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

skimpydoo · 13-04-2021 11:28pm

Marine Layer wrote: »

No crime was confessed to in either example

So admitting to leaking a confidential document doesn't count?

FrancieBrady · 13-04-2021 11:29pm

Marine Layer wrote: »

The government don't believe a crime was committed and have moved on letting the process (they appear very confident) instigatable by any Tom dick or paddy cosgrave play out
No crime has been admitted to

The government are not the arbiters of whether a crime was committed. They are on the sideline here while our Gardai and DPP assess it and come to a decision.

If they decide it is a crime it will be already confessed to.

13-04-2021 11:30pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Gardai and the DPP will decide that, not the government and not Leo. Leo confessed to what they are investigating.

The statement you have made there is different to what I challenged you on because you cannot point to a crime
Ergo you can't point to the admission of one
You decided,I didn't
Perhaps take your own advice?

FrancieBrady · 13-04-2021 11:36pm

Marine Layer wrote: »

The statement you have made there is different to what I challenged you on because you cannot point to a crime
Ergo you can't point to the admission of one
You decided,I didn't
Perhaps take your own advice?

If the Gardai and DPP decide it is a crime then it carries a penalty of several years in prison. SF in the north were waiting for a similar decision on a crime that carried a penalty of a fine.

Sure you are not twisting to avoid an uncomfortable truth?

13-04-2021 11:42pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the Gardai and DPP decide it is a crime then it carries a penalty of several years in prison. SF in the north were waiting for a similar decision on a crime that carried a penalty of a fine.

Sure you are not twisting to avoid an uncomfortable truth?

I didn't bring me or Sinn Féin into this,neither are relevant
What is relevant is,since we are comparing,in neither was a crime admitted prior to the conclusion of an investigation

FrancieBrady · 13-04-2021 11:45pm

Marine Layer wrote: »

I didn't bring me or Sinn Féin into this,neither are relevant
What is relevant is,since we are comparing,in neither was a crime admitted prior to the conclusion of an investigation

Leaking a confidential document was admitted to. The Gardai and DPP will decide if that is a crime, not the coalition government.

skimpydoo · 13-04-2021 11:54pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leaking a confidential document was admitted to. The Gardai and DPP will decide if that is a crime, not the coalition government.

The only ones who think it's not a crime are the FFG government and FG and Leo supporters. If we were not living in Covid times, Leo would have been long gone by now.

jmcc · 13-04-2021 11:56pm

skimpydoo wrote: »

The only ones who think it's not a crime are the FFG government and FG and Leo supporters. If we were not living in Covid times, Leo would have been long gone by now.

If it wasn't for Covid, FG would have removed Varadkar after he led FG to one of its worst General Election results ever. FG was even content with going into opposition.

Regards...jmcc

13-04-2021 11:57pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leaking a confidential document was admitted to. The Gardai and DPP will decide if that is a crime, not the coalition government.

Correct and as I respectfully suggested, perhaps take your own advice on that matter and wait for their conclusion
You jumped the gun and stated something non factual,that he admitted a crime
No crime has been determined,ergo none admitted
Furthermore,the government are confident there was no crime
We could run around the houses on that all night to no avail but it would be a fruitless carry on,lets agree to disagree
No one is unaware of our positions

Jinglejangle69 · 14-04-2021 12:11am

Just popped in to see the lay of the land.

I see Leo is still living rent free in your heads lads.

Sure look, whatever helps and all that:)

FrancieBrady · 14-04-2021 12:12am

Marine Layer wrote: »

Correct and as I respectfully suggested, perhaps take your own advice on that matter and wait for their conclusion
You jumped the gun and stated something non factual,that he admitted a crime
No crime has been determined,ergo none admitted
Furthermore,the government are confident there was no crime
We could run around the houses on that all night to no avail but it would be a fruitless carry on,lets agree to disagree
No one is unaware of our positions

You interjected to state that because the government believed it was not a crime it was somehow not one.

The government have no say in the matter. The wrongdoing that Varadkar confessed to will be determined as a crime or not by the Gardai handing a file n what they discover to the DPP and he decides if it was a crime under two pieces of legislation.

FrancieBrady · 14-04-2021 12:15am

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Just popped in to see the lay of the land.

I see Leo is still living rent free in your heads lads.

Sure look, whatever helps and all that:)

As long as Leo is under criminal investigation that almost if not unprecedented event will be a subject of conversation.

Jinglejangle69 · 14-04-2021 12:26am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As long as Leo is under criminal investigation that almost if not unprecedented event will be a subject of conversation.

And as I said enjoy:)

14-04-2021 12:34am

This auld Abú system is very comprehensive. They've the parents down as worth a visit to the door. Jesus, starting to think the auld fella might be turning 'green'.

Phone numbers as well. :mad:

Ten of Swords · 14-04-2021 12:35am

blanch152 wrote: »

Now that you have introduced whataboutery SF into the discussion, there is a precedent...

No, no there isn't

Starting to wonder if this thread has run it's course tbh. Can we stay on topic or not?

skimpydoo · 14-04-2021 12:56am

Deleted User wrote: »

This auld Abú system is very comprehensive. They've the parents down as worth a visit to the door. Jesus, starting to think the auld fella might be turning 'green'.

Phone numbers as well. :mad:

What has this got to do with Leo leaking a confidential document? Me thinks it might be more deflection.

14-04-2021 1:05am

skimpydoo wrote: »

What has this got to do with Leo leaking a confidential document? Me thinks it might be more deflection.

You're right.

14-04-2021 5:47am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You interjected to state that because the government believed it was not a crime it was somehow not one. .

I stated a fact
You stated an untruth
It really is that simple

FrancieBrady · 14-04-2021 7:32am

Marine Layer wrote: »

I stated a fact
You stated an untruth
It really is that simple

You misunderstood and it was clarified.

What I stated is relevant, what you stated is not. It doesn't matter if the government believe he poops gold pellets. If it is found to be a crime he has already confessed to committing it.

14-04-2021 9:16am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You misunderstood and it was clarified.

What I stated is relevant, what you stated is not. It doesn't matter if the government believe he poops gold pellets. If it is found to be a crime he has already confessed to committing it.

I did not mis understand
YOU stated an untruth
YOU then backtracked
YOU then dished out irrelevant advice that you hadn't taken yourself
It really is that simple

FrancieBrady · 14-04-2021 9:18am

Marine Layer wrote: »

I did not mis understand
YOU stated an untruth
YOU then backtracked
YOU then dished out irrelevant advice that you hadn't taken yourself
It really is that simple

Clarified/backtracked, have it whatever way you want, doesn't change the truth of this:

What I stated is relevant, what you stated is not. It doesn't matter if the government believe he poops gold pellets. If it is found to be a crime he has already confessed to committing it.

14-04-2021 9:23am

It is very relevant that no crime was admitted because at this point there isn't one
Its also relevant to state that you back tracked in a discussion
The latter may of course be an uncomfortable truth for you

FrancieBrady · 14-04-2021 9:25am

Marine Layer wrote: »

It is very relevant that no crime was admitted because at this point there isn't one
Its also relevant to state that you back tracked in a discussion
The latter may of course be an uncomfortable truth for you

If you don't want to accept that I clarified what I said. So be it. Doesn't change a single thing. Take it handy.

shatners bassoon · 14-04-2021 9:54am

I'm curious, is there anyone in the thread who thinks that an investigation is justified but that the facts don't support a criminal charge?

Separately, for the pro FG / anti SF brigade, in particular Blach, Maryanne, Pintman et al:

1. Why was a full investigation initiated? Do you think the opposition are 'at fault' for this and if so, what is your opinion of the Gardai's role?

2. Do you think there's a party on the planet who would not seek to score political points if the deputy head of government was the subject of a police investigation?

14-04-2021 9:57am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you don't want to accept that I clarified what I said. So be it. Doesn't change a single thing. Take it handy.

I don't believe you wanted to clarify at all tbh
An untruth was confronted with a truth
It's that simple
Lets move on

McMurphy · 14-04-2021 10:36am

Here's one , if the DPP decide to prosecute, what then for Leo, considering he's admitted, and apologised for leaking a confidential document to his friend?

How would he plead?

FrancieBrady · 14-04-2021 10:41am

McMurphy wrote: »

Here's one , if the DPP decide to prosecute, what then for Leo, considering he's admitted, and apologised for leaking a confidential document to his friend?

How would he plead?

Could he claim that a fair trial is prejudiced/impossible because...well...because he has already confessed to it?

Very unprecedented situation.

shatners bassoon · 14-04-2021 10:55am

Don't get either of your points here. If charged he's going to plead not guilty and seek to rely on various legal arguments relating to the legislation to try to escape conviction.

Whether that works is another question.

blanch152 · 14-04-2021 11:08am

shatners bassoon wrote: »

I'm curious, is there anyone in the thread who thinks that an investigation is justified but that the facts don't support a criminal charge?

Separately, for the pro FG / anti SF brigade, in particular Blach, Maryanne, Pintman et al:

1. Why was a full investigation initiated? Do you think the opposition are 'at fault' for this and if so, what is your opinion of the Gardai's role?

2. Do you think there's a party on the planet who would not seek to score political points if the deputy head of government was the subject of a police investigation?

Once a complaint has been made to the Gardai, it must be investigated. I hold the view that the investigation is a waste of Garda time and effort and will ultimately go nowhere, as there will not be a conviction based on the publicly available evidence. Of course, there may be other evidence that we are unaware of. If so, so be it.

As for other jurisdictions, we only have to look North and see that the precedent of not stepping aside was set by Michelle O'Neill and Conor Murphy when they were under police investigation for criminal behaviour.

blanch152 · 14-04-2021 11:09am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You interjected to state that because the government believed it was not a crime it was somehow not one.

The government have no say in the matter. The wrongdoing that Varadkar confessed to will be determined as a crime or not by the Gardai handing a file n what they discover to the DPP and he decides if it was a crime under two pieces of legislation.

So the Gardai and the DPP now determine what it a crime and what is not?

When did the judiciary fail to have a say in this? Your lack of understanding of the process has been shown up more than once.

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

Comments