Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…4849515354…417

Comments

  • Options
    #1502
    s1ippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭s1ippy


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

    Daily Mail doing some mild evisceration.


  • Options
    #1503
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #1504
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,413 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #1505
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,035 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    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.

    Agreed on the first point - no NDA for those negotiations. As I said, this angle doesnt apply.

    However on the 2nd point - the while the Taoiseach can authorise/approve the release of documents, they still must follow official processes. They can't just take a confidential doc and send it to whomever they please! There will be an official record of the Taoiseach's approval, and to whom they approved the docs release to. The department has to know who has access to confidential docs, it's not some kind of free for all.


  • Options
    #1506
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,840 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    smurgen wrote: »
    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
    s1ippy wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1323173615240728577?s=20

    Daily Mail doing some mild evisceration.

    The mainstream media smell blood in the water it seems...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1507
    Floppybits
    Registered Users Posts: 7,633 ✭✭✭Floppybits


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

    Did you not know that the Taoiseach is emperor and can release whatever documents he likes, it doesn't matter whether they are confidential or secret, if the Taoiseach wants to release they of they go.

    Now you may have to take this with a few grains of salt as this is what Blanch says. :)


  • Options
    #1508
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,413 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


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

    this is section 5 of the OSA which I think is the relevant one. I see no mention of secret. It says the authorisation must be in writing. should be simple to show that this was done.
    5.—(1) A person who is or has been—

    (a) a party to a contract with a Minister or State authority or with any person on behalf of a Minister or State authority, or

    (b) employed by such party,

    shall not communicate to any third party any information relating to the contract and expressed therein to be confidential.

    (2) A person to whom subsection (1) applies shall take reasonable care to avoid any unlawful communication of such information.

    (3) It shall be a good defence to a prosecution for a contravention of this section to prove that the communication was authorised in writing by the Minister or State authority or by the party contracting on behalf of the Minister or State authority.


  • Options
    #1509
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    Deleted User wrote: »
    An organisation that no longer exists?

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

    Not you as well. :eek:

    I had hoped that Blanch was on his own in trying to defend the indefensible.


  • Options
    #1510
    gadarnol
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭gadarnol


    The legality or illegality of Varadkar’s action is one element of this issue. Shane Ross has claimed Varadkar allowed mobile phones at Cabinet meetings and there were leaks even as meetings were in progress. The frenetic FG activity on the issue of legality of the latest shambles is very much bound up with that issue.

    The FG spin is built around calling this leaking “sharing”. It will be repeated ad nauseam by the usual suspects.

    The political dimensions of this are the ones to watch. Varadkar is damaged goods now. A politically adept leader of the Greens would see the opportunity. However, Eamon Ryan.


  • Options
    #1511
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,689 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    this is section 5 of the OSA which I think is the relevant one. I see no mention of secret. It says the authorisation must be in writing. should be simple to show that this was done.

    It wasn't an official contract, so Section 5 does not apply.

    Section 4 is the most relevant, particularly Section 4(4)

    "(4) In this section “duly authorised” means authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority."

    No mention of written authorisation.

    You have to remember that the OSA is 57 years old and is of its time. The power vested in Ministers, and the Taoiseach to authorise disclosure may be out-of-date, but it is the law.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1512
    Pintman Paddy Losty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭Pintman Paddy Losty


    The hysteria in this thread is actually laughable.

    People calling for jail time and sackings. LOL!

    Varadkar didn't do anything illegal in sharing the document. He did it for very good and valid reasons. The way he did it wasn't best practice, but no real harm came from it, only good actually, in that it helped get 40% of GPs not represented by IMO on side.

    He'll clarify things tomorrow. Then we can all focus on the fallout of the US election and put this non issue to bed.


  • Options
    #1513
    joemurt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭joemurt


    Deleted User wrote: »
    An organisation that no longer exists?

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




    Why does it no longer exist Maryanne?


  • Options
    #1514
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »
    The hysteria in this thread is actually laughable.

    People calling for jail time and sackings. LOL!

    Varadkar didn't do anything illegal in sharing the document. He did it for very good and valid reasons. The way he did it wasn't best practice, but no real harm came from it, only good actually, in that it helped get 40% of GPs not represented by IMO on side.

    He'll clarify things tomorrow. Then we can all focus on the fallout of the US election and put this non issue to bed.

    I see they gave you a couple of hours sleep Paddy


  • Options
    #1515
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,689 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    StackSteevens wrote: »
    Not you as well. :eek:

    I had hoped that Blanch was on his own in trying to defend the indefensible.

    Defending the opinion that no criminal act took place is defending the indefensible?


  • Options
    #1516
    Cute Hoor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭Cute Hoor


    Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »
    It's not best practice

    OK so I know it's not best practice, but is it OK for any Government minister to share an official Government document marked 'Confidential / not for circulation' with his mates, once his intention is good


  • Options
    #1517
    Floppybits
    Registered Users Posts: 7,633 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    gadarnol wrote: »
    The political dimensions of this are the ones to watch. Varadkar is damaged goods now. A politically adept leader of the Greens would see the opportunity. However, Eamon Ryan.

    The Greens have no interest in getting involved in this. They are more than happy that this has taken the spotlight of Roderic O'Gorman's car crash handling of the mother and baby homes legislation. Varadkar will not be sacked but he has been badly damaged by this and we may see him announce his resignation probably in the summer with the leadership going to Coveney for the second half of this government.


  • Options
    #1518
    gadarnol
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭gadarnol


    I should add that the document was not in the public domain as evidenced by statement to the Dáil by the FF spokesperson on Health at the time, Donnelly. Some parts were in the possession of journalists and FG will have to show that this was most of the document and that journalists had already published that. This gets very dangerous ground for journalists too. The government is again embroiled in incompetence and controversy.


  • Options
    #1519
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »

    Complete non-story as I mentioned earlier. All the usual lads fell for a bit of fake outrage again. Must be disappointing for you all to see it fizzle out.

    As posted by our man with his finger on the pulse at 16.30 on Saturday!

    Has anyone heard from Johnny recently or has he been recalled to HQ for a software update?


  • Options
    #1520
    joemurt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭joemurt


    Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »
    only good actually, in that it helped get 40% of GPs not represented by IMO on side.




    You mean - By Varadkar leaking the secret document he gained personally by making a deal happen that wouldn't of happened if he didn't leak?



    As said - Criminal.


  • Options
    #1521
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,413 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    blanch152 wrote: »
    It wasn't an official contract, so Section 5 does not apply.

    Section 4 is the most relevant, particularly Section 4(4)

    "(4) In this section “duly authorised” means authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority."

    No mention of written authorisation.

    You have to remember that the OSA is 57 years old and is of its time. The power vested in Ministers, and the Taoiseach to authorise disclosure may be out-of-date, but it is the law.

    why section 4 and not section 5? was the information not related to a contract?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1522
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Defending the opinion that no criminal act took place is defending the indefensible?


    I think it's time to put you in my ignore bin until this shabby saga is over.

    Incidentally, any chance of you replying to my recent Denis Naughten question, or was it a bit too challenging for you?


  • Options
    #1523
    Pintman Paddy Losty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,913 ✭✭✭Pintman Paddy Losty


    StackSteevens wrote: »
    I think it's time to put you in my ignore bin until this shabby saga is over.

    Incidentally, any chance of you replying to my recent Denis Naughten question, or was it a bit too challenging for you?

    Good lad. Fingers in the ears.


  • Options
    #1524
    bureau2009
    Registered Users Posts: 614 ✭✭✭bureau2009


    Cute Hoor wrote: »
    OK so I know it's not best practice, but is it OK for any Government minister to share an official Government document marked 'Confidential / not for circulation' with his mates, once his intention is good
    Imagine if a secretary or clerical staff "shared" a Government report marked "Confidential", even with the very best of intentions...…………….


  • Options
    #1525
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »
    Good lad. Fingers in the ears.


    Absolutely - tinnitus is a right pain in the hole.


  • Options
    #1526
    RandomViewer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    StackSteevens wrote: »
    As posted by our man with his finger on the pulse at 16.30 on Saturday!

    Has anyone heard from Johnny recently or has he been recalled to HQ for a software update?

    Old Voting machine software overheating?


  • Options
    #1527
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,335 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Mr.S wrote: »
    With Martin now essentially backing Leo, will this go much further?

    A grilling on Tuesday from the opposition and then....?

    Depends on whether The Village has more shoes to drop


  • Options
    #1528
    Paddygreen
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭Paddygreen


    Is this how we treat our hero’s? The man that probably saved countless numbers of us from certain death by acting decisively when Covid19 came to town. A patriot that has such a profound sense of duty that he donned his scrubs and went to the front. A man that puts his country first. Shame on those who put stock in a scurrilous campaign against the best Taoiseach we ever had. A shoddy plot cooked up by jealous provincial bumpkins, bog plodders who want to shove a great man to one side to make way for their primitive gombeenism. Seething ungrateful nobodies with no carisma lurking on the back benches. Meanwhile Martin with the smell of bog off him smuggly sits back on his swivel chair, Leo’s chair, like Scarface, forgetting he is not in Cork now boy.. well let it be said, Leo is one cock-a-roach that spacer won’t be getting rid of., we need to look past his little mistake and focus on the true villians of the saga. I hope Martin remembers the end of that movie.


  • Options
    #1529
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,689 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    why section 4 and not section 5? was the information not related to a contract?

    No, an agreement, couldn't be a contract because of previous Court rulings re competition policy.


  • Options
    #1530
    Floppybits
    Registered Users Posts: 7,633 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    gadarnol wrote: »
    I should add that the document was not in the public domain as evidenced by statement to the Dáil by the FF spokesperson on Health at the time, Donnelly. Some parts were in the possession of journalists and FG will have to show that this was most of the document and that journalists had already published that. This gets very dangerous ground for journalists too. The government is again embroiled in incompetence and controversy.

    This is the thing for me. I know FG are singing from every lamppost that the document was in the public domain but was it the full document or just one that gave a summary of the agreement but was light on details as the main document was still to be looked over and voted on by the members of the negotiating unions. If the opposition and even the unions involved were looking for the detailed agreement after Varadkar had leaked the agreement then surely this means that the document he leaked was not in the public domain.

    Also if the document was in the public domain why did Varadkar then not just point his mate to where he could get a copy or instruct someone in his team to give a copy of the agreement to his mate, why all the sneaking around using back channels?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1531
    boombang
    Registered Users Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭boombang


    Some of the pro Leo spin here is utterly laughable.

    Even a Leo fan should admit this looks bad, the guy has questions to answer and will he suffer reputational damage in the long run. That's before we consider how much of a wobble this will cause in government.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement