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

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Is there any update on my query about these facts? Can anybody provide a link to the facts that are mentioned here.

skimpydoo

Deleted User wrote: »

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

When did McMurphy say that?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Is there any update on my query about these facts? Can anybody provide a link to the facts that are mentioned here.

There were no 'facts' mentioned. Misrepresenting again.

skimpydoo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There were no 'facts' mentioned. Misrepresenting again.

I was wondering what facts Blanch was on about.

RandomName2

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

Okay so we are saying that the public good is important? I thought that was irrelevant. Suddenly when considered with a scenario that involves a public servant disclosing private information the public good becomes paramount. Interesting.

Would it make a significant difference if the journalist was a friend of the whistleblower? Surely that would not matter. The fact of O'Tuanthail being Varadkar's friend is brought up multiple times, but O'Tuanthail requested the document of Harris as well, and Harris said words that amounted to 'sure, will do' and never got back to him. Has the friendship level of Harris and O'Tuanthail been adequately measured?

Or maybe 'pal' is just a smokescreen.

For what it's worth I'm totally in favor of the whistleblower in this case. If he is giving relevant details about how a system is run, without endangering the private information of any individual, then that is a-ok as far as I'm concerned (or at least, let me put it this way, a striking case as to why it isn't okay should have to be made)

McMurphy

skimpydoo wrote: »

When did McMurphy say that?

He didn't and he won't be saying it either.

Once again.

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.

If course OTuathail, and what role he played in this will have to be investigated, it's a nonsense to suggest otherwise.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There were no 'facts' mentioned. Misrepresenting again.

When are facts not facts? You made a claim about facts that you are unable to back up. I have checked the legislation, took less than a minute to google it and check, and I can't find the reference to the part in quotes. Where did you get the quote from?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

RandomName2

blanch152 wrote: »

Is there any update on my query about these facts? Can anybody provide a link to the facts that are mentioned here.

In terms of a charge of corruption this is simply balderdash.

In terms of state secrets that's a different matter.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Has happened loads of times, every single time there has been a national pay agreement since 1987, the "confidential" documents have been shared with PDFORRA and GRA countless times, even though they are not part of the negotiations. It is standard practice.

One rule, if that rule suits, for all scenarios? Did those involved agree to share/give access or did any of these times involve slipping them on the sly to a pal?
Varadkar leaked a confidential negotiation document to his pal.

blanch152

RandomName2 wrote: »

In terms of a charge of corruption this is simply balderdash.

In terms of state secrets that's a different matter.

It is not clear which legislation Francie is referring to as he hasn't provided a link.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course there are times when they should go regardless. Dara Calleary was correct to step down as he was aware of the new restrictions when he attended Golfgate. Ditto Michelle O'Neill should have stepped down after the Bobby Storey funeral.

In this particular case, the issue does rest on whether there was a crime. If Varadkar didn't break the law because he was allowed share the document with another union representative, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with what he did.

Not the same. Neither Charlie Flanagan nor MON should resign IMO.

Fair play getting the Storey funeral in

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay so we are saying that the public good is important? I thought that was irrelevant. Suddenly when considered with a scenario that involves an unnamed public servant disclosing private information the public good becomes paramount. Interesting.

Would it make a significant difference was a friend of the whistleblower? Surely that would not matter. The fact of O'Tuanthail being Varadkar's friend is brought up multiple times, but O'Tuanthail requested the document of Harris as well, and Harris said words that amounted to 'sure, will do' and never got back to him. Has the friendship level of Harris and O'Tuanthail been adequately measured?

Or maybe 'pal' is just a smokescreen.

For what it's worth I'm totally in favor of the whistleblower int his case. If he is giving relevant details about how a system is run, without endangering the private information of any individual, then that is a-ok as far as I'm concerned (or at least, let me put it this way, a striking case as to why it isn't okay should have to be made)

Once again, there is legislation surrounding whistleblowers and protective disclosures where they're actually encouraged to speak out against wrongdoings and malpractice and corruption.

There's also legislation surrounding corruption and disclosing state secrets to third parties.

You're trying to conflate the two things?

You're at nothing I'm afraid. Leo Varadkar didn't "whistleblow" he passed confidential documents to his friend.

He's apologised for it too. Just incase you forget.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

When are facts not facts? You made a claim about facts that you are unable to back up. I have checked the legislation, took less than a minute to google it and check, and I can't find the reference to the part in quotes. Where did you get the quote from?

When they 'seem' to say something.

I have already said I have no need to check them out as somebody said they were talked about elsewhere. At all times I couched what I was saying as 'seeming' to be fact.

James Brown

McMurphy wrote: »

Once again, there is legislation surrounding whistleblowers and protective disclosures where they're actually encouraged to speak out against wrongdoings and malpractice and corruption.

There's also legislation surrounding corruption and disclosing state secrets to third parties.

You're trying to conflate the two things?

You're at nothing I'm afraid. Leo Varadkar didn't "whistleblow" he passed confidential documents to his friend.

He's apologised for it too. Just incase you forget.

It's smelling like the McCabe smear campaign. Attack the whistleblower by trying to put the fear in them. Defeats the whole point of protecting whistleblowers. Such a nasty mostly FG government we've been stuck with these years. I wonder will anyone in Tulsa make an error?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When they 'seem' to say something.

I have already said I have no need to check them out as somebody said they were talked about elsewhere. At all times I couched what I was saying as 'seeming' to be fact.

So are you now saying that the facts seem to be false? I am quite confused.

The facts seem to be that you spoofed and have been caught out, that is all.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So are you now saying that the facts seem to be false? I am quite confused.

The facts seem to be that you spoofed and have been caught out, that is all.

You said it was false.

shatners bassoon

blanch152 wrote: »

So are you now saying that the facts seem to be false? I am quite confused.

The facts seem to be that you spoofed and have been caught out, that is all.

You're in a perpetual state of confusion Blanch tbf.

If you can't find the phrase 'material gain or advantage needs to be proven' or words to that effect in the relevant legislation then surely you have just proven Francie's point? It's not in the legislation.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

Once again, there is legislation surrounding whistleblowers and protective disclosures where they're actually encouraged to speak out against wrongdoings and malpractice and corruption.

Intent is important.

From the whistleblower point of view you have to prove that they had legitimate concern of wrong doing. From the point of view of corruption you'd have to prove malintent. The same is largely true in terms of the Official Secrets Act, which basically says that it is okay to do so if it is '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.' Vardkar has some wriggle room there.

Moreover, so much for your expert. It defines a minister as

“Minister” means a member of the Government

So much of an expert that he couldn't google it.

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.

However! The act does specify that it is much better that that authorization be written down.

And I am going to remind you for a final time that the apology was for the manner of disclosure, not the disclosure, which is an important distinction.

James Brown

Varadkar didn't authorise anything. In fact he apologised for the manner.
He leaked a confidential document to a pal. There is no angle that can change that.

RandomName2

James Brown wrote: »

Varadkar didn't authorise anything.

He didn't approve himself? Maybe he was in a fugue state (an interesting defense)

James Brown wrote: »

In fact he apologised for the manner.

Quite correctly. I appreceiate that his schedule was hectic and the government was up to its eyes, but he should always have followed standard procedure in relation to this. The way he did it was unprofessional, and more importantly, looks underhand.

James Brown wrote: »

He leaked a confidential document to a pal. There is no angle that can change that.

You're right. He provided the president of the National Association of General Practitioners a draft copy of the General Practitioner agreement for the head of the National Association of General Practitioners to consult. There is no angle that can change that.

Jim Root

RandomName2 wrote: »

He didn't approve himself? Maybe he was in a fugue state (an interesting defense)



Quite correctly. I appreceiate that his schedule was hectic and the government was up to its eyes, but he should always have followed standard procedure in relation to this. The way he did it was unprofessional, and more importantly, looks underhand.



You're right. He provided the president of the National Association of General Practitioners a draft copy of the General Practitioner agreement for the head of the National Association of General Practitioners to consult. There is no angle that can change that.

In your opinion does this sin undue any perceived good he has done in office?

RandomName2

Jim Root wrote: »

In your opinion does this sin undue any perceived good he has done in office?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Muahahaha

BluePlanet wrote: »

Should politicians only step down after a successful prosecution or are there times when they should go regardless?

Only last summer Leo threw Phil Hogan under the bus even though Hogan wasnt under any Garda investigation for his golf tour of Ireland during lockdown. Yet Leo himself forced Hogan to resign altogether.

If I were Leo Id watch my back in that Fine Gael party, the last thing he needs now is an angry Big Phil Hogan seeking vengeance.

RandomName2

Muahahaha wrote: »

Only last summer Leo threw Phil Hogan under the bus even though Hogan wasnt under any Garda investigation for his golf tour of Ireland during lockdown. Yet Leo himself forced Hogan to resign altogether.

If I were Leo Id watch my back in that Fine Gael party, the last thing he needs now is an angry Big Phil Hogan seeking vengeance.

It's the boss' prerogative to fire, and generally they only do so when forced. Hogan and Cowen were sacked by Varadkar and Martin respectively, which they can do as party leaders. Martin however doesn't have as tight control over Fianna Fail as Varadkar has over Fine Gael, meaning that Cowen has made it clear he feels a different leader should be in charge.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

He didn't approve himself? Maybe he was in a fugue state (an interesting defense)

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that anything an acting Taoiseach does is automatically an official authorised act of the office of Taoiseach.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Quite correctly. I appreceiate that his schedule was hectic and the government was up to its eyes, but he should always have followed standard procedure in relation to this. The way he did it was unprofessional, and more importantly, looks underhand.

Was both unprofessional and underhanded. In fact, he apologised for the manner.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You're right. He provided the president of the National Association of General Practitioners a draft copy of the General Practitioner agreement for the head of the National Association of General Practitioners to consult. There is no angle that can change that.

Quite right. The NAGP were not involved in the negotiation and not privy to the confidential document. It was slipped/leaked to a pal.

Jim Root

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

You must be very simple.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

Intent is important.

From the whistleblower point of view you have to prove that they had legitimate concern of wrong doing. From the point of view of corruption you'd have to prove malintent. The same is largely true in terms of the Official Secrets Act, which basically says that it is okay to do so if it is '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.' Vardkar has some wriggle room there.

Moreover, so much for your expert. It defines a minister as

“Minister” means a member of the Government

So much of an expert that he couldn't google it.

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.

However! The act does specify that it is much better that that authorization be written down.

There you have it. The Gards opened a criminal investigation on Leo for something he was always allowed to do, but oddly enough apologised for doing.

And I am going to remind you for a final time that the apology was for the manner of disclosure, not the disclosure, which is an important distinction.

Untrue..

You must have missed this post of mine, here's a circle you can have lots of fun trying to square.

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!

RandomName2

Jim Root wrote: »

You must be very simple.

Your words, maestro:

In your opinion does this sin undue any perceived good he has done in office?

Does this sin undue?

Does this sin undue.

This is the most incomprehensible random series of words I have read today. I have read many questions written by people who aren't able to speak English and they have been far easier to understand.

Nevertheless my opinion on the matter is that sin is often undue in the second trimester, but can be perceived as perishable goods if.

blanch152

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's the boss' prerogative to fire, and generally they only do so when forced. Hogan and Cowen were sacked by Varadkar and Martin respectively, which they can do as party leaders. Martin however doesn't have as tight control over Fianna Fail as Varadkar has over Fine Gael, meaning that Cowen has made it clear he feels a different leader should be in charge.

Hogan was sacked by the President of the European Commission, not by Varadkar.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

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.

McMurphy wrote: »

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

Hardly. The end result is the NAGP getting the details of the contract. That is, the end result is 100% the same. If the only two people in the boardroom going over the contract were the president of NAGP and Varadkar then nothing changes other than optics. Same thing really if you swap out Varadkar and stick in Harris in his place.

The reason why it appears to change is that we assume that if something occurs in a boardroom that it is more open to scrutiny, when the opposite is true. Something that is recorded on something informally, like WhatsApp, has a far greater paper-trail than any boardroom meeting. However, we can at least assume that someone who is meeting in a boardroom is happy for scrutiny to take place, whereas one would assume the opposite for private correspondence.