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

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wasn't it posted earlier that 'no material or other advantage need be proved' or words to that effect, is contained in the legislation?

Yep, barristers put their name to it on an article the village has on their site. Sheehan and Dunphy both discussed it on the podcast linked to here yesterday too.

ooter

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's hilarious how much Leo winds some people up the wrong way. He lives rent free inside their heads, and they spend literally months being outraged on twitter, here, the journal comments section etc.

Mad auld stuff, but have at it I suppose. Whatever fills the time.

Many would say a certain political party live in Leo's head rent free.

thomas 123

blanch152 wrote: »

The positions of our naval vessels or planned Garda operations are classified security documents, they are documents of a far different nature, subject to much more restrictions. The protocols around them are much more stringent, for obvious reasons.

Can you direct me to the poorly secured government documents that outline the benefactors of the latest deals then?

I’d like to open a new gp surgery in a low income area based off facts I should not yet know.

RandomName2

Fann Linn wrote: »

he's entitled to leak, it wasn't confidential as in 'really confidential', he doesn't have to get Govt approval, etc etc.

I'm actually unsure of all the above, and I suspect that there's grey territory for a lot of them.

We have very strong personal data laws, and strong anti-corruption laws, but I suspect that this issue doesn't neatly fall into either of those categories. Well it certainly doesn't fall into the former, it is being examined in relation to the latter.

If for instance the contract with BAM for the development of the Children's hospital was leaked to another construction firm for a set fee, and that firm used that knowledge to undercut BAM's offer and secure the contract for themselves that would be an open and shut corruption case. That scenario seems a continent away from what we are talking about at the moment

National security (particularly in relation to the military) also has clear confidentiality around it, but again I cannot imagine that the GP Agreement would fall into that category.

blanch152

thomas 123 wrote: »

Can you direct me to the poorly secured government documents that outline the benefactors of the latest deals then?

I’d like to open a new gp surgery in a low income area based off facts I should not yet know.

How would that document have gained you an advantage in that regard?

thomas 123

thomas 123 wrote: »

Why the urgency? Details were available publicly no?

True. This is what the brief IMO press release said. https://www.imo.ie/news-media/news-press-releases/2019/statement-imo-reaches-210/index.xml
And this the full document. It is, as you can see, very detailed. It was also what was already signed off by the IMO on April 15th.
https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/gmscontracts/2019agreement/agreement-2019.pdf

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

Leaked something they got via FOI. Facepalm.

So you're saying the information isn't sensitive and the issue is simply the method by which they obtained the information?

shtpEdthePlum

Dempo1 wrote: »

The hypocrisy is breath taking, Leaky Leo very concerned about the health department "Sharing Information" about children with Autism.

This Article just a few down from another article re Leaky"s continuing woes is just astonishing.

You couldn't make this up

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40251200.html

Pearse D asked Leo for comments in Dáil and he said it would be inappropriate to comment.

Nobotty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The way you avoided the point I made...Varadkar's arrogance maybe being the reason why he lied and has yet again been found out - suggests you are perched on a deep plinth yourself.

I'm not
But you are because you"ve said they' will find a way out for vradakar
Meaning you won't accept the results of a garda investigation
Face facts he's not going if h's not charged because he can say legally he can do what he did
Plus his base will buy his reasoning
Oh and don't be shooting the messenger with the perched on a deep plinth line
If vradakar is charged,he goes
Fine by me
Everything legally points to a no there though
No point living in a dream world where wants and desires are law instead of fact
There needs to be something new and slam dunk and there isn't
Just tit for tat

James Brown

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Pearse D asked Leo for comments in Dáil and he said it would be inappropriate to comment.

So when he's putting a spin on it, (albeit poorly) it's okay to talk about, but not when asked pointed questions.

Floppybits

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Pearse D asked Leo for comments in Dáil and he said it would be inappropriate to comment.

Vardkar had no problem commenting yesterday and what the outcome of the investigation would be even though said investigation is ongoing but today when some more facts come to light its all no comment.

The hypocrisy is dripping off him.

FrancieBrady

Nobotty wrote: »

I'm not
But you are because you"ve said they' will find a way out for vradakar
Meaning you won't accept the results of a garda investigation
Face facts he's not going if h's not charged because he can say legally he can do what he did
Plus his base will buy his reasoning
Oh and don't be shooting the messenger with the perched on a deep plinth line
If vradakar is charged,he goes
Fine by me
Everything legally points to a no there though
No point living in a dream world where wants and desires are law instead of fact
There needs to be something new and slam dunk and there isn't
Just tit for tat

Varadkar should be gone as it is.

He is still there when people who have done less, walked, got pushed because this government is made up of the power swap parties who have had to effectively merge to retain power. FF and the Greens circled the wagons to protect him.

So yes, the criminal investigation will not vindicate him from something he has confessed to. That will always be the wrong thing to have done.

thomas 123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

True. This is what the brief IMO press release said. https://www.imo.ie/news-media/news-press-releases/2019/statement-imo-reaches-210/index.xml
And this the full document. It is, as you can see, very detailed. It was also what was already signed off by the IMO on April 15th.
https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/gmscontracts/2019agreement/agreement-2019.pdf

Come on ... As much as you would like a few hundred word summary to be equal to a 110 page confidential agreement it simply is not.

I think you know that deep down.

FrancieBrady

James Brown wrote: »

So when he's putting a spin on it, (albeit poorly) it's okay to talk about, but not when asked pointed questions.

In the very place where he is answerable. Rogue Tanaiste at this stage.

Nobotty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wasn't it posted earlier that 'no material or other advantage need be proved' or words to that effect, is contained in the legislation?

Here the rub on that one
NAGP members,now former members would be signing up to this agreement and did
Thats the reasoning vradakar says he had for providing o'Tuathail with it
I'll win the lotto easier than proving coruption with that
This is cloud cuckoo land and if its SF strategy to persue it,its as plain as day going to backfire,for it will eventually be maligned as petty when it runs to ground

James Brown

Nobotty wrote: »

Here the rub on that one
NAGP members,now former members would be signing up to this agreement and did
Thats the reasoning vradakar says he had for providing o'Tuathail with it
I'll win the lotto easier than proving coruption with that
This is cloud cuckoo land and if its SF strategy to persue it,its as plain as day going to backfire,for it will eventually be maligned as petty when it runs to ground

His motivation can't change what he did. If people wish to believe he did it for the common good or the good of GP's, sure, why not.
Read to me like he wanted to curry favour.

paw patrol

Deleted User wrote: »

It's hilarious how much Leo winds some people up the wrong way. He lives rent free inside their heads, and they spend literally months being outraged on twitter, here, the journal comments section etc.

Mad auld stuff, but have at it I suppose. Whatever fills the time.

He is the former and soon to be next Taoiseach unless the gardai shaft him.
he doesn't live rent free in anybodys head cos his actions often affect us all.
Did you you read a cool internet put-down and tried to be cool but mis-used it?

FrancieBrady

Nobotty wrote: »

Here the rub on that one
NAGP members,now former members would be signing up to this agreement and did
Thats the reasoning vradakar says he had for providing o'Tuathail with it
I'll win the lotto easier than proving coruption with that
This is cloud cuckoo land and if its SF strategy to persue it,its as plain as day going to backfire,for it will eventually be maligned as petty when it runs to ground

There is no'rub' and I have no idea what SF will do.

The facts seem to be that no 'material gain or advantage needs to be proven' according to the legislation.
If the act was illegal then that is it.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The facts seem to be that no 'material gain or advantage needs to be proven' according to the legislation.
.

You have made this statement on a number of occasions so I take it that you have well researched it. You might explain to me what part of the Act you are referring to when referencing it, because I can't find it, certainly not in the way that you are interpreting it.

Dempo1

RandomName2 wrote: »

Are you saying he shouldn't be concerned? The DOH says it isn't an issue, so you are happy to take their word for that?

I think bringing this into broader discussion is a good thing, and not keeping the policy of the DOH entirely behind closed doors. I don't consider this to be a leak by Doherty: it is bringing it into a public forum for discussion.

It may turn out to be entirely legitimate practice, and there's no reason to presuppose any ill motivation on the part of the DOH, but looking into it certainly seems merited.

You disagree with all that?



What on earth are you talking about? Did you mean to say the Department of Health's woes? Couldn't think of something to alliterate with health, so went back to 'leaky' for want of something original or witty?

Do the maths, Leo, despite your assertions, said its worrying the department sharing information, it's just a pity he wasn't so concerned about sharing information himself?, hypocrisy, I suggest unless I'm missing something, O hang on, I'm not, there's that little criminal investigation going on!

RandomName2

Nobotty wrote: »

Here the rub on that one
NAGP members,now former members would be signing up to this agreement and did
Thats the reasoning vradakar says he had for providing o'Tuathail with it

This literally should always have been done. NAGP should always have been kept in the loop.


Varadkar said as much, and he said that the way he provided the information to NAGP was unprofessional. Again something I agree with. Not as unprofessional as, say, running off to a journalist with an edited version of the agreement for the sake of political gain, but unprofessional nonetheless.



This is one of the reasons why the argument always sidesteps the heart of the matter, because dissemination to NAGP should always have been the outcome of this.


I do not put it past Varadkar to have had an ulterior motive, but I can't see anything that works against the public good (well other than allowing tire kickers the space to waste endless time debating this matter rather than more important items). That last point is actually significant. The main cause for loss of confidence in Varadkar is him leaving the door open to political chancers. At a time when we should be discussing how to get the economy back on track SF has been given the mandate to command front page newspaper space. This lack of professionalism therefore has had implications in terms of how the state is run, which genuinely does impact public good.

Nobotty wrote: »

This is cloud cuckoo land and if its SF strategy to persue it,its as plain as day going to backfire

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you there.


SF has already stated it doesn't care what the outcome of the police inquiry is. The best outcome for SF is an inconclusive report, where they can restate their contempt for the Gardai, our judicial systems, and imply corruption in relation to the investigation ('more of the old boys club with FFG-in-chief Drew Harris running the Special Criminal Court as a private kangaroo institutionnnnn')


No smoke without fire? An ironic position given where it is coming from, but it would not be unusual for that party to contradict itself.

Suckit

RandomName2 wrote: »

I do not put it past Varadkar to have had an ulterior motive, but I can't see anything that works against the public good (well other than allowing tire kickers the space to waste endless time debating this matter rather than more important items). That last point is actually significant.

So you have said, a few times at this stage, yet here you are, still posting the same in this thread....

RandomName2 wrote: »

The main cause for loss of confidence in Varadkar is him leaving the door open to political chancers. At a time when we should be discussing how to get the economy back on track SF has been given the mandate to command front page newspaper space. This lack of professionalism therefore has had implications in terms of how the state is run, which genuinely does impact public good.

Hasn't Varadkar been asked to step aside while the Gardai investigate him so that he wouldn't be a distraction?



It's everyone else's fault that Leo leaked a confidential document and is now under investigation and a topic of conversation/debate throughout Ireland. :rolleyes:

Baggly

Floppybits wrote: »

You could say the same about Mary Lou living rent free in peoples heads as well. Isn't that right Blanch.

Mod

Threadbanned

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You have made this statement on a number of occasions so I take it that you have well researched it. You might explain to me what part of the Act you are referring to when referencing it, because I can't find it, certainly not in the way that you are interpreting it.

I 'actually' first asked it as a question:

FrancieBrady wrote:

Wasn't it posted earlier that 'no material or other advantage need be proved' or words to that effect, is contained in the legislation?

and when somebody else said it is in the legal opinion sought by the Village Magazine and in a podcast I said 'it 'seems' to be that.....

If you doubt it (I have no particular reason to) then research those sources maybe?

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

This literally should always have been done. NAGP should always have been kept in the loop.


Varadkar said as much, and he said that the way he provided the information to NAGP was unprofessional. Again something I agree with. Not as unprofessional as, say, running off to a journalist with an edited version of the agreement for the sake of political gain, but unprofessional nonetheless.



This is one of the reasons why the argument always sidesteps the heart of the matter, because dissemination to NAGP should always have been the outcome of this.


I do not put it past Varadkar to have had an ulterior motive, but I can't see anything that works against the public good (well other than allowing tire kickers the space to waste endless time debating this matter rather than more important items). That last point is actually significant. The main cause for loss of confidence in Varadkar is him leaving the door open to political chancers. At a time when we should be discussing how to get the economy back on track SF has been given the mandate to command front page newspaper space. This lack of professionalism therefore has had implications in terms of how the state is run, which genuinely does impact public good.







I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you there.


SF has already stated it doesn't care what the outcome of the police inquiry is. The best outcome for SF is an inconclusive report, where they can restate their contempt for the Gardai, our judicial systems, and imply corruption in relation to the investigation ('more of the old boys club with FFG-in-chief Drew Harris running the Special Criminal Court as a private kangaroo institutionnnnn')


No smoke without fire? An ironic position given where it is coming from, but it would not be unusual for that party to contradict itself.

I think SF's position is that it doesn't matter what the outcome of the Garda inquiry is, which is an entirely different thing to 'not caring'.

They thought he should go on foot of his confession.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I 'actually' first asked it as a question:


and when somebody else said it is in the legal opinion sought by the Village Magazine and in a podcast I said 'it 'seems' to be that.....

If you doubt it (I have no particular reason to) then research those sources maybe?

It's a crime

RandomName2

Suckit wrote: »

So you have said, a few times at this stage, yet here you are, still posting the same in this thread....

Well I'm here quite late in a thread, a thread which seemed to revolve around people making tangents that ended up as political grandstanding, saying 'leo the leak', and saying 'leo is even more finished now'.

If you took out the posts that say nothing more than 'leo should resign' you would probably lose 1/3rd of the entire content of the thread. Clearly some people have no greater aspiration to see Varadkar resign, as an end unto itself, but if we are going to discuss this topic, then the topic itself should at least be discussed.

Now it happens that we have some limitations in relation to the information currently available to make conclusions, but at least in the last 30 pages there has been more of a focus on information than simple soundbites.

Suckit wrote: »

Hasn't Varadkar been asked to step aside while the Gardai investigate him so that he wouldn't be a distraction?

He has indeed, and he should, along with the other political actors in relation to this. If someone has information they believe to be valuable they should pass it to the gards.

Suckit wrote: »

It's everyone else's fault that Leo leaked a confidential document

No clearly this was 100% Varadkar's choice. He chose to freeze NAGP from the negotiations. He chose to keep them in the loop by sending the draft agreement to them. There's practical reasons given for all of this
'NAGP wouldn't agree to the medical cards so they could not be used for this agreement',
'NAGP and IMO fight like cats and dogs so they had to be kept at arms length from one another',
'NAGP members needed to be convinced of the value of the GP agreement and therefore winning over the management of the NAGP to the value of the GP agreement was useful for getting active uptake of it.'

None of this stops what Varadkar did from being technically wrong, and while we may scoff at red tape as getting in the way of legitimate interests, it behooves the leader of the country to at least be capable of negotiating bureaucratic rules successfully. Now the onus is on him to find a route out of the hole he dug himself. How incorrect was what he did? Well that's for the gards to decide. If the gards find no case to prosecute, the issue should be buried (though the opposition no doubt will still lamely try to milk it). If on the other hand the DPP moves to prosecute, then he will be buried instead. While theoretically someone should be considered innocent until proven guilty it is hard to see how the country will function in any rational sense if the airwaves are to be filled with this for a year, or however long it takes to conclude such a case.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

It's a crime

It depends. Could be legitimate if authorized by the government. I'm pretty sure the Taoiseach would authorize himself.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

It depends. Could be legitimate if authorized by the government. I'm pretty sure the Taoiseach would authorize himself.

Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, doesn't seem to think so.

Due Authorisation

Contrary to what Fine Gael said, it is very easy indeed to understand how the Taoiseach would not be “duly authorised”. As Senior Counsel, Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, shows, the authorisation must be by an Official or Minister. Section 4 (4) of the Act states: “In this section ‘duly authorised’ means authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority”.

Here no such authorisation existed. No permission was obtained, no procedure observed, no tentative decision was submitted for scrutiny and technical authorisation. An FoI request by Sinn Féin TD Pearse Doherty, obtained around 21 January, in fact showed that the line Minister, Simon Harris – the then Minister for Health – was trying furiously to get his own hands on the document, including in an email to several officials, but couldn’t.

golfball37

Whether it’s a crime or not yet another FOI reveal shows he’s a liar and unfit for office. Pity it’s left to the shinners to expose his web of lies and get the credit for exposing him. He’s done more for them than Mary Lou and Adam’s combined electorally, sad the FG fans can’t see this.