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

shtpEdthePlum

McMurphy wrote: »

That's unfortunate for you.


His apology for leaking is a fairly important detail in the whole thread, and it is extremely "constructive" to discuss it.

You're trying to sell a pup "that Leo apologised for his method of leaking" rather than that he apologised for leaking it.

I'm going to hold off on a moderator telling posters to refrain from posting about his apology all the same.

If the method by which he leaked it was illegal (which it looks like it was), he's going to have a hard time defending himself, having publicly apologised for wrongdoing.

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

So if he called zero craic in, in a formal matter (formal is the complete and utter opposite of informal) to go through it line by line, he wouldn't be leaking it.

Yeah, anyone deliberately trying to misrepresent his apology as for his method, rather than for leaking it - period, is trying to sell a pup.

I'm quite happy to stand over that.

Bringing in O'Toole to walk him through the document line by line is still "leaking" the contents of the document. A document doesn't need to be handed over in hard copy for it to be a leak. So clearly he wasn't apologising for giving him the details, if his alternative solution was also giving him the details.

And his statement and comments in the Dail are clearly carefully worded in line with that.

Stand over all you want, doesn't mean you won't be corrected when it's inaccurate.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Bringing in O'Toole to walk him through the document line by line is still "leaking" the contents of the document. A document doesn't need to be handed over in hard copy for it to be a leak. So clearly he wasn't apologising for giving him the details, if his alternative solution was also giving him the details.

And his statement and comments in the Dail are clearly carefully worded in line with that.

Stand over all you want, doesn't mean you won't be corrected when it's inaccurate.

As I said you are being disingenuous (or are you implying Leo's apology was disingenuous?)

Leo's apologising for sharing information with OTuathail in an informal and underhanded way, IE - leaking it.

Isn't it mad how no pundits, be it on the radio/TV or journalist have interpreted it this way?

Just seems to be the yarn being spun on here.

McMurphy

It will make for spectacular entertainment if Leo uses this line of defence in court assuming it goes this far.

My client isn't sorry for the leak judge, just that he leaked it in an informal and underhanded way.

He realises now that he should have leaked this information to zero craic in a formal and transparent way.

Judge: WTF

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

As I said you are being disingenuous (or are you implying Leo's apology was disingenuous?)

Leo's apologising for sharing information with OTuathail in an informal and underhanded way, IE - leaking it.

Isn't it mad how no pundits, be it on the radio/TV or journalist have interpreted it this way?

Just seems to be the yarn being spun on here.

Sounds pretty implausible to me that someone would believe that Varadkar would apologise for sharing the contents with O'Toole and then 2 minutes later state how he alternatively would share the exact same contents with O'Toole at the exact same time.

Round and round and round we go. Nothing new until the outcome of the investigation. I’m out. Slán go fóill.

Bubbaclaus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Round and round and round we go. Nothing new until the outcome of the investigation. I’m out. Slán go fóill.

Yeah think I'm the same. Going around in circles is just pointless for all concerned.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

That's unfortunate for you.


His apology for leaking is a fairly important detail in the whole thread, and it is extremely "constructive" to discuss it.

You're trying to sell a pup "that Leo apologised for his method of leaking" rather than that he apologised for leaking it.

I'm going to hold off on a moderator telling posters to refrain from posting about his apology all the same.

Here are some answers given on the topic. If you choose to interpret the word manner as not meaning manner, but meaning something different instead, being told the same thing another dozen of times is not really likely to make any further progress.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116702036&postcount=8178
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116694394&postcount=8088
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116671003&postcount=7841
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116670663&postcount=7836
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116659368&postcount=7731
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116655033&postcount=7691

That's goign back a few weeks.

Just taking a guess here. I'd say that 'he appologized for giving the information to NoCraic' someone responds by saying 'no, he clearly sees nothing wrong with having given the information. See, here's a quote of him saying that he only finds the manner in which it was done was wrong.'

Has done the rounds about a dozen.. two dozen times on this thread.

You complain about this being pedanticism in one of your posts on the matter, but I would throw this right back at you.

The salient point is that Varadkar felt that NAGP should have had this information. There is never any point, as far as I'm aware, where he says he should not have provided O'Thuantail with this information.

You contest that 'manner' is indivisible from the provision of information in itself, which is fairly undermined by Varadkar saying that what he should have done was invite him to government buildings and go through the document with him line-by-line instead. You read into this, that he is saying more than he is actually saying on this point, whereas what he is actually saying is that there was nothing inherently wrong with providing the information to O'Thuanthail.

It consequently makes this a bit nonsensical to continue saying the same things on the matter. Neither is neither to change the other's mind.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

Here are some answers given on the topic. If you choose to interpret the word manner as not meaning manner, but meaning something different instead, being told the same thing another dozen of times is not really likely to make any further progress.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116702036&postcount=8178
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116694394&postcount=8088
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116671003&postcount=7841
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116670663&postcount=7836
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116659368&postcount=7731
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116655033&postcount=7691

That's goign back a few weeks.

Just taking a guess here. I'd say that 'he appologized for giving the information to NoCraic' someone responds by saying 'no, he clearly sees nothing wrong with having given the information. See, here's a quote of him saying that he only finds the manner in which it was done was wrong.'

Has done the rounds about a dozen.. two dozen times on this thread.

You complain about this being pedanticism in one of your posts on the matter, but I would throw this right back at you.

The salient point is that Varadkar felt that NAGP should have had this information. There is never any point, as far as I'm aware, where he says he should not have provided O'Thuantail with this information.

You contest that 'manner' is indivisible from the provision of information in itself, which is fairly undermined by Varadkar saying that what he should have done was invite him to government buildings and go through the document with him line-by-line instead. You read into this, that he is saying more than he is actually saying on this point, whereas what he is actually saying is that there was nothing inherently wrong with providing the information to O'Thuanthail.

It consequently makes this a bit nonsensical to continue saying the same things on the matter. Neither is neither to change the other's mind.

This specific part of his apology (which isn't really an apology according to some) makes it quite clear what he's apologised for, and to whom.

Some of you guys pick the oddest of hills to die on.

Leo Varadkar. wrote:

“I do regret it and I am sorry for the controversy and annoyance that my actions have caused including to members of the medical profession, the IMO, my colleagues in Government and to the House.”

He's specifically apologising to the IMO because he shared the details of the agreement made with them to Dr Zero Craic, the head of the rival organisation. Not because of how he shared it.

Mind you, it's an extraordinary thing to apologise for if he was always allowed to leak it anyway, and even stranger too that the Guards have initiated a full blown criminal investigation over something a Tanaiste did as Taoiseach, if he has always been authorised to do what he did all along anyway. I'm surprised no-one has even come out from Leo's legal corner claiming this from the beginning, would have cleared the whole thing up in one foul swoop so it would have. **;)**

In your and a few others heads Leo's apology might be "carefully crafted words" ie an apology that isn't really an apology. I suspect carefully crafted non apologies will butter no parsnips with the judge if it gets that far though.

happyoutscan

I'd imagine Leo seriously regrets apologising.

McMurphy

happyoutscan wrote: »

I'd imagine Leo seriously regrets apologising.

His script writers didn't cover every base it would seem.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

Some of you guys pick the oddest of hills to die on.

It is yourself who is going an entirely semantic examination of this.

Now while I would normally applaud an interrogation of the sources, I don't find the semantics actually back up your assertions, but more important is that most of this has already been covered earlier in the thread.

One issue is that from an entirely semantic point of view there is ambiguity in the statement that is impossible to resolve at this distance.

Technically the quote you use even in this post does not, again, back up your claim. This usually wouldn't be worth pointing out, but you are insisting upon a semantic evaluation. As you would say, a strange hill to die on.

Technically what he says is that he is sorry for the annoyance and controversy. That is, literally what he says. This means that, from a semantic point of view, he is sorry that the issue has blown up, got national focus, become an issue at all. It quite pointedly avoids providing an apology to the IMO for sharing the information, which makes sense, because to do so would be at odds with him saying that he should always have shared the information with the NAGP.

It is a legitimate position to say that this is not, in fact, an apology at all (although it of course is, in the classical sense at least): but you can hardly argue that, and the opposite, at the same time. Well, you can do whatever you like I suppose, but it would at least sound distinctly odd, if that's something that concerns you.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

It is yourself who is going an entirely semantic examination of this.

Now while I would normally applaud an interrogation of the sources, I don't find the semantics actually back up your assertions, but more important is that most of this has already been covered earlier in the thread.

One issue is that from an entirely semantic point of view there is ambiguity in the statement that is impossible to resolve at this distance.

Technically the quote you use even in this post does not, again, back up your claim. This usually wouldn't be worth pointing out, but you are insisting upon a semantic evaluation. As you would say, a strange hill to die on.

Technically what he says is that he is sorry for the annoyance and controversy. That is, literally what he says. This means that, from a semantic point of view, he is sorry that the issue has blown up, got national focus, become an issue at all. It quite pointedly avoids providing an apology to the IMO for sharing the information, which makes sense, because to do so would be at odds with him saying that he should always have shared the information with the NAGP.

It is a legitimate position to say that this is not, in fact, an apology at all (although it of course is, in the classical sense at least): but you can hardly argue that, and the opposite, at the same time. Well, you can do whatever you like I suppose, but it would at least sound distinctly odd, if that's something that concerns you.

It's a legitimate position to say it's not actually an apology, then in brackets say (of course it is) Is this not literally what you have just done here


I think you've now reached the point where you don't know where you stand on this yourself anymore there's been so much twisting.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

It's a legitimate position to say it's not actually an apology, then in brackets say (of course it is) Is this not literally what you have just done here

In the classical sense an apology is just a 'thought-out response'

Apologia literally means 'speaking in defense'.

Again, if we are getting into semantics and all

smurgen

McMurphy wrote: »

His script writers didn't cover every base it would seem.

Hopefully he'll get to use a mean girl quote or two when he visits the Gardai station.

skimpydoo

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Sounds pretty implausible to me that someone would believe that Varadkar would apologise for sharing the contents with O'Toole and then 2 minutes later state how he alternatively would share the exact same contents with O'Toole at the exact same time.

That's Leo for ya. Who knows what he will do next?

skimpydoo

smurgen wrote: »

Hopefully he'll get to use a mean girl quote or two when he visits the Gardai station.

Like this one?

I'm sorry that people are so jealous of me. But I can't help it that I'm popular.

Or this one?

Hell, no. I did *not* leave the South Side for this!

RandomName2

RandomName2 wrote: »

It does indeed.

I know that's not what you mean, but this is another tangent, and when the actual law is brought up and it doesn't suit the narrative, it's just ignored.

The law clearly states that trade unions discussing trade union matters that affect its members do not have to be registered as a lobbying motion. That makes most of Muahahaha's point above, junk.

And yes, NAGP was registered as a trade union.

I don't know what specific benefits there might be to registering a lobbying motion, but the law seems to suggest, in no uncertain terms, that registering a motion when having communications that relate to the employment/working conditions of a trade union's members, is entirely optional.

I see that SIPTU has had 92 lobbying motions recorded in the last 5 years.

I'm going to guess they contacted and received information from the government and state representatives a bit more than 92 times in 5 years however. And that's fine. That's protected under the law.

Trade unions are exempt from lobbying. Except they aren't. But they are. And anyone who disagrees is wrong as the act clearly says they're exempt. Except the act says they aren't exempt, only certain activities by them are exempt.

For someone who's incredibly condescending, it's laughable just how irrational your contributions are.

The actual Legislation is very clear, the only activity exempted is:

(f) communications forming part of, or directly related to, negotiations on terms and conditions of employment undertaken by representatives of a trade union on behalf of its members;

The NAGP was not engaged in negotiations on terms and conditions of employment, and it had no mandate (via a ballot or otherwise) to do such.

Please note that 'negotiation' and 'informal chats on how an actual negotiation between a rival trade union and the government would affect its members' are not the same thing. Please also note that 'trade union matters' are not exempted, only communications that form part of or are directly related to negotiations.



It's one thing to be wrong, it's another thing to be wrong while being this arrogant and condescending about it.

Muahahaha

RandomName2 wrote: »

It does indeed.

I know that's not what you mean, but this is another tangent, and when the actual law is brought up and it doesn't suit the narrative, it's just ignored.

The law clearly states that trade unions discussing trade union matters that affect its members do not have to be registered as a lobbying motion. That makes most of Muahahaha's point above, junk.

If my post is junk then tell is why did the NAGP register no less than 53 times that they lobbied the government? Its all there on the lobbyists register, emails, meetings and phone calls will many politicians. Have a read of it for yourself https://www.lobbying.ie/app/home/search?currentPage=0&pageSize=10&queryText=national%20association%20of%20general%20practitioners&subjectMatters=&subjectMatterAreas=&period=&returnDateFrom=&returnDateTo=&lobbyistId=&dpo=&publicBodys=&jobTitles=&client=

Your position is daft, on one hand you are claiming that they are not lobbyists yet the NAGP themselves think otherwise and duly registered themselves as lobbyists AND made no less than 53 returns onto the lobbyist register. Does not compute.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

Quoting from the legislation:

Communications forming part of, or directly related to, negotiations on terms and conditions of employment undertaken by representatives of a trade union on behalf of its members.

Communications forming part of, or directly related to: yes
negotiations on terms and conditions of employment: yes
undertaken by representatives of a trade union on behalf of its members: depends

It was expected that the members of that trade union would be signing up to those terms and conditions, though that same trade union had not negotiated those terms and conditions in the first place. The purpose of providing the information to the president of the NAGP has been specifically defined as being to aid in the convincing of those members of the union to accede to that agreement.

The spirit of the law is clearly to safeguard unions conducting union business. It would be a hard job to argue that the president of the NAGP did not represent the NAGP, nor that the GP agreement did not concern GPs who were members of that union.

Just as an aside, the law also specifies that communication does not have to be in a formal setting, but can be entirely informal.

Edit: Looking more closely at the legislation, it seems that O'Tuanthail's actions can only be considered lobbying if it was done on behalf of NAGP members, but lobbying performed by trade unions (and similar organizations) are afforded a great deal of protection in relation to communication on behalf of their members.

I'll finally say on this week's effort that Varadkar and zero craic were not negotiators and therefore not privy to the confidential document and zero craic was not a lobbyist with a right to view the confidential document.
What you are selling would mean anytime there's a negotiation anyone with an interest should get a copy of any confidential negotiation document. That is not the case.

Pintman Paddy Losty

https://twitter.com/dubslife1/status/1376240256341663752?s=19

I see the #leotheleak crowd have taken to abusing him while he's out walking now.

It's disappointing but unsurprising that there is homophobic abuse being levelled at him on twitter.

"Him and the lad on the way back from a cruising spot" "Looks like the two boys are taking cockdown very well" etc.

I'm sure the regulars here will claim that it's staged and really it's a YFG who did it. Anything but own the barely concealed veil of homophobia in people obsession with Varadkar.

Suckit

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

https://twitter.com/dubslife1/status/1376240256341663752?s=19

I see the #leotheleak crowd have taken to abusing him while he's out walking now.

It's disappointing but unsurprising that there is homophobic abuse being levelled at him on twitter.

"Him and the lad on the way back from a cruising spot" "Looks like the two boys are taking cockdown very well" etc.

I'm sure the regulars here will claim that it's staged and really it's a YFG who did it. Anything but own the barely concealed veil of homophobia in people obsession with Varadkar.

I haven't watched it yet.

I would say you were sitting there waiting for something like this to deflect, shout homophobia etc.. rubbing your hands when whatever this is appeared on your twitter feed.

Nothing at all to do with the leak. But what does that matter?



EDIT - FFS..

That is poor by any standards. Desperate attempt.

McMurphy

That lad called him "a useless wanker". I'm not seeing the homophobic angle you're going with paddy, is it only gays that can be useless and ****?

Your man was out of line, I wouldn't lower myself to be roaring at any politician in public, further still I'd definitely not be roaring "useless wanker" at them, but that aside - you're seeing homophobic abuse where there is none that I can see.

Suckit

The edit doesn't appear as 'edited' because the video is about 2 seconds long. Jaysus.

Nobotty

Muahahaha wrote: »

If my post is junk then tell is why did the NAGP register no less than 53 times that they lobbied the government? Its all there on the lobbyists register, emails, meetings and phone calls will many politicians. Have a read of it for yourself https://www.lobbying.ie/app/home/search?currentPage=0&pageSize=10&queryText=national%20association%20of%20general%20practitioners&subjectMatters=&subjectMatterAreas=&period=&returnDateFrom=&returnDateTo=&lobbyistId=&dpo=&publicBodys=&jobTitles=&client=

Because they were an amatuerish organisation run by an obvious pack of amatuers with,it seems from the nature of various leaked whatsapp's an extremely immature inexperienced and naive person IMO heading them who happened to be friendly with an equally naive Taoiseach
Naevity on both sides thats ruined a political career
Not to the detriment of the country mind you
The country is indebted to them both for the results of their stupidity,a quickening of Madam Taoiseach's election by the next Dáil

Pintman Paddy Losty

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

https://twitter.com/dubslife1/status/1376240256341663752?s=19

I see the #leotheleak crowd have taken to abusing him while he's out walking now.

It's disappointing but unsurprising that there is homophobic abuse being levelled at him on twitter.

"Him and the lad on the way back from a cruising spot" "Looks like the two boys are taking cockdown very well" etc.

I'm sure the regulars here will claim that it's staged and really it's a YFG who did it. Anything but own the barely concealed veil of homophobia in people obsession with Varadkar.

The video in question had no homophobic elements to it.

Of the 12 replies,

3 consisted of crying with laughter emojis
3 were negative tweets about the person shouting at Leo
1 was an ad for a charity
2 were negative about leo but didn't mention, refer to or imply anything about his sexuality
1 was a negative tweet about the act itself
1 was a comment that they thought he was under 24 hour armed protection
And the remaining one doesn't show up for me.

Why are you being misleading?

The only person so far that seems to be obsessed with Leo's sexuality is you.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

https://twitter.com/dubslife1/status/1376240256341663752?s=19

I see the #leotheleak crowd have taken to abusing him while he's out walking now.

It's disappointing but unsurprising that there is homophobic abuse being levelled at him on twitter.

"Him and the lad on the way back from a cruising spot" "Looks like the two boys are taking cockdown very well" etc.

I'm sure the regulars here will claim that it's staged and really it's a YFG who did it. Anything but own the barely concealed veil of homophobia in people obsession with Varadkar.

Nice try, 1 out out 10!

Bubbaclaus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The video in question had no homophobic elements to it.

Of the 12 replies,

3 consisted of crying with laughter emojis
3 were negative tweets about the person shouting at Leo
1 was an ad for a charity
2 were negative about leo but didn't mention, refer to or imply anything about his sexuality
1 was a negative tweet about the act itself
1 was a comment that they thought he was under 24 hour armed protection
And the remaining one doesn't show up for me.

Why are you being misleading?

The only person so far that seems to be obsessed with Leo's sexuality is you.

Pretty sure he is on about these types of tweets.

https://twitter.com/_boyscrytoo/status/1376251349906681857?s=19

Pintman Paddy Losty

Read the quote tweets lads. I'm not making it up. There's a very sinister element to the way he is attacked.

Bubbaclaus

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Pretty sure he is on about these types of tweets.

https://twitter.com/_boyscrytoo/status/1376251349906681857?s=19

Cool, I went through the 15 quote tweets now too:


9 are crying with laughter emojis
1 said they should have stopped and asked him some questions
1 said "Looks like the two boys are taking cockdown very well."
1 said "Him and the lad on the way back from the cruising spot"
1 commented on his boyfriends socks
& 2 were random comments

So that's 2 tweets out of 27 (i'm unsure if cockdown is actually a compliment, but will assume it's a slur). Sure does prove that he's being targeted and harassed out of a thinly-veiled homophobic obsession with him and not because of his behaviour and actions.