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

McMurphy

Marine Layer wrote: »

I suppose,since we are quoting a newspaper article and the village,I think it usefull to point out Vradakar has never said that he is immune from the official secrets act only that the document isn't coverrd by it
The government would know if this is the case
I've not heard yet of investigations into any other cabinet confidentiality question
Secondly we have the Sunday Times and Independent from a few weeks back telling us Garda sources haven't found any benefit from the document to vradakar

This is not surprising given the governments approach and that was to have the Dáil debate and move on

I don't remember any such opinion being given by the article in the Indo, this was discussed on this very thread the Sunday the story broke btw, I'd be surprised if you have forgotten that already, as I believe you and I discussed how when the times originally broke the story about the investigation being upgraded to a criminal one, it was dismissed by some in here as being a Tory rag, and when a different journalist penned an article stating an unnamed Garda source thought charges were unlikely, it became gospel.

As for the Indo that same day, I don't believe the author of that article stated any such opinion about charges other than the Gards would be sending a file to the DPP.

As detectives from NBCI have now spoken to both the Tánaiste and Dr Ó Tuathail — considered the key people in the probe — they will now begin their preparation of a file over the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

It is understood that gardaí intend to outline all the facts of the case to the DPP and it will be left up to the State prosecutor to make a decision on whether or not charges should be brought against Mr Varadkar.

Detectives can make a recommendation in any file submitted to the State prosecutor on whether criminal charges should be proffered. But in this instance, gardaí are expected to just outline the facts of the case, leaving the matter entirely up to the DPP to adjudicate on, which is also within the Garda remit.

Gardaí are examining whether the leak is a breach of the Official Secrets Act.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/tanaiste-leo-varadkarquizzed-by-gardai-over-confidential-document-leak-40326324.html

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

As for the Indo that same day, I don't believe the author of that article stated any such opinion about charges other than the Gards would be sending a file to the DPP.



https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/tanaiste-leo-varadkarquizzed-by-gardai-over-confidential-document-leak-40326324.html

Well they didn't just say that in the Sindo's case,they suggested the file would be going without recommendations
I think my views are well known at this stage,I won't repeat them at length as somebody upthread has already done a handy compilation
Other than to say,the government are the people who add or remove protected status and of course the Sunday time's garda source suggested no gain to vradakar

Necro

Marine Layer wrote: »

How is the viewpoint of innocent of a crime untill proven guilty handwaving?
Sure any tom dick or paddy cosgrave can instigate a crime investigation
In this case,the government are the ultimate authority on the status of the document
Ergo they've moved on, an indication of the facts in front of them
No amount of vradakar hate changes this

Mod: Can you please drop the use of this phrase, especially when you're repeating it ad nauseam. Once or twice was grand, but the repeated use of the same phrase would constitute trolling so let's leave it at that now.

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

Well they didn't just say that in the Sindo's case,they suggested the file would be going without recommendations
I think my views are well known at this stage,I won't repeat them at length as somebody upthread has already done a handy compilation
Other than to say,the government are the people who add or remove protected status and of course the Sunday time's garda source suggested no gain to vradakar

Who 'removed' the status?
Surely there is a paper trail on this order? Or was it removed in the circling of the wagons

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who 'removed' the status?
Surely there is a paper trail on this order?

Cabinet minutes would be subject to the official secrets act, so I cannot answer that for you

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

Cabinet minutes would be subject to the official secrets act, so I cannot answer that for you

So you don't now anything about this, but still proclaim you do?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you don't now anything about this, but still proclaim you do?

All I said was the government were confident,,having access to those details and have moved on
Thats certainly a fact

McMurphy

Marine Layer wrote: »

All I said was the government were confident,,having access to those details and have moved on
Thats certainly a fact

The government don't have any choice but to "move on" they're awaiting the DPP decision, I don't think anyone expects them to do anything else until that happens, they've no control over what happens next, it's well out of their hands, all eyes will be on the DPP and what they decide to do. I believe they have to give a reason if they decide no prosecution is warranted, but there's a lot of people looking at this, they'll want to have all their ts crossed and I's dotted I would imagine.

Repeating "they've moved on" over and over again like it's some kind of revelation is silly.

thomas 123

Marine you are wrong - the government is accountable to the houses and the houses are accountable to the people. They have rules( agreed over the last 100 years by the dail and senate) if they were broken they should be held accountable.

Mind you being accountable and getting caught are two different things.

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

All I said was the government were confident,,having access to those details and have moved on
Thats certainly a fact

So you don't know and it could be all bluster. Governments have blustered before and been wrong. That's a fact too.

Your're a beaten docket on this ML, just spinning the party line.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you don't know and it could be all bluster. Governments have blustered before and been wrong. That's a fact too.

no I'd say thats 1st part opinion,2nd part fact

Your're a beaten docket on this ML, just spinning the party line.

In the above case,you're presenting your opinion of my opinion and not a fact at all
The thread of course is not about me

FrancieBrady

Marine Layer wrote: »

no I'd say thats 1st part opinion,2nd part fact


In the above case,you're presenting your opinion of my opinion and not a fact at all
The thread of course is not about me

You can't back up your opinion...fact.

I can back up that governments engage in bluster and that governments have been wrong.

shtpEdthePlum

Marine Layer wrote: »

The thread of course is not about me

Going from your last 50 contributions it's now about Tom Dick and Paddy Cosgrave?

Just why are Leo Varadkar’s friends abandoning him? Do they know something we don’t?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-40278788.html

Reminiscent of the titanic rats, all doing a legger at the first whiff of weakness. I can't say I blame them.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Repeating "they've moved on" over and over again like it's some kind of revelation is silly.

There are other repetitions on this thread,you haven't addressed
Its quite a mecca for them
Some are facts
A lot are opinions
Such is thread life

Lot of anger here.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can't back up your opinion...fact.

I can back up that governments engage in bluster and that governments have been wrong.

No,the bluster description would be opinion
I'd never dispute governments can be wrong
Your comments on my opinions this evening contain no facts about them,just your opinion
I've said the government are confident enough to move on because they know the documents status,they voted confidence in their Tánaiste and moved on
All fact

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Lot of anger here.

Ain't that a fact

Ten of Swords

Ten of Swords wrote: »

blanch152 do not post in this thread again

Threadban lifted following discussion with poster

McMurphy

Kate O’Connell will not run in Dublin Bay South by-election as Fine Gael leadership doesn’t want her

Kate O'Connell not being put forward for the bye election, because "the leadership doesn't want her"

Same Kate O'Connell who helped police with their enquiries about the actual leader of FG and him leaking confidential documents to his friend?

ooter

Minister Harris better watch his back so.

Suckit

KOC: "Although we are a democratic party, the reality is that you really can't be putting your name forward for a by election unless you enjoy the full support of the party leadership"
KOC: "It seems very unusual to me, in the case of a by-election perhaps, where there is somebody that has just run a campaign, or who has a significant percentage of the vote and tested electoral success, it's rather unusual that the preference would be indicated towards an untested candidate".
CB: "But only a few weeks ago you were on the Brendan O'Connor programme saying 'what has Leo Varadkar done for Fine Gael?'"
KOC: "I have risen him on occasion and that's my nature, I think in any democratic party there's no such thing as a wrong question"
KOC: "Although I ask the questions, I think it is worth noting that I am a member of Fine Gael, that we did have the worst electoral result, with less than 21%, in three-quarters of a century, that we hadn't any great showing at the local elections, and that, although I did support 'the other guy', the reality is that, I do think it is a valid question to ask that."

https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21950671

Mentions of a sod of turf being cut out, to present her with (implying Country person not welcome in Dublin).
Fine Gael factions.. etc.
Worth a listen.
The more you hear about Leo, the more he really, really comes across like a spoiled little brat. Not the type of person anyone should want leading anything. From his tantrum about 4th year, to the tantrums we saw last year..

Thank God we don't hear it all.

The sexist shouts from the FG crew on here, are also made all the more funny..

jimmycrackcorm

McMurphy wrote: »

Kate O’Connell will not run in Dublin Bay South by-election as Fine Gael leadership doesn’t want her

Kate O'Connell not being put forward for the bye election, because "the leadership doesn't want her"

Same Kate O'Connell who helped police with their enquiries about the actual leader of FG and him leaking confidential documents to his friend?

Kate O'Connell hadn't done herself any favours, so it's no surprise she isn't getting any attention. That's long before this.

blanch152

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Kate O'Connell hadn't done herself any favours, so it's no surprise she isn't getting any attention. That's long before this.

That is a very interesting article, I hadn't known most of it before. The portrayal seems very accurate.

she's a toxic divisive piece of work without the required cop-on that real-world politics requires.

no surprise that she has been cast out

Brendan Bendar

glasso wrote: »

she's a toxic divisive piece of work without the required cop-on that real-world politics requires.

no surprise that she has been cast out

That’s how it seems, for sure.

McMurphy

Seems the latest FG handbook being passed around is that it's no longer misogynistic to speak ill of a female FG regardless of their incompetence.

Pretty sure I was accused of being "misogynistic" and posting "personalized vitriol" for having the cheek to post something about Kate losing her seat in another thread......

Edit just checked...... Yep I was accused of exactly that.

A week is a short time in politics, (and what's misogynistic in fg circles)

Suckit

McMurphy wrote: »

Seems the latest FG handbook being passed around is that it's no longer misogynistic to speak ill of a female FG regardless of their incompetence.

Pretty sure I was accused of being "misogynistic" and posting "personalized vitriol" for having the cheek to post something about Kate losing her seat in another thread......

Edit just checked...... Yep I was accused of exactly that.

A week is a short time in politics, (and what's misogynistic in fg circles)

Exactly that. To speak of an FG female candidate openly and express your opinions on them often leads to accusations of sexist or misogynistic behaviour..
But it's okay in this instance :rolleyes:..
It seems it's also okay to read a Gript article. I'm pretty sure somebody posted one a couple of weeks ago and had all sorts of names for the publication coming back.

Kate is just better at doing what FG do, then they are.. and it irks them that she does them so well..
Time to call her names :rolleyes: or sully her character..
Even if she was correct backing the other fella, even if she is correct in saying Leo led them to their WORST results in over ¾'s of a century.
Many other, possibly more respectable leaders would have accepted they are not the right person for the job, especially if it was often their gaffes that had the electorate against them and stepped aside once and for all. But not even temporarily, for a criminal investigation into their antics.

blanch152

Suckit wrote: »

Exactly that. To speak of an FG female candidate openly and express your opinions on them often leads to accusations of sexist or misogynistic behaviour..
But it's okay in this instance :rolleyes:..
It seems it's also okay to read a Gript article. I'm pretty sure somebody posted one a couple of weeks ago and had all sorts of names for the publication coming back.

Kate is just better at doing what FG do, then they are.. and it irks them that she does them so well..
Time to call her names :rolleyes: or sully her character..
Even if she was correct backing the other fella, even if she is correct in saying Leo led them to their WORST results in over ¾'s of a century.
Many other, possibly more respectable leaders would have accepted they are not the right person for the job, especially if it was often their gaffes that had the electorate against them and stepped aside once and for all. But not even temporarily, for a criminal investigation into their antics.

Some bizarre straw-grasping going on or strange unspoken allegations.

Maybe I missed them, but I haven't seen any misogynistic comments about Kate in the last few pages. Neither have seen any personalised insults about her. I did see a reference to Varadkar as a "spoiled little brat", which is probably the worst bit of name-calling on the thread in the last few days, but nobody responded to it.

The comment on the Gript article was mine, which was surprise at not having heard some of it before, and saying that it "seems" very accurate, which again, isn't a full endorsement of either the article or the publication.

happyoutscan

McMurphy wrote: »

Seems the latest FG handbook being passed around is that it's no longer misogynistic to speak ill of a female FG regardless of their incompetence.

Pretty sure I was accused of being "misogynistic" and posting "personalized vitriol" for having the cheek to post something about Kate losing her seat in another thread......

Edit just checked...... Yep I was accused of exactly that.

A week is a short time in politics, (and what's misogynistic in fg circles)

Same on the SwingGate thread. All of us were nothing more than misogynistic males.

It is pathetic how genuinely pathetic some fans of that party are.

patob

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Kate O'Connell hadn't done herself any favours, so it's no surprise she isn't getting any attention. That's long before this.

Very interesting article that gives an insight into the shenanigans in FG.

McMurphy

happyoutscan wrote: »

Same on the SwingGate thread. All of us were nothing more than misogynistic males.

It is pathetic how genuinely pathetic some fans of that party are.

Yep that's the thread where it took place. Seems Kate O'Connell now being damaged goods as far as the leadership is concerned means she's fair game for the FG crew to castigate.