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

Ok,

Let us look at what exactly what is going on here. This is what you are claiming:

Let us note that you claim that this is a direct quote. Here is what you use to back it up:

THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUOTES

Now, apologies for shouting, but you have exasperated a number of posters with this. Varadkar did not say that the government didn't wish to have the NAGP involved. He implied clearly that the government wanted both of them at the table, but that the rivalry made that difficult so the government had to decide to negotiate with the IMO alone. That is completely different to the false claim that you have repeatedly made that the government didn't wish to have the NAGP involved. Now here is the Dail record on the day:

"Rivalry between the organisations was often bitter; it made agreement harder to achieve and held back progress. The NAGP wanted to be at the table. Some GPs were members of both organisations and some were members of neither. Ultimately, the Government decided to deal with the IMO alone, as its long-standing negotiating partner and Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, affiliate. The Opposition was very critical of this at the time.

We committed, however, to keep the NAGP engaged, involved and informed as to the progress and outcome of negotiations. The then Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, informed the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health in February 2019 that while negotiations were with the IMO, "there was a role for the NAGP to play in terms of being consulted and involved". In fact, in a Government memorandum at the start of the talks process in March 2018 the Cabinet was informed that there would be "formal consultation" with the NAGP."

It is 100% clear that the government wanted the opposite of what you said that they wanted. They wanted the NAGP involved, they wanted formal consultation with them.

For the last time, please stop peddling lies. Apologies for once again handing your ass to you again, but on this occasion it is fully deserved. You have lied about what Varadkar has said, you have misrepresented what the government wanted, and you have kept doing it, no matter how many times the correct information has been posted.

He wasn't really a friend though was he, more like an acquaintance..

I still cant believe people are still talking about this almost 18 months on when nothing new has transpired since..... but got to keep 'busy'.

Ok, so we have a few errors here.

1. It was a contract, not a negotiation document

2. He was an acquaintance more so than a friend. I know you like to push the idea they were really close buddies, but they weren't..

Anyway, if that is all you have, then why spend hours trying to beat that drum? You are entitled to your views, even though they are factually wrong, but whatever...

People are posting actual links to the Dail debate where the words were actually said.

You are misreading the news articles that misquoted Leo and tell the people who posted actual links to the Dail debate that they are telling lies. You couldn't make this up for a comedy movie.

Say what? Your posts are getting more bizarre by the minute!!! Now I made Varadkar out to be a liar because he told the Dail that the government wanted the NAGP involved, which happens to be the exact debate that the Independent was reporting on, but you misunderstood and misquoted the reference in the Independent article, and are still doing so in an effort to save face!!!!

This is so so funny.

You didn't quote Varadkar. You quoted a newspaper article which selectively quoted Varadkar and you misrepresented what he said as something more. When I went back to the original source - the Dail debate - it was clear that you had made an ass of yourself. Varadkar never ever said that the government didn't want the NAGP involved.

The post I quoted says it was a contract. Leo says it wasn't (previously said it was) and you're saying it's both.

We should all be referring to the time it was shared. It is also relevant as to what it was to become/what it became, but when discussing the time of the leak, what it was then.

What you are suggesting is that we can name it what it was at any given time. Can we go back as far as when the paper it was written on, was a tree?