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

s1ippy

seamus wrote: »

Really depends on how much the mainstream want to pick up on it. To a certain extent the ability of any story to grow legs has a lot to do with how much people want to hear it.

A few revealing articles in a niche magazine will hang in the air, but may not have a lasting impact if the main papers don't pick up on it.

When a politician is popular, often people just prefer not to hear things they don't want to hear. Look at Haughey and Bertie. Their shenanigans were well know and often reported on at the time, but their popularity let them just brush past it.

Varadkar and FG are at the heights of their popularity at the moment. This stuff could end up being water off a duck's back.

caveat emptor

Barry Cowan on now reluctantly defending Leo. FF clearly don't want an election.

suicide_circus

seamus wrote: »

Leo's backchannel shenanigans finally biting him the arse.

Yikes

s1ippy

Sorry that's actually an hour and a half ago and it's different now.

blanch152

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

There are protocols regarding the dissemination of security classified documents, regardless if you are authorised to release them.

Without going into detail, there needs to be a legitimate chain of custody. In this case, there is none and in this case, it appears the reciever was not authorised to recieve the document.

If this was all above board, it would not have occurred the way it did and there would be no issues.

There are bigger issues at play here and anyone who see's no issue with the leader of the country, ignoring security protocols and leaking information to preferred individuals, is quote frankly and idiot!

With all due respect to the document, it wouldn't fall into the category of security classified document.

This was an industrial relations agreement type of document.

To borrow your phrase, anyone who thinks there were some state security secrets in this document is quite frankly an idiot.

Sir Oxman

caveat emptor wrote: »

Barry Cowan on now reluctantly defending Leo. FF clearly don't want an election.

Cowan cannot answer fully that he would be sacked if he had done this.
'well, well, I, I'
And that is the line set which LV needs to jump.

caveat emptor

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Could be Coveney's time to bite back here as the ultimate undermined FGer. Any word from him?

I'd say he is a meeting with his Bilderberg buddies discussing the next phase of the plan. :pac:

Nobotty

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.

Helen is standing by her man,like she did at many eu meetings
Right behind him
I must say I'm impressed at the silence from the rest of FG
The case is definitely very weakened except in the eyes of hardened politicos by Dr Fauci's O Tuathail's statement last night
Thats because the position now seems to be O'Tuathail did not share the document, he had sight of it to help him answer any questions his members had as he tried to persuade them to sign the new contracts and to explain how some long term illness strategy he was speaking to the government about was being helped

Thats the case that's being made
The fact the cabinet had already voted and approved the agreement and that its contents were being discussed in detail with members by people who weren't government employees or cabinet members and had copies neuters any accusation of breaching cabinet confidentiality IMO

I doubt Vradakar will bother suing
To paraphrase O'Tuathail, he probably doesn't give a **** about that

Not what everyone wants to hear but its the way I'm seeing it at the moment
No other media outlet are repeating the illegality allegations, they're just reporting on what the village said and vradakar saying its defamatory
Thats probably because they've a better more experienced suite of lawyers on call as they're dealing with potential cases regularly

Get Real

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Such a close friend that he didn’t know his address?

I only know childhood friends full addresses. College friends, I know ones house, but not his house number. Another I know his area, haven't a clue of his street name. These are very close friends.

Work friends, I know some of their rough neighbourhoods or say, West Dublin. Others I haven't a clue.

I'd have to ask the postal address of my friends to send them something is what I'm saying.

J.O. Farmer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Such a close friend that he didn’t know his address?

Quite plausible it could happen. I know where my close friends live and could drive to the house but I wouldn't necessarily know the exact address to post a letter.

Bigger question is why he posted it to the home address unless

1. The head of the NGPA worked mainly from home (possible)

2. This document was deemed sensitive enough as not to risk it accidentally being seen by a colleague (equally possible).

HildaOgdenx

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.

Exactly what I thought from day one. I never understood the praise she got, and was gobsmacked at her ministerial appointment.

StackSteevens

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

You and I are generally on the same side of any argument with the dribbling members of Club Gobsh1te, but on this one, you're completely and absolutely wrong! Loose Lips Leo is so much out of order on this one that, if it was a game of chess, he'd have knocked his king sideways 48 hours ago.

His survival - which I don't want to see - will serve only to confirm the widely held view that FF and FG are simply two sides of the same coin.

When an FG Leader has the likes of Barry Cowen defending him, anyone with even half a brain can see that he's kaput!

I don't know whether Loose Lips has Dara Callery's number on his mobile phone, but if he has, he should phone him and ask for advice about resigning with dignity. But maybe he'd prefer to ape the widely reviled Seamus Woulfe.

blanch152

timmyntc wrote: »

When it's published by the Author(s) and reclassified as non-restricted.
Doesn't matter how many people have it, or if it's already been leaked. It's still an offence.

And where is that definition of confidential information in the Corruption Offences Act?

Not there that I can find it.

Even if your definition is correct, by permitting the IMO to share it with its members, it has arguably been reclassified as non-restricted.

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

An organisation that no longer exists?

The content of the document was already in the public domain.

I refer you to my reply a few posts back...

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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"

Deleted User wrote: »

Such a close friend that he didn’t know his address?

I don't know any of my friend's full postal addresses. I have to check my eircode anytime I need it.

weldoninhio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Such a close friend that he didn’t know his address?

Probably just verifying it. When you’re leaking a confidential document that shouldn’t be shared to a mate, you don’t want it ending up with his neighbours.

Phoebas

timmyntc wrote: »

When it's published by the Author(s) and reclassified as non-restricted.
Doesn't matter how many people have it, or if it's already been leaked. It's still an offence.

So, the IMO, who press released big chunks of this - they must be in big trouble now too?

s1ippy

"Fionnán" now on RTÉ radio saying it wasn't best practice but because of the fact that he was Taoiseach, he could do what he wanted.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

And where is that definition of confidential information in the Corruption Offences Act?

Not there that I can find it.

Even if your definition is correct, by permitting the IMO to share it with its members, it has arguably been reclassified as non-restricted.

Do you think the Gardai need to investigate this then? Or are you vindicating him on the basis of his reasoning?

Simple question, is Leo the judge ad jury here?

boombang

blanch152 wrote: »

And where is that definition of confidential information in the Corruption Offences Act?

Not there that I can find it.

Even if your definition is correct, by permitting the IMO to share it with its members, it has arguably been reclassified as non-restricted.

Keep spinning.

blanch152

StackSteevens wrote: »

You and I are generally on the same side of any argument with the dribbling members of Club Gobsh1te, but on this one, you're completely and absolutely wrong! Loose Lips Leo is so much out of order on this one that, if it was a game of chess, he'd have knocked his king sideways 48 hours ago.

His survival - which I don't want to see - will serve only to confirm the widely held view that FF and FG are simply two sides of the same coin.

When an FG Leader has the likes of Barry Cowen defending him, anyone with even half a brain can see that he's kaput!

I don't know whether Loose Lips has Dara Callery's number on his mobile phone, but if he has, he should phone him and ask for advice about resigning with dignoity. But maybe he'd prefer to ape Maria Bailey and await the knock on the door.

Wait a minute here, all I have been saying is that I cannot see where any criminal offence has been committed. That is the only point I have defended to date. I have also pointed out that my position on that is based on the information in the public domain to date.

I have not commented on the appropriateness or otherwise of what was done, more information is needed. Certainly O'Tuathail appears to have been boasting about a close relationship with the Taoiseach, and that is what Bowes has said to Smith. Whether such a close relationship existed in reality is a question unanswered.

This can still go either way.

Club Gobs!te, as you deem them, don't understand the law and are drooling over themselves (at least I hope it is just drool) with giddiness over the thought that Leo might be going to jail, but they might need to calm down a bit.

J.O. Farmer

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Cowan cannot answer fully that he would be sacked if he had done this.
'well, well, I, I'
And that is the line set which LV needs to jump.

Cowan (as well as any other minister who wasn't party leader e.g. Simon Harris as minister for health) would quite likely be sacked or at least come under severe pressure.

The opposition would size up the posssibilty of a motion of no confidence and there'd be a stand off similar to Francis Fitzgerald is the last government. In that situation could this government be confident of winning that vote with the greens and some fianna fail backbencher.

The only thing saving Leo is his position as leader of Fine Gael and losing him could collapse the government.

seamus

s1ippy wrote: »

Barry Cowan now on RTÉ radio saying it wasn't best practice but because of the fact that he was Taoiseach, he could do what he wanted.

That's going to be the party line so.

"It wasn't best practice, but as the Taoiseach there was no obligation to consult with or even inform the minister for health at the time."

Just has to be certain now that it didn't break the law and I can see him getting away with this.

FF will have to defend him; they'll get steamrolled if an election is called now, or they'll have to form a new Govt with SF.

Signore Fancy Pants

blanch152 wrote: »

With all due respect to the document, it wouldn't fall into the category of security classified document.

This was an industrial relations agreement type of document.

To borrow your phrase, anyone who thinks there were some state security secrets in this document is quite frankly an idiot.

The document is quite clearly security classified...it says "confidential" on it.

Gregor Samsa

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

Quite plausible it could happen. I know where my close friends live and could drive to the house but I wouldn't necessarily know the exact address to post a letter.

Bigger question is why he posted it to the home address unless

1. The head of the NGPA worked mainly from home (possible)

2. This document was deemed sensitive enough as not to risk it accidentally being seen by a colleague (equally possible).

April 17th was in the middle of the Spring lockdown. Regardless of any other considerations or possibilities, it's very likely their office was closed and they were all WFH.

Got the wrong year.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

Wait a minute here, all I have been saying is that I cannot see where any criminal offence has been committed. That is the only point I have defended to date. I have also pointed out that my position on that is based on the information in the public domain to date.

I have not commented on the appropriateness or otherwise of what was done, more information is needed. Certainly O'Tuathail appears to have been boasting about a close relationship with the Taoiseach, and that is what Bowes has said to Smith. Whether such a close relationship existed in reality is a question unanswered.

This can still go either way.

Club Gobs!te, as you deem them, don't understand the law and are drooling over themselves (at least I hope it is just drool) with giddiness over the thought that Leo might be going to jail, but they might need to calm down a bit.

Well ago you asked for a law showing the taoiseach couldn't do xyz. I'd say you're firmly in club gob****e yourself.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

That's going to be the party line so.

"It wasn't best practice, but as the Taoiseach there was no obligation to consult with or even inform the minister for health at the time."

Just has to be certain now that it didn't break the law and I can see him getting away with this.

FF will have to defend him; they'll get steamrolled if an election is called now, or they'll have to form a new Govt with SF.

I think COwen s just being a sleeveen here and putting pressure on Martin. Jim O'Callaghan pressuring in the opposite way.

FF is in internal chaos IMO.

FrancieBrady

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

April 17th was in the middle of the Spring lockdown. Regardless of any other considerations or possibilities, it's very likely their office was closed and they were all WFH.

????

seamus

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

The document is quite clearly security classified...it says "confidential" on it.

Printing "confidential" on a document, doesn't actually make it so.

If a document is no longer confidential, then old copies of it with "confidential" written across them are not.

I'm not saying the document wasn't confidential, merely pointing out that a watermark on a document isn't a smoking gun.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you think the Gardai need to investigate this then? Or are you vindicating him on the basis of his reasoning?

Simple question, is Leo the judge ad jury here?

Who else decides what government information is confidential or not? Or when it moves from confidential to non-confidential?

That was his job.

Based on the information publicly available to date, he was perfectly entitled to do what he did in accordance with the law, so no criminal offence.

As I said already, appropriateness or not is another question hanging out there and it could go either way.

StackSteevens

blanch152 wrote: »

Wait a minute here, all I have been saying is that I cannot see where any criminal offence has been committed. That is the only point I have defended to date. I have also pointed out that my position on that is based on the information in the public domain to date.

I have not commented on the appropriateness or otherwise of what was done, more information is needed. Certainly O'Tuathail appears to have been boasting about a close relationship with the Taoiseach, and that is what Bowes has said to Smith. Whether such a close relationship existed in reality is a question unanswered.

This can still go either way.

Club Gobs!te, as you deem them, don't understand the law and are drooling over themselves (at least I hope it is just drool) with giddiness over the thought that Leo might be going to jail, but they might need to calm down a bit.

In other words you're nitpicking in a hurricane - off you go so!

For me, senior politicians who insist that they haven't actually "broken the law" are the lowest form of life and are in the same category as those who argue that they were "never in the IRA" or that the money was only resting in their account.

Drop him - he's not worth defending.