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

Mantis Toboggan

#sackvaradker is top trending on twitter!! Looks like the end of the road for Leo

Floppybits

McMurphy wrote: »

Only got a chance to listen to it last night, Brophy was bizarre..

G.R "So Colm, was it appropriate for Leo to pass on those sensitive documents"?

Brophy: "it was a very good deal the GPs got"

G.R "dafuq? No-one asked if it was a good deal colm, was it appropriate for Leo to leak the details"

Brophy: "ah but you see, we must not lose sight of the fact that it was a very good deal"


Brophy, depriving a village of its idiot for an hour or two yesterday.

Don't forget laughing hysterically.

Cluedo Monopoly

Floppybits wrote: »

Don't forget laughing hysterically.

Yeah that bit was weird!

Laughing about how they leak the budget every year.

Hilarious.

As I said before, he sounded like a simpleton. How do FFG vet their candidates for elections????

s1ippy

FG are in the examiner saying they're not getting a sense of big panic, it doesn't seem to have resonated with the public.

Meanwhile

blanch152

Get Real wrote: »

There's two laws here. One is the Official Secrets Act. You may have a point on that, I'm not sure tbh.

The second is the Corruption Offences Act.

"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"

Can you explain how Leo gets around the above paragraph please? Seeing as the rest of us have no clue.

Given that:
a) by receiving this information "another person" could have benefitted from the info, and could have used it to appear more knowledgeable and recruit more GPS to his union, therefore increasing union dues, and financial revenue.

this same person, having received this info via WhatsApp, later went on to campaign for Leo for re-election.

Can you explain how this isn't the case, and how the above paragraph does not apply.

Thanks. Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/section/7/enacted/en/html

Section 7 requires that the information is used "for the purpose of corruptly obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage for himself or herself or for any other person."

The statement of the Tanaiste says "the Taoiseach believed that the deal was a positive one for General Practitioners that the Government wished to see implemented. He hoped to use Dr. Ó Tuathail’s influence to encourage all GPs to accept it including those represented by NAGP."

Assuming the statement of the Taoiseach is correct, the purpose of sharing the information does not meet the test of Section 7 in order to be corrupt.

That is without considering the point as to whether the document was confidential information as intended by the Act at that point in time. Given the document was in the possession of the IMO who were free to circulate it to whomsoever they wished, it could no longer be considered information confidential to the Government or the State.

Consider this, if the IMO gave that document to one of their members who was also a member of the NAGP who then gave it to O'Tuathail, would an offence have been committed?

weldoninhio

blanch152 wrote: »

Outline to me the procedures that apply to the Taoiseach releasing sensitive material, with a link if possible. Pretty much certain there is no such procedure applying to Taoisigh.

You don't think there is any official avenues for the Taoiseach to send documents to a third party? No quality checks or audits for one of the highest offices in the land?

blanch152

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

#sackvaradker is top trending on twitter!! Looks like the end of the road for Leo

Brilliant, Twitter says Leo must go!!! So be it, it is all over for him. :D:D:D

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

Section 7 requires that the information is used "for the purpose of corruptly obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage for himself or herself or for any other person."

The statement of the Tanaiste says "the Taoiseach believed that the deal was a positive one for General Practitioners that the Government wished to see implemented. He hoped to use Dr. Ó Tuathail’s influence to encourage all GPs to accept it including those represented by NAGP."

Assuming the statement of the Taoiseach is correct, the purpose of sharing the information does not meet the test of Section 7 in order to be corrupt.

That is without considering the point as to whether the document was confidential information as intended by the Act at that point in time. Given the document was in the possession of the IMO who were free to circulate it to whomsoever they wished, it could no longer be considered information confidential to the Government or the State.

Consider this, if the IMO gave that document to one of their members who was also a member of the NAGP who then gave it to O'Tuathail, would an offence have been committed?

The NAGP union members couldn't vote on the deal.

s1ippy

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40074434.html

Michael Smith says there's more coming so don't go away folks.

blanch152

weldoninhio wrote: »

You don't think there is any official avenues for the Taoiseach to send documents to a third party? No quality checks or audits for one of the highest offices in the land?

Nope, don't think there is.

He is the Taoiseach, who should he ask for permission? As I said before, he hardly writes memos to himself, should be look in the mirror?

A civil servant has to ask a Minister, but who should the Taoiseach ask?

blanch152

smurgen wrote: »

The NAGP union members couldn't vote on the deal.

Nothing to do with anything I said. Answer the questions.

_Kaiser_

Floppybits wrote: »

I never understood why she was given a high profile ministry like Justice. Up until then you never heard her speak, all she ever seemed to do was stand behind either Coveney or Varadkar at news conferences she never said anything. Now maybe she was more vocal in the back ground.

My read is that Leo has promoted and surrounded himself with all these "young, dynamic, next generation" people within and outside the Party and this is the result.. people with not enough experience, qualifications or self-awareness making key decisions, leading to poor judgement or critical mistakes at worst.

This latest FG scandal is another example of that.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Nope, don't think there is.

He is the Taoiseach, who should he ask for permission? As I said before, he hardly writes memos to himself, should be look in the mirror?

A civil servant has to ask a Minister, but who should the Taoiseach ask?

Effectively you are saying the Taoiseach is answerable to no-one, he/she can do as they please?

s1ippy

Helen McEntee just said he hadn't done anything wrong.

Helen McEntee immediately started trending.

But I don't really think it resonated with the public.

timmyntc

blanch152 wrote: »

Nothing to do with anything I said. Answer the questions.

I'll bite - yes, it would be an offence. Whoever was given a copy of the deal (regardless of what union they were in) would have received it subject to a number of conditions such as "do not publish/make copies/distribute to others".

Unless An Taoiseach or somebody else authorized both Union members to access the document, then it would have been a breach of the Official Secrets Act, but in your scenario the breach is by the union member who forwarded it on. (Assuming they were authorized through proper channels in the first place)

timmyntc

s1ippy wrote: »

Helen McEntee just said he hadn't done anything wrong.

Helen McEntee immediately started trending.

But I don't really think it resonated with the public.

She also refused to deny that she would leak a confidential document like that.
Bizarre

s1ippy

timmyntc wrote: »

I'll bite - yes, it would be an offence. Whoever was given a copy of the deal (regardless of what union they were in) would have received it subject to a number of conditions such as "do not publish/make copies/distribute to others".

Unless An Taoiseach or somebody else authorized both Union members to access the document, then it would have been a breach of the Official Secrets Act, but in your scenario the breach is by the union member who forwarded it on. (Assuming they were authorized through proper channels in the first place)

They weren't a registered trade union so lobbying by both parties (Taoiseach and MOT NAGP leader) would have been against the law.

FrancieBrady

timmyntc wrote: »

She also refused to deny that she would leak a confidential document like that.
Bizarre

Well, I was listening and heard that too. She talked herself into that corner.

But it is more than disconcerting to hear that. There is now emerging the notion that FG believe (and some Green supporters) that the Taoiseach (if he/she is a FG Taoiseach) is omnipotent and answerable to no-one, not the law or anything else.


Bizarre.

blanch152

timmyntc wrote: »

I'll bite - yes, it would be an offence. Whoever was given a copy of the deal (regardless of what union they were in) would have received it subject to a number of conditions such as "do not publish/make copies/distribute to others".

Unless An Taoiseach or somebody else authorized both Union members to access the document, then it would have been a breach of the Official Secrets Act, but in your scenario the breach is by the union member who forwarded it on. (Assuming they were authorized through proper channels in the first place)

At what stage does a document widely in circulation no longer be confidential?

Remembering that a secret is not a secret if two people know it, how many people can have or be authorised to have a document before it is no longer confidential?

These are the factors that a court would have to consider.

golfball37

Helen McEntee was very poor on newstalk breakfast earlier. Shane would be sympathetic to Leo too and against cancel culture but she just made one bizarre assertion after another.
I hope for his sake someone better is sent out to bat for him rather than her or Brophy

caveat emptor

Great to see the narrative hasn't changed......Very limited and specific law breaking all in the name of a good deal. Lot's of quid pro quo going on.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

At what stage does a document widely in circulation no longer be confidential?

Remembering that a secret is not a secret if two people know it, how many people can have or be authorised to have a document before it is no longer confidential?

These are the factors that a court would have to consider.

FFS...'a secret s not a secret if two people know it'??????????


So it would be okay for the typist to circulate it?

This isn't Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale land.

_Kaiser_

blanch152 wrote: »

At what stage does a document widely in circulation no longer be confidential?

Remembering that a secret is not a secret if two people know it, how many people can have or be authorised to have a document before it is no longer confidential?

These are the factors that a court would have to consider.

The texts from the "inner sanctum" show that they knew they shouldn't have had it - hence the stressing of the need to keep it very confidential and (ironically) no leaks, and MOT saying he couldn't say where it came from but it was the "real deal"

golfball37

blanch152 wrote: »

At what stage does a document widely in circulation no longer be confidential?

Remembering that a secret is not a secret if two people know it, how many people can have or be authorised to have a document before it is no longer confidential?

These are the factors that a court would have to consider.

I think the confidential nature and the bull about a crime being committed are red herrings. The nature of the Taoiseachs relationship and how he couldn’t separate the highest office in land from his old GP colleagues however good his intentions are the real issue.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Effectively you are saying the Taoiseach is answerable to no-one, he/she can do as they please?

No, he is answerable to the law. However, the law - Official Secrets Act - allows him to share a confidential document. Furthermore, so long as the purpose he is sharing it for - advancing the Government's interest in this case - is not for his or others' personal gain, then the law - Corruption Offences Act - says he is not committing an offence.

Now, all of that is based on what is publicly known to date. I cannot see any way that he has committed an offence. Now, if Michael Smith, the man with the biggest chip on his shoulder in Ireland, has something more, let's see what it is.

Mantis Toboggan

timmyntc wrote: »

She also refused to deny that she would leak a confidential document like that.
Bizarre

McEntee only got the job because of her gender, she's miles out of her league. She'll hold onto Leo because without him she's finished.

Sir Oxman

Claire Byrne has Pearse Doherty, Barry Cowan and Patrick O'Donovan on talking about Varadkar's leak.
Patrick O'Donovan of beer versus fine wine fame, a great FG standard bearer.

Yep, story is losing legs, isn't it????

caveat emptor

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Effectively you are saying the Taoiseach is answerable to no-one, he/she can do as they please?

Bizarre defence. :rolleyes:

Sir Oxman

paw patrol wrote: »

Barry must have been promised a ministers role in the future when the fuss died down and trying to keep the colation parters happy.





she was brutal .

Was kinda funny too given the media's lauding of her in recent months.

She's simply a drone, nothing special at all.

blanch152

golfball37 wrote: »

I think the confidential nature and the bull about a crime being committed are red herrings. The nature of the Taoiseachs relationship and how he couldn’t separate the highest office in land from his old GP colleagues however good his intentions are the real issue.

There are questions about appropriateness, but to date, all we have is O'Tuathail's representations to Bowes about his personal relationship to Leo. Many a person has bigged up their personal relationship to Ministers etc.

The true nature of the relationship is unknown.