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

seamus

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, the Maria Bailey thing is entirely different.

Even though no-one was willing to say it for fear of being sued, Bailey was clearly attempting to engage in insurance fraud. Or at the very least make a very frivilous insurance claim with an inflated compensation demand.

Unless it can be shown that there was personal gain in this for Leo, then it will be seen a relatively small breach of process.

I note with some positivity though, that it's great to see people getting worked up by such a relatively inconsequential scandal. It's not that long ago that this country's scandals involved IRA gun-runners being elected Taoiseach, cronyism and profiteering on a massive scale, "You try keeping 3 houses on a TDs salary", an Attorney General providing room & board to a murderer, and former terrorists and murderers being elected to the Dáil.

Headlines because a confidential document was shared with a mate for apparently no reason other than a simple favour, goes to show how far we actually have come in battling corruption in this country, even if it doesn't feel like it.

I agree with you, you'll not hear a word from me on that point. I think even the slogan "we're in this together" now has got people pissed off. people keeping popping at the "nothing to gain for him" stance There may not have been but its looking more and more like that doctor has Leo under the thumb..why else would he be meeting him for lunch after being supplied with these documents...the good doctor seems to know exactly what Leo's opinions on immigrants are, loathsome as they sound.. the thread paints a tone of him being able to influence Varadkar and at the same time gloating about it.
The Bag of money emoji and the Leo delivers, seem to me to be the worst part..it's real Crony stuff.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, he couldn't. Revenue and CAB are vested with the authority to ask you how you came by unexplained money.

He could always say it was a personal account used for his Dail expenses.

VonLuck

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why does it need to be shown that 'he had some personal gain'?

There's a world of difference between doing it for personal gain and just doing a friend a favour. The former is a lot more sinister than the latter which could be put down to poor judgement.

Truthvader

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, the Maria Bailey thing is entirely different.

Even though no-one was willing to say it for fear of being sued, Bailey was clearly attempting to engage in insurance fraud. Or at the very least make a very frivilous insurance claim with an inflated compensation demand.

Unless it can be shown that there was personal gain in this for Leo, then it will be seen a relatively small breach of process.

I note with some positivity though, that it's great to see people getting worked up by such a relatively inconsequential scandal. It's not that long ago that this country's scandals involved IRA gun-runners being elected Taoiseach, cronyism and profiteering on a massive scale, "You try keeping 3 houses on a TDs salary", an Attorney General providing room & board to a murderer, and former terrorists and murderers being elected to the Dáil.

Headlines because a confidential document was shared with a mate for apparently no reason other than a simple favour, goes to show how far we actually have come in battling corruption in this country, even if it doesn't feel like it.

Think your underestimating the rage and hatred Sinn Fein have for "normal parties". This is all they have to shriek about so they have to pretend it is the worst thing that has ever happened. - Even as they pretend the €30k they tried to slither off with is recovered

Floppybits

blanch152 wrote: »

He could always say it was a personal account used for his Dail expenses.

He could say anything he likes the issue is would he be believed?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

He could always say it was a personal account used for his Dail expenses.

And when the trail shows the money didn't come from the state.

Keep digging, very revealing that you have a list of excuses.

FrancieBrady

VonLuck wrote: »

There's a world of difference between doing it for personal gain and just doing a friend a favour. The former is a lot more sinister than the latter which could be put down to poor judgement.

Both are equally wrong and sinister.

seamus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why does it need to be shown that 'he had some personal gain'?
It was either the right thing to do or it wasn't.

I know it suits you to selectively apply a binary test to this one action, but this is no different to anything else.

There is scale of wrongness. Sharing a document with someone who wasn't supposed to have it - let's just say he did it as a courtesy to a mate - and sharing that document in return for financial or political favours, are two different things, in different places on the scale of wrongness.

And with different implications.

And you can't play innocent and pretend otherwise, because you've been on here before defending other incidents as not being all that bad in the grand scheme. You can't choose to suddenly decide it's "either right or wrong" in this case, when you don't do the same for every case.

If there was no personal gain, then it was an ill-advised action, but one with no actual consequences. It does raise the question of what else may have been shared and with whom, but seeing as nobody is hunting a government leaker or whistleblower right now, if he has shared something else, it also hasn't been to much consequence.

If there was personal gain, then it calls into question many of his activities before and after this incident, and whether Leo's pocket influenced the outcome of state decisions.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't give a monkey's what party that Taoiseach is from, I am sick to the back teeth of nods and winks and back channels. Of tents and golf societies. Of cushy jobs on boards after (state pensioned) 'retirement'. Of rejected TDs sitting out the time until they can run again in the Seanad. Of white collared dippers in public funds never getting their collars felt by the law. Of private companies and individuals making millions providing shoddy 'services' on behalf of the State. Of individuals to locked into pathetic tribal polities that they will excuse anything to get one other on the other guys'.
Of zero accountability because all that matters is 'our' party is in power.

Best post I've read in a long time, cutting straight to the heart of the matter. The blind ignorance of inherited loyalties stretching back to the civil war, which is a significant malaise in Irish society. These people have no shame whatsoever.

VonLuck

VonLuck wrote: »

There's a world of difference between doing it for personal gain and just doing a friend a favour. The former is a lot more sinister than the latter which could be put down to poor judgement.

I do agree too, what's the nature of the favour?? enrichment? or perhaps other favours of the "personal kind". If it was a young girl, we'd all be allowed to say it ok.

To be honest, even using your position to get your boy band backstage to kylie, smacks of Leo's arrogant "attitude". see what I did there!!

ohnonotgmail

blanch152 wrote: »

If we got money, he could always claim that he wasn't aware of getting the money because it wasn't a monitored account and that he paid it back when he was asked a question about it.

are you really going with "the money was only resting in my account" as a defence?

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

I know it suits you to selectively apply a binary test to this one action, but this is no different to anything else.

There is scale of wrongness. Sharing a document with someone who wasn't supposed to have it - let's just say he did it as a courtesy to a mate - and sharing that document in return for financial or political favours, are two different things, in different places on the scale of wrongness.

And with different implications.

And you can't play innocent and pretend otherwise, because you've been on here before defending other incidents as not being all that bad in the grand scheme. You can't choose to suddenly decide it's "either right or wrong" in this case, when you don't do the same for every case.

If there was no personal gain, then it was an ill-advised action, but one with no actual consequences. It does raise the question of what else may have been shared and with whom, but seeing as nobody is hunting a government leaker or whistleblower right now, if he has shared something else, it also hasn't been to much consequence.

If there was personal gain, then it calls into question many of his activities before and after this incident, and whether Leo's pocket influenced the outcome of state decisions.

A weak and pathetic argument in fairness.

The reason there are laws and rules around confidentiality and Official Secrets is that nobody knows what the consequences would be if information is shared.

Varadkar had no way of knowing when he did this what the consequences might be.

That there were apparently none does not the diminish the crime.

Try again.

VonLuck

rusty cole wrote: »

I do agree too, what's the nature of the favour?? enrichment? or perhaps other favours of the "personal kind". If it was a young girl, we'd all be allowed to say it ok.

To be honest, even using your position to get your boy band backstage to kylie, smacks of Leo's arrogant "attitude". see what I did there!!

You seem to be pushing this agenda that Leo was trying to get with MO'T. Is this some weird kind of personal fantasy you have, or do you know something we don't?

McMurphy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are you really going with "the money was only resting in my account" as a defence?

No what he's really doing is trying to deflect to the shinners, same shyte, different day.

CorkRed93

So say LV doesn't get push over-board. How do FF voters/members (if any in here) feel about that given how MM has left 2 of his TDs go already after pressure from within coalition? Surely will be some dissent among FF ranks in gov. Can't help but feel FG are sticking with LV in the hope it eats away at FF and Martin from inside their own party.

Cluedo Monopoly

CorkRed93 wrote: »

So say LV doesn't get push over-board. How do FF voters/members (if any in here) feel about that given how MM has left 2 of his TDs go already after pressure from within coalition? Surely will be some dissent among FF ranks in gov. Can't help but feel FG are sticking with LV in the hope it eats away at FF and Martin from inside their own party.

Hogan was fired too. He balanced the FF idiots.

Bannasidhe

Truthvader wrote: »

Think your underestimating the rage and hatred Sinn Fein have for "normal parties". This is all they have to shriek about so they have to pretend it is the worst thing that has ever happened. - Even as they pretend the €30k they tried to slither off with is recovered

Oh FFS would ye stop.



Defend Varadker all you want. Tell us how "his intentions were good". "it wasn't illegal", "it was a done and dusted deal", "the Taoiseach doesn't need permission" and "you all hate him because he has brown skin and he's gay" but this ohhhh SF would be soooo much worser is utterly pathetic.

Guess what - there are people here criticising Varadker who don't support SF. Might even agree with you that SF are a bit dodge - but that has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening around Leo's leak.

SF did not make Taoiseach Leo scrawl a note across the front page of a document marked 'confidential', did not make him send a message to a friend asking for his postal address, did not make him send that document directly to his friend.
None of what happened had anything to do with SF. This was all Leo Varadker on a solo run, and now it is FG and FF defending him and the GP talking out of both sides of their mouths.
IF this govt falls now it will be due to yet another own goal in a string of own goals. The other team could have gone home and they would still be credited with goals. But the other team hasn't gone home.

The difference now is there is genuine opposition - and it's not just SF - and there are media outlets outside the cosy cartel so questions are being asked that can't be ignored.
And imo this is a) a good thing and b)about bloody time.

seamus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That there were apparently none does not the diminish the crime.

If there's a crime.

That's another kind of wrong altogether.

Try again.

JohnnyFlash

Time to put the toys away, lads, and get back to class. Mountain made out of a molehill on all this. Lessons learned and Leo gets to fight another day. Good lesson in realpolitik for some of you.

Called it on Saturday this wouldn’t be a resigning matter.

VonLuck

VonLuck wrote: »

You seem to be pushing this agenda that Leo was trying to get with MO'T. Is this some weird kind of personal fantasy you have, or do you know something we don't?

oh of course, sure I love de gays.. and can I ask you, what's "Weird" about homoerotic fantasies??? you're such an exclusionist homophobe..I want you cancelled..sacked... you know the words "pushing" and "Leo" are my Manchurian trigger phrases don't you??

in all seriousness, No but I do think with a lack of any obvious advantage, yes in a Greek way..it's an option, that's all I'm saying, its not all going to be gold working in lockdown Vonluck!

I wont mention it again, until danny devito calls me hush hush and off the record!

dundalkfc10

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Time to put the toys away, lads, and get back to class. Mountain made out of a molehill on all this. Lessons learned and Leo gets to fight another day. Good lesson in realpolitik for some of you.

Called it on Saturday this wouldn’t be a resigning matter.

So it's now acceptable for all ministers to send documents not for circulation to their mates

Il remember that one

CorkRed93

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

So it's now acceptable for all ministers to send documents not for circulation to their mates

Il remember that one

Fine for FG. Guillotine for the rest! "Not a normal party" indeed

Fann Linn

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Time to put the toys away, lads, and get back to class. Mountain made out of a molehill on all this. Lessons learned and Leo gets to fight another day. Good lesson in realpolitik for some of you.

Called it on Saturday this wouldn’t be a resigning matter.

Village just after issuing another broadside why it's illegality and dropping off some titbits. Stoking the fires now and not over yet I'd guess.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

If there's a crime.

That's another kind of wrong altogether.

Try again.

If there is 'no crime' then the precedent is set, a Taoiseach can do (in secret and without consultation or record) whatever he/she likes for the good of the country.

Are you happy with that as a precedent?

CarProblem

Not aimed at just the FG lemmings (all parties and movements appear to have blinkered lemmings on here who defend/deflect at all costs when something unfavourable surfaces about their chosen party)

How does one become so ingrained to supporting a political party that it becomes akin to supporting a sports team through thick or thin? Ignoring any bad news and trying to deflect when questioned?

Has it always been thus or is it again the growth in identity politics? Can people not express a preference for a certain party while still being objective enough to criticise certain members and/or actions taken by the party and/or individuals?

Varadkar has admitted he didn't follow "best practice". To me that reads as he shouldn't have done it. The severity of his actions, whether any laws were broken and/or if anyone gained probably still remains to be seen but how can people simply come on and say words to the effect of "ah shur it's grand, let's get back to deflecting on Sinn Fein" when he's admitted (to my eyes) wrong doing (to reiterate the severity of said wrong doing is still to be established)

Halenvaneddie

I wonder what socks he will wear for his speech/spoof later

Holy Mary

Is that it?!

https://villagemagazine.ie/dail-debate-must-focus-on-whether-release-of-document-was-in-public-interest-and-criminality/

McMurphy

https://twitter.com/VillageMagIRE/status/1323597526113673216?s=19

_Kaiser_

Fann Linn wrote: »

Village just after issuing another broadside why it's illegality and dropping off some titbits. Stoking the fires now and not over yet I'd guess.

Link?

dundalkfc10

Fann Linn wrote: »

Village just after issuing another broadside why it's illegality and dropping off some titbits. Stoking the fires now and not over yet I'd guess.

They are slowly nailing his coffin shut

Nothing to see here, move a long, done nothing wrong, deflect central won't work this time