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

McMurphy · 26-03-2021 1:21pm

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, I read that post, a lot of conjecture, and painting by numbers going on there. The dates also dont match up with the facts.

What dates exactly?

blanch152 · 26-03-2021 1:26pm

skimpydoo wrote: »

All I am looking for is a name nothing more and nothing less. Once I have a name I can go research this Taoiseach and what he might have done. I have tried looking through the 8000 plus posts and could not find anything.

Has happened loads of times, every single time there has been a national pay agreement since 1987, the "confidential" documents have been shared with PDFORRA and GRA countless times, even though they are not part of the negotiations. It is standard practice.

blanch152 · 26-03-2021 1:28pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Accepting that what he did was wrong. The Gardai and DPP deciding to not press charges does not change that.
Just as the Inquiry into Frances Fitzgerald did not exonerate her from misleading the Dáil.

So when the police and the prosecution decline to press charges, that still means a politician subject to an investigation should step down, is that what you are saying?

FrancieBrady · 26-03-2021 1:32pm

blanch152 wrote: »

So when the police and the prosecution decline to press charges, that still means a politician subject to an investigation should step down, is that what you are saying?

Depending on the gravity of what he/she has already confessed to and apologised for. Yes.

I think this particular offender should have stepped down regardless of the outcome of a criminal investigation.

McMurphy · 26-03-2021 1:37pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Depending on the gravity of what he/she has already confessed to and apologised for. Yes.

I think this particular offender should have stepped down regardless of the outcome of a criminal investigation.

Leo had no problems in the world calling on Denis Naugthen to consider his position, and he was never the subject of a criminal investigation.

BluePlanet · 26-03-2021 1:37pm

blanch152 wrote: »

So when the police and the prosecution decline to press charges, that still means a politician subject to an investigation should step down, is that what you are saying?

Should politicians only step down after a successful prosecution or are there times when they should go regardless?

blanch152 · 26-03-2021 1:37pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Depending on the gravity of what he/she has already confessed to and apologised for. Yes.

I think this particular offender should have stepped down regardless of the outcome of a criminal investigation.

What if they said one thing to a TV programme and a different story under oath as a witness in a court case? By telling two different stories, they have obviously confessed to being at least a liar, and possibly a perjurer, and are therefore untrustworthy?

blanch152 · 26-03-2021 1:39pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

Should politicians only step down after a successful prosecution or are there times when they should go regardless?

Of course there are times when they should go regardless. Dara Calleary was correct to step down as he was aware of the new restrictions when he attended Golfgate. Ditto Michelle O'Neill should have stepped down after the Bobby Storey funeral.

In this particular case, the issue does rest on whether there was a crime. If Varadkar didn't break the law because he was allowed share the document with another union representative, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with what he did.

blanch152 · 26-03-2021 1:41pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is no'rub' and I have no idea what SF will do.

The facts seem to be that no 'material gain or advantage needs to be proven' according to the legislation.
If the act was illegal then that is it.

Is there any update on my query about these facts? Can anybody provide a link to the facts that are mentioned here.

skimpydoo · 26-03-2021 1:56pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So, you’re agreeing that O’Toole isn’t being investigated. Thanks.

When did McMurphy say that?

FrancieBrady · 26-03-2021 1:58pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Is there any update on my query about these facts? Can anybody provide a link to the facts that are mentioned here.

There were no 'facts' mentioned. Misrepresenting again.

skimpydoo · 26-03-2021 1:59pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There were no 'facts' mentioned. Misrepresenting again.

I was wondering what facts Blanch was on about.

RandomName2 · 26-03-2021 2:05pm

McMurphy wrote: »

Maybe Leo will speak up for the fella, didn't he say whistleblowers are distinguished?

You're not trying to equate whistleblowers blowing the whistle on wrongdoings within a state dept (protected by protective disclosure legislation) ≠ that of passing confidential information for the main reason that your pal requested you to pass him it are you

Okay so we are saying that the public good is important? I thought that was irrelevant. Suddenly when considered with a scenario that involves a public servant disclosing private information the public good becomes paramount. Interesting.

Would it make a significant difference if the journalist was a friend of the whistleblower? Surely that would not matter. The fact of O'Tuanthail being Varadkar's friend is brought up multiple times, but O'Tuanthail requested the document of Harris as well, and Harris said words that amounted to 'sure, will do' and never got back to him. Has the friendship level of Harris and O'Tuanthail been adequately measured?

Or maybe 'pal' is just a smokescreen.

For what it's worth I'm totally in favor of the whistleblower in this case. If he is giving relevant details about how a system is run, without endangering the private information of any individual, then that is a-ok as far as I'm concerned (or at least, let me put it this way, a striking case as to why it isn't okay should have to be made)

McMurphy · 26-03-2021 2:06pm

skimpydoo wrote: »

When did McMurphy say that?

He didn't and he won't be saying it either.

Once again.

Gardai have yet to speak to the Tanaiste or Dr O Tuathail as part of the investigation. Both have said they will fully comply with the investigation.

If course OTuathail, and what role he played in this will have to be investigated, it's a nonsense to suggest otherwise.

blanch152 · 26-03-2021 2:06pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There were no 'facts' mentioned. Misrepresenting again.

When are facts not facts? You made a claim about facts that you are unable to back up. I have checked the legislation, took less than a minute to google it and check, and I can't find the reference to the part in quotes. Where did you get the quote from?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The facts seem to be that no 'material gain or advantage needs to be proven' according to the legislation.
.

RandomName2 · 26-03-2021 2:07pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Is there any update on my query about these facts? Can anybody provide a link to the facts that are mentioned here.

In terms of a charge of corruption this is simply balderdash.

In terms of state secrets that's a different matter.

James Brown · 26-03-2021 2:10pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Has happened loads of times, every single time there has been a national pay agreement since 1987, the "confidential" documents have been shared with PDFORRA and GRA countless times, even though they are not part of the negotiations. It is standard practice.

One rule, if that rule suits, for all scenarios? Did those involved agree to share/give access or did any of these times involve slipping them on the sly to a pal?
Varadkar leaked a confidential negotiation document to his pal.

blanch152 · 26-03-2021 2:10pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

In terms of a charge of corruption this is simply balderdash.

In terms of state secrets that's a different matter.

It is not clear which legislation Francie is referring to as he hasn't provided a link.

James Brown · 26-03-2021 2:11pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course there are times when they should go regardless. Dara Calleary was correct to step down as he was aware of the new restrictions when he attended Golfgate. Ditto Michelle O'Neill should have stepped down after the Bobby Storey funeral.

In this particular case, the issue does rest on whether there was a crime. If Varadkar didn't break the law because he was allowed share the document with another union representative, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with what he did.

Not the same. Neither Charlie Flanagan nor MON should resign IMO.

Fair play getting the Storey funeral in

McMurphy · 26-03-2021 2:12pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay so we are saying that the public good is important? I thought that was irrelevant. Suddenly when considered with a scenario that involves an unnamed public servant disclosing private information the public good becomes paramount. Interesting.

Would it make a significant difference was a friend of the whistleblower? Surely that would not matter. The fact of O'Tuanthail being Varadkar's friend is brought up multiple times, but O'Tuanthail requested the document of Harris as well, and Harris said words that amounted to 'sure, will do' and never got back to him. Has the friendship level of Harris and O'Tuanthail been adequately measured?

Or maybe 'pal' is just a smokescreen.

For what it's worth I'm totally in favor of the whistleblower int his case. If he is giving relevant details about how a system is run, without endangering the private information of any individual, then that is a-ok as far as I'm concerned (or at least, let me put it this way, a striking case as to why it isn't okay should have to be made)

Once again, there is legislation surrounding whistleblowers and protective disclosures where they're actually encouraged to speak out against wrongdoings and malpractice and corruption.

There's also legislation surrounding corruption and disclosing state secrets to third parties.

You're trying to conflate the two things?

You're at nothing I'm afraid. Leo Varadkar didn't "whistleblow" he passed confidential documents to his friend.

He's apologised for it too. Just incase you forget.

FrancieBrady · 26-03-2021 2:21pm

blanch152 wrote: »

When are facts not facts? You made a claim about facts that you are unable to back up. I have checked the legislation, took less than a minute to google it and check, and I can't find the reference to the part in quotes. Where did you get the quote from?

When they 'seem' to say something.

I have already said I have no need to check them out as somebody said they were talked about elsewhere. At all times I couched what I was saying as 'seeming' to be fact.

James Brown · 26-03-2021 2:24pm

McMurphy wrote: »

Once again, there is legislation surrounding whistleblowers and protective disclosures where they're actually encouraged to speak out against wrongdoings and malpractice and corruption.

There's also legislation surrounding corruption and disclosing state secrets to third parties.

You're trying to conflate the two things?

You're at nothing I'm afraid. Leo Varadkar didn't "whistleblow" he passed confidential documents to his friend.

He's apologised for it too. Just incase you forget.

It's smelling like the McCabe smear campaign. Attack the whistleblower by trying to put the fear in them. Defeats the whole point of protecting whistleblowers. Such a nasty mostly FG government we've been stuck with these years. I wonder will anyone in Tulsa make an error?

blanch152 · 26-03-2021 2:26pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When they 'seem' to say something.

I have already said I have no need to check them out as somebody said they were talked about elsewhere. At all times I couched what I was saying as 'seeming' to be fact.

So are you now saying that the facts seem to be false? I am quite confused.

The facts seem to be that you spoofed and have been caught out, that is all.

FrancieBrady · 26-03-2021 2:38pm

blanch152 wrote: »

So are you now saying that the facts seem to be false? I am quite confused.

The facts seem to be that you spoofed and have been caught out, that is all.

You said it was false.

shatners bassoon · 26-03-2021 2:53pm

blanch152 wrote: »

So are you now saying that the facts seem to be false? I am quite confused.

The facts seem to be that you spoofed and have been caught out, that is all.

You're in a perpetual state of confusion Blanch tbf.

If you can't find the phrase 'material gain or advantage needs to be proven' or words to that effect in the relevant legislation then surely you have just proven Francie's point? It's not in the legislation.

RandomName2 · 26-03-2021 2:54pm

McMurphy wrote: »

Once again, there is legislation surrounding whistleblowers and protective disclosures where they're actually encouraged to speak out against wrongdoings and malpractice and corruption.

Intent is important.

From the whistleblower point of view you have to prove that they had legitimate concern of wrong doing. From the point of view of corruption you'd have to prove malintent. The same is largely true in terms of the Official Secrets Act, which basically says that it is okay to do so if it is 'in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it.' Vardkar has some wriggle room there.

Moreover, so much for your expert. It defines a minister as

“Minister” means a member of the Government

So much of an expert that he couldn't google it.

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.

However! The act does specify that it is much better that that authorization be written down.

And I am going to remind you for a final time that the apology was for the manner of disclosure, not the disclosure, which is an important distinction.

James Brown · 26-03-2021 2:57pm

Varadkar didn't authorise anything. In fact he apologised for the manner.
He leaked a confidential document to a pal. There is no angle that can change that.

RandomName2 · 26-03-2021 3:03pm

James Brown wrote: »

Varadkar didn't authorise anything.

He didn't approve himself? Maybe he was in a fugue state (an interesting defense)

James Brown wrote: »

In fact he apologised for the manner.

Quite correctly. I appreceiate that his schedule was hectic and the government was up to its eyes, but he should always have followed standard procedure in relation to this. The way he did it was unprofessional, and more importantly, looks underhand.

James Brown wrote: »

He leaked a confidential document to a pal. There is no angle that can change that.

You're right. He provided the president of the National Association of General Practitioners a draft copy of the General Practitioner agreement for the head of the National Association of General Practitioners to consult. There is no angle that can change that.

Jim Root · 26-03-2021 3:06pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

He didn't approve himself? Maybe he was in a fugue state (an interesting defense)

Quite correctly. I appreceiate that his schedule was hectic and the government was up to its eyes, but he should always have followed standard procedure in relation to this. The way he did it was unprofessional, and more importantly, looks underhand.

You're right. He provided the president of the National Association of General Practitioners a draft copy of the General Practitioner agreement for the head of the National Association of General Practitioners to consult. There is no angle that can change that.

In your opinion does this sin undue any perceived good he has done in office?

RandomName2 · 26-03-2021 3:11pm

Jim Root wrote: »

In your opinion does this sin undue any perceived good he has done in office?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

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

Comments