Originally Posted by constitutionus

cheers for that !

missed any reference to it on the radio news.

Caught it on 7 news on RTE radio, was in a rush hence uncorrected typo

So it seems that some more of the 15 Primary care centres may also be a bit political rather than a bit medical!

Bottler needs to resign.

Originally Posted by damus

That letter explains diddly squat....all it means is that in July he wrote to Shorthall explaining that he planned to increase the list of areas from 20-35. Like you say, it doesn't explain what criterion he planned to use and it certainly doesn't mean that she had prior knowledge that he planned to bump Balbriggan and Swords up the list.

Indeed the letter was written after the event.Ursula Halligan reported on TV3 News that the copy she was given is dated July 25th.

Why was there no copy of this letter included in the original file release from DoH?

When did Roisín Shorthall receive this letter?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0926/shortall-letter.pdf

so this letter from july of james reilly's explaination, irish times make references to it
Timeline leading to Shortall resignation - The Irish Times - Wed, Sep 26, 2012

A new letter from Dr Reilly to Ms Shortall in July is released. Dr Reilly says if only 20 locations were put forward “there was a high probability that may GPs would simply decline to participate”.

still seems vague

Originally Posted by powderfinger

Indeed the letter was written after the event.Ursula Halligan reported on TV3 News that the copy she was given is dated July 25th.

Why was there no copy of this letter included in the original file release from DoH?

When did Roisín Shorthall receive this letter?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0926/shortall-letter.pdf

There doesn't seem to be any date on it aside from July 2012. Who's copy of the letter is that - is it Reilly's or Shorthalls? I know we stamp all incoming letters as proof of the date of receipt - normal business practice as I understand it. Another thing that is odd - if this letter originated from the DoHC, surely it would be on a departmental letterhead? It's not uncommon for people to withhold releasing documents under FOI - or for documents to suddenly find their way in to a file if they suit a particular agenda.

Originally Posted by emulator

So after the first meeting proves to be "tense and difficult", a letter appears that was accidentally forgotten when sending the original FOI request. Then, instead of them going to the Times they find there way to Ursula Halligan. On the RTE, they said they got them from the Department??? There are games afoot....
!

did the irish times get the oirginal story through FOI, they seemed to have shorthall's original critieria document aswell, havn't published that

when was this all supposed to be sorted?

Puzzling that there was no referral to this letter by Reilly, while he was out on the airwaves last Friday .

theres a hell of lot of words in the letter, but what do they mean

Ministerial friction at health must end | Irish Examiner

Equally unapologetic, Dr Reilly chose to ignore the exclusive yardstick of urban and rural deprivation as a criteria for selecting locations and included the new ones on the basis of such factors as competition and GP co-operation, arguably conferring commercial advantage on private interests in public-private partnerships

these ppps were to build the centres or/and run them?

Originally Posted by lostexpectation

did the irish times get the oirginal story through FOI, they seemed to have shorthall's original critieria document aswell, havn't published that

when was this all supposed to be sorted?

It's my understanding that The Times did an FOI to get the correspondence between Reilly and Shortall and used them as the basis for the story regarding the two PCCs in his constituency. This one that surfaced today was supposed to be in with the first lot. You'd imagine it would've been sent to The Times then ?

However, Ursula Halligan had it today for the 5:30 TV3 news and they had just received it on RTE for the 6.1. RTE stated they had just received it from the Department which I find very strange.

My opinion is, after the meeting between Reilly and Shortall didn't go well (for Reilly)....Team Reilly decided to lash this letter into the public domain to try to portray Shortall as making a mountain out of a mole hill. Infact, the letter still had no insight into the supposed criteria Reilly used when he included the two PCCs in his constituency and most likely signaled to Shortall they were moving against her.