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

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.

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

ooter

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

The link became active on May 17th 2019.

skimpydoo

The screenshot attached shows when it was uploaded.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

From the main suspect in the criminal investigation.

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.

jammiedodgers

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

If it was in the public domain why did O'Tuathail have to request a copy from the Taoiseach?

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

So the Gardaí are only investigating because of the inappropiate manner he shared it?

RandomName2 wrote: »

By the 17th everyone and his mother had had a look at the thing.

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/

Your link to the debate contains the following -

Stephen Donnelly wrote:

It is good to get the detail but I find this exercise very frustrating. The outline of the deal was agreed about two weeks ago. The GPs have not seen it, the public have not seen it, and we have not seen it. We are being given pages of facts and figures now. We have not seen them before. I have asked the Department for them and I have asked the HSE. We have been denied access to any of the detail. We are sort of expected to stand up here now and respond.

McMurphy

jammiedodgers wrote: »

If it was in the public domain why did O'Tuathail have to request a copy from the Taoiseach?



So the Gardaí are only investigating because of the inappropiate manner he shared it?



Your link to the debate contains the following -

That Stephen Donnelly complaint was discussed in-depth months ago on this very thread, and the poster is on here accusing others of being lazy.

Dempo1 wrote: »

Hmmm, this is going to get ugly. Taoiseachs response at best, Tepid, Jim o callaghan (well predictable), Greens really quite but the most interesting titbit, the Village highlighting the Dail record at the time, we're of all people "Stephen Donnelly, then in opposition" clearly stated as opposition health spokesperson "he had no sight or copy of the offending document in the Month of April, suggesting the opposite of what Leo stated, namely the document was widely circulated and in the public domain.

I sense a spot of Electioneering over the coming days.

Kind of Ironic, Leo's infamous and well known habit of leaking is about to bite him and even more Ironic a fellow Doctor the cause.

Bad faith posting.

Besides - you'd have to wonder what kind of legal team Leo has that no-one has produced this seemingly magic bullet out at this stage.

blanch152

jammiedodgers wrote: »

So the Gardaí are only investigating because of the inappropiate manner he shared it?

No, the Gardai are investigating it on foot of a complaint made to them, something they have to do no matter how frivilous the complaint.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

I have been following this thread and not seen it that I can recall. You and others have made a point of knowing in several posts today alone, but none of you are showing your work.
This is how the thread has so many pages. Pedantry, lies and spin.

skimpydoo

blanch152 wrote: »

No, the Gardai are investigating it on foot of a complaint made to them, something they have to do no matter how frivilous the complaint.

Are you saying the complaint about Leo is frivilous?

blanch152

skimpydoo wrote: »

Are you saying the complaint about Leo is frivilous?

That wasn't stated in my post.

James Brown

McMurphy wrote: »

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?

Telling your pal who shot JR a few days before Dallas comes on. You didn't really spoil it because it was only a few days :rolleyes:

skimpydoo

blanch152 wrote: »

That wasn't stated in my post.

It could be seen that way, and if it's not I apologise.

blanch152

skimpydoo wrote: »

It could be seen that way, and if it's not I apologise.

It could be seen that way, that is true, but it can be seen many ways.

Posts aren't always as seen in the eyes of the poster.

McMurphy

The Gardai have to progress preliminary investigations to full blown criminal ones, "no matter how frivolous" the complaint

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

Can you cite the legislation that states the Taoiseach can share any document he likes with anyone he chooses?

Yes, he did not go through official channels. He leaked it and apologised. Glad we're all on the same page. The only issue is was it criminal?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That wasn't stated in my post.

You changed your mind since this then?

blanch152 wrote: »

Thank you.

If there wasn’t a legal basis for confidentiality, then there wasn’t a breach of legislation to breach the confidentiality and therefore somebody is wasting Garda time with a frivolous complaint.

Glad we got that cleared up.

RandomName2

jammiedodgers wrote: »

If it was in the public domain why did O'Tuathail have to request a copy from the Taoiseach?

Because it was clearly not available when O'Tuathail requested it.

Hell I'll post the NAGP's position again


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

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

jammiedodgers wrote: »

So the Gardaí are only investigating because of the inappropiate manner he shared it?

This is, at face value, a garbage question, but ironically it is technically correct.

jammiedodgers wrote: »

Your link to the debate contains the following -

Just like Sinn Fein

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.

The complaint was that they should have been given the agreement document ages before, and that they could not meaningfully debate the contents on a moment's notice.

Furthermoe Stephen Donolly was voicing the anger of doctors, like those in the NAGP, who had had to wait weeks to be able to read the details of the deal.

Everyone in 2019 in unison agreed that after April 4th that people should have been able to see the small print of the IMO deal without having to wait weeks in radio silence, and that Varadkar was wrong for withholding the details. In 2021 everybody says that nobody should have been able to see the small print of the IMO deal and that Varadkar was wrong for giving the information to the members of the NAGP. As I said, nobody really cares about the GP agreement. Apart from the GPs presumably, but their opinion doesn't count here because politics.

jammiedodgers

RandomName2 wrote: »

Because it was clearly not available when O'Tuathail requested it.

Hell I'll post the NAGP's position again


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

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




This is, at face value, a garbage question, but ironically it is technically correct.



Just like Sinn Fein




The complaint was that they should have been given the agreement document ages before, and that they could not meaningfully debate the contents on a moment's notice.

Furthermoe Stephen Donolly was voicing the anger of doctors, like those in the NAGP, who had had to wait weeks to be able to read the details of the deal.

So it wasn't in the public domain then? That's what I said.

McMurphy

jammiedodgers wrote: »

So it wasn't in the public domain then? That's what I said.

He's insinuating it wasn't in the public domain when zero craic asked for it, but it was when Leo sent him it.

Which is fairly easy to be shown as completely and utterly false, from none other than Leo himself.

Then we have Donnelly on record while in opposition stating he didn't see this contract at all in the month of April 2019, yet some random name (literally) on the internet thinks it was seen by the whole Dail, and discussed too on the 17th.

I think he's even confused himself at this stage what he's arguing for, or against.

Necro

Mod:

Can we leave the bickering and commenting on other posters out of this please? Discuss the topic - if you want to talk about Sinn Fein there's a thread to discuss them, most of you are familiar with it.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

He's insinuating it wasn't in the public domain when zero craic asked for it, but it was when Leo sent him it.

Oh McMurphy, glad to see you are back to that.

So you agree that the NAGP did not have access to the agreement before the 17th of April, and that O'Tuathail most likely received it on the 16th?

And you agree that the Dail debated the agreement on the 16th of April. You contend that the Dail did not have access to the agreement on the 16th of April, but their statements seem to be at variance to this position

AlanKelly wrote:

I do not know why we are having this debate tonight. It would have been time enough to have it at a later date because the information is only coming through. We are having to analysis it and go through it now.

And you agree that the agreement was concluded on April 5th? I mean, surely you don't disagree with that.

McMurphy wrote: »

Then we have Donnelly on record while in opposition stating he didn't see this contract at all in the month of April 2019

Really, where did you see him say that?

McMurphy wrote: »

yet some random name (literally) on the internet thinks it was seen by the whole Dail, and discussed too on the 17th.

The Dail discussed this on the 16th. Again, this has been pointed out multiple times

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh McMurphy, glad to see you are back to that.

So you agree that the NAGP did not have access to the agreement before the 17th of April, and that O'Tuathail most likely received it on the 16th?

By "so you agree" you obviously mean you would like to put words in my mouth and make me agree.

Here's the deal though, we don't know the exact date as Leo only told us that it was 11-16th of April. Considering there was a weekend in the middle of those dates, I suspect Leo is being economical with the truth, I mean if I sent my pal a confidential document I'd definitely remember if it was on a Saturday or Sunday, wouldn't you?

We do know that NAGP were telling fibs about not seeing the contract though almost two weeks after Leo sent it.

Can you acknowledge these two bits of info, I feel they're kind of pertinent before I even bother going on.

jammiedodgers

McMurphy wrote: »

Here's the deal though, we don't know the exact date as Leo only told us that it was 11-16th of April. Considering there was a weekend in the middle of those dates, I suspect Leo is being economical with the truth, I mean if I sent my pal a confidential document I'd definitely remember if it was on a Saturday or Sunday, wouldn't you?

In fairness with the amount of stuff he leaks we can't be expecting him to keep track of it all. :pac: