Messages

Jaysus, getting destroyed here now.

The Collins one could be a vital goal if we end level with Serbia and points.

What a brilliant player Dragan Stojković was back in the day, think they would have won the Euros they were banned from - hope he doesn't turn out to be quite as brilliant a manager, but has them playing nice.

Poor goal to give away, but the Serbs have been looking dangerous

Wouldn't be a big fan of Bruton but I thought he was very sensible

Brolly flunked that big time

Went the Angelo route

Didn't work at all, unsurprisingly

Claire Byrne is very distracting, a standing ovation indeed, but make sure not to stand up

To be fair Brolly was pointing out the anti abortion homophobia of the DUP and should have been asked to provide examples, which he did today on twitter.

He was right. People like Campbell are horrid individuals. But there's lots of Catholics North and South, and in the GAA who are homophobic. There's still a huge number who are anti-abortion in the South. And many Catholic Sinn Fein and SDLP voters in North and FF/FG voters in South are anti-abortion. Northern Catholics are more conservative. The Dana's of the world. In an eventual United Ireland there will be a bigger population of anti-abortion and anti-marriage equality. So not sure what Joe's point was. Those Gregory Campbell views won't go away in a UI - they will only get stronger. And the left/right divide on social issues will grow more intense.

Thought it was a good show overall. Was a bit surprised that both Mary Lou and Leo were cagey on the flag question and anthem. It's as well to be honest with the people and say there will be a new flag. But I suppose neither wanted a headline that they were getting rid of it. Got to protect those Southern votes.

To be honest I think the politicians are behind the people on this. Every opinion poll in the south has re-unification over 70% when don't knows are excluded. FF and FG are playing it long due to party political interests but recent contributions from Jim O Callaghan and Bertie Ahern as well as Leo's nuanced performance last night tend to suggest both parties are adjusting their position. Very surprised that a citizens assembly was not discussed last night during all the talk of planning. Micheal has hung himself on a hook saying no border poll during this Dail and as a result is the most negative Southern politician at present (excluding the retired John Bruton). Decent program overall although I thought Byrne was too keen to talk about flags for a headline and not address schools, health, economy which are the actual things that will affect the floating vote.

Agreed on pols behind. In fact if Martin had an ounce of strategic sense, he'd be eager to get all this sorted including the border poll date before he leaves government - and be remembered for something groundbreaking. In fact, if Leo survives the leak scandal I'd be willing to bet he will do it in his 2 year term and part of his reelection pitch will be, the middle minority in North will only vote for a UI (let's say it's 2029/9 which would fall in term of next gov if current survives full term) if FG are in power as we are not threatening to the Middle. Not saying he's right, but that is how it could play out providing British are willing to play ball.

Wouldn't be a big fan of Bruton but I thought he was very sensible

Brolly flunked that big time

Went the Angelo route

Didn't work at all, unsurprisingly

Claire Byrne is very distracting, a standing ovation indeed, but make sure not to stand up

To be fair Brolly was pointing out the anti abortion homophobia of the DUP and should have been asked to provide examples, which he did today on twitter.

He was right. People like Campbell are horrid individuals. But there's lots of Catholics North and South, and in the GAA who are homophobic. There's still a huge number who are anti-abortion in the South. And many Catholic Sinn Fein and SDLP voters in North and FF/FG voters in South are anti-abortion. Northern Catholics are more conservative. The Dana's of the world. In an eventual United Ireland there will be a bigger population of anti-abortion and anti-marriage equality. So not sure what Joe's point was. Those Gregory Campbell views won't go away in a UI - they will only get stronger. And the left/right divide on social issues will grow more intense.

Thought it was a good show overall. Was a bit surprised that both Mary Lou and Leo were cagey on the flag question and anthem. It's as well to be honest with the people and say there will be a new flag. But I suppose neither wanted a headline that they were getting rid of it. Got to protect those Southern votes.

Trailer - try and forget about Sinn Fein for a minute

do YOU think that the Tanaiste should be allowed work in his role when he is under Garda investigation for leaking confidential information to his friend?

Michelle O'Neill didn't stand aside when under investigation and in fact refused to, so why should Leo?

It wasnt addressed to you  but even so you tried to answer but couldn't get by the first line. Never mind.

My own opinion on this is when it goes to DPP, and if DPP thinks there is a case to answer, then he should step aside. But I think it's a bit extreme to ask a politician to step aside as Gardai investigate a complaint. Gardai can only investigate and send to DPP. They won't even be making a recommendation on whether charges need to be filed, just presenting the facts. The DPP will decide. Anyone who is following can see that there's no love lost between Tainiste and the gentleman who made the complaint. Likewise I think Village Magazine's reading of Official Secrets Act is flawed. I know Angelo disagrees. But this is the magazine that gave us Gemma O'Doherty, so I won't be taking their word as gospel either. The pols and commentators need to let Gardai investigate. I think what they will find is that he was within his rights to share. The pay contract was impacting all GPs, not just the GPs in the IMO Union. The IMO had already announced the package before he met the other Union President. His judgement was poor not to talk to Harris first. I think the bigger crime is why taxpayers money to a Union that was able to give their CEO a 9 million retirement package was an "Official Secret" in the first place, in particular when the pay was impacting all GPs. We'll see.

Village magazine's line is backed up by a senior counsel though.

I still have not been able to make sense of the solicitors argument. And I hate to point out that I think he was a SF candidate, because I don't want to be accused of the SF word. He seems to be saying that if official information worked on by a public official is confidential (eg the draft pay agreement), when it gets into the hands of a member of government (eg Leo), it remains confidential, and thus Leo is not exempt from OSA. That seems a good argument except for one fact - a public official is not authorised to share confidential information unless authorised by a Minister (eg Member of Govt) or State Authority (eg Attorney General); a Minister (ie a member of Government per Act), is authorised. So the official information is passing into the hands of someone who is not authorised, to the hands of someone who is authorised. The Village solicitor is making the claim that it carries its confidentiality as it passes hands from a public official to a Minister. Is that what he is saying? If so, I think it's interesting logic but flawed logic.

Surely you can't authorise yourself ?

It never explicitly states that a member of government needs authorisation from another member of government. Some earlier articles (including Village) jumped to the conclusion that a Minister was a Line Minister, and Simon Harris needed to provide authorisation. But the Act is clear that a Minister is a member of government. And a Minister can authorise. I think that alone clears Varadkar, even if what he did was not best practice and showed him to be a poor team player with questionable judgement and people leadership skills.

Trailer - try and forget about Sinn Fein for a minute

do YOU think that the Tanaiste should be allowed work in his role when he is under Garda investigation for leaking confidential information to his friend?

Michelle O'Neill didn't stand aside when under investigation and in fact refused to, so why should Leo?

It wasnt addressed to you  but even so you tried to answer but couldn't get by the first line. Never mind.

My own opinion on this is when it goes to DPP, and if DPP thinks there is a case to answer, then he should step aside. But I think it's a bit extreme to ask a politician to step aside as Gardai investigate a complaint. Gardai can only investigate and send to DPP. They won't even be making a recommendation on whether charges need to be filed, just presenting the facts. The DPP will decide. Anyone who is following can see that there's no love lost between Tainiste and the gentleman who made the complaint. Likewise I think Village Magazine's reading of Official Secrets Act is flawed. I know Angelo disagrees. But this is the magazine that gave us Gemma O'Doherty, so I won't be taking their word as gospel either. The pols and commentators need to let Gardai investigate. I think what they will find is that he was within his rights to share. The pay contract was impacting all GPs, not just the GPs in the IMO Union. The IMO had already announced the package before he met the other Union President. His judgement was poor not to talk to Harris first. I think the bigger crime is why taxpayers money to a Union that was able to give their CEO a 9 million retirement package was an "Official Secret" in the first place, in particular when the pay was impacting all GPs. We'll see.

Village magazine's line is backed up by a senior counsel though.

I still have not been able to make sense of the solicitors argument. And I hate to point out that I think he was a SF candidate, because I don't want to be accused of the SF word. He seems to be saying that if official information worked on by a public official is confidential (eg the draft pay agreement), when it gets into the hands of a member of government (eg Leo), it remains confidential, and thus Leo is not exempt from OSA. That seems a good argument except for one fact - a public official is not authorised to share confidential information unless authorised by a Minister (eg Member of Govt) or State Authority (eg Attorney General); a Minister (ie a member of Government per Act), is authorised. So the official information is passing into the hands of someone who is not authorised, to the hands of someone who is authorised. The Village solicitor is making the claim that it carries its confidentiality as it passes hands from a public official to a Minister. Is that what he is saying? If so, I think it's interesting logic but flawed logic.

Trailer - try and forget about Sinn Fein for a minute

do YOU think that the Tanaiste should be allowed work in his role when he is under Garda investigation for leaking confidential information to his friend?

Michelle O'Neill didn't stand aside when under investigation and in fact refused to, so why should Leo?

It wasnt addressed to you  but even so you tried to answer but couldn't get by the first line. Never mind.

My own opinion on this is when it goes to DPP, and if DPP thinks there is a case to answer, then he should step aside. But I think it's a bit extreme to ask a politician to step aside as Gardai investigate a complaint. Gardai can only investigate and send to DPP. They won't even be making a recommendation on whether charges need to be filed, just presenting the facts. The DPP will decide. Anyone who is following can see that there's no love lost between Tainiste and the gentleman who made the complaint. Likewise I think Village Magazine's reading of Official Secrets Act is flawed. I know Angelo disagrees. But this is the magazine that gave us Gemma O'Doherty, so I won't be taking their word as gospel either. The pols and commentators need to let Gardai investigate. I think what they will find is that he was within his rights to share. The pay contract was impacting all GPs, not just the GPs in the IMO Union. The IMO had already announced the package before he met the other Union President. His judgement was poor not to talk to Harris first. I think the bigger crime is why taxpayers money to a Union that was able to give their CEO a 9 million retirement package was an "Official Secret" in the first place, in particular when the pay was impacting all GPs. We'll see.

[The short answer is that there is no exclusion in the Official Secrets Act, 1963, to the person prohibited from communicating official information by virtue of the person's status simpliciter as Minister or member of the Oireachtas.]

Are you a solicitor?

I doubt the Village Magazine did not read the act. Michael Smith is their editor, think he is a barrister himself I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Smith_(Irish_journalist)

The Village Magazine also have sought legal advice and published it on numerous ocassions.

No, thank God. No but I clicked on tweet above where Village Mag wrote: "The Official Secrets Acts makes it an offence for "a public official" to leak documents of a sensitive nature."

I then pointed out if they read the full act, they would have read that public officials excludes both houses of the Oireachtas. This can easily be verified if you go to the statute books and read the Interpretation of titles:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/act/1/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2

Am I wrong?
BTW, I agree with you that he is more likely to have broken the Corruption Act of 2018 by conferring an advantage. But that advantage would need to be proved. He was certainly not getting a better pay agreement than other Union, and as he was already President of rival Union, it was not helping him climb the Union ladder. But you are definitely warmer on that one.

So you're disputing the professional legal opinion of a Senior Counsel who says that is a breach of the Official Secrets Act?

What he was doing was pulling a stroke for his friend.

I read the article you shared and I saw nothing in there that proved a member of government was not exempt. Perhaps you can direct me to the relevant lines. But it was very stilted English. I might be a biteen slow and not smart man like solicitor.

It was in the first paragraph.

The short answer is that there is no exclusion in the Official Secrets Act, 1963, to the person prohibited from communicating official information by virtue of the person's status simpliciter as Minister or member of the Oireachtas.

And hopefully this is my final word. The Official Secret Acts states:

"A person shall not communicate any official information to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it.

In this section "duly authorised" means authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority.

   
"Minister" means a member of the Government;"

So if a Minister, which is a member of government per the Act, can authorise it - how could a Taoiseach, the most senior member of government, not authorise it?

Are you a solicitor?

I doubt the Village Magazine did not read the act. Michael Smith is their editor, think he is a barrister himself I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Smith_(Irish_journalist)

The Village Magazine also have sought legal advice and published it on numerous ocassions.

No, thank God. No but I clicked on tweet above where Village Mag wrote: "The Official Secrets Acts makes it an offence for "a public official" to leak documents of a sensitive nature."

I then pointed out if they read the full act, they would have read that public officials excludes both houses of the Oireachtas. This can easily be verified if you go to the statute books and read the Interpretation of titles:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/act/1/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2

Am I wrong?
BTW, I agree with you that he is more likely to have broken the Corruption Act of 2018 by conferring an advantage. But that advantage would need to be proved. He was certainly not getting a better pay agreement than other Union, and as he was already President of rival Union, it was not helping him climb the Union ladder. But you are definitely warmer on that one.

So you're disputing the professional legal opinion of a Senior Counsel who says that is a breach of the Official Secrets Act?

What he was doing was pulling a stroke for his friend.

I read the article you shared and I saw nothing in there that proved a member of government was not exempt. Perhaps you can direct me to the relevant lines. But it was very stilted English. I might be a biteen slow and not smart man like solicitor.

Are you a solicitor?

I doubt the Village Magazine did not read the act. Michael Smith is their editor, think he is a barrister himself I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Smith_(Irish_journalist)

The Village Magazine also have sought legal advice and published it on numerous ocassions.

No, thank God. No but I clicked on tweet above where Village Mag wrote: "The Official Secrets Acts makes it an offence for "a public official" to leak documents of a sensitive nature."

I then pointed out if they read the full act, they would have read that public officials excludes both houses of the Oireachtas. This can easily be verified if you go to the statute books and read the Interpretation of titles:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/act/1/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2

Am I wrong?
BTW, I agree with you that he is more likely to have broken the Corruption Act of 2018 by conferring an advantage. But that advantage would need to be proved. He was certainly not getting a better pay agreement than other Union, and as he was already President of rival Union, it was not helping him climb the Union ladder. But you are definitely warmer on that one.

Another one of the I don't vote for FFG but who spend most of their time defending them. It's amazing how most free staters you speak to on this board will not admit to voting for the three parties who took home 68% of the votes in the last election. It's also amazing how the likes of you guys will bash SF and roll out to defend FFG at every opportunity. You're an ashamed FFG voter. We'll just get that clear now and not let you insult the intelligence of the board with po-faced lies.

On to Varadkar. It's absolutely preposterous what you're saying here, it's completely illogical.

You have ignored the fact that the Varadkar leaked an agreement that was confidential to the IMO and govt to a rival organisation. He did this throught he medium of his friend who had been pestering Varadkar for the document.

I don't think I'm on any thread bashing SF, or any other party. In fact, I think I've told you before I have great respect for our local Sinn Fein councillor. I've just asked you for the part of the Official Secrets Act, or whatever Act, where a law has been broken. Can you quote in plain English or as Gaeilige instead of the usual rant that you must be a Free State voting FFG voter. I would just like to see what part of the Act was contravened, because based on my reading I did not see anything that would hold up in court. And besides, as I've said the Official Secrets Act is a classic example of the toxic Free State culture you like to rail against - a lethal combination of British legislation and the worst excesses of Fianna Fail that has been misused over the decades to slap confidential on literally anything.

Here's the village magazine's take on it. They are calling out the Irish Times.

https://twitter.com/VillageMagIRE/status/1371152775409729550

Who knows if it will even reach a court but the fact that it has got this far means there must be some substance in it. As incoming Mknister for Justice Heather Humphries's declaration yesterday that he did nothing wrong isn't helpful either

Can only conclude Village Magazine did not read full act for it defines Public Office - "does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas." As I said it was written in such a way that members of government are exempt. Haughey himself said it was to put public officials on notice. But that did not mean government TDs.

Another one of the I don't vote for FFG but who spend most of their time defending them. It's amazing how most free staters you speak to on this board will not admit to voting for the three parties who took home 68% of the votes in the last election. It's also amazing how the likes of you guys will bash SF and roll out to defend FFG at every opportunity. You're an ashamed FFG voter. We'll just get that clear now and not let you insult the intelligence of the board with po-faced lies.

On to Varadkar. It's absolutely preposterous what you're saying here, it's completely illogical.

You have ignored the fact that the Varadkar leaked an agreement that was confidential to the IMO and govt to a rival organisation. He did this throught he medium of his friend who had been pestering Varadkar for the document.

I don't think I'm on any thread bashing SF, or any other party. In fact, I think I've told you before I have great respect for our local Sinn Fein councillor. I've just asked you for the part of the Official Secrets Act, or whatever Act, where a law has been broken. Can you quote in plain English or as Gaeilige instead of the usual rant that you must be a Free State voting FFG voter. I would just like to see what part of the Act was contravened, because based on my reading I did not see anything that would hold up in court. And besides, as I've said the Official Secrets Act is a classic example of the toxic Free State culture you like to rail against - a lethal combination of British legislation and the worst excesses of Fianna Fail that has been misused over the decades to slap confidential on literally anything.

So the guy he provided with a confidential contract, who was not party to the talks, who was from a rival organisation who is stating he wanted to destroy them.

Do you think it was transparent that Varadkar was assisting friends who wanted to destroy a rival organisation? Do you think it was transparency that he went behind the back of all his cabinet colleagues to help his friend out? Do you think it was transparency that led Varadkar to delete his text message exchanges with his friend?

A rival union. Everyone - including me and you - should know how tax payers money is being used, particular with a union like IMO. One union trying to destroy another is neither here nor there. Have a look at the history of the IMO, which itself ate up another union. Huge amounts of financial corruption. Huge retirement packages. A CEO got a nice 9 million retirement package. It was right that both unions should have access to the agreement. And above all, the public should have known. The question is was the law broken by showing a draft of the pay agreement. I'm willing to bet no law was broken based on how the statute is written. Time will tell.

So you are ignoring the fact that the guy who he leaked the confidential document too stated that his intention was to destroy the IMO.

Not ignoring. It's well known a lot of doctors left the IMO after the previous CEO got a 9 million payout - was originally supposed to be 20 million. So it was considered corrupt at the top.

This is about Varadkar breaking the law to pull favours for his friends. For some bizarre reason only known to you, you are attempting to shift focus o this and justify it because the IMO may not have been governed properly.

No, I have said all along that the way the Official Secrets Act was written, I did not think a law was broken. I also stated that the OSA is an authoritarian law written by the then minister Charles Haughey to suppress info. I thought it curious that those who argue a law was broken, need it to be a very authoritarian law that prevents even harmless data being shared. Thus oh Leo broke the law. I would argue it's entirely harmless to share this data, and besides, the OSA gives authorisation to members of government to release confidential data. At issue is the way he was not transparent with his own party or government, but as regards the OSA - show me any clause in that statute that was broken. I'd be curious. If I'm wrong I'll admit it.

Ironically enough the organisation Varadkar leaked the confidential documents too were wound up for financial irregularities and poor governance.

Agreed. I have no love for either union. But both at the time were representing doctors.

Your justification is utterly incredible here. Who do you vote for?

Always been left wing, so can assure not any of the following parties: FG, FF, SF, PDs, Aontu, etc.

So the guy he provided with a confidential contract, who was not party to the talks, who was from a rival organisation who is stating he wanted to destroy them.

Do you think it was transparent that Varadkar was assisting friends who wanted to destroy a rival organisation? Do you think it was transparency that he went behind the back of all his cabinet colleagues to help his friend out? Do you think it was transparency that led Varadkar to delete his text message exchanges with his friend?

A rival union. Everyone - including me and you - should know how tax payers money is being used, particular with a union like IMO. One union trying to destroy another is neither here nor there. Have a look at the history of the IMO, which itself ate up another union. Huge amounts of financial corruption. Huge retirement packages. A CEO got a nice 9 million retirement package. It was right that both unions should have access to the agreement. And above all, the public should have known. The question is was the law broken by showing a draft of the pay agreement. I'm willing to bet no law was broken based on how the statute is written. Time will tell.