would have been a day before NAGP members got a look at the draft copy.

    The document itself has zero sensitivity attached to it (I mean you can point out anything potentially sensitive if you like, or where you might think something sensitive was redacted), and there were no real practical issues involved in someone obtaining a copy after the IMO had concluded its agreement. This doesn't necessarily preclude there technically being some legal issues. When exactly does something go from confidential to non confidential? I assume it is no longer confidential, given that it's online and all. Presumably it would have been embarrassing if a draft copy featuring typos or other mistakes were made publicly available and had to be subsequently amended however.


  • Options
    #7689
    jammiedodgers
    Registered Users Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭jammiedodgers


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    He didn't. He appologized for the manner that NAGP accessed the document, not that they accessed the document. This is correct. NAGP should have been included in the discussion, but not via courier and WhatsApp.
    jammiedodgers wrote: »
    But why does the manner in which it was shared matter if it was not a confidential document?

    .


  • Options
    #7690
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    You'd need to ask Varadkar. I'm only going by what he said and what he did and did not apologise for in his statement.

    You claim it did not relate to him leaking a confidential document.
    Explain your reasoning if you would? The manner is leaking a confidential document to his pal rather than going through official channels.
    What makes you think it means something else?


  • Options
    #7691
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    James Brown wrote: »
    You claim it did not relate to him leaking a confidential document.
    Explain your reasoning if you would? The manner is leaking a confidential document to his pal rather than going through official channels.
    What makes you think it means something else?

    I'm not "claiming" anything. Simply pointing out what Varadkar did and did not apologise for in his statement in the Dail. If you require any further clarification on why he only apologised for what he did then you would need to ask Varadkar.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7692
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Somebody want something original in this thread?

    Okay, how about a statement from the NAGP from the time saying how illegitimate it was that they had not yet received a copy of the agreement.

    https://twitter.com/andyjjordan1/status/1117332962767405056

    https://twitter.com/andyjjordan1/status/1117406132849582081


  • Options
    #7693
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    jammiedodgers wrote: »
    .

    Again this has already been asnwered, because regardless of legal aspects it's very unprofessional. For all I know sharing the document with the Dail may have been illegal. It may be illegal going to the HSE website it is currently on and accessing it right now. I don't know. But sharing it with the Dail and opening it up for questions and debate was certainly professional, and an exercise in good polity: even if Sinn Fein disagreed and said that they should have been sent a copy in advance. Again, I don't know if Sinn Fein was looking for something illegal there.


  • Options
    #7694
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    There was nothing else of import. Perhaps the vote of no confidence, but that was window dressing. Either way there has been no major new information since between November and last week.

    Except for Varadkar being under criminal investigation and Harris saying he'd been asked to leak but refused. Also the Garda calling Varadkar a 'person of interest'. All this year.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    No? The Department of Health as a whole has made no decision and the IMO has made no move whatsoever.

    It was a confidential negotiation document between the dept. of health and the IMO. I would have assumed the IMO would need sign off on it before it was published. If I'm wrong there, it was still a confidential document.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    He leaked it to the NAGP. Just some random person in the NAGP who was a pall of Varadkar? No, the pall happened to the president of the National Association of General Practitioners. He leaked it to the NAGP.

    He leaked it to his pal. His pal was the then president. He did not officially release it to the NAGP.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    The National Association of General Practitioners is not exactly the public. I mean, from a legal point of view you are likely correct, but let's not pretend that the National Association of General Practitioners was not a relevant party in the General Practitioners agreement.

    No they were a rival union to the IMO.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    This is demonstrably false and I am embarrassed that you have to be told as much. Again.

    Harris was asked to and he refused. If he had of passed it, he too would have been leaking. Therefore he was asked to leak and he refused.

    RandomName2 wrote: »
    What does? The deal had been concluded for weeks. I posted proof of this. You are apparently too lazy to address the proof I posted. I will not engage in the white noise machine.

    It was not released and remained confidential. You are trying to argue an irrelevance IMO. It was not available.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Either something is right or wrong. It should hardly matter who does it, unless you have an eye to popularity polls of course.

    We would have held high figures to a certain higher standard in the before times, even with the records of FF/FG politicians. We shouldn't be shrugging off another lowering of the bar.


  • Options
    #7695
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    He didn't. He appologized for the manner that NAGP accessed the document, not that they accessed the document. This is correct. NAGP should have been included in the discussion, but not via courier and WhatsApp.

    How do you know what 'manner' means in this context and can you tell the rest of us?

    Nope, they weren't forgotten about or had their invite lost in the post. It was between the IMO and health department. Leo's pal wanted the inside scoop and Leo came through like he always does, allegedly.


  • Options
    #7696
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    James Brown wrote: »
    Harris was asked to and he refused. If he had of passed it, he too would have been leaking. Therefore he was asked to leak and he refused.

    He agreed he would pass it on. He apparently didn't have it to pass on.

    This was gone over a few pages back.
    James Brown wrote: »
    How do you know what 'manner' means in this context and can you tell the rest of us?

    Again this has been answered several times. You are an intelligent enough person to read and understand previous posts.


  • Options
    #7697
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    The answer to this has already been posted.

    I am beginning to see how we have got to 516 pages.

    The conclusion is 'the manner' = leaking a confidential document.

    Otherwise what is he apologising for?

    Yes. We've had chancers pretending they don't know what 'confidential' means.
    Yourself and others are saying he never apologised for leaking the document but are unclear on what he apologised for and how youse know.


  • Options
    #7698
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    I can't tell when it was uploaded to a publicly accessible HSE website. I gave it a shot, but it's unclear exactly how early it went up. Given how slow the HSE operates I'd say it took them a while to upload it anyway.

    I don't know whether the Dail is considered to be the public domain. Again, I'm no legal expert. However the members of the Dail were apparently given/forwarded the agreement on the 16th if I remember correctly, which would have been a day before NAGP members got a look at the draft copy.

    The document itself has zero sensitivity attached to it (I mean you can point out anything potentially sensitive if you like, or where you might think something sensitive was redacted), and there were no real practical issues involved in someone obtaining a copy after the IMO had concluded its agreement. This doesn't necessarily preclude there technically being some legal issues. When exactly does something go from confidential to non confidential? I assume it is no longer confidential, given that it's online and all. Presumably it would have been embarrassing if a draft copy featuring typos or other mistakes were made publicly available and had to be subsequently amended however.

    You dont need to find out from the HSE website, we know from Leo Varadkar himself that it wasn't in the public domain.
    He said he posted the document to Dr Ó Tuathail between April 11th and 16th 2019 on a confidential basis believing that it would be published in full imminently.

    Believing it to be published in full imminently is as clear cut as you will get that it wasn't published in full at the time he posted it to Zero Craic, and both himself and Zero Craic (and the inner sanctum) knew they shouldn't have gotten their hands on it.

    1-G451xk-NZQc-VUNy6-Fjd-Jbw.png

    1-SZ-w-Stld7-Aha4qpt-PRTGd-A.png

    1-L7h-ZG1wpwpi-G5mop-g-Iow-1.png


    Why this has to be pointed out again and again and again is beyond me.


  • Options
    #7699
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    McMurphy wrote: »
    You dont need to find out from the HSE website, we know from Leo Varadkar himself that it wasn't in the public domain.

    I just don't know when this link became active

    https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/gmscontracts/2019agreement/agreement-2019.pdf

    McMurphy wrote: »
    Believing it to be published in full imminently is as clear cut as you will get that it wasn't published in full at the time he posted it to Zero Craic, and both himself and Zero Craic (and the inner sanctum) knew they shouldn't have gotten their hands on it.

    Why this has to be pointed out again and again and again is beyond me.

    Why I have to point out, again and again and again that by the 17th April everyone in the Dail had a copy is beyond me.

    It's on the message. You can see it right there. 17th April. I have pointed this out before. If I remember correctly the Dail debated the agreement the previous day. I have pointed this out again and again. In fact Sinn Fein said that they should have got a copy before that because the agreement had been set in stone for weeks. Again I have pointed this out. Again you have ignored it.


  • Options
    #7700
    skimpydoo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,914 ✭✭✭skimpydoo


    It looks like people on here who support FG/Leo are willing to over look that he leaks more than Irish Water. Admit that he did wrong, has to go and move on to who should be the next Taniste and leader of FG.


  • Options
    #7701
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    James Brown wrote: »
    and how youse know.

    Because meesa googled it, and posted it to this website. I also think you are just wasting my time right now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7702
    skimpydoo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,914 ✭✭✭skimpydoo


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    I just don't know when this link became active

    https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/gmscontracts/2019agreement/agreement-2019.pdf




    Why I have to point out, again and again and again that by the 17th April everyone in the Dail had a copy is beyond me.

    It's on the message. You can see it right there. 17th April. I have pointed this out before. If I remember correctly the Dail debated the agreement the previous day. I have pointed this out again and again. In fact Sinn Fein said that they should have got a copy before that because the agreement had been set in stone for weeks. Again I have pointed this out. Again you have ignored it.

    If this is the case why was the document delivered the way it was? And why could the Health minister not get a copy?


  • Options
    #7703
    ooter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,192 ✭✭✭ooter


    He said he posted the document to Dr Ó Tuathail between April 11th and 16th 2019 on a confidential basis believing that it would be published in full imminently.

    Funny that LV would say on the radio last week that the document was "not classified, negotiations had concluded. It was already in the public domain and had been widely reported."


  • Options
    #7704
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    skimpydoo wrote: »
    If this is the case why was the document delivered the way it was?

    Because it was faster, and made it look as if it was a product of Varadkar's largesse.
    skimpydoo wrote: »
    And why could the Health minister not get a copy?

    I do not know. It makes no sense to me why Harris could not get a copy. He was supposed to be the minister for health. I'd honestly like to see a more complete set of emails in relation to this to make a final judgement. Guess we will just have to wait for someone to leak them.


  • Options
    #7705
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    ooter wrote: »
    Funny that LV would say on the radio last week that the document was "not classified, negotiations had concluded. It was already in the public domain and had been widely reported."

    not classified: doesn't appear to be true. The document itself states on the cover that it was classified. I don't know if writing 'classified' on something confers automatic confidential status however.

    negotiations had concluded: true

    It was already in the public domain: depending on timeline and definition of public (i.e. the Dail) this may be true

    had been widely reported: very true

    believing that it would be published in full imminently: clearly true


  • Options
    #7706
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ooter wrote: »
    Funny that LV would say on the radio last week that the document was "not classified, negotiations had concluded. It was already in the public domain and had been widely reported."

    Talks had concluded on April 3rd and the IMO issued a fairly detailed press release 2 days later. So, yes. It was in the public domain and HAD been widely reported.


  • Options
    #7707
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    I just don't know when this link became active

    https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/gmscontracts/2019agreement/agreement-2019.pdf




    Why I have to point out, again and again and again that by the 17th April everyone in the Dail had a copy is beyond me.

    It's on the message. You can see it right there. 17th April. I have pointed this out before. If I remember correctly the Dail debated the agreement the previous day. I have pointed this out again and again. In fact Sinn Fein said that they should have got a copy before that because the agreement had been set in stone for weeks. Again I have pointed this out. Again you have ignored it.

    As far as I know the 11th - 15th of April is before the 17th.

    What are you actually disputing anyway?

    You're saying it was being discussed in the Dail on the 17th of April. Leo Varadkar himself says he sent it to Zero craic before that date.

    What are you even arguing, do you know yourself?


  • Options
    #7708
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,470 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Because meesa googled it, and posted it to this website. I also think you are just wasting my time right now.

    That’s the plan Random, don’t be dragged down rabbit holes.

    That’s a well known tactic, try to wear you out.

    Keep up the good work.


  • Options
    #7709
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,877 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    jammiedodgers wrote: »
    But why does the manner in which it was shared matter if it was not a confidential document?

    He shared the document as he is entitled to do, but didn't go through official channels, that is all. So he apologised for the manner of sharing it.


  • Options
    #7710
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,509 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    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.

    Why are the Gardai investigating it if it’s a harmless misdemeanour?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7711
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    McMurphy wrote: »
    As far as I know the 11th - 15th of April is before the 17th.

    Not sure where you are getting 11th from. If I remember correctly it was 15th/16th.

    Either way the 'Inner Sanctum' first got a look at it on the 17th.
    McMurphy wrote: »
    What are you actually disputing anyway?

    By the 17th everyone and his mother had had a look at the thing.
    McMurphy wrote: »
    You're saying it was being discussed in the Dail on the 17th of April.

    No I'm pretty sure it was debated in the Dail on the 16th. I've already posted this lazy McMurphy, but I'm doing the work of posting it. again

    https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-04-16/32/
    McMurphy wrote: »
    What are you even arguing, do you know yourself?

    By the 16th the deal had been concluded for weeks, and was widely disseminated among the Dail.



    I've said all this before

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116652359&postcount=7641

    You know, I'm doing you the favor of assuming good faith and not just interested in repeating the same messages over and over again for the sake of
    McMurphy wrote: »

    Death by a thousand cuts.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement