The Weekend On One With Brendan O'Connor

You're not allowed say anything about this incident, according to the media. We had numerous articles in the Irish Independent about how Matt Hancock is a despicable cheat. Not one of those articles mentioned that the photos taken of him cheating were taken without his consent. As usual with journalists, it depends on what side you're backing.

https://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/the-sneakily-taken-video-of-leo-varadkar-is-another-example-of-sinister-digital-voyeurism-he-deserves-his-privacy-42217795.html

Prurient gossip about who’s tongue was down who’s throat. Stop trying to dress it up.

I didn't say you mentioned the other doctor, though you did tell us all about these apparent rules for open relationships and not bringing attention to yourself. Was that one of the 'facts' you were discussing with your mates? And what about your claim that Vradakar had the video removed from social media himself, was that more of the facts you were discussing, or was it just idle gossip?

Do you think you'd have any better than a snowballs chance in hell in getting a video removed from a social media platform?

I recall getting a video removed from YouTube around 2018. Different circumstances, no snogging, no nightclubs. It took a while to navigate through the YT processes, but I got there in the end.

Do you seriously think it was removed without some input from his office? Seriously?

Objection, asking witness to speculate, your honour.

Do you know how hard it is to get anything removed from a social media platform?

I recall getting a video removed from YouTube around 2018. Different circumstances, no snogging, no nightclubs. It took a while to navigate through the YT processes, but I got there in the end.

(I’m not saying him snogging the guy was reckless, I’m saying his behaviour is.) Do you really not see or understand the difference here?

His behaviour was snogging a guy in a nightclub. That's what it is all about, surely?

Do you know anyone in an open relationship?

Yes.

Do you honestly think his Strat Comm PR minions were delighted when this became public or something?

Strategic Communications group was disbanded, around 2019 I think. I've no idea what they thought, so I don't see any value in speculating.

Are you saying there are none (behavioural standards) that accompany that office?

Already answered in the thread.

Do you not understand that people can discuss the man and his behaviours without it descending into gossip?

I understand it is theoretically possible, but based on the gossipy nature of your previous posts, it doesn't seem very likely in this case.

Or that people can have entirely fact based conversations?

Yes, that is indeed possible. But speculation about the nature of his open relationship and the details of who allegedly got the video removed are not entirely fact based, or vaguely fact based. They are gossip.

On Leo playing the privacy card:

Utterly predictable to see him play the privacy card too. Pearse Doherty’s run in with the law wasn’t a private matter was it, and Mary Lou’s house doesn’t seem to be private either?

Is there a question here?

What the fuerhke is this crap with Fanning and Wilson all about.

Are they shilling some wheeze they are up to?

Another Fanning’s fabliest fifty coming soon.

It will come back to haunt FG and Leo. I suppose they were short of time, but could have seized the nettle and used the changeover to put up Harris or Coveney as Taoiseach with a reasonable excuse of rotating. Unless it was specified that it had to be Leo in the original coalition agreement. Micheál Martin & FF have come well out of the arrangement so far overall.

Wrong again. I have evidence, but I'm not going to share it with you, because it is confidential.

Do you have evidence to support your claim about open relationships?

Do you have evidence to support your claim that 'it came up in many places' over the weekend? Did you mean in the media or not?

I avoided answering the question because 1) it assumed that I was some kind of loyal defender of Vradakar, and 2) it has no relevance to the discussion about privacy of the nightclub video.

Are you surprised that matters relating to removal of a video are confidential? I wouldn't have been looking to remove the video if there wasn't confidentiality issues. I have lots of evidence here, but I'm not going to share it wit you.

'Many an opinion piece'? Don't suppose you'd like to give any examples of these many opinion pieces where it came up? It's a bit strange that the only example you reference is the one that contradicts your position, given that Callan said;

Vradakar's double-standards and hypocrisy are entirely irrelevant. Privacy rights are not conditional on lack of hypocrisy. He's entitled to privacy of his private life, regardless of how he behaved in the past.

He has presented as much evidence of this as you have to back up your assertion that Joe Duffy pays "FOCK ALL" tax.

Did you miss the bit where I explicitly said “Privacy rights are not conditional on lack of hypocrisy.”?

I'll condemn Vradakar for lots of things, his poor leadership of the country (outside of the initial Covid phase, in fairness), his poor leadership in his various Departments, his poor leadership of his own party. I'm not too familiar with either of the incidents you mention, and I couldn't be arsed on reading up on them to allow myself to give a sensible opinion. So I'm not going to comment on those incidents.

As I previously explained, having looked at the emails, and the various responses (given that it took a fair bit of digging and pestering to get the matter resolved), the effort involved in redacting the personal information, which makes up most of those communications, would be too much. I don't give a toss whether you believe me. It is a sign of the weakness of your overall position that you repeatedly try to score points on an irrelevancy, while making unsubstantiated claims about non-personal matters (like the 'many opinion pieces' you mentioned) yourself.