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

Baggly

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Careful Murph. Think you're thread banned. The gestapo will be all over you for disobeying mod instructions. Best scram.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Are you calling the Moderation team the Gestapo?

Mod

Hilarious.

Report if you see an issue folks. Dont comment on thread and derail the thing.

markodaly

3rd of April - The deal was agreed on the between the HSE and the IMO.
5th of April, - The IMO released a press statement on the outlining some of the key aspects of the deal.
10th of April - Cabinet signs off on the deal
11th-16th of April, - Leo gave the NGAP a copy of the agreement more likely the tail end of those dates.
16th of April - Dail debate on the deal
16th of April - Dr Harty, Independant TD reveals he has the entire agreement in his possesion.
16th of April - Ingrid Miley, industrial relations correspondent for RTE states she has seen more extensive parts of the deal as per her reports.
17th of April. - Andrew Jordan from the NGAP stating that their members must be given access to the new agreement on Twitter
17th of May. - Deal was published in full to the public


Am I getting anything wrong here on the timeline?
Forgetting anything?
Missing anything?

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

Him boasting about it on the WhatsApp group doesn't show when he initially received it though, perhaps himself and others discussed it in great detail before it was decided he could let the others in the "inner sanctum" know he had it?

So you discuss it with lots of people, but not the most important members of your union? Note that this was clearly the first the members of the 'inner sanctum' had heard about it, at all.

While it is not outside the realms of possibility, this is not very plausible.

McMurphy wrote: »

As said. Leo himself said it was expected he would keep it confidential. I.E - not brag, especially not in a WhatsApp messenger group where it could be screengrabbed and cause the ructions it's actually caused.

That is totally true, but he would have expected it to be shared with the top of the NAGP in some shape or form. That was the entire point of the exercise.

McMurphy wrote: »

I'm not going by skimpys post though.

Again we are getting into weird terminology. Usually creating a link to something is not considered to be publishing. Technically speaking, it has never been published as there is no publisher, nor am I sure if it has been printed and bound. There isn't even an author listed. This would usually crop up around copyright, but this document wouldn't even be subject to copyright.

So while them taking weeks to upload it is nothing out of the usual, it should raise significant eyebrows if substantive changes were made after April 16th. I cannot imagine there were, as the agreement had been finalized at the beginning of April, and the details of the agreement debated in the Dail on the 16th.

Incidentally: you were the only person on your side of the debate seemingly willing to go to sources for your arguments, and not regurgitate braindead soundbites and rhetorical questions.

RandomName2

markodaly wrote: »

Am I getting anything wrong here on the timeline?
Forgetting anything?
Missing anything?

17th April: top members of the NAGP learn that OThuatail has a draft copy of the agreement.

markodaly

RandomName2 wrote: »

17th April: top members of the NAGP learn that OThuatail has a draft copy of the agreement.

OK, the updated version.

3rd of April - The deal was agreed on the between the HSE and the IMO.
5th of April, - The IMO released a press statement on the outlining some of the key aspects of the deal.
10th of April - Cabinet signs off on the deal
11th-16th of April, - Leo gave the NGAP a copy of the agreement more likely the tail end of those dates.
16th of April - Dail debate on the deal
16th of April - Dr Harty, Independant TD reveals he has the entire agreement in his possesion.
16th of April - Ingrid Miley, industrial relations correspondent for RTE states she has seen more extensive parts of the deal as per her reports.
17th of April. - Andrew Jordan from the NGAP stating that their members must be given access to the new agreement on Twitter
17th April - top members of the NAGP learn that OThuatail has a draft copy of the agreement.
17th of May. - Deal was published in full to the public


Can we please refer to this timeline to head up any falsehoods?

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

Ahem....

You can ahem on this matter all you want.

Clearly the contract with the IMO was concluded at the beginning of April, as has already been well established in this thread.

The document describing the agreement was created and its contents debated in the Dail on the 16th.

From then until a month later is a bit of a mystery, currently. This was as much meta information as I was able to obtain from the document itself, which lists no dates, no authors, has no versions described, has no breadcrumbs to follow. All I can tell was when it was created, and when it was last updated.

markodaly

It is also clear that many members of the IMO had the agreement to view and digest before it was passed onto the NGAP.

James Brown

When people ask what 'confidential' or 'public domain' means they are either unwilling to take information on board or, (hopefully for their sake) just taking the piss.

Varadkar leaked a confidential government document to his pal. The Garda have initiated a criminal investigation and Varadkar is a person of interest.
These are the facts.

The idea that Varadkar apologised for the manner in which he passed a publicly available document which the Garda are now carrying out a criminal investigation on, is some Olympic level gymnastics.

FrancieBrady

James Brown wrote: »

When people ask what 'confidential' or 'public domain' means they are either unwilling to take information on board or, (hopefully for their sake) just taking the piss.

Varadkar leaked a confidential government document to his pal. The Garda have initiated a criminal investigation and Varadkar is a person of interest.
These are the facts.

The idea that Varadkar apologised for the manner in which he passed a publicly available document which the Garda are now carrying out a criminal investigation on, is some Olympic level gymnastics.

And as reported, the Gardai are investigating it under the OSA and Corruption legislation.

Brendan Bendar

James Brown wrote: »

When people ask what 'confidential' or 'public domain' means they are either unwilling to take information on board or, (hopefully for their sake) just taking the piss.

Varadkar leaked a confidential government document to his pal. The Garda have initiated a criminal investigation and Varadkar is a person of interest.
These are the facts.

The idea that Varadkar apologised for the manner in which he passed a publicly available document which the Garda are now carrying out a criminal investigation on, is some Olympic level gymnastics.

Well why don’t you leave it to the Gardai then, no need to keep labouring the point.

It will all reach a conclusion in due course surely.

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

When people ask what 'confidential' or 'public domain' means they are either unwilling to take information on board or, (hopefully for their sake) just taking the piss.

Varadkar leaked a confidential government document to his pal. The Garda have initiated a criminal investigation and Varadkar is a person of interest.
These are the facts.

The idea that Varadkar apologised for the manner in which he passed a publicly available document which the Garda are now carrying out a criminal investigation on, is some Olympic level gymnastics.

Are you still going on about the "manner" thing as if I made it up or something? Let me dig up Varadkar's remarks:

"I do accept that the provision of the agreement by an informal communication channel to the president of the NAGP, in the way that I did, was not good practice. I regret that I did not ensure that it was provided in a more appropriately formal manner. It was an error and one I accept sole responsibility for. I know it has caused people to question my judgement, but I hope, having heard my explanation, no fair-minded person will question my motivation or integrity."

RandomName2

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Are you still going on about the "manner" thing as if I made it up or something? Let me dig up Varadkar's remarks:

This is in stark contrast to McMurphy's assessment. I disagree with McMurphy, but he at least is putting effort into his arguments.

I would suggest not engaging with this level of discussion. I would imagine it was this level of discussion which triggered the useless cyclical arguments in the first place.

The post that you are replying to is a copy paste of something that has been done to death, just to voice an opinion that they are against Varadkar.

While being against Varadkar is a legitimate enough position, the transparent nature of just wanting this position to be heard by using the pretense of wearing the garb of debate, is one that I find quite irksome.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

You can ahem on this matter all you want.

Clearly the contract with the IMO was concluded at the beginning of April, as has already been well established in this thread.

The document describing the agreement was created and its contents debated in the Dail on the 16th.

From then until a month later is a bit of a mystery, currently. This was as much meta information as I was able to obtain from the document itself, which lists no dates, no authors, has no versions described, has no breadcrumbs to follow. All I can tell was when it was created, and when it was last updated.

Context is key though.

You're leaving out very salient points, and it's these points that Leo has to be able to clarify, and that these points/explanations don't have to satisfy you or me, but they will have to satisfy the NCBI and the DPP.

The context being, that the government had finished negotiations, and an agreement was reached on a new contract with the IMO on April 3rd, 2019.

The IMO, were facing a challenge from OTuathails new organisation, the NAGP for "influence, members and profile".

Its leaders were desperate to know what the government had agreed with the IMO.

As Maryanne linked to, the IMO announced on April 5th that a deal had been reached, and the next day the govt announced the same thing (April 5th)

Leo said he was then given a copy of the agreement from Simon Harris, which he read and then shredded, he also said
Cabinet approved the agreement the following week, April 9th.

As already posted, Varadkar made a statement in the Dail which said

, “

The matter did not return to Cabinet as no significant changes were made between then and its formal publication on May 17th, although there were minor ones. The fact is that an agreement had been reached and the nature of that agreement was not something that was an official secret, highly confidential or commercially sensitive after April 6th. On the contrary, all the salient information was in the public domain and was being discussed at public meetings that GPs were attending.”

So that's the gist of Leos whole defence, he accepted that the leak was wrong and apologised for it, he insisted that it was not confidential or significant information was given to zero craic by him having it before it was made public.

Then up pops the emails wherein Harris enters the fray.

1, April 15th, he as minister for health told "he can't have it"

Harris’s adviser had requested a copy of the updated version for him on the morning of Monday, April 15th. But the response from Eugene Lennon, a principal officer in the department was immediate – you can’t have it.

2, clarification from a more senior civil servant, why "he can't have it"

Later, perhaps realising that the earlier response was somewhat dismissive of a request from their boss, an assistant secretary (a more senior official), Feargal Goodman, also responded to the request from Harris adviser.

He explained: “To add to what Eugene has said, there is some final material to be agreed with the IMO and the parties are exchanging draft text in this regard. I have discussed with Susan Clyne [of the IMO] in recent days the question of publication of the Agreement document and, for now, we have agreed that the timing of this (once the document has been finalised) should be the subject of an agreed approach between the parties. The IMO are commencing their regional meetings this evening (with a Dublin meeting at which maybe 100 GPs will be in attendance) and it is important to allow this process to get under way in a manner that maximises the chances of the IMO securing GP buy-in.”

So, Leo was saying November 3rd that all the salient information was in the public domain. How was it if the minister for healths adviser couldn't even get a copy of the agreement because it wasn't finished/still being fine tuned?

Two days later, Harris followed up with another email.

3, Harris himself sent an email demanding a copy of the agreement. This must be what, April 19th/20th?

Another email from Goodman, the assistant secretary, explained: “This will actually be the first properly presented version of the document, as up to now there has been a working document for the purposes of negotiation, with various aspects of the language and presentation to be tidied up at the end. The IMO have in any case signalled that following their current series of regional meetings they may seek minor additions, so my assessment is that it will be next week (or even the week after) before we have a fully completed and signed-off agreement between the parties.”

So it was still not finished?

Lastly.

Varadkar’s spokesman has vigorously denied the significance of the email exchanges, insisting that the document sent to Ó Tuathail was the early version of the contract which Harris had given him earlier in the month. Harris was seeking a later version, he says, in his contacts with his officials. But it is Varadkar himself who insisted that there were no significant changes between the two documents.

If Varadkar is right in the assertion he made in the Dáil that there was little or nothing significant in the document he leaked to Ó Tuathail, then the department officials were wrong to be so protective of it. If he is right that there were no significant changes made, then Harris was mistaken to be so eager to get the updated version. If the leaked information was already in the public domain, Ó Tuathail was wrong to be getting so excited about it.

If Varadkar is right, in other words, lots of other people must be wrong.

What I wouldn't give to get a peek at the whistleblowers protective disclosure.

There's fibs being told somewhere. It'll make for an entertaining show.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

This is in stark contrast to McMurphy's assessment. I disagree with McMurphy, but he at least is putting effort into his arguments.

I would suggest not engaging with this level of discussion. I would imagine it was this level of discussion which triggered the useless cyclical arguments in the first place.

The post that you are replying to is a copy paste of something that has been done to death, just to voice an opinion that they are against Varadkar.

While being against Varadkar is a legitimate enough position, the transparent nature of just wanting this position to be heard by using the pretense of wearing the garb of debate, is one that I find quite irksome.

James Brown is correct though and dealing in fact. Varadkar apology is meaningless. He is being criminally investigated because a document that was confidential was leaked under Official Secrets legislation and Corruption legislation. Facts - whether you like or dislike Varadkar.

Bubbaclaus

markodaly wrote: »

It is also clear that many members of the IMO had the agreement to view and digest before it was passed onto the NGAP.

The IMO began their GP consultation events on 15 April, going through all the contents of the deal with their members, which is presumably why TD
Michael Harty (who was also a member of the IMO) had the details in the Dail the next day.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The IMO began their GP consultation events on 15 April, going through all the contents of the deal with their members, which is presumably why TD
Michael Harty (who was also a member of the IMO) had the details in the Dail the next day.

I posted why he most likely had it earlier in the thread.

But youd expect him to have it - his union were part of the discussion. NAGP weren't hence the big hooha about Leo passing it to his pal.

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

I posted why he most likely had it earlier in the thread.

But youd expect him to have it - his union were part of the discussion. NAGP weren't hence the big hooha about Leo passing it to his pal.

The agreement was dead duck without NAGP giving it the nod though, as they represented twice as many GPs as the IMO at the time. What point do people think they should have got it? Genuine question.

Bubbaclaus

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The agreement was dead duck without NAGP giving it the nod though, as they represented twice as many GPs as the IMO at the time. What point do people think they should have got it? Genuine question.

I seem to remember that IMO only represented 20%, NAGP 40% and non Union doctors 40%.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The agreement was dead duck without NAGP giving it the nod though, as they represented twice as many GPs as the IMO at the time. What point do people think they should have got it? Genuine question.

NAGP made a statement on 29th of April stating their members didn't have the agreement, and many wouldn't be renewing their subs until they had it.

There's lots of lies surrounding this whole mess.

Hopefully between the NCBI and the whistleblower and Leo, they'll straighten it all out.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Are you still going on about the "manner" thing as if I made it up or something? Let me dig up Varadkar's remarks:

"I do accept that the provision of the agreement by an informal communication channel to the president of the NAGP, in the way that I did, was not good practice. I regret that I did not ensure that it was provided in a more appropriately formal manner. It was an error and one I accept sole responsibility for. I know it has caused people to question my judgement, but I hope, having heard my explanation, no fair-minded person will question my motivation or integrity."

Are you still dodging direct questioning?

What makes you think he was apologising for how he distributed it and why did he apologise? Keeping in mind he was accused of passing a confidential document, not using the wrong courier service.

As regards motivation, I believe, based on the back and forth I've read, that he was doing it to cadge favour from the union's membership.
As regards integrity, I don't think the lad quoted 'mean girls' when talking on covid or said 'it's worse elsewhere' regarding record breaking homeless numbers has much of any.

Baggly

Mod

There are no threadbans being broken. Keep posting.

The earlier ban wasnt a threadban and has since been lifted. Any issues, PM me. Otherwise, move on.

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

Are you still dodging direct questioning?

What makes you think he was apologising for how he distributed it and why did he apologise? Keeping in mind he was accused of passing a confidential document, not using the wrong courier service.

As regards motivation, I believe, based on the back and forth I've read, that he was doing it to cadge favour from the union's membership.
As regards integrity, I don't think the lad quoted 'mean girls' when talking on covid or said 'it's worse elsewhere' regarding record breaking homeless numbers has much of any.

I'm simply correcting people that are incorrectly saying what he apologised for. The statement is there for all to read.

You'd need to ask Varadkar as to why he apologised for that, I'm simply direct quoting his statement.

blanch152

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Are you still going on about the "manner" thing as if I made it up or something? Let me dig up Varadkar's remarks:

"I do accept that the provision of the agreement by an informal communication channel to the president of the NAGP, in the way that I did, was not good practice. I regret that I did not ensure that it was provided in a more appropriately formal manner. It was an error and one I accept sole responsibility for. I know it has caused people to question my judgement, but I hope, having heard my explanation, no fair-minded person will question my motivation or integrity."

You are absolutely correct on this, yet there have been repeated postings that Varadkar admitted to being wrong to share the document.

Remember this is only a Garda investigation into whether a crime has been committed. There is no charge, there is no trial, there is no conviction. There is no evidence that Varadkar "leaked" any document, all he has said is that he legitimately shared a document, but that the manner in which it was done didn't reflect best practice.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I'm simply correcting people that are incorrectly saying what he apologised for. The statement is there for all to read.

You'd need to ask Varadkar as to why he apologised for that, I'm simply direct quoting his statement.

No. You've stated he didn't apologise for leaking the confidential document. You've not shown this. Reads to me like he's doing an apology for leaking, "I did not ensure that it was provided in a more appropriately formal manner".
The appropriate manner would be to pass it on officially.

By not providing it 'in a more appropriate manner' he's speaking on passing it to his pal. That's what he did, what else is he talking about? You claim it wasn't the leaking so you must know?
On what basis are you 'correcting people' on this?

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

This is in stark contrast to McMurphy's assessment. I disagree with McMurphy, but he at least is putting effort into his arguments.

I would suggest not engaging with this level of discussion. I would imagine it was this level of discussion which triggered the useless cyclical arguments in the first place.

The post that you are replying to is a copy paste of something that has been done to death, just to voice an opinion that they are against Varadkar.

While being against Varadkar is a legitimate enough position, the transparent nature of just wanting this position to be heard by using the pretense of wearing the garb of debate, is one that I find quite irksome.

Have the curtesy to either ignore me or respond to me directly.
People have made ludicrous claims and failed to support them. I am discussing it. It is not your place to police the discussion.

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

No. You've stated he didn't apologise for leaking the confidential document. You've not shown this. Reads to me like he's doing an apology for leaking, "I did not ensure that it was provided in a more appropriately formal manner".
The appropriate manner would be to pass it on officially.

By not providing it 'in a more appropriate manner' he's speaking on passing it to his pal. That's what he did, what else is he talking about? You claim it wasn't the leaking so you must know?
On what basis are you 'correcting people' on this?

Where am I claiming it wasn't leaking? I feel you are adding 2+2 and getting 5 here, as my post doesn't even remotely suggest that. I am literally just direct quoting Varadkar and what he did and did not apologise for.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Where am I claiming it wasn't leaking? I feel you are adding 2+2 and getting 5 here, as my post doesn't even remotely suggest that. I am literally just direct quoting Varadkar and what he did and did not apologise for.

That's not what I said:

No. You've stated he didn't apologise for leaking the confidential document.

You claimed he didn't apologise for leaking.

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.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

He admitted he didn't do it via the right channels and apologised for that. However he said in the Dail he still would have made it available for him if he was doing it all again. So he wasn't apologising for actually giving NAGP sight of the document.

People seem confused as to what he apologised for.

What does 'manner' mean in this context? If the response is 'ask Varadkar', maybe don't claim to know what it wasn't if you don't know what it was. I definitely wouldn't be 'correcting people'.
The manner was slipping it to his pal instead of officially passing it. Leaking.

FrancieBrady

James Brown wrote: »

That's not what I said:



You claimed he didn't apologise for leaking.





What does 'manner' mean in this context? If the response is 'ask Varadkar', maybe don't claim to know what it wasn't if you don't know what it was. I definitely wouldn't be 'correcting people'.
The manner was slipping it to his pal instead of officially passing it. Leaking.

VAradkar didn't want to say the word 'leak' in his apology. There was no ambiguity about what we were talking about when he was answering questions from Peadar Tobin, where he explicitly said he had not leaked confidential information at this level before. Remember the pregnant silence?

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

That's not what I said:



You claimed he didn't apologise for leaking.





What does 'manner' mean in this context? If the response is 'ask Varadkar', maybe don't claim to know what it wasn't if you don't know what it was. I definitely wouldn't be 'correcting people'.
The manner was slipping it to his pal instead of officially passing it. Leaking.

Apologies, I misread your post.

It was Varadkar that used the word manner, you should ask him what he meant by it. His statement is pretty clear to me though in that he was apologising for the manner he shared the document, but wasn't actually apologising for sharing it with the NAGP President. It is clearly carefully written in tandem with his legal team to ensure that was the case.

You seem awfully worked up by this considering I was simply correcting someone that made an incorrect comment about Varadkar's Dail statement.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Apologies, I misread your post.

It was Varadkar that used the word manner, you should ask him what he meant by it. His statement is pretty clear to me though in that he was apologising for the manner he shared the document, but wasn't actually apologising for sharing it with the NAGP President. It is clearly carefully written in tandem with his legal team to ensure that was the case.

You seem awfully worked up by this considering I was simply correcting someone that made an incorrect comment about Varadkar's Dail statement.

Something tells me the NCBI aren't conducting a full-blown criminal investigation, which
they opened after they upgraded their initial preliminary one on the method varadkar used to send the confidential documents to his pal.

Just a hunch I have.

Apologisng for the method he used, rather than for what he actually did might have sounded good to Leo when his spin doctors offered it to him as a way out, but let's see if it will butter any parsnips with the NCBI and the evidence they have via the protective disclosure from the whistleblower.

Varadkar has found himself in an extremely tricky one this time boys and girls.