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

Pintman Paddy Losty

McMurphy wrote: »

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.

You can bookmark this post Mc, Leo will be Taoiseach at the end of 2022.

nsnoefc1878

McMurphy wrote: »

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.

Let's hope he keeps backing him then.

James Brown

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You can bookmark this post Mc, Leo will be Taoiseach at the end of 2022.

Do you think he's suitable for such an office based on his record thus far?

nsnoefc1878

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You can bookmark this post Mc, Leo will be Taoiseach at the end of 2022.

If you'd any dignity, brains or self respect you'd crawl away after reading post 8077 and save yourself further embarssment.

McMurphy

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

You can bookmark this post Mc, Leo will be Taoiseach at the end of 2022.

Paddy Power is offering decent enough odds on that one Paddy. If I were you I'd be logging on, putting down a hefty wedge and wait to cash in.

No bother on you at all champ.

blanch152

BluePlanet wrote: »

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"

What process is laid down? Do you have a link to it?

Is authorised by the Taoiseach not enough?

skimpydoo

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.

Are you sure about this? What will you say if he is charged? He won't be found guilty?

If he is found guilty what will you say? He won't get a tough punishment?

skimpydoo

McMurphy wrote: »

Paddy Power is offering decent enough odds on that one Paddy. If I were you I'd be logging on, putting down a hefty wedge and wait to cash in.

No bother on you at all champ.

Agreed. Paddy if you are so sure put your money where your mouth is and lay down a big wedge on Leo at the Bookies. What have you got to lose since you are so sure of yourself and Leo.

BKelly21

blanch152 wrote: »

What process is laid down? Do you have a link to it?

Is authorised by the Taoiseach not enough?

Where are you getting that the Taoiseach is authorised to leak confidential information, and further, why are the gards conducting a criminal investigation on someone who was [as far as you are concerned] "authorised to leak confidential information" also why did the Tanaìste apologise for actions he did while serving as taoiseach if he was authorised to do so anyway? Just repeating and repeating and repeating stuff over and over again without ever [as far as I can see here] backing it up is very strange.
A barrister has put their name to very clearly laid out reasons as to why Leo [in all likelihood] is in trouble. What are your credentials and qualifications to contradict him, and on what exactly are you basing your "knowledge or legal expertise" on might I ask?

RandomName2

jammiedodgers wrote: »

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

Proof for future politicians that a non-story can become a story if you repeat the same message enough times.

'Yo, you know the GP agreement of 2019?'
'No.'
'Remember. GP agreement? For local area care.'
'I really dont. I might if I was a doctor'
'Hold that thought. What if I told you that that agreement was given to a doctor.'
'I would say that that was to be expected.'
'What if I told you that doctor was a friend of the then Taoiseach?'
'Well, what did the Taoiseach have to do with this?'
'He was negotiating the agreement, but that isn't the important bit. This doctor was his friend, and the head of a doctor's union.'
'A union. Like SIPTU or TUI.'
'Bingo.'
'It represents doctors.'
'Ah yes, but not the doctors negotiating the deal.'
'The friend was sent this information before the deal was struck?'
'No, afterwards. I'm telling you now this is massive. The Taoiseach doesn't even care about refugees.'
'Right. And it's a big deal because..?'
'He sent it to his friend'
'You are suggesting corruption?'
'Oh no. Maybe. Look I don't really care. Doesn't it make you distrust the guy?'
'To negotiate GP agreements?'
'No, in general.'
'I haven't trusted a Taoiseach since Haughey.'
'Look you can't see the value here, but lookit, if you keep saying the phrase leo the leak, it will become a story. I guarantee it.'
'Just like that?'
'Just, as you say, like that.'

blanch152

BKelly21 wrote: »

Where are you getting that the Taoiseach is authorised to leak confidential information, and further, why are the gards conducting a criminal investigation on someone who was [as far as you are concerned] "authorised to leak confidential information" also why did the Tanaìste apologise for actions he did while serving as taoiseach if he was authorised to do so anyway? Just repeating and repeating and repeating stuff over and over again without ever [as far as I can see here] backing it up is very strange.
A barrister has put their name to very clearly laid out reasons as to why Leo [in all likelihood] is in trouble. What are your credentials and qualifications to contradict him, and on what exactly are you basing your "knowledge or legal expertise" on might I ask?

How many times does it have to be explained that he only apologised for the manner in which he shared the document, not for sharing it? That has been backed up time and again by reference to his actual words, yet posters like yourself keep pretending it was something else.

Diarmuid Phelan has been wrong before, on issues like the Lisbon Treaty for example, so why should we believe he is right now?

I have backed up my position with references to the relevant legislation.

RandomName2

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.

You're saying that neither the Taoiseach, who was negotiating the deal, nor the Health minister can approve the Taoiseach's unilateral use of that data, even though it has been established that a minister could.

How does one grant permission? Does it have to be written down in advance and signed by both parties, or is it sufficient for Harris to today make a gesture with his hand and say 'yeah. Grand.'

I mean you haven't done much arguing in relation to this, all you've said is that the Taoiseach has less authority than one of his ministers, which sounds a bit odd, but okay.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

What process is laid down? Do you have a link to it?

Is authorised by the Taoiseach not enough?

If Varadkar ate a doughnut it's wouldn't 'authorised by the Taoiseach' (when he was). Like when he opened his gob on the Debenham workers right? 'Member when you said that was him passing comment not his office?
The whole issue is because he 'leaked' leaked a document. He didn't consult/authorise in any official manner. In fact he apologised for the 'manner'. He's not the Pope, he's not infallible.

blanch152 wrote: »

How many times does it have to be explained that he only apologised for the manner in which he shared the document, not for sharing it? That has been backed up time and again by reference to his actual words, yet posters like yourself keep pretending it was something else. .....

What's the difference? We've yet to see his apologists explain that.

Suckit

James Brown wrote: »

If Varadkar ate a doughnut it's wouldn't 'authorised by the Taoiseach' (when he was). Like when he opened his gob on the Debenham workers right? 'Member when you said that was him passing comment not his office?
The whole issue is because he 'leaked' leaked a document. He didn't consult/authorise in any official manner. In fact he apologised for the 'manner'. He's not the Pope, he's not infallible.

What's the difference? We've yet to see his apologists explain that.

Yeah, I have to agree. Whatever about all the other points, I don't get the one suggesting that he authorised the leak himself. It doesn't make much sense on any level.

Where are the documents he filled out to 'release' the confidential files?
Surely the then Tanaiste would have to co-sign, or the President etc.
If it was just a case worldwide that the leader of a Country could authorise themselves to randomly send confidential documents we would have massive problems.

That has to be the weakest argument yet.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

You're saying that neither the Taoiseach, who was negotiating the deal, nor the Health minister can approve the Taoiseach's unilateral use of that data, even though it has been established that a minister could.

No I'm not saying it, I'm posting the barrister in the articles opinion on Leo's predicament, which they have went into great detail to explain how they're interpreting things.

That would be like me posting a neurological consultants assesment of a patient's recent surgical procedure, and you claiming I (I'm not a neurological consultant) made an assesment of said procedure.

How does one grant permission? Does it have to be written down in advance and signed by both parties, or is it sufficient for Harris to today make a gesture with his hand and say 'yeah. Grand.'

I mean you haven't done much arguing in relation to this, all you've said is that the Taoiseach has less authority than one of his ministers, which sounds a bit odd, but okay.

Would it be more or less odd than claiming someone said something they literally didn't say on this site, never mind this thread?

Can you quote me saying the Taoiseach has less authority than one of his ministers?

skimpydoo

Suckit wrote: »

That has to be the weakest argument yet.

The more they begin to realise they have backed the wrong horse, the weaker their arguments are,

blanch152

Suckit wrote: »

Yeah, I have to agree. Whatever about all the other points, I don't get the one suggesting that he authorised the leak himself. It doesn't make much sense on any level.

Where are the documents he filled out to 'release' the confidential files?
Surely the then Tanaiste would have to co-sign, or the President etc.
If it was just a case worldwide that the leader of a Country could authorise themselves to randomly send confidential documents we would have massive problems.

That has to be the weakest argument yet.

Do you have any other example from the whole history of the State where the Tanaiste or the President had to co-sign a decision by the Taoiseach?


One?

Banana Republic 1

This latest RTE investigates will pile pressure onLV

Suckit

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you have any other example from the whole history of the State where the Tanaiste or the President had to co-sign a decision by the Taoiseach?


One?

Do you have any other example where the Taoiseach just randomly leaked files marked confidential and didn't have to answer to anyone for it?

Even one where the explanation afterwards was that they authorised it themselves, in their head.

McMurphy

skimpydoo wrote: »

The more they begin to realise they have backed the wrong, the weaker their arguments are,

"The barrister was wrong on something before" was a cracker.

Also, there's a well peddled mistruth in here that "Leo only apologised for the manner in which he shared the document, not that he shared it" - absolute tripe and easily shown up as so.

Deputy Leo Varadkar wrote:

I was wrong in the way I went about it. I should have done it differently. I should have brought Dr. Ó Tuathail in and given a full briefing, even if it was line by line or page by page. That is the way it should have been done. I did not do it that way because I knew him and, almost as a shortcut, I did it in the way I did it. I should not have done it that way. I should have set aside an hour or two to do it in a more formal and proper way.

If Leo had of invited Zero Craic in, to go through the document line by line in a more formal and proper way, well that would have meant he would have officially liased with OTuathail, and went through the document in an official capacity. I.E not leaked it to him.

Unless of course Leo meant he should have leaked it in a more formal and official way, but that's an oxymoron, right?

Mental gymnastics here is only phenomenal!

blanch152

Suckit wrote: »

Do you have any other example where the Taoiseach just randomly leaked files marked confidential and didn't have to answer to anyone for it?

Even one where the explanation afterwards was that they authorised it themselves, in their head.

Well, yes, I gave examples earlier in the thread.

skimpydoo

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, yes, I gave examples earlier in the thread.

Which Taoiseach/Taoiseachs did this?

Suckit

skimpydoo wrote: »

Which Taoiseach/Taoiseachs did this?

I had typed an almost identical post.

McMurphy

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

This latest RTE investigates will pile pressure onLV

Speaking of which.

https://twitter.com/nwl88444048/status/1375095401213222915?s=09

James Brown

McMurphy wrote: »

Speaking of which.

https://twitter.com/nwl88444048/status/1375095401213222915?s=09

FF/FG/Greens: a rotten, one rule for them, crony bunch of chancers propping each other up. Shameful.

skimpydoo

Suckit wrote: »

I had typed an almost identical post.

Hmmm still no answer. Surely, he would be able to answer this fairly quickly?

nsnoefc1878

RandomName2 wrote: »

Proof for future politicians that a non-story can become a story if you repeat the same message enough times.

'Yo, you know the GP agreement of 2019?'
'No.'
'Remember. GP agreement? For local area care.'
'I really dont. I might if I was a doctor'
'Hold that thought. What if I told you that that agreement was given to a doctor.'
'I would say that that was to be expected.'
'What if I told you that doctor was a friend of the then Taoiseach?'
'Well, what did the Taoiseach have to do with this?'
'He was negotiating the agreement, but that isn't the important bit. This doctor was his friend, and the head of a doctor's union.'
'A union. Like SIPTU or TUI.'
'Bingo.'
'It represents doctors.'
'Ah yes, but not the doctors negotiating the deal.'
'The friend was sent this information before the deal was struck?'
'No, afterwards. I'm telling you now this is massive. The Taoiseach doesn't even care about refugees.'
'Right. And it's a big deal because..?'
'He sent it to his friend'
'You are suggesting corruption?'
'Oh no. Maybe. Look I don't really care. Doesn't it make you distrust the guy?'
'To negotiate GP agreements?'
'No, in general.'
'I haven't trusted a Taoiseach since Haughey.'
'Look you can't see the value here, but lookit, if you keep saying the phrase leo the leak, it will become a story. I guarantee it.'
'Just like that?'
'Just, as you say, like that.'

Hilarious you went to all that trouble, when you could just say you are a card carrying fg member.

blanch152

skimpydoo wrote: »

Which Taoiseach/Taoiseachs did this?

Check back in the thread where I give examples of similar situations happening with regard to industrial relations negotiations. It is there, you must have missed it.

blanch152

skimpydoo wrote: »

Hmmm still no answer. Surely, he would be able to answer this fairly quickly?

Unfortunately, I am not on a 24/7 retainer from a political party, so I am not able to be on here to answer questions.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

No I'm not saying it, I'm posting the barrister in the articles opinion on Leo's predicament, which they have went into great detail to explain how they're interpreting things.

That would be like me posting a neurological consultants assesment of a patient's recent surgical procedure, and you claiming I (I'm not a neurological consultant) made an assesment of said procedure.



Would it be more or less odd than claiming someone said something they literally didn't say on this site, never mind this thread?

Can you quote me saying the Taoiseach has less authority than one of his ministers?

I'm just going to point out that this is a nonsense post.

You point out an expert's opinion who made no comment on Harris' position one way or the other. This is pretty important but entirely glossed over by you.

You also say that the Taoiseach has less authority than one of his ministers, double down on that, and then say that you never said it, so.. fine I guess. You're deferring to the expert on this one, which is fine (even if the position is inconsistent), but it is nevertheless an odd position. Just pointing it out.