Should Leo stand down until investigation complete?

[straightred]

He was the leader of SF at the time sure wasnt there a big welcome home party on his release without charge.Poor Mrs mc Conville was not afforded the same to her young family.SF are well used to being a judge and jury outfit I am sure if Mr V has done wrong he will rightly tried in a proper court of law.The same privelege was not afforded to so many who fell foul of Mr Stakeknife and so many others.Dont hear many clamouring for him to face justice from within the SF ranks.

Threads have titles for a reason. As others have also tried to point out can I respectfully remind you that there are plenty of other relevant threads for the above. 

[Angelo]

He was the leader of SF at the time sure wasnt there a big welcome home party on his release without charge.Poor Mrs mc Conville was not afforded the same to her young family.SF are well used to being a judge and jury outfit I am sure if Mr V has done wrong he will rightly tried in a proper court of law.The same privelege was not afforded to so many who fell foul of Mr Stakeknife and so many others.Dont hear many clamouring for him to face justice from within the SF ranks.

It's bizarre you enter into a thread on Leo Varadkar facing criminal charges and the only matter you are interested n debating is some false equivalence with SF.

Vardakar is facing criminal charges for an abuse of power when he was Taoiseach. Now if you want to go and engage in SF bashing we have a 520 page thread which is for that purpose. I'm sure you're familiar with it.

[Angelo]

Some amount of deflection on this thread. SF live rent free in an awful amount of posters heads

As I have said numerous times on this thread.

We have a 520 page thread where the usual suspects are blaming SF for everything. The same suspects need not ruin every other thread with their spam.

[weareros]

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.

[straightred]

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.

I don't know enough about the OSA or legislation in general but this is probably going to be the crux of it (were's Joe Brolly when you need him). He has admitted that he did it so there's no question there. He claims his motives were in the national interest or some such nonsense (i'm not buying that but some people still believe him as is their right to do so)
The question therefore seems to centre around whether or not the OSA or any other Act applies to him leaking the document. I presume the lawyers will clear it up

[sid waddell]

There's a fierce whiff of Benghazi off this

[Angelo]

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.

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.

:           Ruadhán Mac Aodháin, Solicitor, Prospect Law

Re:       Whether the Official Secrets Act applies to Ministers and TDs?

Client:  Ormond Quay Publishing Limited

Date:   3rd November 2020

From:  Diarmuid Rossa Phelan SC

Thank you for your instructions of last night raising the above question to be answered by noon today. 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.

Whether the prohibition on the disclosure of official information falls within Section 4 of the Act applies depends on whether the information is "official information" within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act and if so whether it is excepted.

Official information includes a document

which is confidential or expressed to be confidential, and
which is or has been in the possession custody or control of a holder of public office or to which the holder of public office has or had access, where such control or access is by virtue of the public office holder's office.
Public office includes an office or employment which is wholly remunerated out of the Central Fund or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas. Therefore information does not become official information by virtue of it being in the possession etc. of a member of the Oireachtas. However, official information does not cease to be official information solely by virtue of the fact that it has come into the possession custody or control of or accessed by a member of the Oireachtas, or indeed any other person who is not a holder of public office as defined by the Act.

If the information falls within the definition of official information, the prohibition on disclosure of official information applies to a person without qualification or exclusion de ratione personae. However the communication by any person may nonetheless be excepted from prohibition, not because of status for example as member of the Oireachtas or Minister, but if the disclosing person either

is duly authorised to communicate the official information – "duly authorised" here means (S.4(4)) authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority to communicate the official information, or
communicates the official information in the course of or in accordance with his or her duties as the holder of a public office (not including membership of the Oireachtas), or
when it is his or her duty in the interest of the State to communicate it.

https://villagemagazine.ie/senior-counsels-opinion-for-village-affirms-being-a-minister-does-not-exclude-you-from-the-obligations-of-the-official-secret-act/

So I would say you are somewhat clutching at things there.

Varadkar also threatened to sue when the story was broken by Village as they said he broke the law. Varadkar has never made any efforts to follow up on that empty threat as he has no case.

[weareros]

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.

[Angelo]

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.

[weareros]

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.

[Angelo]

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.

[weareros]

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?

[Angelo]

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?

Yes and you are disagreeing with the professional opinion of a senior counsel who says in his legal opinion there is no basis for it.

You're also ignoring the fact that the line minister for health had no idea what Varadkar was doing, was trying to get the document himself but could not get it and Varadkar went behind his back to leak it.

[Baile Brigín 2]

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?

Because he didn't officially do it and tried to cover his tracks.

Just because he was Taoiseach doesn't mean he did what he did in furtherance of Taoiseach duties

[macker15]

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2021/0315/1204103-ireland-politics/