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
1388389391393394417

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You're repeating made up stuff

    The cabinet handbook is relevant to documents subject to cabinet confidentiality

    Varadkar says this one wasn't and of course it couldn't be as it was circulating outside the cabinet

    This is all more of the repeat repeat repeat more of the same stuff done to death in this thread and now rehashed again today in a pretense that it never was

    I mean who are you trying to kid with this? Any of you ?

    I'm wondering was Boris reading here when he came up with his there was no parties line...

    Same play book



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    Not at all. What he did isn't open for debate. Only the criminality. If its not criminal he still leaked a confidential negotiation document to his friend the head of a rival union contravening the wishes of government not to include that union.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    Harris didn't have a copy and he was minister of health, the department in the private negotiation with the IMO, the same negotiation Varadkar's friend's union wasn't invited to.

    We have a high ranking politician who defies government wishes to suit himself.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,215 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    You should try reading it. Varadkar says a lot of things. Doesn't make any of them true.

    You should also read the specific sections that were linked earlier in this thread.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,220 ✭✭✭mattser


    He's camped up and living in their heads, ML 😁



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Pull the other one

    And for added insult you're asking ME (!) To go reread the thread when you're participating in a game of pretense that none of this was discussed before

    I'm not this threads time machine here to play the game of repeating loads of anti Varadkar made up stuff adnauseum with you or anyone else



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,215 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    I'm not asking you to reread anything. I suggested you should read for the first time where you incorrectly believe it says Leo could do what he wants with government documents when he was Taoiseach.

    The repetition here is that it has been pointed out before that he couldn't. In this instance, it is most definitely you that is repeating nonsense that this wasn't discussed before, and are either evidently unaware that he could not authorise himself or you are trying to convince everyone else otherwise knowing it's incorrect, to suit your own agenda.

    Not sure how you think you have read more of this thread than anyone else and missed one of the main points, if that is what your point was when you capitalised the word 'me' and followed it with an exclamation mark.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm afraid I can't help you no matter how many times you dress up the already discussed

    That game is sussed and up



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,215 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    I wouldn't ask you for help in any way shape or form. Nor have I repeated topics etc..

    I was merely pointing out that you are wrong, if you have said it before, then you were wrong then too. If you repeat it in future, then you will be wrong then too, but also likely lying, as now I am aware you now know the truth, or where to find it, so you couldn't blag out of it in the future.

    Your game as you say, "is sussed and up."



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,648 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    It has been asserted many times (mostly by the 10 banned accounts) that he couldn't do what he wants with government documents, but nobody has ever been able to quote a piece of legislation that applies or explain why a Taoiseach as Head of Government and ultimate authority is not able to authorise the release of a document.

    If it was a matter of national security, and he was releasing a document to an enemy agent, then the possiblity of treason might be there, otherwise there is nothing to see.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,648 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    That is your opinion of what he did, and is as valuable as any other of your opinions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,215 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    It is in the cabinet handbook and linked to many times in this thread.

    If you really wanted to find it, I don't think it would be that difficult.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    No, the only uncertainty is why. We know what he apologised for and why he's under criminal investigation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    No it's mostly

    Varadkar

    Confidential

    Posted

    Pal

    Just over and over and over again. Just braindead spam. Just glanced over your contributions and I think you say it around 20 times.

    Go on, say it again.

    Nobody ever replied to this statement I previously made, upon which the entire charge of corruption is based, with anything other than bluster and waffle


    The thing is they can't determine any advantage for Varadkar.


    There is a labyrinthine argument that Goodey made several threats to a Fine Gael minister that the NAGP would be hostile to the government (NAGP apparently liked repeating themselves too) if Fine Gael didn't stop excluding NAGP from negotiations form several different things. Fine Gael apparently didn't give a shíte about this as they kept excluding them from those negotiations.


    Then the argument is that Varadkar was so petrified of Goodey's threat that he wanted to avoid the GPs giving opinion pieces on the radio (no joke, actually part of the threat) that he.. didn't accede to any of the demands but instead gave the draft GP agreement that had been concluded without NAGP to Goodey to O'Thuanthail.


    Then the argument is that because NAGP suddenly were won over by the government (no evidence of this) that they didn't say anything negative about the government (they did) thereby giving Fine Gael a boost in the polls, thereby personally benefiting Varadkar.

    This was so long ago I cannot even remember who Goodey is, but who cares about that when Varadkar pal confidential document leaked pal leaked document pal Varadkar.

    I'm not saying there isn't a story here, in the same way there is a story about the foreign office opening a bottle of champagne during Covid restrictions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    You seem very involved in this nothing story.

    I believe its a very important story for you.

    It needs repeating because his fans keep twisting the narrative.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2



    I literally haven't posted in several months dude.

    This is pathetic.

    Same old thing, ignore any details, just go back to repeating yourself.

    Now I took a quick look through the last couple of dozen pages, and about half of it is unsubstantiated stuff from you, everything from claiming that fake accounts here regurgitating the same old "Varadkar pal confidential document leaked" were probably inspired by Varadkar, to everybody here is pro-FG and not criticizing a FG who said kill the travelers or whatever (you go on about this a lot)

    What other claptrap.. you're angry at people who make claims that anti-Varadkar posters are massive fans of Paddy Cosgrove (you have a point I guess, but it's a bit rich given what you are saying)

    God this is trash content

    And so much of this: "leaked a confidential negotiation document to his friend".

    How many times? like dozens of times you say it.. just over.. and over.. again.

    And a lot of "Important to call out these charlatans"

    That's the tiny shield behind which your spam hides.

    So when I say: prove the corruption

    You reply

    You seem very involved in this nothing story.

    I believe its a very important story for you.

    The guy who, day in, day out, posts here, just repeating the same thing as if he were insane.

    For God sake man, automate the task

    Clearly you aren't interested in proving criminality, or corruption. One could assume it's because you think that it's very difficult if not impossible to prove, and that raking the same mud is better than having your argument collapse. Certainly the behavior earlier in the thread would support this conclusion. But be that as it may, at least reduce your workload: make a bot that says that message you like, quotes a person every so often declaring that they can't handle the truth, and randomly puts in a dictionary definition to spice things up.

    Of course if it turns out you are already a bot then I'll feel very foolish indeed, but that really would just be a credit to the maker for allowing it to pass the turing test.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,648 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Again, nobody has been able to show in any way that (1) the cabinet handbook is a legal document (2) how it might be an offence, but more importantly (3) demonstrate how the document is covered by the cabinet handbook.

    It is all Leo did this, Leo did that, but we can't say it is illegal, and we don't know which law he might have broken and we can't say whether it was covered by cabinet confidentiality, but we still think he should resign and be sent to jail. It is pathetic the case that you guys have tried to construct.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,215 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    1) The cabinet handbook is essentially guidelines to assist ministers or officials (to be used internally). The Government asks that both ministers and departments fully comply with them.

    Any one who decides to not comply and breach any of the rues outlined in it, would be in trouble, which would obviously vary depending on what they did. The government can change those guidelines as they see fit, and can even decide that they apply or do not apply to certain circumstances. One would guess that there would be some quite spectacular headlines if that were to happen years after the fact. It has been suggested that would be almost certainly fatal for his career.

    2) The fact that the confidential draft agreement documents with the IMO had been leaked to the NAGP (who were not privy to the talks and were vying for the same contract) by Leo 'might be an offence', given that not even the minister for health could get his hands on it, but it's also not that cut and dry. It is illegal to share private documents anyway, but it is a much more serious offence if it is found that there was personal gain to be made from sharing them, in any way, politically, financially or otherwise.

    3) It is covered by (among others) the safekeeping of government memoranda.

    Of course it is "Leo did this" - The thread is literally about Leo leaking the documents. Not sure anyone said he should be sent to gaol, or that he should resign. But I do believe he should have stepped aside when it was turned into a criminal investigation. I think he is a pathetic joke of a leader, and do not want him back in the Taoiseachs seat again, but my opinion did not make him do all of the bungling that he has done. He is imho wrong on a lot of levels, and I know that there are people in FG that agree.

    P.S. The illegality of what has been done, does not lie in the cabinet handbook alone.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    What he apologised for and what he’s under investigation for are not the same thing. He apologised for the manner in how he gave the document to another doctor, so that doctors union, who were excluded from negotiations by the IMO, would be allowed decide whether or not to agree to the deal. Imagine being asked to vote blind on a deal that would dictate your future earnings.

    The investigation is to determine what, if any, law he may have broken.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,648 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    In response to your numbered points.

    (1) Guidelines, set by the Taoiseach of the day, that is what they are, as you have now acknowledged. No crime in breaking them, and an authorised departure from the guidelines can be decided by the Taoiseach. Nothing to see there.

    (2) It is not illegal to share private documents. Please point to the relevant legal provision if I am wrong.

    (3) The document was not the subject of a government memoranda at the time.

    You have dressed up your arguments in a whole heap of bullsh!t that has no reference to the actual events, the actual law or even the correct procedures.



  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,130 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Posts deleted

    Stick to the topic which is not the posting habits of others



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    Excluded by the Government.

    It was a confidential negotiation between the IMO and health department.

    He gave the document, against government wishes, to a rival union because his friend was in charge of it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,648 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    You say that it was a confidential negotiation, was that confidential under a piece of particular legislation, or confidential because you think it was.

    How do you know it was against government wishes to share the document? As I understand it, the sharing of the document was in furtherance of government objectives and it worked. Do you have some particular insight into government decisions that you know their wishes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    The authorities will decide if their was any criminality.

    I repeated the reports that state it was a confidential negotiation document.

    Leo Varadkar said:

    “Rivalry [between the IMO and the NAGP] was often bitter and it made it hard to reach agreements. The NAGP wanted to be at the table but the government decided to negotiate with the IMO alone

    Yikes. How awkward for you.

    Is Varadkar a conspiracy theorist now?



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,648 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Nothing in that responds to the points made. You stated that Varadkar acted against the government wishes, but in actual fact that statement you make supports the point that Varadkar acted in the government's interests. Because of the rivalry between the unions, the government couldn't negotiate with both of them, even though it wanted to, so the government was forced to decide to negotiate with the IMO alone, so they had to keep open back-channels to keep the NAGP informed of what was going on. This is all perfectly normal, and in line with government wishes. Remember what the government's key objective was - get all GPs to sign up to the contract. To save IMO's face, they had to negotiate with them alone, to keep all GPs on board, they had to back-channel with the NAGP.

    This has been explained to you so many times that we are all blue in the face doing so, yet you keep coming back repeating the same discredited fallacies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,215 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    1) They are NOT "set by the Taoiseach of the day". I honestly don't know whether or not to be more astonished that you wrote that, or that you might believe it. How on earth could anyone that has finished primary school think/believe that? 🤦‍♂️

    2) I will not do your homework for you. It is illegal to leak confidential documents. Look up the relevant section and you should have no problem finding it yourself. The difference here Blanch, is that I know it is, you however are guessing it isn't.

    3) The "DRAFT AGREEMENT" was strictly confidential and as such were subject to restricted department circulation.

    I have not dressed up any arguments, I have said it the exact way it is, and as much as you seem to think that the Taoiseach can just do as they please while in office, that is blatantly not the case. Never have I read such a load of made up points without any facts to back them up at all - And I don't mean without any posted facts, I mean ANY facts, as there are none. As I said, I am not 'guessing'. It is yourself who is making up what you believe or want the law to be, and then posting it for everyone else to see.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,648 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    So you say it is illegal but refuse to say under what Act, or what Section of what Act. This was all covered early on in the thread, where not a single poster could produce the relevant legislation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,215 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    As you say, this was all covered earlier in the thread, and as I have repeated, the links and quotes are also in the thread if you are willing to read.

    You don't even have to use this thread, feel free to use, Google, Bing, Qwant, DDG etc.. Whatever search you choose. It isn't hard to find, although it is quite eye opening to read posts like yours above.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,648 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Every single example of legislation produced was comprehensively refuted earlier in the thread - you need to go beyond someone blithely saying that the Official Secrets Act or some other act was breached. Those arguments were comprehensively demolished. In fact, we have had most posters completely backing down on their own allegations of illegality to the extent that some were so badly burned by it that they are saying it is a matter for the Gardai to decide if there was any criminality.

    The only ones left saying it were the now discredited gang of 10.

    I stand over my position that no law was broken and that not a single piece of credible evidence has been produced on this thread to dispute that.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    You asked me were I got the against government wishes. Varadkar said it was.

    Now you are claiming government was forced. The lengths you'll go to. Bizarre.

    Now you are using what Varadkar said as proof he'd good intentions. Sorry, he would claim that. Maybe he was quoting 'weekend at bernie's'.

    It's an opinion and claim I disagree with.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement