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

RandomName2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Jesus, did you actually engage your brain before writing that nonsense?

You're right. The subject matter of this thread is nonsense. It always has been because this >>

skimpydoo wrote: »

As the late great George Carlin said "It's a big club and you ain't in it" This applies to the average voter and SF. FFG and its supporters don't like the fact that SF is closing in on their cosy cartel because it won't be what it once was.

has always been the motivation. The 'but Sinn Fein' defense is desperately used to try and avoid discussion of the fact that this is, quite transparently, about politics. It always has been.

Nobody attacking the sharing of the GP contract with GPs would care if it didn't involve someone high up in Fine Gael (or 'FFG' as you might say - an acronym as witty as it is original).

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

You're right. The subject matter of this thread is nonsense. It always has been because this >>




has always been the motivation. The 'but Sinn Fein' defense is desperately used to try and avoid discussion of the fact that this is, quite transparently, about politics. It always has been.

Nobody attacking the sharing of the GP contract with GPs would care if it didn't involve someone high up in Fine Gael (or 'FFG' as you might say - an acronym as witty as it is original).

You do know you are talking about SF being used to avoid discussion in a Leo Varadkar leak thread? Are you talking about yourself?

That's your thinking.
For me I don't think anything will happen to Varadkar. What I don't like is FF/FG/Green making it okay for ministers to engage in such cronyism. What else might be happening? Will politicians bother thinking twice before engaging in other forms of cronyism? Not likely.

Necro

Dempo1 wrote: »

Must be a terribly traumatic day for those SF bashers who use the party to deflect attention from matters to hand. No prosecutions regarding the Bobby story funeral debacle. No doubt there will be another nonsensical fairytale latched onto involving SF soon but meanwhile, any updates on Leaky Leo travails

Threadbanned for obvious trolling/baiting

RandomName2

James Brown wrote: »

You do know you are talking about SF being used to avoid discussion in a Leo Varadkar leak thread?

Technically speaking this question doesn't mean anything. I mean that the only motivation is opinion polls. Sure a couple people dozens of pages back said that nobody would care if was a rank-and-file politician, but the fact that it was the last Taoiseach, now Taniaste, meant that it was worth pursuing. If you think this is about ending cronyism you are barking up the wrong tree.

James Brown wrote: »

What I don't like is FF/FG/Green making it okay for ministers to engage in such cronyism.

I have yet to see the public harm that sharing the GP agreement with a GP union has done. Nobody has ever attempted to demonstrate that it has done so, presumably because there isn't some angle that would involve Fine Gael by doing so.

James Brown wrote: »

Will politicians bother thinking twice before engaging in other forms of cronyism? Not likely.

Well there was a leak today about the easing of lockdown restrictions, so I guess not.

Dempo1 wrote: »

Must be a terribly traumatic day for those SF bashers who use the party to deflect attention from matters to hand. No prosecutions regarding the Bobby story funeral debacle. No doubt there will be another nonsensical fairytale latched onto involving SF soon but meanwhile, any updates on Leaky Leo travails

I can only assume anybody who would still be going on about the Bobby Story funeral would be someone desperate to land an attack on Sinn Fein. There's nothing more to say about the Bobby Story funeral.

Well, there hasn't been much to say about the GP agreement either, but Varadkar bashers are fairly persistent (though their bon mots never have moved much beyond the alliteration of Leak and Leo).

_Kaiser_

In an interesting parallel, the head of the VHI has stepped aside while an investigation into him getting the vaccine while at the Beacon hospital is conducted.

In his case it says he was in for a serious illness so I can understand the logic but he's stepped aside anyway.

Contrast that with Leo who is the subject of a criminal investigation of his actions while head of the country.

skimpydoo

RandomName2 wrote: »

You're right. The subject matter of this thread is nonsense. It always has been because this >>




has always been the motivation. The 'but Sinn Fein' defense is desperately used to try and avoid discussion of the fact that this is, quite transparently, about politics. It always has been.

It's more than just politics and certain political parties, it's about openly allowing cronyism to happen. If this had involved s SF minister I would want them gone too, in fact, whoever leaked it should be gone. If this is allowed to happen now any future politician will be thinking there is nothing wrong with doing this.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

Technically speaking this question doesn't mean anything. I mean that the only motivation is opinion polls. Sure a couple people dozens of pages back said that nobody would care if was a rank-and-file politician, but the fact that it was the last Taoiseach, now Taniaste, meant that it was worth pursuing. If you think this is about ending cronyism you are barking up the wrong tree.



I have yet to see the public harm that sharing the GP agreement with a GP union has done. Nobody has ever attempted to demonstrate that it has done so, presumably because there isn't some angle that would involve Fine Gael by doing so.




Well there was a leak today about the easing of lockdown restrictions, so I guess not.



I can only assume anybody who would still be going on about the Bobby Story funeral would be someone desperate to land an attack on Sinn Fein. There's nothing more to say about the Bobby Story funeral.

Well, there hasn't been much to say about the GP agreement either, but Varadkar bashers are fairly persistent (though their bon mots never have moved much beyond the alliteration of Leak and Leo).

Your opinion on the motivation is irrelevant.
And yes, it is a bigger deal the higher the position. Of course it is.

The damage to the trust and ethics of government is the issue. It's not for Varadkar or Zero Craic to judge or decide if they leak the confidential documents of others. They did it for themselves.

So you're side stepping your using SF to deflect while complaining about people using SF to deflect?

Nobotty

James Brown wrote: »

Your opinion on the motivation is irrelevant.
And yes, it is a bigger deal the higher the position. Of course it is.

The damage to the trust and ethics of government is the issue. It's not for Varadkar or Zero Craic to judge or decide if they leak the confidential documents of others. They did it for themselves.

So you're side stepping your using SF to deflect while complaining about people using SF to deflect?

You're actually articulating the whole problem with what you are trying to do there
Gp's not members of the IMO would have to sign up to this exact same agreement
Vradakar is saying he took a shortcut to getting the head of 40% of gp's at the time a full heads up
He should have called him in to his office and noterised a meeting instead
Going against that spin on what happened and trying to spin it as a non coincidental favour to FG aswell as corruption,is I have to say the most cloud cuckoo land proposition I've read on these threads to date
Thats why,while I'm not surprised that the gardaí are being very thorough,I'm not expecting charges here
I'd like to see a new government too but I'm afraid lads,this isnt the route to it

James Brown

Nobotty wrote: »

You're actually articulating the whole problem with what you are trying to do there
Gp's not members of the IMO would have to sign up to this exact same agreement
Vradakar is saying he took a shortcut to getting the head of 40% of gp's at the time a full heads up
He should have called him in to his office and noterised a meeting instead
Going against that spin on what happened and trying to spin it as a non coincidental favour to FG aswell as corruption,is I have to say the most cloud cuckoo land proposition I've read on these threads to date
Thats why,while I'm not surprised that the gardaí are being very thorough,I'm not expecting charges here
I'd like to see a new government too but I'm afraid lads,this isnt the route to it

This was a negotiation between the IMO, (a union) and the department of health.
Not all GP's, not the NAGP. Not Varadkar and not Maitiu O'Tuathail.

I do not believe Varadkar based on the back and forth between himself and O'Tuathail. Read to me like he was looking for support from NAGP members so did O'Tuathail a favour. Even if his claim is true, he still leaked.

Why do you think he didn't? because he was leaking a confidential document, not yet released to his pal the then head of a rival union.

This will only bring down the government if he's charged and MM and ER show some ethics, which I don't expect.

skimpydoo

James Brown wrote: »

This will only bring down the government if he's charged and MM and ER show some ethics, which I don't expect.

When was the last time a government TD showed some ethics? It's not in their makeup or vocabulary.

James Brown

skimpydoo wrote: »

When was the last time a government TD showed some ethics? It's not in their makeup or vocabulary.

Roisin Shortall quitting Labour because they sat on their hands while FG got all crony.

skimpydoo

James Brown wrote: »

Roisin Shortall quitting Labour because they sat on their hands while FG got all crony.

Well spotted, but that's once in a lifetime and I don't know a FF or FG TD who would do what she did.

RandomName2

skimpydoo wrote: »

When was the last time a government TD showed some ethics? It's not in their makeup or vocabulary.

Depends on whether you are talking principle or ethics. The first is usually clear, the second usually subjective.

Boland and Haughey for instance quit the Dail based predominantly on principle. Jim McDaid also quit as a TD based on principal. Technically.

For leaving a governing party (without resigning as TDs) we similarly have Lucinda Creighton (or Peadar Toibin similarly from a non-governing party).

Personally I wouldn't have time for any of these decisions, or any of the politicians (Creighton and Toibin aren't all that bad, but I probably wouldn't vote for either of their parties)

In terms of ethics I would consider Desmond O'Malley a worthwhile candidate.


As for Roisin Shorthall resigning due to ethics due to the 'cronyism' of Fine Gael, I think the fact that her party was rapidly hemorrhaging support would have had some bearing. They chose to back those water charges, they chose to say that 'you just say things to get elected', they chose to meddle ineffectively in education. They were also unfortunate to be taking charge at one of the worst times, economically. If we are looking for any resignation that was not motivated by either a large degree of expediency, or by being forced, I think the candidates would be very few indeed.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

It has to be PROOF that he gained political advantage. That is where your misunderstanding arises from.

The whole premise of your post is wrong.

But, as Pintman said, how many times does it have to be explained to you?

Peter Flynt

blanch152 wrote: »

It has to be PROOF that he gained political advantage. That is where your misunderstanding arises from.

The whole premise of your post is wrong.

But, as Pintman said, how many times does it have to be explained to you?

Perhaps Varadkar wasn't looking for political advantage as he was sending a document to a 29 year old gay man who he may have a sexual interest in?

I don't recall any former Tanaiste sending documents to 29 year old females....

jmcc

It is fascinating to watch a crude attempt to shift the focus from Varadkar's action of leaking a confidential document to his friend to Varadkar's sexuality. The attempt to portray Varadkar as some kind of gay martyr who is is being held to a standard that would not apply if he was hetrosexual is laughable. It is an increasingly desperate attempt to deflect. Here are the facts:

Government (Department of Health) in contract negotiation with IMO, a competitor to NAGP.

NAGP sends a letter to FG TDs which mentions NAGP members campaigning against FG in election. (NAGP/Heydon letter - February 2019)

O'Tuathail asks Simon Harris for copy of Government/IMO contract even though NAGP is not a party to these negotiations. Harris does not provide a copy of the confidential contract document. (April 2019)

O'Tuathail asks Leo Varadkar, the then taoiseach, for a copy of the Government/IMO contract. Varadkar gets a copy of the confidential contract document the same day and asks O'Tuathail for his home (not NAGP business address) and has the confidential document sent to O'Tuathail's home address. The confidential document is a draft as the contract between the government and the IMO has not been finalised. (10 April 2019)

Varadkar asks in e-mail when the IMO is publishing the contract and distributing it to its members. E-mail arguably shows that Varadkar is aware that the confidential document is not yet in the public domain. (10 April 2019)

O'Tuathail announces to other NAGP "inner sanctum" members that he has a copy of the confidential government/IMO contract. Simon Harris, Minister for Health, still trying to get a copy of draft contract but NAGP, an organisation not party to the contract negotiations, has a copy that was leaked to O'Tuathail by Leo Varadkar. NAGP "inner sanctum" members aware that leaked document must remain "confidential". (approximately 17 April 2019)

NAGP went into voluntary liquidation in May 2019.

Regards...jmcc

McMurphy

jmcc wrote: »

It is fascinating to watch a crude attempt to shift the focus from Varadkar's action of leaking a confidential document to his friend to Varadkar's sexuality. The attempt to portray Varadkar as some kind of gay martyr who is is being held to a standard that would not apply if he was hetrosexual is laughable. It is an increasingly desperate attempt to deflect. Here are the facts:

Government (Department of Health) in contract negotiation with IMO, a competitor to NAGP.

NAGP sends a letter to FG TDs which mentions NAGP members campaigning against FG in election. (NAGP/Heydon letter - February 2019)

O'Tuathail asks Simon Harris for copy of Government/IMO contract even though NAGP is not a party to these negotiations. Harris does not provide a copy of the confidential contract document. (April 2019)

O'Tuathail asks Leo Varadkar, the then taoiseach, for a copy of the Government/IMO contract. Varadkar gets a copy of the confidential contract document the same day and asks O'Tuathail for his home (not NAGP business address) and has the confidential document sent to O'Tuathail's home address. The confidential document is a draft as the contract between the government and the IMO has not been finalised. (10 April 2019)

Varadkar asks in e-mail when the IMO is publishing the contract and distributing it to its members. E-mail arguably shows that Varadkar is aware that the confidential document is not yet in the public domain. (10 April 2019)

O'Tuathail announces to other NAGP "inner sanctum" members that he has a copy of the confidential government/IMO contract. Simon Harris, Minister for Health, still trying to get a copy of draft contract but NAGP, an organisation not party to the contract negotiations, has a copy that was leaked to O'Tuathail by Leo Varadkar. NAGP "inner sanctum" members aware that leaked document must remain "confidential". (approximately 17 April 2019)

NAGP went into voluntary liquidation in May 2019.

Regards...jmcc

This is it in a nutshell jmcc, it is important not to lose track of the facts of what took place here and not let the thread be dragged off on a tangent about "homophobia"

One comment here from user Ha Long Bay says "it's common for users to set up accounts named after Leos partner"

Hạ Long Bay wrote: »

Unfortunately it's fairly common and unexpected on here for example posters creating accounts using the Tánaiste's partners name as a username.

But they gave no examples to back up their claim - just how "common" is it for users to do this?

To me, and I'm sure the vast, vast majority of Irish electorate, Leo's sexuality is a complete and utter irrelevance, what any adult gets up to with any other adult is completely and utterly fine with me, that goes for politicians of any hue, or anyone else. I'm farily liberal, work away and enjoy yourselves lads and ladies.

It shouldn't be allowed to be used to derail this thread however, and once again the people I note keep bringing up his sexuality are those defending him and trying to brush his leaking documents under the carpet.

Hopefully the mods will clamp down on it.

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

One comment here from user Bubbaclaus says "it's common for users to set up accounts named after Leos partner"
But they gave no examples to back up their claim - just how "common" is it for users to do this?

Sorry McMurphy, are you making things up once again? If you are going to claim I said something then quote my post.

McMurphy wrote: »

It shouldn't be allowed to be used to derail this thread however, and once again the people I note keep bringing up his sexuality are those defending him and trying to brush his leaking documents under the carpet.

Hopefully the mods will clamp down on it.

I find it pretty deplorable that your main issue is with the people calling out the homophobia of that poster last night, rather than the posts that poster made.

jmcc

McMurphy wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell jmcc, it is important not to lose track of the facts of what took place here and not let the thread be dragged off on a tangent about "homophobia"

Yep. The NAGP/Heydon letter is the actually the most damaging aspect but a lot of commentary seems to be ignoring it. The phrase "political advantage" was mentioned up-thread and the letter warns FG of the electoral implications of NAGP members campaigning against FG in elections. NAGP went into voluntary liquidation in May 2019 and I think that some of the newspaper coverage mentioned that members were holding off on paying subscriptions until they found out what the IMO contract contained.

The optics are terrible: an organisation which has members holding off paying subscriptions until they know what the IMO contract contains and which is not involved in DoH/IMO contract negotiations tries to obtain the DoH/IMO contract from the Minister for Health. The Minister for Health does not provide it. O'Tuathail then contacts his friend Varadkar, the taoiseach, for a copy of this confidential document and Varadkar obtains it and sends it to O'Tuathil's home address the same day. Varadkar does not mention that he wanted the draft contract to provide to his friend.

If it was simply to bring NAGP onboard then why didn't Varadkar send it to NAGP's business address? Was O'Tuathail a registered lobbyist for NAGP?

The board of NAGP resigned on 28 April 2019. NAGP went into voluntary liquidation with debts of 400K Euro approximately a month after Varadkar leaked the confidential document to his friend.

Regards...jmcc

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Sorry McMurphy, are you making things up once again? If you are going to claim I said something then quote my post.

Check my post again.

I find it pretty deplorable that your main issue is with the people calling out the homophobia of that poster last night, rather than the posts that poster made.

I find it deplorable to imply there's homophobia where none exists. What exactly are you referring to as homophobic? Perhaps your definition and mine differ of what exactly it means to be homophobic?

Implying Leo leaked the document because Leo is gay, trying to curry flavour for another man, who is also gay, might be off the mark, but it's hardly homophobic.

If a gay man gets jealous, of his partner doing a favour for another man and says something along the line of them "only doing it to flirt" (as I'm sure happens just as much in homosexual relationships, as it undoubtedly happens in hetrosexual relationships) is that "homophobic" too?

Course it isn't.

It's a ridiculous notion.

Baggly

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Perhaps Varadkar wasn't looking for political advantage as he was sending a document to a 29 year old gay man who he may have a sexual interest in?

I don't recall any former Tanaiste sending documents to 29 year old females....

Mod

Dont post in this thread again.



@everyone else: if someone posts something that is an issue, report it and then leave it. Dont engage it or the thread gets clogged up with homophobic nonsense in the form of the posts you quote.

Baggly

Mod

Rake of posts deleted. What a waste of everyones time. In future, report and leave it. Thread veered wildly off topic because people couldnt help but engage the homephobic stuff instead of letting a mod deal with it.

Bubbaclaus

McMurphy wrote: »

Check my post again.




I find it deplorable to imply there's homophobia where none exists. What exactly are you referring to as homophobic? Perhaps your definition and mine differ of what exactly it means to be homophobic?

Implying Leo leaked the document because Leo is gay, trying to curry flavour for another man, who is also gay, might be off the mark, but it's hardly homophobic.

If a gay man gets jealous, of his partner doing a favour for another man and says something along the line of them "only doing it to flirt" (as I'm sure happens just as much in homosexual relationships, as it undoubtedly happens in hetrosexual relationships) is that "homophobic" too?

Course it isn't.

It's a ridiculous notion.

Well thanks for editing your post after the fact, but it is still unclear as to why you said me in the first place.

Clearly your definition of homophobic is different to mine alright if you don't think that posters stream of posts were an issue. Glad to see the mod has dealt with it and it won't be returning.

Baggly

Mod

GET BACK ON TOPIC FOLKS. THAT TOPIC BEING THE LEO VARADKAR STORY RE ALLEGEDLY LEAKING DOCS.

ohnonotgmail

blanch152 wrote: »

It has to be PROOF that he gained political advantage. That is where your misunderstanding arises from.

The whole premise of your post is wrong.

But, as Pintman said, how many times does it have to be explained to you?

there is no requirement that the advantage gained is political

a gift, consideration or advantage has been—

the word political is not mentioned.

McMurphy

jmcc wrote: »

Yep. The NAGP/Heydon letter is the actually the most damaging aspect but a lot of commentary seems to be ignoring it. The phrase "political advantage" was mentioned up-thread and the letter warns FG of the electoral implications of NAGP members campaigning against FG in elections. NAGP went into voluntary liquidation in May 2019 and I think that some of the newspaper coverage mentioned that members were holding off on paying subscriptions until they found out what the IMO contract contained.

The optics are terrible: an organisation which has members holding off paying subscriptions until they know what the IMO contract contains and which is not involved in DoH/IMO contract negotiations tries to obtain the DoH/IMO contract from the Minister for Health. The Minister for Health does not provide it. O'Tuathail then contacts his friend Varadkar, the taoiseach, for a copy of this confidential document and Varadkar obtains it and sends it to O'Tuathil's home address the same day. Varadkar does not mention that he wanted the draft contract to provide to his friend.

If it was simply to bring NAGP onboard then why didn't Varadkar send it to NAGP's business address? Was O'Tuathail a registered lobbyist for NAGP?

The board of NAGP resigned on 28 April 2019. NAGP went into voluntary liquidation with debts of 400K Euro approximately a month after Varadkar leaked the confidential document to his friend.

Regards...jmcc

Odd alright, considering NAGP were literally situated in Kildare street. A 2 minute walk from Leinster House.



Not a good look at all.

blanch152

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is no requirement that the advantage gained is political



the word political is not mentioned.

Yes, of course. However, the poster was alleging political advantage and mentioned it in the post. My point was around proof of the advantage (whether political or something else) being required before the burden of proof shifts.

Rows Grower

There's no getting away from the fact that Leo leaked a confidential document to friend of his who had threatened to do damage to the party Leo was leader of if he didn't.

And he was caught, and what he did was against the law.

RandomName2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the word political is not mentioned.

Maybe it would improve his luck in the lotto.

McMurphy wrote: »

Not a good look at all.

You can refer back to previous posts without having to repost.

Trade union saber rattling in relation to work conditions is nothing new. NAGP were very vocal in their disdain for the government - you can check their many, many twitter posts complaining about the government if you want proof of this.

Asking for better work conditions for those you represent is a legitimate activity of a trade union. That's literally what they are supposed to do. We still see O'Thuanthail publicly demanding better conditions for GPs and he's not even a representative of a union any more.

Electoral threats posed by trade unions are fairly toothless tigers. What are they gonna do, run independent candidates? Nonetheless as a union member I would want my union to be bellicose than placidly accept conditions that the members were against.

Not that they were successful to that end. They weren't consulted for the GP agreement. They were frozen out. Their opposition to medical cards for under 6s were dismissed. As a pathetic gesture of good will Varadkar gave the information about the concluded agreement to the heads of NAGP. Didn't even release it to the thousands of members of the NAGP, just to the heads. Any old member of the IMO had had access to this agreement, but the NAGP were treated like lepers.

What was you point again?

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

You can refer back to previous posts without having to repost.

Of course you can, but the letter with the Kildare street address at the bottom is kind of pertinent to the point being made.

Hence why i reposted. It's important not to lose sight of, or to forget little details like that.