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

s1ippy

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.

Sorry I just tuned back in at the end of the segment there and Cowan was gone and she called the guy that said that "Fionnán" so I'd say he was a co-host.

I don't think they're going to have a choice. He'll have to step down as Táiniste. His integrity is in tatters and the public are baying for blood. Michael Smith is going to provide more damning evidence of his leaky habits during the week. I can see this getting untenable.

Coveney can step up to replace him with Paschal taking the role of second in command. Will a election necessarily have to take place? With the pandemic they're surely able to work around it.

_Kaiser_

seamus wrote: »

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.

And again...

Me! 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"

J.O. Farmer

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.

This guy was a GP, was he practising at the time. GP's are essential services and still held surgerys or was his union position his full time job.

It could still be his home address but lockdown wouldn't have anything to do with it.

timmyntc

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.

It's not in corruption offences act, it's the Official Secrets Act 1963.
IMO, as a party in said negotiations, would have been authorised - although not all IMO members were actually given the negotiation doc either - only the union members actively involved in negotiations.

Also just because IMO members (or anyone else for that matter) has access granted to them to a certain document, does not release the overall restriction on said document. Those who have been granted access to the document are not allowed to share, reproduce the document - and in some cases may have to sign NDAs so they dont leak any of the details on what the doc entails either.

In this case the NDA might not have applied (it's only a state negotiation deal) but the other restrictions on the document will have.

blanch152

StackSteevens wrote: »

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.

For once, I am sitting on the fence, just pointing out some of the stupidity in those attacking him on here.

suicide_circus

Looks like it'll come down to did he actually break the law.

Floppybits

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!

Why are you using offensive language against posters who may not agree with the government? There is no need for that, why can't you and a few others not just accept that not everyone is a government supporter and not everyone agrees with every single thing they do, why the constant need to insult these posters?

seamus

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Am I the only one who isn’t bothered by this story?

I mean, it’s nowhere near the level of Maria Bailey or Golfgate when it comes to the “cheek of those politicians” Bailey was trying to swindle a hefty payout from insurance, something we all pay. Golfgate was when we were all meant to be restricting our movements. The GPs pay deal and who seen what doesn’t impact my life in any way.

It’s all a bit meh to me.

The core of what they're hoping to show is that Leo was engaged in a bit of sleeven politics by disclosing confidential documents to a close personal friend.

IMHO, unless it can be shown that the law was broken or that an individua stood to financially gain from this, I can't see it having the intended effect.

McMurphy

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.

Got the wrong year.

It was 2019, so very unlikely I would suggest Gregor.

Gregor Samsa

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

This guy was a GP, was he practising at the time. GP's are essential services and still held surgerys or was his union position his full time job.

It could still be his home address but lockdown wouldn't have anything to do with it.

Well, I am wrong - but it's because the document was sent in April 2019, not this year.

(and I meant the NAGP office on Kildare Street, not his GP practice)

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

So now you are saying it is within the Taoiseach of the day's remit to decide what is confidential or not?

Is that written down anywhere? Link?

suicide_circus

seamus wrote: »

The core of what they're hoping to show is that Leo was engaged in a bit of sleeven politics by disclosing confidential documents to a close personal friend.

IMHO, unless it can be shown that the law was broken or that an individua stood to financially gain from this, I can't see it having the intended effect.

I'm not sure the person has to "financially" gain for it to be seen as corrupt, i think it's any gain.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

The core of what they're hoping to show is that Leo was engaged in a bit of sleeven politics by disclosing confidential documents to a close personal friend.

IMHO, unless it can be shown that the law was broken or that an individua stood to financially gain from this, I can't see it having the intended effect.

The law doesn't require you to show a 'benefit' as far as I know. 'Could benefit' is enough.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

For once, I am sitting on the fence, just pointing out some of the stupidity in those attacking him on here.

Liking posts saying am I the only one that doesn't care? Posting non stop asking for links and dismissing people.You're fooling no one.

blanch152

timmyntc wrote: »

It's not in corruption offences act, it's the Official Secrets Act 1963.
IMO, as a party in said negotiations, would have been authorised - although not all IMO members were actually given the negotiation doc either - only the union members actively involved in negotiations.

Also just because IMO members (or anyone else for that matter) has access granted to them to a certain document, does not release the overall restriction on said document. Those who have been granted access to the document are not allowed to share, reproduce the document - and in some cases may have to sign NDAs so they dont leak any of the details on what the doc entails either.

In this case the NDA might not have applied (it's only a state negotiation deal) but the other restrictions on the document will have.

Firstly, there would have been no NDAs signed by the IMO, doesn't happen in such IR negotiations.

Secondly, I have already address the Official Secrets Act angle, the Taoiseach can authorise himself to release the document under that Act, so no offence committed.

joemurt

Do we live in a democracy or not?

Varadkar and Fine Gael thought it more important to commit a crime transferring confidential state documents to a very close mate to ''get GP's onboard with a deal'' than have it fully scrutinized by elected officials in the Dail.

10 years. Him and the recipient who was looking for the state documents.

Its not the Governments job in any healthy democracy to leak documents surrounding a negotiation so they can exert influence on the other side of the negotiation table ''to get them onboard with a deal''.

The idea that ''if it wasn't leaked, we'd have no deal with the GPs'' is a disgusting justification of his behaviour and may open the door to legal recourse from the IMO insofar as they were completely undermind throughout the confidential negotiations with Varadkar and Fine Gael.

If IMO thought the deal was ****, they could have walked away from it. They could have if not for the fact Varadkar provided the documents to a rival org. that was proudly boasting about the access and influence they had within the Health Ministry, Varadkar and the Government.

Anyone who stands by this naked corruption in 2020 needs to lose their seat next GE. Keep receipts people. This country, the people, need to start holding the untouchables to account in a proper fashion to end the continued erosion of social society. Not one law for them another for the plebs.

Jail time must happen. Corruption must end.

_Kaiser_

seamus wrote: »

The core of what they're hoping to show is that Leo was engaged in a bit of sleeven politics by disclosing confidential documents to a close personal friend.

IMHO, unless it can be shown that the law was broken or that an individua stood to financially gain from this, I can't see it having the intended effect.

It's potentially far wider-reaching than that.

It poses the question of what else he may have inappropriately passed on to people. Is this the tip of a large iceberg?

As the former and future Taoiseach (unless he's replaced in the interim) it makes it even more significant as he'd presumably have access to almost everything.

blanch152

smurgen wrote: »

Liking posts saying am I the only one that doesn't care? Posting non stop asking for links and dismissing people.You're fooling no one.

Non-stop asking for links?

I see posters hysterically proclaiming that criminal offences have been committed. I have explained clearly several times now how that does not appear to be the case.

Nobotty

s1ippy wrote: »

Sorry I just tuned back in at the end of the segment there and Cowan was gone and she called the guy that said that "Fionnán" so I'd say he was a co-host.

I don't think they're going to have a choice. He'll have to step down as Táiniste. His integrity is in tatters and the public are baying for blood. Michael Smith is going to provide more damning evidence of his leaky habits during the week. I can see this getting untenable.

Coveney can step up to replace him with Paschal taking the role of second in command. Will a election necessarily have to take place? With the pandemic they're surely able to work around it.

Fionnán Sheehan of the indo

ohnonotgmail

blanch152 wrote: »

Firstly, there would have been no NDAs signed by the IMO, doesn't happen in such IR negotiations.

Secondly, I have already address the Official Secrets Act angle, the Taoiseach can authorise himself to release the document under that Act, so no offence committed.

did the taoiseach do that? if he had he could simply release a statement to that effect and put this to bed. that he hasn't released such a statement would lead me to believe he didn't. And he didn't because he was working on the sly and didnt want anybody else to know he had handed the document over.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Firstly, there would have been no NDAs signed by the IMO, doesn't happen in such IR negotiations.

Secondly, I have already address the Official Secrets Act angle, the Taoiseach can authorise himself to release the document under that Act, so no offence committed.

Where does it say that the Taoiseach can, secretly, act in this way? Seems not even his Health Minister was aware it was being done.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where does it say that the Taoiseach can, secretly, act in this way? Seems not even his Health Minister was aware it was being done.

Read back on my posts on the Official Secrets Act.

StackSteevens

blanch152 wrote: »

For once, I am sitting on the fence, just pointing out some of the stupidity in those attacking him on here.

Had Denis Naughten broken any law when Leo demanded his resignation?

A YES or NO answer will suffice.


Even the hapless Maria Bailey hadn't actually broken any law when she was turfed out of the party.

s1ippy

s1ippy wrote: »

"The son of a migrant, he knows the issues facing refugees better than anyone."
- Patrick O'Donovan on Claire Byrne.

That just turned my stomach.

Such a dishonest misrepresentation in that quote. Typical when it comes to discussing migration.

joemurt

joemurt wrote: »

Do we live in a democracy or not?

Varadkar and Fine Gael thought it more important to commit a crime transferring confidential state documents to a very close mate to ''get GP's onboard with a deal'' than have it fully scrutinized by elected officials in the Dail.

10 years. Him and the recipient who was looking for the state documents.

Its not the Governments job in any healthy democracy to leak documents surrounding a negotiation so they can exert influence on the other side of the negotiation table ''to get them onboard with a deal''.

The idea that ''if it wasn't leaked, we'd have no deal with the GPs'' is a disgusting justification of his behaviour and may open the door to legal recourse from the IMO insofar as they were completely undermind throughout the confidential negotiations with Varadkar and Fine Gael.

If IMO thought the deal was ****, they could have walked away from it. They could have if not for the fact Varadkar provided the documents to a rival org. that was proudly boasting about the access and influence they had within the Health Ministry, Varadkar and the Government.

Anyone who stands by this naked corruption in 2020 needs to lose their seat next GE. Keep receipts people. This country, the people, need to start holding the untouchables to account in a proper fashion to end the continued erosion of social society. Not one law for them another for the plebs.

Jail time must happen. Corruption must end.

Anyone know what social society is? :pac::pac::pac:

smurgen

it's wasn't necessary for the head of the department to know what was being sent?

https://twitter.com/ciananbrennan/status/1323219317505351683?s=19

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Read back on my posts on the Official Secrets Act.

How about quoting the section that says a Taoiseach can act secretly in this way?

s1ippy

https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1323173615240728577?s=20

Daily Mail doing some mild evisceration.

Cute Hoor

blanch152 wrote: »

That would be one of my fears about Minister for Justice Dessie Ellis.

You are effectively giving him carte blanche to do it, or is it OK for Varadkar but not for Ellis

ohnonotgmail

blanch152 wrote: »

Read back on my posts on the Official Secrets Act.

Can you clarify whether you believe the information released would be covered under section 4 or section 5 of the OSA?