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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I had no idea there was a gang of ten here doing what they did. In fact I only read about them today when I was reading through this thread.

Getting back to what Leo did or didn't here is the link to the cabinet handbook which has been mentioned a lot. https://assets.gov.ie/6813/2a580791a7b24decb97a550539a0faff.pdf

Yes, and there is nothing in that to say that Varadkar broke any rule, let alone a law.

section 1.5 refers to Government documents. By virtue of it being an agreement with another party, it was not a government document.

Finally, nobody has spotted the obvious flaw in the Leo-haters argument. What if it was the CEO of the IMO who gave the document to the NAGP? What offence would he have committed? And how is that different to Leo?