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

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.

blanch152

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?

I do doubt it, and I looked at the Act, and I can't find those words in the Act. In fact, I can't find anything like it anywhere.

If it just came from a podcast and is otherwise unverified, we can probably assume it is untrue.

blanch152

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

Yeah, sure the Village magazine Twitter feed is as legally sound as the Supreme Court.

nialler1978

golfball37 wrote: »

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.

Not to dissimilar to the DUP singlehandedly fast tracking Irish Unity by about 50 years.

Tyrone212

McMurphy wrote: »

Meanwhile the up and coming within FG tweet the likes of this......

https://twitter.com/McManusDavid/status/1375031555949785089?s=19

Leaked something they got via FOI. Facepalm.

Had a look at his twitter page. God he's a dose. Embarrassing.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

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

It would be odd if the Taoiseach were not afforded the same authority as a minister, given that it's a more senior position. Clearly Varadkar was one of the chief negotiators of this agreement, which may be a carry over from his time as minister for health. Either way it would be strange if neither he, nor Harris, could okay his own actions (either at the time or retrospectively). This is particularly the case given that Harris had promised NAGP a copy of the agreement (he never sent one, but Harris could argue that that was always the plan, and while he may not have been aware of Varadkar's specific actions to that end, that it was in the spirit of what was already a process in the pipeline (which would ultimately have resolved itself anyway when the thing was put up online).

One thing that seems pretty clear. The Department worked on this like it was a 100 page thesis that they had left till the last minute to complete. I would bet any money that on Harris' secretary's computer there was

version27.docx, version27(correct).docx, version 28(recovered).docx

blanch152 wrote: »

Yeah, sure the Village magazine Twitter feed is as legally sound as the Supreme Court.

I somehow get the impression that The Village is not interested in an entirely dry, objective, legal examination of the case. Could be mistaken, but I just get that feeling.

nialler1978

Tyrone212 wrote: »

Had a look at his twitter page. God he's a dose. Embarrassing.

That’s that muppet who proudly posted on Twitter that he had lamp post around his area fixed.

We could get good value out of this lad in years to come.

BluePlanet

The logic by the FG's here suggests that it is impossible for a sitting Taoiseach to ever be convicted of contravening the Official Secrets Act. I doubt very much that is the intention of such an Act.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

It would be odd if the Taoiseach were not afforded the same authority as a minister, given that it's a more senior position. Clearly Varadkar was one of the chief negotiators of this agreement, which may be a carry over from his time as minister for health. Either way it would be strange if neither he, nor Harris, could okay his own actions (either at the time or retrospectively). This is particularly the case given that Harris had promised NAGP a copy of the agreement (he never sent one, but Harris could argue that that was always the plan, and while he may not have been aware of Varadkar's specific actions to that end, that it was in the spirit of what was already a process in the pipeline (which would ultimately have resolved itself anyway when the thing was put up online).

One thing that seems pretty clear. The Department worked on this like it was a 100 page thesis that they had left till the last minute to complete. I would bet any money that on Harris' secretary's computer there was

version27.docx, version27(correct).docx, version 28(recovered).docx



I somehow get the impression that The Village is not interested in an entirely dry, objective, legal examination of the case. Could be mistaken, but I just get that feeling.

Surprised this lad

Diarmuid Rossa Phelan BCL (NUI) LLM (BERKELEY), BL (Kings Inns), Ph D (EUROPEAN UNIV INST FLORENCE), MA (Dub iuris officio), BL (Inns of Court of Northern Ireland), Attorney (NEW YORK), F.T.C.D

would put his name to that if he didn't know what he was talking about tbh.

On another note, some here are confusing a published article with several barristers giving their opinion, and that of a "Twitter feed". Fionnan Sheehan and Eamon Dunphy discussed it (what laws were potentially broken) in-depth on the podcast linked to in the thread earlier too.

Think the general consensus is - Leo's on fairly dodgy ground.

BluePlanet

The Village Magazine also makes a good point:

"It's not about whether the person was an authorised leaker (centering on the leaker); it's about whether the leak was authorised.(centering on the leak).
And authorising involves going through a process - of which there is no evidence here"

Fann Linn

I'm really disappointed that the TU movement to date has said very little on this breach of trust. I think it's incumbent that when IR talks are being undertaken that good faith and confidentiality are foremost in all of the parties involved. For a sitting Taoiseach to be the loose lip is a disgrace.

nsnoefc1878

Tyrone212 wrote: »

Had a look at his twitter page. God he's a dose. Embarrassing.

Staggers me anyone can vote fg, they are vile, self serving t**ts of the highest order.
I've no time for sinn fein given their sordid past, but even tho they are far from perfect on policy matters, I cant imagine how any decent human being could favour fg economic and social policy over sf. Voting for fg is an endorsement of their simply unforgiveable housing policies, that alone should be enough to turn anyone off voting for them.

nsnoefc1878

Fann Linn wrote: »

I'm really disappointed that the TU movement to date has said very little on this breach of trust. I think it's incumbent that when IR talks are being undertaken that good faith and confidentiality are foremost in all of the parties involved. For a sitting Taoiseach to be the loose lip is a disgrace.

Great point.

nsnoefc1878

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

Staggers me anyone can vote fg, they are vile, self serving t**ts of the highest order.
I've no time for sinn fein given their sordid past, but even tho they are far from perfect on policy matters, I cant imagine how any decent human being could favour fg economic and social policy over sf. Voting for fg is an endorsement of their simply unforgiveable housing policies, that alone should be enough to turn anyone off voting for them.

Be careful, they'll brand you one of them shinners now you've announced you have no time for FG

nsnoefc1878

Deleted User wrote: »

Be careful, they'll brand you one of them shinners now you've announced you have no time for FG

Yeah, thats the fg approach to everything now, bring sf into it.

RandomName2

Fann Linn wrote: »

I'm really disappointed that the TU movement to date has said very little on this breach of trust.

Well at least someone here has brought it up. Usually the positions of the IMO and NAGP aren't considered relevant, which is daft.

It's really hard to tell what the IMO's position actually is. They were apparently sensitive about discussions concerning the agreement, but that may have been prior to them concluding the contract with the government. So either they are really pissed off, and are just being professionally quiet with relation to the media, they don't care either way, or they actually feel that such behavior was par-for-the-course and to be expected from the government. It's really hard to identify what their stand is without any further information.

Tyrone212

nialler1978 wrote: »

That’s that muppet who proudly posted on Twitter that he had lamp post around his area fixed.

We could get good value out of this lad in years to come.

Lights are on but no one is home springs to mind.

jimmycrackcorm

McMurphy wrote: »

It's a crime

The Village article gets very wishy-washy trying to get past this part:

"The Official Secrets Act 1963 provides in Section 4: 1: a person shall not communicate any official information [defined as any…document or information which is secret or confidential or is expressed to be either and which is or has been in the possession, custody or control of a holder of a public office, or to which he has had access by virtue of his office] to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the state to communicate it. "

Easily arguable - if a Taoiseach isn't authorised to do so then who does?
How do you argue that it's not in the interest of the state to ensure the alternative organization representing GP's gets on board also?

I notice that several posts try to avoid the mention of the NAGP, instead referring sole to passing the document to a friend.

blanch152

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The Village article gets very wishy-washy trying to get past this part:

"The Official Secrets Act 1963 provides in Section 4: 1: a person shall not communicate any official information [defined as any…document or information which is secret or confidential or is expressed to be either and which is or has been in the possession, custody or control of a holder of a public office, or to which he has had access by virtue of his office] to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the state to communicate it. "

Easily arguable - if a Taoiseach isn't authorised to do so then who does?
How do you argue that it's not in the interest of the state to ensure the alternative organization representing GP's gets on board also?

I notice that several posts try to avoid the mention of the NAGP, instead referring sole to passing the document to a friend.

You have it in a nutshell as to why there is no breach of the OSA.

McMurphy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The Village article gets very wishy-washy trying to get past this part:

"The Official Secrets Act 1963 provides in Section 4: 1: a person shall not communicate any official information [defined as any…document or information which is secret or confidential or is expressed to be either and which is or has been in the possession, custody or control of a holder of a public office, or to which he has had access by virtue of his office] to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the state to communicate it. "

Easily arguable - if a Taoiseach isn't authorised to do so then who does?
How do you argue that it's not in the interest of the state to ensure the alternative organization representing GP's gets on board also?

I notice that several posts try to avoid the mention of the NAGP, instead referring sole to passing the document to a friend.

If of course, by "wishy washy" you mean it goes into extensive detail of how Leo's spindoctors are in all probability talking through their hoops, you're bang on of course.

I'm not going to copy and paste all of it, but this would be a good starting point.

If the Tánaiste thinks the Official Secrets Act does not apply to him or to the Taoiseach there is a fundamental failure at the heart of government. Every incoming Minister signs the Official Secrets Act upon taking office. This was confirmed to me by several former Ministers. It’s fundamental to the modus operani of government. His defence is facile

I think you need to try again jimmy.

Pintman Paddy Losty

McMurphy wrote: »

If of course, by "wishy washy" you mean it goes into extensive detail of how Leo's spindoctors are in all probability talking through their hoops, you're bang on of course.

I'm not going to copy and paste all of it, but this would be a good starting point.



I think you need to try again jimmy.

The act applies. He's also authorised to release it. Then there's the fact that it was in the public interest. There's not a court in the land that would convict. DPP won't try anyway.

McMurphy

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

The act applies. He's also authorised to release it. Then there's the fact that it was in the public interest. There's not a court in the land that would convict. DPP won't try anyway.

Call me stone mad, but I'm going to go with the S.Cs opinion on this one Paddy, not just because he's qualified and laid his explanations out in great detail.

But let's be honest, your track record on these threads about predicting how these things are going to play out has been, well let's just say "pure cat" so far.

You backing Leo is his political death knell imo, not a great omen.

jammiedodgers

Well you've been pretty spot on so far Paddy, no reason to doubt you now...

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

I'm afraid this one isn't going to be the big explosive exposé that the conspiracy theorists want. A good statement this afternoon and then get back to the important work of fighting Coronavirus. Will be forgotten by next week.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

No my friend. I'm not. Watch this one fizzle out. Nothing to see here folks. Just a load of manufactured outrage over a a load of nonsense.

The shinners will try and run with it, but no one gives a sh1te.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

I can sense the disappointment around here that this hasn't played out the way the usual cranks wanted it to. There were high hopes of sackings and even criminal charges. People were predicting the fall of the government by now.

Well it's really looks like a damp squib. It's no longer the top story on RTE. Leo has the backing of the taoiseach. Hopes for a secret dossier that the Village magazine inexplicably held back won't be coming forward.

I'm afraid post US election this will be done and dusted.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You do realise how odds work?

That's a ringing endorsement for Varadkar. Shows how this issue is a nothing burger.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Lads you can place this whole silly saga on to this list of things that the Pintman got right.

Despite the bluster and grand predictions of governments falling and Leo being gone within days, it was a total damp squib.

A lot of egg on posters of this thread's face. Embarassed themselves in a frenzied excitement reading tweets by that tool Cosgrave and that dodgy squealer Chat Bowes.

Should've listened to the Pintman.