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

This explanation of why confidential doesn't always mean confidential was also posted 15 months ago, yet we still have posters claiming it was confidential without being able to explain why.

In the Sunday Indo (23 January 2022), Ali Bracken and Jody Corcoran wrote:

"Though Mr Varadkar has been accused by political opponents of breaching the Official Secrets Act, gardaí are investigating whether he breached section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act, 2018."

That section states it's a crime to use confidential info obtained in the course of one's work for the purpose of corruptly obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage for oneself or for someone else.

What I read on Sunday muddies the waters of what I thought this case was about, i.e. official secrets.

The detectives have said the probe can't and won't be rushed. But when they're investigating any case, they stay on the case and don't move on to another case until that work is done, don't they?

"That section states it's a crime to use confidential info obtained in the course of one's work for the purpose of corruptly obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage for oneself or for someone else."

I had seen that they were investigating corruption before, as it is some sort of minor offence/infraction to leak any documents in general, but to leak them for any gain, is far more serious (mentioned a few times in the thread).

However, as it states consideration or advantage for oneself or for someone else, I would guess that if it could be proven that it could have given the NAGP an advantage, if they hadn't imploded shortly after, or even if "Leo always delivers" can be interpreted as an advantage for Leo by members of the NAGP over other candidates when the time comes to cast their vote, then he would find himself in hot water.

But obviously not as cut and dried as that. A lot more things to be taken into consideration and investigated. But they would be two of the more basic for the world to see.

Interesting to see how the leader across the water is viewed, compared to here when they are seen to be under investigation, often described as an embarrassment, serious and deeply uncomfortable, for any leader of a party that prides itself on being the guarantor of law and order.

I think it has always been about corruption. Because some people here may have quoted the secrets act would not make a jut of difference to the investigation.

However, Leo's calims that it was or wasn't a contract, his rejection of the claim that he leaked documents, quickly followed by an apology for giving confidential documents to his friend - and the actual fact that he DID do all of the above, most likely would have an effect.

I think he's hoping that if he changes his story often enough it may somehow help his case.

I am prepared to discuss and debate the merits of whether there is a potential offence under the Corruption Act if the discredited arguments are dropped. However, it seems that some posters are determined to maintain those falsehoods. As long as people keep maintaining that he apologised for leaking, that he broke the OSA, and that the document was a confidential government document, then there is no point addressing the other issues until those falsehoods are dropped.

I know all about it, check back earlier in the thread, where I discussed it at length. That wasn’t a new revelation.

By definition, once the IMO had a copy, it was not a confidential government document, and therefore not covered by either the Cabinet Handbook or the OSA, and had no particular legal standing as confidential.

That is nonsense.

It was a draft agreement. Of course the IMO had a copy of it. How else would they decide whether or not things were going the right way for them?

It was a confidential document between them.

I could honestly not care less if you think I saw a post or not (or if I was quoted) - incidentally new boards layout makes it near impossible to follow anything, always at 99.

No game is up. The very funny thing I find, is the 'Pro Leo' gang are so unoriginal, that you would even stoop to accuse others of what had to be pointed out numerous times to make you stop.

I rarely repeat, but if I do, it is at least, relevant. Not some stupid nonsense.

I can repeat it again..

Leo said 'It is not a contract, it is a contract, it is not a contract, you and I know what a contract it, it is not a contract, it is a contract.' 🤡

Or something to that effect. He may also have finished up with his trademark derp.

And what is the legal status of that document under the OSA? Nothing.

And what is its administrative status under the Cabinet handbook? Nothing.

I am declaring this post confidential giving it equal status to that IMO document.