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

RandomName2

James Brown wrote: »

Yes, you are creating theories

Nope. The theory from your side is exactly as I set out.

James Brown wrote: »

I believe he did it to try avoid any loss of support for himself and FG. Why else would he leak a confidential document?

jmcc wrote: »

Go read the Heydon letter. It has been linked on the thread. The letter outlined the effect of NAGP members campaigning against FG in elections.

McMurphy wrote: »

this followed after OTuathail [sic] made his threat about standing against fg candidates, and placing anti fg propaganda in GPs surgeries if they didn't get the information they wanted.

jmcc wrote: »

The threat followed by the leak of the confidential document is the problem for Varadkar and FG.

jmcc wrote: »

Yep. The NAGP/Heydon letter is the actually the most damaging aspect

jmcc wrote: »

NAGP sends a letter to FG TDs which mentions NAGP members campaigning against FG in election.

James Brown wrote: »

From the published back and forth it reads to me that Varadkar slipped his pal the document because Zero craic suggested he'd be unpopular with the membership if he didn't.

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 theory collapses under the slightest weight.

James Brown wrote: »

and adding surmising and then knocking it as 'horse manure'. Fair enough.

I'm not saying that there isn't a possibility of motives outside of what has been presented, but as you say yourself, there isn't any evidence to go on.

I knock it as horse manure because it has been presented as conclusive, despite the fact that it is logically inconsistent, and contradicted by actual, observable events.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

The theory collapses under the slightest weight.

I'm probably not the only one that seems to have missed your examples of how it does.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

I'm probably not the only one that seems to have missed your examples of how it does.

The thing is they can't determine any advantage for Varadkar.

There is a labyrinthine argument that Goodey made several threats to a Fine Gael minister, that the NAGP would be hostile to the government (NAGP apparently liked repeating themselves too) if Fine Gael didn't stop excluding NAGP from negotiations form several different things. Fine Gael apparently didn't give a shíte about this as they kept excluding them from those negotiations.

Then the argument is that Varadkar was so petrified of Goodey's threat that he wanted to avoid the GPs giving opinion pieces on the radio (no joke, actually part of the threat) that he.. didn't accede to any of the demands but instead gave the draft GP agreement that had been concluded without NAGP to Goodey to O'Thuanthail.

Then the argument is that because NAGP were suddenly won over by the government (no evidence of this) that they didn't say anything negative about the government (they did) thereby giving Fine Gael a boost in the polls, thereby personally benefiting Varadkar.

Well if that isn't one giant heap of horse manure right there.

McMurphy wrote: »

You mean that NAGP would write attack pieces about the IMO and the government, as they had been doing until then, and continued to do?

There was no consideration given to mending the relations between the IMO and NAGP, which seemed to have been soured beyond repair. Whether GPs would actively sign up to the agreement seem to have been still up in the air though.

James Brown

Nobotty wrote: »

In your opinion
Conjecture isnt enough for a crime especially from political oponents
Its not enough to demonstrate that he wanted to look good for getting the contract over the line with all gps not just IMO gp's
Not by a shot longer than from here to Australia
Repeating a party line over and over in the face of a more benign and plausible explanation from Vradakar himself is chocolate tea pot territory to me
There are more worthy issues to drive nails with
But hey ho,like the *funerals obsession on tbe other thread,I've no powers to get people to switch tack
Tit for Tat

That's what we generally post here.
I don't know if what he did was a crime.
My explanation for me is the most plausible considering the conversation they had prior to the leak.
I've no party line. It's really freeing.
I think a then Taoiseach leaking a confidential government negotiation document to a rival union headed by his pal is a big deal.

*Tit for tat would require excusing one while criticising the other surely?

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

The thing is they can't determine any advantage for Varadkar.
.

For the umpteenth time. There's no need to.

2. The Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018 (the Corruption Act)

The Corruption Act provides in Section 7:
2) 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.
An offence in this context requires:

This has been covered already.

B. in either instance it depends on [obtaining an advantage for another person [O Tuathail]. The reaction of the NAGP “inner sanctum” shows they clearly knew they were getting an advantage

And

Again the inept Fine Gael statement misses the point. The advantage in this case was more likely for O Tuathail not Varadkar. Though there was also an actionable advantage for Varadkar. These have been described.

Don't be getting too hung up on Varadkar, and Varadkar alone.

The secrets act is a seperate issue from this one btw.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

Nope. The theory from your side is exactly as I set out.

God bless you. Outside of FG land there are people with their own thoughts and opinions. This isn't 1984. Outside of FG people can be individuals. It suits FG to believe any criticism is from a single hive mind. It's delusional.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I knock it as horse manure because it has been presented as conclusive, despite the fact that it is logically inconsistent, and contradicted by actual, observable events.

I read it as you picking threads and knitting a geansaí out of it, then criticising the geansaí.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

advantage for himself

The thing is you can't determine any advantage for Varadkar.

There is a labyrinthine argument that Goodey made several threats to a Fine Gael minister that the NAGP would be hostile to the government (NAGP apparently liked repeating themselves too) if Fine Gael didn't stop excluding NAGP from negotiations form several different things. Fine Gael apparently didn't give a shíte about this as they kept excluding them from those negotiations.

Then the argument is that Varadkar was so petrified of Goodey's threat that he wanted to avoid the GPs giving opinion pieces on the radio (no joke, actually part of the threat) that he.. didn't accede to any of the demands but instead gave the draft GP agreement that had been concluded without NAGP to Goodey to O'Thuanthail.

Then the argument is that because NAGP were suddenly won over by the government (no evidence of this) that they didn't say anything negative about the government (they did) thereby giving Fine Gael a boost in the polls, thereby personally benefiting Varadkar.

Well if that isn't one giant heap of horse manure right there.

I would apologize for reposting, but your side has perfected the art of saying the same thing over, and over again.

James Brown wrote: »

God bless you.

Well thank you.

James Brown wrote: »

I read it as you picking threads and knitting a geansaí out of it, then criticising the geansaí.

It's your jumper, man. You're wearing it. Don't be complaining about how ghastly the pattern is when it is one of your choosing.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

..
It's your jumper, man. You're wearing it. Don't be complaining about how ghastly the pattern is when it is one of your choosing.

It's not. I've laid out my opinion and given reasoning. The 'horse manure' is all you.

RandomName2

James Brown wrote: »

It's not. I've laid out my opinion and given reasoning. The 'horse manure' is all you.

Here's the quotes again.

James Brown wrote: »

I believe he did it to try avoid any loss of support for himself and FG. Why else would he leak a confidential document?

jmcc wrote: »

Go read the Heydon letter. It has been linked on the thread. The letter outlined the effect of NAGP members campaigning against FG in elections.

McMurphy wrote: »

this followed after OTuathail [sic] made his threat about standing against fg candidates, and placing anti fg propaganda in GPs surgeries if they didn't get the information they wanted.

jmcc wrote: »

The threat followed by the leak of the confidential document is the problem for Varadkar and FG.

jmcc wrote: »

Yep. The NAGP/Heydon letter is the actually the most damaging aspect

jmcc wrote: »

NAGP sends a letter to FG TDs which mentions NAGP members campaigning against FG in election.

James Brown wrote: »

From the published back and forth it reads to me that Varadkar slipped his pal the document because Zero craic suggested he'd be unpopular with the membership if he didn't.

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.

So please don't insult my intelligence and suggest that the theory from your side is not explicitly that this hangs upon it being corruption predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

You can't advance an argument and then back away from it pretending you never had anything to do with it.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

Here's the quotes again.


So please don't insult my intelligence and suggest that the theory from your side is not explicitly that this hangs upon it being corruption predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

You can't advance an argument and then back away from it pretending you never had anything to do with it.

I'm not insulting it but I'd certainly question it.
Here's my quotes you used:

James Brown wrote: »

Well he seemingly always delivers.
I believe he did it to try avoid any loss of support for himself and FG. Why else would he leak a confidential document? He could have told his pal, hold on a day or two it should be released soon. He could have said no.

James Brown wrote: »

From the published back and forth it reads to me that Varadkar slipped his pal the document because Zero craic suggested he'd be unpopular with the membership if he didn't.

I'm consistent and not backing away from anything. I speak for myself. If you can't distinguish between different posters and different views and see anyone critical of what Varadkar did as the same, that's a you problem.

blanch152

RandomName2 wrote: »

Here's the quotes again.












So please don't insult my intelligence and suggest that the theory from your side is not explicitly that this hangs upon it being corruption predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

You can't advance an argument and then back away from it pretending you never had anything to do with it.

Like a Duracell bunny, they will keep after you with the same argument, the same language etc, even when it has been completely discredited and disproven time and again.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Like a Duracell bunny, they will keep after you with the same argument, the same language etc.

It's called honesty and consistency.

thomas 123

blanch152 wrote: »

Like a Duracell bunny, they will keep after you with the same argument, the same language etc, even when it has been completely discredited and disproven time and again.

Who’s they?

RandomName2

James Brown wrote: »

It's called honesty and consistency.

So..

James Brown wrote: »

McMurphy wrote: »

A win for Fine Gael..... Wouldn't a certain act apply there if that's the case?

That's exactly what Varadkar was at.

I'm confused. On one hand you your position is clearly that the crucial aspect here is corruption, predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

But then, you chastise me for pointing this out

James Brown wrote: »

I'm consistent and not backing away from anything. I speak for myself. If you can't distinguish between different posters and different views and see anyone critical of what Varadkar did as the same, that's a you problem.

Saying that you are standing on a platform

James Brown wrote: »

called honesty and consistency.

But your retort saying that I am not intelligent enough to have my intelligence insulted was a neat turn of phrase, I must admit. But I would have to genuinely be dull witted to have the wool pulled over my eyes by this clear ducking and diving.

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

So..





I'm confused. On one hand you your position is clearly that the crucial aspect here is corruption, predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

But then, you chastise me for pointing this out



Saying that you are standing on a platform



But your retort saying that I am not intelligent enough to have my intelligence insulted was a neat turn of phrase, I must admit. But I would have to genuinely be dull witted to have the wool pulled over my eyes by this clear ducking and diving.

Would it be impolite to ask what your position is...because I haven't a clue and I have been following the thread.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

So..





I'm confused. On one hand you your position is clearly that the crucial aspect here is corruption, predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

But then, you chastise me for pointing this out



Saying that you are standing on a platform



But your retort saying that I am not intelligent enough to have my intelligence insulted was a neat turn of phrase, I must admit. But I would have to genuinely be dull witted to have the wool pulled over my eyes by this clear ducking and diving.

You are indeed. You keep putting together theories and finding flaw and then putting all those on others.

Where do I contradict myself there?
Spoiler, I've not really even read Goodley's letter, (I glanced it in a post). Nor have I used it as a basis for anything I've ever posted on this.

You are inventing a view on my behalf, then asking me to defend it.
'Clear ducking and diving'? I suggest you clean your glasses.

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would it be impolite to ask what your position is...because I haven't a clue and I have been following the thread.

Fair enough I may have been a little obtuse

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116758648&postcount=8504

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116761251&postcount=8518

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116762427&postcount=8531

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

Fair enough I may have been a little obtuse

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116758648&postcount=8504

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116761251&postcount=8518

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116762427&postcount=8531

Your clarification is to re-post that which has caused the confusion?

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Your clarification is to re-post that which has caused the confusion?

The theory from your side is explicitly that this hangs upon it being corruption predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

(not copy pasting now) you are slightly different though as, if I understand correctly, you insist that corruption doesn't actually require any proof, so there's no need to actually defend the proposition to any real extent.

At least I hope you don't run away from the corruption charge, as James Brown clearly is doing.
Reply with a one liner along the lines of:
You just don't understand what I've been saying/ I don't understand what you are saying.
You are using this to distract.
We should remember that Leo leaked a document to a pall.
Get thanked by davycc, FrankieBrady, jmcc, skimydoo

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

The theory from your side is explicitly that this hangs upon it being corruption predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

(not copy pasting now) you are slightly different though as, if I understand correctly, you insist that corruption doesn't actually require any proof, so there's no need to actually defend the proposition to any real extent.

At least I hope you don't run away from the corruption charge, as James Brown clearly is doing.

I am discussing the possibility of corruption on foot of the Tanaiste of this country confessing, after being outed, to 'wrongly leaking' a 'confidential' document.
(words in quotes are what the Tanaiste has said)

The Gardai will do their own investigation.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

The theory from your side is explicitly that this hangs upon it being corruption predicated on it providing political advantage to Varadkar, with the sole evidence used to support this argument being Goodey's letter.

(not copy pasting now) you are slightly different though as, if I understand correctly, you insist that corruption doesn't actually require any proof, so there's no need to actually defend the proposition to any real extent.

At least I hope you don't run away from the corruption charge, as James Brown clearly is doing.

The act is proven beyond doubt. He leaked.
The whatsapp messaging back and forth built my theory on why he leaked.
The reasoning may help or hinder his case should he be charged with any criminal act. The reasoning is up for debate. However he leaked and if it breaches any law, why he did it will mean absolutely nothing.

I believe he did it to gain favour with the NAGP membership. I have been consistent in this. That would be a form of corruption. The act, which he did, is 100% cronyism. Your inability or unwillingness to understand my clearly laid out thoughts on this is not my problem.

happyoutscan

I find it pathetic how a few here continually attack those who repeat what is actually known to date (ie. Leo leaked).

The thread title says what the thread is about. Have a problem with that, don't post, it couldn't be any more simple.

Personally, I think he has a case to answer but I think this will all be swept under the carpet, Irish-style.

RandomName2

happyoutscan wrote: »

I find it pathetic how a few here continually attack those who repeat what is actually known to date (ie. Leo leaked).

The echo defense is only used by people who want to spam the thread with the news headlines from late 2020, but without wanting to discuss anything in depth.

Running away behind a smokescreen of saying 'he leaked to a pall. Other things do not matter he leaked' makes it patently obvious that people are just saying it to be heard.

James Brown wrote: »

I believe he did it to gain favour with the NAGP membership. I have been consistent in this. That would be a form of corruption.

The argument is that Varadkar was so petrified of NAGP's hostility that he.. didn't accede to any of the union's demands but instead gave the draft GP agreement that had been concluded without NAGP to O'Thuanthail.

Then the argument is that because NAGP suddenly were won over by the government (no evidence of this) that they didn't say anything negative about the government (they did) thereby giving Fine Gael a boost in the polls, thereby personally benefiting Varadkar.

So it is not very clear why letting NAGP see the draft agreement they had been frozen out of would make them significantly less hostile, when what they demanded (and apparently needed for the survival of the union) was for the government to stop excluding them from negotiations. That the government had the means to stop excluding the NAGP from negotiations if the NAGP's opinion mattered enough to the government, should be clear. It should also be clear that the NAGP maintained their hostile opinion of the government until its end. How Varadkar would personally benefit from any of this is very weakly defended altogether, except to argue that the GP agreement's successful conclusion would make Fine Gael's record in health look a bit stronger, but that in itself isn't any way corrupt.

I mean you can choose not to engage in this assessment of your argument. Totally your prerogative. But don't pretend that there's any confusion in the matter, because there is not.

1. Feigned confusion.
2. Repeating the same message over, and over again.
3. Pretending that discussion is distraction.

Does you side of the debate have anything more to offer?

It is fine if you say that your side of the debate does not have any more to offer, pending new information becoming available, but this lame idea that your side want a discussion, when all they do is the same three things outlined above, is really a bit much.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

The echo defense is only used by people who want to spam the thread with the news headlines from late 2020, but without wanting to discuss anything in depth.

Running away behind a smokescreen of saying 'he leaked to a pall. Other things do not matter he leaked' makes it patently obvious that people are just saying it to be heard.





The argument is that Varadkar was so petrified of NAGP's hostility that he.. didn't accede to any of the union's demands but instead gave the draft GP agreement that had been concluded without NAGP to O'Thuanthail.

Then the argument is that because NAGP suddenly were won over by the government (no evidence of this) that they didn't say anything negative about the government (they did) thereby giving Fine Gael a boost in the polls, thereby personally benefiting Varadkar.

So it is not very clear why letting NAGP see the draft agreement they had been frozen out of would make them significantly less hostile, when what they demanded (and apparently needed for the survival of the union) was for the government to stop excluding them from negotiations. That the government had the means to stop excluding the NAGP from negotiations if the NAGP's opinion mattered enough to the government, should be clear. It should also be clear that the NAGP maintained their hostile opinion of the government until its end. How Varadkar would personally benefit from any of this is very weakly defended altogether, except to argue that the GP agreement's successful conclusion would make Fine Gael's record in health look a bit stronger, but that in itself isn't any way corrupt.

I mean you can choose not to engage in this assessment of your argument. Totally your prerogative. But don't pretend that there's any confusion in the matter, because there is not.

1. Feigned confusion.
2. Repeating the same message over, and over again.
3. Pretending that discussion is distraction.

Does you side of the debate have anything more to offer?

It is fine if you say that your side of the debate does not have any more to offer, pending new information becoming available, but this lame idea that your side want a discussion, when all they do is the same three things outlined above, is really a bit much.

Have you penned a letter yet to the Gardai indicating your belief that their motives for upgrading the initial preliminary inquiry into an actual criminal one, is a waste of police time, and pointless so?

I've certainly asked a number of times, but no-one seems to have answered. Why do you think the guards (who are privy to more info than you or I - including the protective disclosure by a whistleblower (s)?) Upgraded the investigation?

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

Have you penned a letter yet to the Gardai indicating your belief that their motives for upgrading the initial preliminary inquiry into an actual criminal one, is a waste of police time, and pointless so?

Well hardly.

An assessment, based upon currently available information (not even verified as facts at the moment) may indicate that there is no real case, but that doesn't mean that there isn't additional information, which we are not privy to, that would be important in making a determination. An upgrading of the gardai investigation would probably be a prerequisite to gain access to most of the relevant information relating to the investigation (I would guess unless it's publicly available, as is the information we are using, or voluntarily surrendered). Parties (not necessarily political) with an ax to grind may be parsimonious with what they are willing to provide, voluntarily.

maccored

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well hardly.

An assessment, based upon currently available information (not even verified as facts at the moment) may indicate that there is no real case, but that doesn't mean that there isn't additional information, which we are not privy to, that would be important in making a determination. An upgrading of the gardai investigation would probably be a prerequisite to gain access to most of the relevant information relating to the investigation (I would guess unless it's publicly available, as is the information we are using, or voluntarily surrendered). Parties (not necessarily political) with an ax to grind may be parsimonious with what they are willing to provide, voluntarily.

what waffle. Leo leaked confidential documents - end of story. Personally i dont care if he gets done for it or not - it just shows he's an untrustworthy individual not worth anyone's vote.

RandomName2

maccored wrote: »

what waffle. Leo leaked confidential documents - end of story. Personally i dont care if he gets done for it or not - it just shows he's an untrustworthy individual not worth anyone's vote.

Ah, that echo is still going

maccored

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ah, that echo is still going

what, the truth?

You havent got your fingers in your ears by any chance? you dancing around the fence on this one as you are defending someone you clearly know is guilty

RandomName2

maccored wrote: »

what, the truth?

You havent got your fingers in your ears by any chance?

Where have I ever denied this?

I'm just laying it out here that this white noise is being used for a particular agenda

maccored wrote: »

not worth anyone's vote.

And there it is.

Let me guess, you have just from a thread concerning your party?

maccored

RandomName2 wrote: »

Where have I ever denied this?

I'm just laying it out here that this white noise is being used for a particular agenda



And there it is.

Let me guess, you have just from a thread concerning your party?

eh? I have "just from a thread concerning your party"?

I posted in this thread first. If you think someone who breaks government confidentiality is worth voting for, then you are part of the problem of cronyism and corruption in ireland as anyone who votes for such a lad enables that kind of carryon.