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

Jinglejangle69

jmcc wrote: »

He admitted to leaking a confidential document to a friend. He led FG to one of its worst electoral defeats ever. He has destroyed the FG reputation, however misplaced, for decency and honourability.

He is an asset to SF. His actions led to SF beating FG in the GE. He allowed Charlie Flanagan and his attempt top commemorate the Black and Tans drag FG from around 30% in the opinion polls in late 2019 to just 20% in the GE.

The more you FGers try to minimise his actions in leaking the confidential document to his friend the worse you are making it. People are tired of the spectacle of middle aged man acting like a schoolgirl on Social Media rather than a politician. And it is damaging FG. But by all means, continue to help SF gain in the polls by not dealing with the Varadkar problem yourselves.

Regards...jmcc

You're missing my point.

People have made up their minds about him and the DPP will decide if charges are brought.

This thread is an echo chamber at this stage and your post shows it.

You're just having another rant at Leo for the sake of it referring to issues that have nothing to do with the thread title.

Have a good Monday, I really would find it depressing arguing here all day going over the same ground.

Enjoy.

jmcc

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Most people have made their minds up about him at this stage.

So what do you think of him and the damage he has inflicted on FG? Still think he is a good leader or did you vote for Coveney as leader in the leadership vote? How many of the other FG supporters here voted for Coveney? And would this kind of a mess have happened under a Coveney leadership?

Regards...jmcc

Beechwoodspark

Just as a casual observer It’s a bit sinister how the tanaiste has repeated on a number of occasions now that he thinks this will all go away quietly

A hint of a threat there...

Surely better to Let the guards and dpp etc do their job. Stay quiet until this is resolved and then make a statement if need be.

Beechwoodspark

Fann Linn wrote: »

Or one gob****e shouting at two lads out for a walk Paddy.

This sums it up. It was a rude, mindless stupid comment but unfortunately this happens to people in the public eye a lot

I saw Marty Morrisey get the dogs abuse (personalised rude comments) from people passing in their cars a few years ago

It happens

Beechwoodspark

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

It's not surprising to see the usual suspects either playing down the abuse, or excusing it entirely, implying Varadkar deserves it or brought it on himself.

It's very revealing to be honest.

Unfortunately paddy, politicians in the public eye have been on the receiving end of public anger for at least 10-15 years now.

The public are very angry over a multitude of issues.

I disagree with much of the manifestations of the anger but it ain’t going away any time soon I fear pintman

RandomName2

jmcc wrote: »

Fascinating how the the FG supporting media are trying to change the narrative from Varadkar being under criminal investigation to Varardkar getting homophobic abuse. The same attempt to distract from Varadkar being under criminal investigation is evident here. The McEntee puff piece appeared in the ironically named "Sunday Independent", didn't it? No doubt this and the Varadkar homophobic abuse will be pushed as talking points for the media today.

Regards...jmcc

I dunno. It's a change I suppose.

While I'd rather be for letting this story die a death (until the police investigation has completed), at least it isn't repeating the same thing repeating the same thing, again and again and again, just because someone wants to ensure they are being heard.

RandomName2

Deleted User wrote: »

For someone who's incredibly condescending

Takes one to know one

Cutting out the waffle from your reply (I always find the gas-lighting of 'oh you are so irrational' one of the weaker types of argument)

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I was actually waiting for someone to bring this up. Much stronger than the 'explain for the 20th time what manner means' position.

There is a bit of ambiguity here. The communications were definitely in relation to negotiations. Not the NAGP's negotiations, to be sure, but ones that would impact their own members. So really one has to make a judgement about which is more important in the context of the law: the union members who are represented by NAGP in this context, or the negotiators (well Varadkar was a negotiator, but that's not relevant in this context I think).

The most important thing in relation to this is if a precedent has been set. The reading of the law by courts determines a lot in relation to this, but I'm not sure that something like this has ever been brought before them.

One of the reason why it may never have gone before them is that a lot of relevant scenarios are already covered by existing corruption legislation. If you can prove corruption, this piss-ant argument concerning lobbying becomes irrelevant.

Loafing Oaf

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I saw Marty Morrisey get the dogs abuse (personalised rude comments) from people passing in their cars a few years ago

Was it this guy?



Shame Claire Byrne wasn't there to mute him...

blanch152

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.

Why not? It has been done many times on here before. We even had individual posts which contradicted themselves in the following sentence.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Missed this yesterday.

Benefit, advantage or financial gain is assumed, and it is up to the defendant in a case to disprove it, as outlined in this legal opinion:



So if the file that goes to the DPP includes evidence that Varadkar did it for political advantage then it is up to him to prove otherwise.

https://www.dppireland.ie/app/uploads/2019/03/Directors_Speech_at_Burren_Law_School_-_1_May_2010.pdf

Oh dear, oh dear. You are relying on a 2010 interpretation of an Act that was repealed in full in 2018!!!! Yes, the act referred to in the Directors Speech at Burren Law School is no longer law in Ireland. Hilarious.

It was replaced by the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (CORRUPTION OFFENCES) ACT 2018. This section of that Act sets out in full those acts that have been repealed:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

I think it is safe to say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Here is the full Act:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

The relevant sections of the Act are:

"An Irish official who uses confidential information obtained in the course of his or her office, employment, position or business for the purpose of corruptly obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage for himself or herself or for any other person shall be guilty of an offence."

Section 14 relates to presumption. However, subsection (3) of that Section limits the applicability of Section 14. Good luck if you want to make an argument that Section 14 applies.

So, to sum up, the court case would have to prove the following:

(1) the information was confidential (and that the Taoiseach of the day could not declassify it). Interestingly, confidential isn't defined in the Act.
(2) the Taoiseach acted corruptly (defined in the Act as "“corruptly” includes acting with an improper purpose personally or by influencing another person,")
(3) there was an advantage to the Taoiseach in doing so (again advantage is not defined in the legislation)

I still hold to my view that there will not be a prosecution.

Rows Grower

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear. You are relying on a 2010 interpretation of an Act that was repealed in full in 2018!!!! Yes, the act referred to in the Directors Speech at Burren Law School is no longer law in Ireland. Hilarious.

It was replaced by the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (CORRUPTION OFFENCES) ACT 2018. This section of that Act sets out in full those acts that have been repealed:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

I think it is safe to say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Here is the full Act:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

The relevant sections of the Act are:

"An Irish official who uses confidential information obtained in the course of his or her office, employment, position or business for the purpose of corruptly obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage for himself or herself or for any other person shall be guilty of an offence."

Section 14 relates to presumption. However, subsection (3) of that Section limits the applicability of Section 14. Good luck if you want to make an argument that Section 14 applies.

So, to sum up, the court case would have to prove the following:

(1) the information was confidential (and that the Taoiseach of the day could not declassify it). Interestingly, confidential isn't defined in the Act.
(2) the Taoiseach acted corruptly (defined in the Act as "“corruptly” includes acting with an improper purpose personally or by influencing another person,")
(3) there was an advantage to the Taoiseach in doing so (again advantage is not defined in the legislation)

I still hold to my view that there will not be a prosecution.

His goose is cooked I'd say.

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

Youve missed the point, Leo knew he was being lobbied by O'Tuathill to try to get the GP contract. All Leo had to do was look up the Lobbyists Register and he would have seen that O'Tuathill was not a registered lobbyist, therefore he couldnt legally lobby him as per legislation. I would have thought that the Taoiseach of the day would be smart enough to ensure he wasnt being lobbied by someone who was breaking the law, if only for the purposes of avoiding political scandal further down the road. Its pretty simple due diligence for a politician not to be getting involved in something that could later blow back on them.

But of course we all know that o'Tuathill was seen as Varadkar as a friend rather than a lobbyist. He wasnt even bothered to make sure that anyone lobbying him was legally permitted to do so. He's got six special advisors on massive salaries and not one of them thought to do this most basic of due diligence either. It really speaks to the culture at play here, they all knew that the legislation for lobbyists exists but they couldnt care less about it.

It doesn't work like that. Lobbying happens all day every day.

https://www.lobbying.ie/media/6270/regulation-of-lobbying-annual-report-2019-final-web.pdf

There are over 3,000 returns per quarter. Most of these are organisations with multiple employees engaged in lobbying. No Minister or Taoiseach is going to check through 3,000 returns when they get a phonecall, email or text that the person is registered.

That is just silliness.

thomas 123

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear. You are relying on a 2010 interpretation of an Act that was repealed in full in 2018!!!! Yes, the act referred to in the Directors Speech at Burren Law School is no longer law in Ireland. Hilarious.

It was replaced by the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (CORRUPTION OFFENCES) ACT 2018. This section of that Act sets out in full those acts that have been repealed:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

I think it is safe to say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Here is the full Act:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

The relevant sections of the Act are:

"An Irish official who uses confidential information obtained in the course of his or her office, employment, position or business for the purpose of corruptly obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage for himself or herself or for any other person shall be guilty of an offence."

Section 14 relates to presumption. However, subsection (3) of that Section limits the applicability of Section 14. Good luck if you want to make an argument that Section 14 applies.

So, to sum up, the court case would have to prove the following:

(1) the information was confidential (and that the Taoiseach of the day could not declassify it). Interestingly, confidential isn't defined in the Act.
(2) the Taoiseach acted corruptly (defined in the Act as "“corruptly” includes acting with an improper purpose personally or by influencing another person,")
(3) there was an advantage to the Taoiseach in doing so (again advantage is not defined in the legislation)

I still hold to my view that there will not be a prosecution.

Because they are not defined would mean the judges interpretation would be key.

There likely is a formal declassification process which was not followed - or else that would have been the end of this.

On your last point I’d imagine the advantage could go both ways - if it was advantageous to tut then Leo should still be culpable as if he gained from it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear. You are relying on a 2010 interpretation of an Act that was repealed in full in 2018!!!! Yes, the act referred to in the Directors Speech at Burren Law School is no longer law in Ireland. Hilarious.

It was replaced by the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (CORRUPTION OFFENCES) ACT 2018. This section of that Act sets out in full those acts that have been repealed:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

I think it is safe to say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Here is the full Act:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

The relevant sections of the Act are:

"An Irish official who uses confidential information obtained in the course of his or her office, employment, position or business for the purpose of corruptly obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage for himself or herself or for any other person shall be guilty of an offence."

Section 14 relates to presumption. However, subsection (3) of that Section limits the applicability of Section 14. Good luck if you want to make an argument that Section 14 applies.

So, to sum up, the court case would have to prove the following:

(1) the information was confidential (and that the Taoiseach of the day could not declassify it). Interestingly, confidential isn't defined in the Act.
(2) the Taoiseach acted corruptly (defined in the Act as "“corruptly” includes acting with an improper purpose personally or by influencing another person,")
(3) there was an advantage to the Taoiseach in doing so (again advantage is not defined in the legislation)

I still hold to my view that there will not be a prosecution.

Presumption and burden of proof on the defendant is STILL the same.

Section 14 sets out a presumption of corruption for gifts, considerations or advantage. It states that where a gift, consideration or advantage has been given to an official and the person who gave the gift had an interest in the discharge by the official of their functions there will be a shift in the burden of proof and the advantage will be presumed to have been given and received corruptly unless the contrary is proven.

https://hayes-solicitors.ie/News/The-Criminal-Justice--Corruption-Offences--Act-2018-

If accused by the DPP of receiving an advantage, Varadkar will have to prove he didn't.

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

The CEO of the NAGP Chris Goodey doesnt seem to think so, he registered himself as a lobbyist and made several returns anytime he did any lobbying on behalf of the NAGP. The NAGP lobbied the government 53 times during their short existance so there are multiple entries there showing them meeting lots of politicians. They saw themselves as lobbyists and therefore logged their lobbying activity as per the law.

O'Tuathill was lobbying both Simon Harris and Varadkar on behalf of the NAGP but he didnt even register as a lobbyist dont mind make any actual returns. Which would mean he is in breach of the Register of Lobbyists Act. Didnt he say on Twitter that he is thinking of emigrating to Australia? The Gardai might have something to say about that.

That again depends on what they were lobbying about. For example, SIPTU have made 97 returns on the lobbying register from areas around budgetary matters to housing, health and transport. They are only exempt in relation to issues around employment terms and conditions. So the NAGP probably did lobby about lots of things.

https://www.lobbying.ie/app/home/search?currentPage=0&pageSize=10&queryText=siptu&subjectMatters=&subjectMatterAreas=&period=&returnDateFrom=&returnDateTo=&lobbyistId=&dpo=&publicBodys=&jobTitles=&client=

thomas 123

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't work like that. Lobbying happens all day every day.

https://www.lobbying.ie/media/6270/regulation-of-lobbying-annual-report-2019-final-web.pdf

There are over 3,000 returns per quarter. Most of these are organisations with multiple employees engaged in lobbying. No Minister or Taoiseach is going to check through 3,000 returns when they get a phonecall, email or text that the person is registered.

That is just silliness.

Pity he doesn’t have reams of staff to do that for him.

FrancieBrady

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Unfortunately paddy, politicians in the public eye have been on the receiving end of public anger for at least 10-15 years now.

The public are very angry over a multitude of issues.

I disagree with much of the manifestations of the anger but it ain’t going away any time soon I fear pintman

Much longer than 10-15 years. Politicians have always been shouted at and abused. Charlie Haughey was attacked several times, here in 1981.

https://www.rte.ie/archives/2016/0519/789604-paint-thrown-at-haughey/

It's not right and never is, but to say it is unique is totally wrong.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Presumption and burden of proof on the defendant is STILL the same.



https://hayes-solicitors.ie/News/The-Criminal-Justice--Corruption-Offences--Act-2018-

If accused by the DPP of receiving an advantage, Varadkar will have to prove he didn't.

From your own link:

"Section 14 sets out a presumption of corruption for gifts, considerations or advantage. It states that where a gift, consideration or advantage has been given to an official and the person who gave the gift had an interest in the discharge by the official of their functions there will be a shift in the burden of proof and the advantage will be presumed to have been given and received corruptly unless the contrary is proven."

The first step is to demonstrate that Section 14 applies and that subsection (3) in particular applies. Secondly, you have to prove there was a gift, consideration or advantage given to the Taoiseach. It is not sufficient that the DPP accuse the then Taoiseach of receiving an advantage, they have to prove it. Once proven, the Taoiseach has to prove it wasn't given corruptly.

You have got it wrong again.

blanch152

thomas 123 wrote: »

Pity he doesn’t have reams of staff to do that for him.

I can picture it now.

Phone rings.
Taoiseach answers.

"Hello"
"Good morning Taoiseach, hope your Saturday is going well, This is Joe McJoe from the society of Grasscutters and I want to seek your help in changing the law so that the local authorities change the required grasscutting height"
"Hang on a minute there Joe, while I check whether the Society of Grasscutters and you are registered for lobbying"



Yeah right.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

From your own link:

"Section 14 sets out a presumption of corruption for gifts, considerations or advantage. It states that where a gift, consideration or advantage has been given to an official and the person who gave the gift had an interest in the discharge by the official of their functions there will be a shift in the burden of proof and the advantage will be presumed to have been given and received corruptly unless the contrary is proven."

The first step is to demonstrate that Section 14 applies and that subsection (3) in particular applies. Secondly, you have to prove there was a gift, consideration or advantage given to the Taoiseach. It is not sufficient that the DPP accuse the then Taoiseach of receiving an advantage, they have to prove it. Once proven, the Taoiseach has to prove it wasn't given corruptly.

You have got it wrong again.

'Your honour, the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage for his party in return for releasing a confidential government secret. Namely, the support of the organisation represented by Mr O'Toole'

Judge: How speak you Mr Varadkar.................

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Your honour, the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage for his party in return for releasing a confidential government secret. Namely, the support of the organisation represented by Mr O'Toole'

Judge: How speak you Mr Varadkar.................

Wrong again.

'Your honour, the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage for his party in return for releasing a confidential government secret. Namely, the support of the organisation represented by Mr O'Toole'

Judge: Do you have proof of political advantage? If not, get out of my court, and stop maligning the good name of the defendant.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Wrong again.

'Your honour, the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage for his party in return for releasing a confidential government secret. Namely, the support of the organisation represented by Mr O'Toole'

Judge: Do you have proof of political advantage? If not, get out of my court, and stop maligning the good name of the defendant.

there will be a shift in the burden of proof and the advantage will be presumed to have been given and received corruptly unless the contrary is proven."

McMurphy

All of a sudden the narrative changed.

No longer are we discussing the document that wasn't really confidential, and Leo was always allowed to leak it at his own discretion, as he had given himself permission in his own head.

Now it seems to be accepted that the documents were indeed confidential, and Leo hypothetically will be arguing the fact in court, about him having/having not any advantage in doing so.

Progress.

thomas 123

blanch152 wrote: »

I can picture it now.

Phone rings.
Taoiseach answers.

"Hello"
"Good morning Taoiseach, hope your Saturday is going well, This is Joe McJoe from the society of Grasscutters and I want to seek your help in changing the law so that the local authorities change the required grasscutting height"
"Hang on a minute there Joe, while I check whether the Society of Grasscutters and you are registered for lobbying"



Yeah right.

You see he wouldn’t be answering the phone(otherwise all he would do is answer phones) - but in this case it was through his personal channels(mobile phone probably) - political position used for personal gain through personal media.

Keep digging though blanch

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

All of a sudden the narrative changed.

No longer are we discussing the document that wasn't really confidential, and Leo was always allowed to leak it at his own discretion, as he had given himself permission in his own head.

Now it seems to be accepted that the documents were indeed confidential, and Leo hypothetically will be arguing the fact in court, about him having/having not any advantage in doing so.

Progress.

Well there's actually two separate arguments, one relates to the official secrets act, the other to corruption. There's some overlap but they are distinct, in particular in terms of the secrecy of the data involved. To this end corruption legislation places a far lighter burden. Its focus is instead on material gain.

There was some attempts to shift the narrative to include ideas concerning lobbying which was interesting, but ultimately not that relevant I think. Official Secrets and Corruption are far more important than reading between the lines in relation to lobbying.

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

All of a sudden the narrative changed.

No longer are we discussing the document that wasn't really confidential, and Leo was always allowed to leak it at his own discretion, as he had given himself permission in his own head.

Now it seems to be accepted that the documents were indeed confidential, and Leo hypothetically will be arguing the fact in court, about him having/having not any advantage in doing so.

Progress.

The interpretations of the legislation on this thread have been way off the mark since this started.
The legislation was 'interpreted'/slanted to say that this would go away in a week/the Gardai would not proceed because... etc etc etc.

We are now at the last barricade it seems.

'The 'legislation' will ensure this doesn't make it into court'

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well there's actually two separate arguments, one relates to the official secrets act, the other to corruption. There's some overlap but they are distinct, in particular in terms of the secrecy of the data involved. To this end corruption legislation places a far lighter burden. Its focus is instead on material gain.

There was some attempts to shift the narrative to include ideas concerning lobbying which was interesting, but ultimately not that relevant I think. Official Secrets and Corruption are far more important than reading between the lines in relation to lobbying.

You have put the word 'material' in there and it is not just material gain. Read the legislation, it clearly says:

either directly or indirectly corruptly offering/giving or corruptly requesting/accepting “a gift, consideration or advantage

jmcc

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well there's actually two separate arguments, one relates to the official secrets act, the other to corruption. There's some overlap but they are distinct, in particular in terms of the secrecy of the data involved. To this end corruption legislation places a far lighter burden. Its focus is instead on material gain.

There was some attempts to shift the narrative to include ideas concerning lobbying which was interesting, but ultimately not that relevant I think. Official Secrets and Corruption are far more important than reading between the lines in relation to lobbying.

Wasn't there a letter to Martin Heydon (?) outlining the effects of MO'T's organisation campaigning against FG?

Regards...jmcc

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Your honour, the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage for his party in return for releasing a confidential government secret. Namely, the support of the organisation represented by Mr O'Toole'

Judge: How speak you Mr Varadkar.................

'You honor the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage by reducing taxation, thereby increasing support for his party. We can clearly demonstrate this by looking at polling conducted before and after the announcement, which was made through a journalist friendly to the then Taoiseach.'

Judge: How speak you Mr Varadkar

Varadkar: literally all actions of a politician have a bearing on their public popularity. The legislation is clearly related principally to the idea of personal political gain, which the journalist in this case had no power to provide, even were he willing to do so. He is a friend, but not a close friend. The information provided in relation to taxation had been discussed at length with myself and Pascal Donohoe. I didn't tell the minister I was disclosing this to the press prior to his official announcement, but I contend that it was already public knowledge that there were going to be tax decreases for middle income families, and greater detail of these matters were, I contend, for the public good.

'The journalist might have asked everyone in the office to vote for Fine Gael though.'

'And what if he did? They could vote anyway they would choose either way. There is a private ballot you know. The journalist was often called Bluey by his colleagues for a reason, and it wasn't entirely good natured.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

'You honor the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage by reducing taxation, thereby increasing support for his party. We can clearly demonstrate this by looking at polling conducted before and after the announcement, which was made through a journalist friendly to the then Taoiseach.'

Judge: How speak you Mr Varadkar

Varadkar: literally all actions of a politician have a bearing on their public popularity. The legislation is clearly related principally to the idea of personal political gain, which the journalist in this case had no power to provide, even were he willing to do so. He is a friend, but not a close friend. The information provided in relation to taxation had been discussed at length with myself and Pascal Donohoe. I didn't tell the minister I was disclosing this to the press prior to his official announcement, but I contend that it was already public knowledge that there were going to be tax decreases for middle income families, and greater detail of these matters were, I contend, for the public good.

'The journalist might have asked everyone in the office to vote for Fine Gael though.'

'And what if he did? They could vote anyway they would choose either way. There is a private ballot you know. The journalist was often called Bluey by his colleagues for a reason, and it wasn't entirely good natured.

What?

Reducing taxation is not illegal.

Argument over, come back when you wish to genuinely debate the issue.