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

RandomName2

nsnoefc1878 wrote: »

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

No, no no, that's not how you do it.

You say.. repeat after me.. 'leo the leak'. It's alliterative. Amazing stuff. It's also monosyllabic so I think you're up to it.

Now I see you are uninterested in discussing anything here,, so I assume you just want to add your voice. Trust me, saying 'leo the leak' would be more cutting than accusing me of being a member of the euro-sycophantic nanny-state self-satisfied Fine Gael party. I personally despise Sinn Fein, so that's where your error may lie. But not everybody who doesn't vote SF votes Fine Gael, because if they did, Fine Gael would be on 70% in the polls.

<mod: Wind it in with the childish narrative>

blanch152

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, no no, that's not how you do it.

You say.. repeat after me.. 'leo the leak'. It's alliterative. Amazing stuff. It's also monosyllabic so I think you're up to it.

Now I see you are uninterested in discussing anything here,, so I assume you just want to add your voice. Trust me, saying 'leo the leak' would be more cutting than accusing me of being a member of the euro-sycophantic nanny-state self-satisfied Fine Gael party. I personally despise Sinn Fein, so that's where your error may lie. But not everybody who doesn't vote SF votes Fine Gael, because if they did, Fine Gael would be on 70% in the polls.

I have that in common with you, as do around 60% of voters.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

Speaking of which.

What, are you going to try arguing 'for the public good'. Didn't we establish that that doesn't matter? Or maybe the argument is that there was no exchange of money or service for the information by RTE? Again, we kind of came to the conclusion that that didn't matter. I'm not really sure what position is being taken here, but I'm going to guess that if a politician, regardless of affiliation, is voicing an opinion on this matter that they are going to be a hypocrite at some level.

Suckit

blanch152 wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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.

The thread is over 8,100 posts.
Nobody is asking you to link to it, as it might be tough to find. Just the name of one of the Taoiseachs that have done the same, or even the name of the one that you have named and we can search for ourselves.

blanch152

Suckit wrote: »

The thread is over 8,100 posts.
Nobody is asking you to link to it, as it might be tough to find. Just the name of one of the Taoiseachs that have done the same, or even the name of the one that you have named and we can search for ourselves.

It is there, find it.

Suckit

blanch152 wrote: »

It is there, find it.

Like the other posts you fled from, it's unlikely I will waste my time searching through your post history.

Most people would highlight any proof that they had of something, and highlight it again and again if asked, if it was to back up their point.
I can only think of one legit reason why a person/people wouldn't.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

You've time to dodge the same question twice though. Sorry, three times....

skimpydoo

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

All I am looking for is a name nothing more and nothing less. Once I have a name I can go research this Taoiseach and what he might have done. I have tried looking through the 8000 plus posts and could not find anything.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

What, are you going to try arguing 'for the public good'. Didn't we establish that that doesn't matter? Or maybe the argument is that there was no exchange of money or service for the information by RTE? Again, we kind of came to the conclusion that that didn't matter. I'm not really sure what position is being taken here, but I'm going to guess that if a politician, regardless of affiliation, is voicing an opinion on this matter that they are going to be a hypocrite at some level.

Maybe Leo will speak up for the fella, didn't he say whistleblowers are distinguished?

You're not trying to equate whistleblowers blowing the whistle on wrongdoings within a state dept (protected by protective disclosure legislation) ≠ that of passing confidential information for the main reason that your pal requested you to pass him it are you



And we have the name of the assistant Leo got to obtain said documents, will the dept of health and the dept of Taoiseach be advocating prosecution as per the statement made above to RTE?

Curious your thoughts on this random.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Maybe Leo will speak up for the fella, didn't he say whistleblowers are distinguished?

You're not trying to equate whistleblowers blowing the whistle on wrongdoings within a state dept (protected by protective disclosure legislation) ≠ that of passing confidential information for the main reason that your pal requested you to pass him it are you



And we have the name of the assistant Leo got to obtain said documents, will the dept of health and the dept of Taoiseach be advocating prosecution as per the statement made above to RTE?

Curious your thoughts on this random.

So, are you saying that O’Toole should be investigated too?

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

So, are you saying that O’Toole should be investigated too?

He most likely is already being investigated Maryanne.

This isn't "news".

Gardai have yet to speak to the Tanaiste or Dr O Tuathail as part of the investigation. Both have said they will fully comply with the investigation

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

He most likely is already being investigated Maryanne.

This isn't "news".

But, there’s nothing in the Garda statements saying that there’s an investigation into O’Toole. Speaking to someone as part of an investigation into another doesn’t mean that both may have done wrong and are both subject of investigation.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

But, there’s nothing in the Garda statements saying that there’s an investigation into O’Toole. Speaking to someone as part of an investigation into another doesn’t mean that both may have done wrong and are both subject of investigation.

But it's in the legislation. It has already been discussed here on the thread.

Look up the official secrets act, it's in the RTE statement above too, links to a barrister outlining the potential repercussions for both the person passing the document, and those who received it are in the thread, just yesterday.

Again this isn't a new development, it's been covered multiple times on the thread already.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

But it's in the legislation. It has already been discussed here on the thread.

Look up the official secrets act, it's in the RTE statement above too, links to a barrister outlining the potential repercussions for both the person passing the document, and those who received it are in the thread, just yesterday.

Again this isn't a new development, it's been covered multiple times on the thread already.

Yep, I’ve read that, yet O’Toole isn’t the subject of an investigation. Merely a possible witness.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep, I’ve read that, yet O’Toole isn’t the subject of an investigation. Merely a possible witness.

How do you establish someone is a witness, without first investigating their role in the whole thing

Deleted User wrote: »

So, are you saying that O’Toole should be investigated too?

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

How do you establish someone is a witness, without first investigating their role in the whole thing

Get up the yard. You’re talking nonsense. By your reckoning, I can be the subject of a criminal investigation simply by witnessing a crime?

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

So, are you saying that O’Toole should be investigated too?

Explained already that he is part of the investigation......

He most likely is already being investigated Maryanne.

This isn't "news".

Gardai have yet to speak to the Tanaiste or Dr O Tuathail as part of the investigation. Both have said they will fully comply with the investigation

Deleted User wrote: »

Get up the yard. You’re talking nonsense. By your reckoning, I can be the subject of a criminal investigation simply by witnessing a crime?

Oh dear..... Pick a point and stick with it please.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Explained already that he is part of the investigation......







Oh dear..... Pick a point and stick with it please.

Still no proof that O’Toole is the subject of any investigation. Stick to the facts, please.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Still no proof that O’Toole is the subject of any investigation. Stick to the facts, please.

Been a tough auld slog spinning for Leo and his exploits Maryanne, I get that.

However, lets not lose sight of what you were querying.

Maryanne wrote:

So, are you saying that O’Toole should be investigated too?

If you're asking if he's a suspect in the criminal investigation, that's a different question, one which I can't answer as of yet, it'll hopefully become a lot more clearer once he's "helped police with their investigation"

If you think OTuathail (whom you have previously thrown under the bus on this thread) isn't part of the investigation, an investigation that revolves around two key players, Leo and OTuathail, well then that's just ridiculous to the level that it's hardly worth responding to.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

He most likely is already being investigated Maryanne.

This isn't "news".

McMurphy wrote: »

Been a tough auld slog spinning for Leo and his exploits Maryanne, I get that.

However, lets not lose sight of what you were querying.



If you're asking if he's a suspect in the criminal investigation, that's a different question, one which I can't answer as of yet, it'll hopefully become a lot more clearer once he's "helped police with their investigation"

If you think OTuathail (whom you have previously thrown under the bus on this thread) isn't part of the investigation, an investigation that revolves around two key players, Leo and OTuathail, well then that's just ridiculous to the level that it's hardly worth responding to.

So, you’re agreeing that O’Toole isn’t being investigated. Thanks.

thomas 123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So, you’re agreeing that O’Toole isn’t being investigated. Thanks.

You agreeing what the blog post that the NAGP was released days before was not equal to the 110 doc yet?

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

Here's an email from the 17th that shows Simon Harris, the actual minister for health was still trying to get his hands on this document.

https://twitter.com/nwl88444048/status/1375000815639932929?s=19

The first email is from someone called Sarah Bardon, looking for a copy of the document, not Simon Harris.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They will do the same with Leo if the Gardai decide not to press charges.

As opposed to?

McMurphy

markodaly wrote: »

The first email is from someone called Sarah Bardon, looking for a copy of the document, not Simon Harris.

That email from Sarah Bardon is dated the 15th, (I said the 17th) she's one of Simons advisers/assistants who got fobbed off, resulting in Harris himself sending an email two days later.

Already discussed by myself here in this post dated 23/03/21.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

As opposed to?

Accepting that what he did was wrong. The Gardai and DPP deciding to not press charges does not change that.
Just as the Inquiry into Frances Fitzgerald did not exonerate her from misleading the Dáil.

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

That email from Sarah Bardon is dated the 15th, (I said the 17th) she's one of Simons advisers/assistants who got fobbed off, resulting in Harris himself sending an email two days later.

Already discussed by myself here in this post dated 23/03/21.

Yes, I read that post, a lot of conjecture, and painting by numbers going on there. The dates also dont match up with the facts.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Accepting that what he did was wrong. The Gardai and DPP deciding to not press charges does not change that.
Just as the Inquiry into Frances Fitzgerald did not exonerate her from misleading the Dáil.

Not best practice, he already admitted to this, but we can give the hangman the day off.

However, I still see you are banging on about FF. She was totally exonerated in the inquiry. If people feel strongly about it, open a new thread about it.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

The first email is from someone called Sarah Bardon, looking for a copy of the document, not Simon Harris.

She's a Special Advisor in the Department of Health.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Not best practice, he already admitted to this, but we can give the hangman the day off.

However, I still see you are banging on about FF. She was totally exonerated in the inquiry. If people feel strongly about it, open a new thread about it.

Not for misleading the Dail and having Leo mislead the dail. Stick to the facts please.
This repeated lie, (a lie at this stage) is akin to saying the Hamburgler was never stealing hamburgers because he was exonerated regarding fathering one of the Fry kids.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Not best practice, he already admitted to this, but we can give the hangman the day off.

However, I still see you are banging on about FF. She was totally exonerated in the inquiry. If people feel strongly about it, open a new thread about it.

Not for misleading the Dáil, evidenced here many many times.

You are doing what I said would happen if Leo is not charged with an offence.


QED