Leo Varadkar

Things
2545

As they had agreed to consult with the NAGP.

This consultation was “loose” language owing to the relationships between the NAGP, IMO and DoH.

Getting the NAGP onside was important because of the number of GPs attached it.

In terms of Varadkar’s own motivations. A deal negotiated by his Government that would result in Government policy proceeding is quite clearly in his own interest.

Apparently the Village have loads of text messages, so are there any that suggest otherwise? Why would Varadkar scupper a deal that would damage him politically?

Anyway, back to “revelations” number 2 that you posted, what’s the beef?

1 Like
2546

Who had agreed to consult with the NAGP?

Why did the Minister for Health not do this?

Why did the Minister for Health not release the document?

Why did they go through backchannels to get this document?

Why did Varadkar not consult with his gov colleagues, his minister for health, IMO before, during and after this?

If this was Varadkar’s strategy then why was it his friend who was pursuing him for it rather than the other way around?

Why was it delivered to his friend’s home address rather than their office across the road?

Why the need for secrecy?

Do you find it credible Varadkar didn’t know their office was across the road?

Why did he write subject to change/amendments on the document if it was finalised?

Why did he reiterate that in a further text message “not to take it as gospel”?

Why did he delete text messages containing these requests?

Why would he contact his friend who isn’t a close friend 3 times during the course of them releasing their statements? Do you find his justification for this credible? Do you think the optics of them being in cahoots with their joint statements is terrible and something Vardakar should have avoided?

His friend is on record as saying he wanted to destroy the IMO and the document could allow them to “take the wind” out of the IMO’s sail. His friend was the head of a rival organisation. Did Varadkar show a massive and reckless error of judgement in putting a confidential document into the hands of a rival organisation with sinister motivations?

Varadkar’s story lacks any sort of credibility. What you have offered as a defence is not supported by anything and when you look at the established facts we have now, Varadkar’s defence is actually totally and utterly undermined by them.

3 Likes
2547

What supports this? Merely blind faith?

2548

By god

2549

“Triggered” I believe they call it

1 Like
2550

A lot of questions there which have already been through ad neusium.

You have a view which he should go because a leak is a leak. There is no evidence of why he would want to scuttle the contract, all motivations appear to be to get the deal done. Just asking “questions” because you don’t believe the explanation for partisan purposes is just weird.

Just stick to the leak is the leak, the rest of it is embarrassing.

As for the rest, you are again failing to engage on the latest “revelations” that you posted on here. They were about dealing subsequent to this accord. Why don’t you have a view on that?

2551

Logic…?

Again, I don’t understand this from you. You can hold the position that a leak is a leak and he should go, that’s fine, but trying to turn it into Watergate is embarrassing.

2552

You have to admire @Fulvio_From_Aughnacloy’s stamina.

1 Like
2553

@Fulvio_From_Aughnacloy should be in the Dail.
He’d have done a better job than Pearse Doherty.

2554

Pearse should take him on as an advisor.

2555

@Fulvio_From_Aughnacloy wouldn’t have been dismembered by some no-mark Blue shirt from Mullingar

2556

Logic actually completely discredits Varadkar’s defence.

Why would logic dictate he goes behind his minister for health’s back, doesn’t inform cabinet colleagues, parties to the contract at any stage - before, during or after?

Why would logic dictate the request comes through backchannel sources?

Why would logic dictate that the tail wags the dog? If it’s Varadkar who is implementing strategy then why is he jumping to his friend’s requests?

If its strategy then why is he deleting his friends messages requesting the document?

And why isn’t the on-record motives of his friend in the discussion, Varadkar is the one who has enabled his friend with the ammunition to action his motivations (destroy the IMO), he has done so by means which bring his role a public representative and very likely illegal and unquestionably completely unethical behaviour.

If he contends the document was finalised then why did he write subject to change/amendments on the front and then reiterate this fact in a further text message?

There’s a lot more questions that his defence has raised that it addressed.

To contend that logic supports Varadkar’s is absolute fantasy. I’ve asked you to give us something that supports it, something substantial that would make Varadkar’s story credible and all you have offered up is a fluff line that actually undermines everything he has said.

The logic says Varadkar broke codes of conduct in his role, undermined the trust of his cabinet and the parties who engaged in the contract talks, arguably broke the law to do his friend a favour. His position should be completely untenable, he should probably face criminal charges but the media will not dare to cover this story with proper journalism.

2557

My word

1 Like
2558

A lot of questions there that have not been addressed - the answers or lack of actually serve to do nothing more than tear apart Varadkar’s stated intentions.

I have a view that he should go because he has no problem in breaking sensitive rules and regulations relating to his job in order to service his friends requests. It’s cronyism and corruption and there is no way he should be in high ranking public office with such deplorable conduct.

Corruption and cronyism is clearly the way of FG. It is the culture of FFG and this case just shows it beyond any reasonable contention.

2559

The answer was there. He said the reason why he did it and it makes logical sense. You just choose not to believe it and defy that logic.

When flailing here you have just devolved back to a “leak is a leaky and she should go. It seems strange that you feel the need to ascribe a sinister motivation to it. It’s almost like you need to justify it to yourself.

More broadly, you have refused to engage with the latest revelations that you yourself posted. If we take your view that Varadkar should go for the leak full stop, then what about the latest revelations? More Fine Gaelers involved there but you’ve gone awfully quiet on it strangely.

2560

It makes no logical sense, you seem to be bound by blind faith. The facts were the person he broke all protocols, ethical standards and codes of conduct toward was his friend and the head of a rival organisation of one of the parties in the contract. A friend who is on record as hoping to destroy one of the parties in the contract and whose members felt that the contract would help them undermine the IMO. So the most logical conclusion is that he did what he did for a friend and no other reason. His defence has nothing to support it but has everything to discredit it as a complete and utter fabrication with zero merit.

We have established facts, established facts that are not contended by any party, these established rip apart Varadkar’s fantasy defence. They directly fly in the face of what would be logical and reasonable to do in that type of situation and you choose to ignore all those established facts routinely in this and devote absolute blind faith in whatever yarn Varadkar spins you.

You are very glibly trying to play this down, it is a politician abusing his powers, the ethical standards and codes of conduct of his office and the law to do favours for his friend.

You have been asked countless times now to offer something that supports Varadkar’s defence for doing wrong and have been unable to.

It’s like a burglar getting caught in a jewelry store with a pocketful of diamonds and contending he only did it to feed all the poor kids in his community and house the homeless. It’s an absolutely risible excuse but when you have a media who are only interested in burying FFG corruption what would you expect.

2 Likes
2561
2562

Damning

2563

You go on and on about this but to what end with the friend?

You are just ascribing a sinister motivation to this as you need to justify your a “leak is a leak, he should go” line.

2564

To what end with his friend?

To do his friend a favour, he knew what he was doing was wrong but he just wanted to get things done for a friend.

So was he complicit or was he merely a stooge? It doesn’t matter, his motivation was not conforming to the duties and responsibilities of his office - it was for helping out his friends.

It’s cronyism obtained by corruption.

Out to fuck with it. FG white collar crime should no longer be accepted.