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

shatners bassoon

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the DPP presents the correspondence as 'evidence' of advantage promised then that 'advantage' is presumed and Varadkar has to prove it wasn't recieved.

That is why he's on a sticky wicket if that is the charge.

That's not correct. The DPP need to prove that Leo obtained an advantage.

If they do: "the gift, consideration or advantage shall be presumed to have been given and received corruptly as an inducement to, or reward for, or otherwise on account of, that official doing an act in relation to the performance of any of those functions, unless the contrary is proved."

Nobotty

McMurphy wrote: »

I'd argue you were.

I stand by my comments on the daily mail,its owned by a Brexiteer that hates vradakar for very different reasons to you
Strange bedfellows for you indeed

I said at the time Debbie McCann had great contacts within the Gardai, .

Now,how might you know that now
Regardless of who is telling her what,it doesnt change a thing
Come back to me when they're prosecuting

McMurphy

Nobotty wrote: »

I stand by my comments on the daily mail,its owned by a Brexiteer that hates vradakar for very different reasons to you
Strange bedfellows for you indeed

Who owns the paper had absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of McCanns story at the time, which you scoffed at, denied scoffing at, and are now back throwing mud at who owns the paper, which has diddly squat to do with the accuracy of the article at the time.

Now,how might you know that now
Regardless of who is telling her what,it doesnt change a thing

Because a quick Google would confirm it. She's a crime correspondent and was called on by Gardai at the disclosures tribunal.

Come back to me when they're prosecuting

Tbf, I think my record of envisaging how this will possibly pan out has been head and shoulders above your's. Stop trying to give the impression you've a finger on the pulse here nobotty, licking your finger and holding it up to the wind would be a better description.

"Get back to me when theirs a prosecution" is the last hurdle now?

Nobotty

McMurphy wrote: »

Who owns the paper had absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of McCanns story at the time, which you scoffed at, denied scoffing at, and are now back throwing mud at who owns the paper, which has diddly squat to do with the accuracy of the article at the time.

you're awful fond of giving your opinion as if it were fact
I dont do that

Because a quick Google would confirm it. She's a crime correspondent and was called on by Gardai at the disclosures tribunal.

Thats no proof of what you asserted

Tbf, I think my record of envisaging how this will possibly pan out has been head and shoulders above yours. Stop trying to give the impression you've a finger on the pulse here nobotty, setting your finger and holding it up to the wind would be a better description.

The prosecution is the last hurdle now.

Ah now,this is just spoofing that your opinion is fact
Thats not what I'm doing,on the contrary....
I accept your opinion as yours,perhaps you could stop deriding mine because I'm convinced you're either going to be disappointed when theres no prosecution or you'll find some other band wagon albeit with less orgasm probably
My feeling is the latter knowing these threads
Meanwhile 2 more years of leo as head of cabinet is whats in front of us from 2022 before Madam Taoiseach takes over
I'm very excited for a few years of that in this place
Should be fascinating

Nobotty

jmcc wrote: »

Complicated by the fact that Varadkar admitted leaking the document to his friend.

Regards...jmcc

Thats actually not a complication at all to the investigation,Id imagine its a help as they know that they only have to concentrate on whether a law was broken because if they find one broken,they have an admission
Find crime first,then prosecute
Thats the process and obviously so it should be
Plenty of commentary or speculation in this thread on whether there was a crime or not
I've just one important point to make or to re make,I'm in the vradakar shouldnt have done this camp
Im just not buying the orgasmic powders some of ye are taking because I feel the process will burn out once the gardaí have ran its course

skimpydoo

blanch152 wrote: »

Based on the information in the public domain, there is no case. There might well be wasted Garda time.

That's what Leo cheerleaders said last year and yet we are still here. What will it take for you to change your tune?

If he is charged will you claim he has not been found guilty yet?

To charge him means the DPP and the Guards have a good case against him.

RandomName2

Nobotty wrote: »

I stand by my comments on the daily mail,its owned by a Brexiteer that hates vradakar for very different reasons to you
Strange bedfellows for you indeed

I think it's probably better to take each journalist and article as they come.

McMurphy is one for dismissing anything written by a journalist from the Independent as propaganda that doesn't merit any scrutiny of any kind.

I rarely find that writing off an entire wing of media is useful. Even Russia Today produces useful and sometimes inciteful pieces, and that is one of the most partisan media outlets in the world.

McMurphy

Nobotty wrote: »

you're awful fond of giving your opinion as if it were fact
I dont do that

I wasn't giving an opinion, I quoted what was being reported in a newspaper, that's not "my opinion" it was being reported in a newspaper article at the time, and it would then turn out McCann was a fortnight ahead of the rest, and spot on too. As I predicted at the time.

Thats no proof of what you asserted

I'm sorry I don't have screenshots of Debbie McCanns phone or her diary no. She's a crime correspondent, was called upon by AGS at the disclosures tribunal, and if my memory serves me correctly, isn't her father a former high ranking member of the force?

Ah now,this is just spoofing that your opinion is fact
Thats not what I'm doing,on the contrary....
I accept your opinion as yours,perhaps you could stop deriding mine because I'm convinced you're either going to be disappointed when theres no prosecution or you'll find some other band wagon albeit with less orgasm probably
My feeling is the latter knowing these threads
Meanwhile 2 more years of leo as head of cabinet is whats in front of us from 2022 before Madam Taoiseach takes over
I'm very excited for a few years of that in this place
Should be fascinating

All irrelevant and have no idea why you're even posting it.

Brendan Bendar

McMurphy wrote: »

I wasn't giving an opinion, I quoted what was being reported in a newspaper, that's not "my opinion" it was being reported in a newspaper article at the time, and it would then turn out McCann was a fortnight ahead of the rest, and spot on too. As I predicted at the time.


I'm sorry I don't have screenshots of Debbie McCanns phone or her diary no. She's a crime correspondent, was called upon by AGS at the disclosures tribunal, and if my memory serves me correctly, isn't her father a former high ranking member of the force?







All irrelevant and have no idea why you're even posting it.

That’s unusual...

elperello

skimpydoo wrote: »

That's what Leo cheerleaders said last year and yet we are still here. What will it take for you to change your tune?

If he is charged will you claim he has not been found guilty yet?

To charge him means the DPP and the Guards have a good case against him.

This thread is full of partisan posters.

Of course if someone is charged they have not been found guilty. How could it be otherwise?

A charge means no such thing. All charges must be tested in court.

There is no hierarchy of cases.

skimpydoo

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think it's probably better to take each journalist and article as they come.

McMurphy is one for dismissing anything written by a journalist from the Independent as propaganda that doesn't merit any scrutiny of any kind.

I rarely find that writing off an entire wing of media is useful. Even Russia Today produces useful and sometimes inciteful pieces, and that is one of the most partisan media outlets in the world.

Sadly a lot of propaganda puff pieces can be found in the Independent. Eoghan Harris, Shane Coleman, and Hugh O'Connell spring to mind. But on the other hand, Gene Kerrigan is a great journalist.

I tend to look at more than just the media outlet. I also look at the journalist and see what they wrote in the past.

skimpydoo

elperello wrote: »

This thread is full of partisan posters.

Of course if someone is charged they have not been found guilty. How could it be otherwise?

A charge means no such thing. All charges must be tested in court.

There is no hierarchy of cases.

A charge means they are fairly confident of getting a conviction especially one this big. They won't be taking any chances.

elperello

skimpydoo wrote: »

A charge means they are fairly confident of getting a conviction especially one this big. They won't be taking any chances.

But you said a charge meant they had a good case.

skimpydoo

elperello wrote: »

But you said a charge meant they had a good case.

It's the same thing and you know it.

RandomName2

shatners bassoon wrote: »

That's not correct. The DPP need to prove that Leo obtained an advantage.

If they do: "the gift, consideration or advantage shall be presumed to have been given and received corruptly as an inducement to, or reward for, or otherwise on account of, that official doing an act in relation to the performance of any of those functions, unless the contrary is proved."

Offering a contract to a large union. Making sure noone but that union is open to being offered that contract? Even when there's a major competitor to that union, they are frozen out of the contract bid? All the union members of the IMO would presumably be voting for Fine Gael in the wake of being offered this contract. :pac:

Hell there's your corruption right there. :rolleyes:

I mean it's a stronger argument than what's being put forward here.

Nobotty

McMurphy wrote: »

I wasn't giving an opinion, I quoted what was being reported in a newspaper, that's not "my opinion" it was being reported in a newspaper article at the time, and it would then turn out McCann was a fortnight ahead of the rest, and spot on too. As I predicted at the time.

I'd say now,you should go back to opinion school and revisit what an opinion is
You gave her reporting to support yours
Thats actually a fact

I'm sorry I don't have screenshots of Debbie McCanns phone or her diary no. She's a crime correspondent, was called upon by AGS at the disclosures tribunal, and if my memory serves me correctly, isn't her father a former high ranking member of the force?

Irrelevant

All irrelevant and have no idea why you're even posting it.

I'm giving my opinion,which I'm getting the strong impression you don't like,which is,the only reason this investigation would go to the DPP to decide what is going to be the outcome I have predicted all along,that theres no crime is because lower down want higher up to handle the sensitivity
We'll see who is right on the outcome,who wants to sell papers and who is disappointed or who moves on to some new bandwagon
Nothing wrong with any of those things playing out
But definitely come back to me when they have concluded ,if Im hopefully busy elsewhere

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

Offering a contract to a large union. Making sure noone but that union is open to being offered that contract? Even when there's a major competitor to that union, they are frozen out of the contract bid? All the union members of the IMO would presumably be voting for Fine Gael in the wake of being offered this contract. :pac:

Hell there's your corruption right there. :rolleyes:

I mean it's a stronger argument than what's being put forward here.

No it's not. You've an opinion that the NAGP were hard done by and the IMO given unfair advantage, which is irrelevant and a nonsense.
The IMO were negotiating. A Union negotiate for itself they don't speak for all unions.

Ó Tuathail was under pressure from the membership. He leaned on Leo who 'always comes through' for the inside scoop citing loss of support among the membership. Leo obliged.
It didn't pan out.

Mr Goodey said the report was scheduled to go before the NGAP’s forthcoming annual meeting for ratification. He suggested the concerns raised by the council related to the worsening financial position of the organisation and the reduction in revenue over recent weeks.

The NAGP, which was not involved in direct negotiations with the Government on the new deal for general practice, said many GPs were waiting to see the details of the new offer before they renewed their membership subscription.

We have this little nugget which show's Varadkar knew it wasn't published when he passed it to his pal:

“The agreement will be in the car when you arrive in Baldonnel this evening. Health have been in contact to say that there are still exchanges with the IMO on some language in the document, so there may be minor differences in the final document.” Mr Varadkar responded and asked “wondering when they are going to publish it/release it to members?” to which he was told: “health are just seeking an update on this.”

elperello

skimpydoo wrote: »

It's the same thing and you know it.

It definitely is not, of that I am sure.

I also know that second guessing legal cases is an uncertain past time .

McMurphy

elperello wrote: »

I also know that second guessing legal cases is an uncertain past time .

No-one seems to have told Leo this.

elperello

McMurphy wrote: »

No-one seems to have told Leo this.

It applies to everyone.

skimpydoo

elperello wrote: »

It definitely is not, of that I am sure.

I also know that second guessing legal cases is an uncertain past time .

Leo has a habit of doing this recently. Are you going to chastise him too?

elperello

skimpydoo wrote: »

Leo has a habit of doing this recently. Are you going to chastise him too?

Apologies if you thought I was trying to chastise you.

As for LV, sure there are enough of you to do it without me joining in.

skimpydoo

elperello wrote: »

Apologies if you thought I was trying to chastise you.

As for LV, sure there are enough of you to do it without me joining in.

Apology accepted and the more the merrier.

blanch152

skimpydoo wrote: »

That's what Leo cheerleaders said last year and yet we are still here. What will it take for you to change your tune?

If he is charged will you claim he has not been found guilty yet?

To charge him means the DPP and the Guards have a good case against him.

Is that true for everyone who is charged? Just asking for a friend who's a TD in Dublin North-West.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Minister gives a confidential document.
It is claimed he received political advantage in return.
Letters and correspondence are entered as evidence of same.
The advantage is then 'presumed' to have been gained. The same is presumed if 100,000 is presented as evidence of financial gain.

It is now up to the defendant to prove that no political advantage accrued.

This is why the change in Corruption legislation was hailed as a gamechanger.

Wrong. I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you.

The advantage can't just be claimed, it has to be proven. Once it is proven, it is assumed to be corrupt. However, the advantage has to be proven first. That is simpler when there is money or position involved. Not so in this case.

Edit: This is not opinion, this is fact. The law says the advantage must be proven. Once proven, it is assumed to be corrupt.

shatners bassoon

blanch152 wrote: »

Wrong. I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you.

The advantage can't just be claimed, it has to be proven. Once it is proven, it is assumed to be corrupt. However, the advantage has to be proven first. That is simpler when there is money or position involved. Not so in this case.

Edit: This is not opinion, this is fact. The law says the advantage must be proven. Once proven, it is assumed to be corrupt.

The irony of you throwing a strop over this...

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Wrong. I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you.

The advantage can't just be claimed, it has to be proven. Once it is proven, it is assumed to be corrupt. However, the advantage has to be proven first. That is simpler when there is money or position involved. Not so in this case.

Edit: This is not opinion, this is fact. The law says the advantage must be proven. Once proven, it is assumed to be corrupt.

If he is charged and it is part of that charge that he received political advantage, the 'burden' (do you understand that word in a legal context?) of proof is on the defendant.
The onus is on him to prove that he didn't receive advantage. Further, it can also be a crime for somebody else to have gained advantage from your corrupt act.

A very sticky wicket if they decide to charge.

Pintman Paddy Losty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If he is charged and it is part of that charge that he received political advantage, the 'burden' (do you understand that word in a legal context?) of proof is on the defendant.
The onus is on him to prove that he didn't receive advantage. Further, it can also be a crime for somebody else to have gained advantage from your corrupt act.

A very sticky wicket if they decide to charge.

Jesus man, are you just going to keep repeating this despite being clearly shown to be wrong?

Rows Grower

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Jesus man, are you just going to keep repeating this despite being clearly shown to be wrong?

He's not wrong.

FrancieBrady

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Jesus man, are you just going to keep repeating this despite being clearly shown to be wrong?

If the charge is that he gained political advantage (eg. NAGP didn't stand candidates against FG) then that will be enough. If the charge is that somebody else received advantage from the act of leaking the document, the same applies.
The 'burden' falls on the defendant to disprove that. The significant change that has been made prosecution of corruption cases easier in Ireland.

Not a word of that is wrong.