RG at arms length

Started by seafoid, May 15, 2023, 11:40:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Main Street

Quote from: JoG2 on March 23, 2024, 02:14:15 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on March 23, 2024, 01:47:21 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on March 23, 2024, 01:41:35 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 23, 2024, 12:54:02 PM
Quote from: general_lee on March 23, 2024, 11:26:07 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 23, 2024, 09:53:54 AMWere DJ Carey, Gerard Cavlan or Darren Gleeson ever banned?
Speaking of completely irrelevant tangents; and this is purely hypothetical here... but if allegations were to emerge of a former county player/county manager committing child abuse, what happens then?

If the alleged victim was to go public on social media with a lengthy post detailing allegations dating back 27 years, do we take it at face value or do we dismiss it as one person's word against another's?
When  allegations of violence against women/kids are reported to the police and they start an investigation, then the GAA are obliged by charter to stand down the accused  ntil the investigation is over. This did not happen in Nicola's case. RG was not stood down while the police investigated her allegations twice, sent  the files on to the prosecutor where they were dropped. As it stands now for RG in the GAA code book world, he's free to take up any coaching appointment. I doubt if there is any process for investigating a breach of GAA ethics or what could even be defined as a breach. Possibly if there was an attack on a woman on GAA property?
 
On other matters,
a father accused of abuse being awarded custody of the kids is in itself not a vindication of the father, as the UK courts/social services  (even when presented with believable testimony) are likely to deem a spouse abusing husband a safer bet than an addicted or alcohol troubled mother. Even going for full custody is another form of abuse to punish the abused spouse.  Can an abuser expertly manipulate? does a bear shite in the woods?




What charter is this? Any examples of this charter being adhered to in relation to other investigations previously?

I'd assume he means the safeguarding policy.

I'm not sure the sequence of events describe here are correct though. It was my understanding the investigation happened long before any of these claims had been made online. So by the time his ex wife put it in the public domain the police investigation had already happened. In that case, the gaa has no grounds to do anything and also shouldn't be questioning any social services decisions around his kids.

I could be wrong g on the sequencing, but that was my understanding of what happened.

Just to reiterate though, if he was proved to have done what he was accused of, I'd be the first to say only place for him is prison.

This relates to the safeguarding of children though does it not?
It's the White Ribbon Charter that (at least) Ulster GAA has signed up to

The White Ribbon Campaign is a global movement to end male violence against women and send out the message that male violence against women in all its forms is unacceptable.

Women's Aid ABCLN White Ribbon Co-ordinator, Tahnee McCorry said: "The White Ribbon campaign challenges the attitudes and behaviours that lead to end domestic abuse in all its forms. With one in four women affected by domestic abuse in their lifetime, staying silent is not an option.
"We welcome Ulster GAA's commitment to stand with us and help create a society where all women can live in safety, free from violence and abuse."

LCohen

#511
If any individual has perpetrated domestic violence then there is no role for them in the organisation.

If there is a public accusation but no formal conviction then surely a club/county cannot just ignore it? You would have to satisfy yourself that there was nothing in the accusation. You can't just hope for the best in a matter of this seriousness. The club/county (and their sponsors at the very least) would need to know that when asked about the matter that the accused can issue a full and frank denial, not just a statement like "sure that has all been dealt with".

That is the hurdle that has to be surmounted.

A different point related to this issue. If an issue is discussed on social media AND is also separately reported to the authorities, or the accuser or witnesses make themselves available for direct discussions on the matter you cannot dismiss it as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob". Personally I would worry about the mentality of anyone who brings dismissive language to a debate on this particular issue. Maybe that is just me.

tbrick18

Quote from: LCohen on March 23, 2024, 06:04:30 PMIf any individual has perpetrated domestic violence then there is no role for them in the organisation.

If there is a public accusation but no formal conviction then surely a club/county cannot just ignore it? You would have to satisfy yourself that there was nothing in the accusation. You can't just hope for the best in a matter of this seriousness. The club/county (and their sponsors at the very least) would need to know that when asked about the matter that the accused can issue a full and frank denial, not just a statement like "sure that has all been dealt with".

That is the hurdle that has to be surmounted.

A different point related to this issue. If an issue is discussed on social media AND is also separately reported to the authorities, or the accuser or witnesses make themselves available for direct discussions on the matter you cannot dismiss it as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob". Personally I would worry about the mentality of anyone who brings dismissive language to a debate on this particular issue. Maybe that is just me.

The gaa don't have any power or authority to investigate private individuals of any crime or accusation outside of the gaa. In fact, it could be considered an invasion of privacy.
So how could they satisfy themselves that there was nothing to the accusation?
It has to be based on what the police/social services decide as they are the authority in the case.

For me it's black and white.

Absolutely if someone is being investigated for a crime the gaa should consider what action to take while that is happening. Sensible thing is to temporarily suspend with no prejudice pending the outcome of external investigations if the alleged crime is of a certain level of seriousness.

I haven't seen anyone use dismissive language on the issue or do anything other than condemn abuse so I'm not sure where you are coming g from on that.


GAABoardMod5

Some legally dodgy posts removed.

Be careful what you post...

David McKeown

The DRA decision on over turning the suspension is illuminating on a lot that has been discussed here.

From memory (as I haven't read the decision since it was published) RG stood down voluntarily from Derry role shortly after the allegations surfaced. Ulster GAA initially incorrectly thought this was from all GAA roles and were subsequently slow to disbar him.

RG was disbarred through rules dealing with adult safeguarding which conflicted with and did not explicitly disallow the rules in the official guide (unlike the rules relating to child safeguarding). They were therefore void.

On a more general point. The GAA are duty bound to investigate any complaint about any member to the best of their ability if that complaint has the potential to raise safeguarding issues.

The GAA are not bound by criminal court decisions where there is a higher burden of proof and will make all decisions on the balance of probabilities.

Family courts are confidential and the GAA will not be given information in respect of them. The outcome of the family courts is largely irrelevant as a result. It was mentioned here that abusive fathers are more likely to get custody than unsuitable mothers. That isn't really accurate. It's not a zero sum equation. If the court has concerns over both parents it's more likely to place children into care or into the care of other suitable family members.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

LCohen

Quote from: tbrick18 on March 23, 2024, 06:32:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 23, 2024, 06:04:30 PMIf any individual has perpetrated domestic violence then there is no role for them in the organisation.

If there is a public accusation but no formal conviction then surely a club/county cannot just ignore it? You would have to satisfy yourself that there was nothing in the accusation. You can't just hope for the best in a matter of this seriousness. The club/county (and their sponsors at the very least) would need to know that when asked about the matter that the accused can issue a full and frank denial, not just a statement like "sure that has all been dealt with".

That is the hurdle that has to be surmounted.

A different point related to this issue. If an issue is discussed on social media AND is also separately reported to the authorities, or the accuser or witnesses make themselves available for direct discussions on the matter you cannot dismiss it as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob". Personally I would worry about the mentality of anyone who brings dismissive language to a debate on this particular issue. Maybe that is just me.

The gaa don't have any power or authority to investigate private individuals of any crime or accusation outside of the gaa. In fact, it could be considered an invasion of privacy.
So how could they satisfy themselves that there was nothing to the accusation?
It has to be based on what the police/social services decide as they are the authority in the case.

For me it's black and white.

Absolutely if someone is being investigated for a crime the gaa should consider what action to take while that is happening. Sensible thing is to temporarily suspend with no prejudice pending the outcome of external investigations if the alleged crime is of a certain level of seriousness.

I haven't seen anyone use dismissive language on the issue or do anything other than condemn abuse so I'm not sure where you are coming g from on that.



Note that I referred the issue to the club or county contemplating the potential appointment, not the GAA.

Anyone can see that questions will be asked of any club/county appointing RG. The most obvious question being "how did you get comfortable that he is innocent of the allegations?". Given the seriousness of the allegations and refusal to answer that question or a response that was to the effect of "we didn't think it merited consideration" or "we asked him and he said that that it was already investigated by someone else and we thought sure that's all right then". Sponsors would run a mile.

The first step would have to be what RG himself when asked the inevitable question in public. If he was asked the basic question of did he beat his former partner and the only answer he could give was that "it was already investigated by someone else" then would remain unappointable.

On the dismissive language point I have already referred to the 2 examples ie referring to this as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob" are both examples of dismissive language.

JoG2

Quote from: LCohen on March 23, 2024, 08:10:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on March 23, 2024, 06:32:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 23, 2024, 06:04:30 PMIf any individual has perpetrated domestic violence then there is no role for them in the organisation.

If there is a public accusation but no formal conviction then surely a club/county cannot just ignore it? You would have to satisfy yourself that there was nothing in the accusation. You can't just hope for the best in a matter of this seriousness. The club/county (and their sponsors at the very least) would need to know that when asked about the matter that the accused can issue a full and frank denial, not just a statement like "sure that has all been dealt with".

That is the hurdle that has to be surmounted.

A different point related to this issue. If an issue is discussed on social media AND is also separately reported to the authorities, or the accuser or witnesses make themselves available for direct discussions on the matter you cannot dismiss it as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob". Personally I would worry about the mentality of anyone who brings dismissive language to a debate on this particular issue. Maybe that is just me.

The gaa don't have any power or authority to investigate private individuals of any crime or accusation outside of the gaa. In fact, it could be considered an invasion of privacy.
So how could they satisfy themselves that there was nothing to the accusation?
It has to be based on what the police/social services decide as they are the authority in the case.

For me it's black and white.

Absolutely if someone is being investigated for a crime the gaa should consider what action to take while that is happening. Sensible thing is to temporarily suspend with no prejudice pending the outcome of external investigations if the alleged crime is of a certain level of seriousness.

I haven't seen anyone use dismissive language on the issue or do anything other than condemn abuse so I'm not sure where you are coming g from on that.



Note that I referred the issue to the club or county contemplating the potential appointment, not the GAA.

Anyone can see that questions will be asked of any club/county appointing RG. The most obvious question being "how did you get comfortable that he is innocent of the allegations?". Given the seriousness of the allegations and refusal to answer that question or a response that was to the effect of "we didn't think it merited consideration" or "we asked him and he said that that it was already investigated by someone else and we thought sure that's all right then". Sponsors would run a mile.

The first step would have to be what RG himself when asked the inevitable question in public. If he was asked the basic question of did he beat his former partner and the only answer he could give was that "it was already investigated by someone else" then would remain unappointable.

On the dismissive language point I have already referred to the 2 examples ie referring to this as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob" are both examples of dismissive language.


No social media and no social media mob and there is no investigation by the Ulster Council. That is 2hy those terms have been used multiple times. You're happy enough for trial by social media to supersede the court of law? Where would that get us?

There is no dismissive language in here at all regarding this, none at all.

LCohen

Quote from: JoG2 on March 23, 2024, 08:38:22 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 23, 2024, 08:10:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on March 23, 2024, 06:32:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 23, 2024, 06:04:30 PMIf any individual has perpetrated domestic violence then there is no role for them in the organisation.

If there is a public accusation but no formal conviction then surely a club/county cannot just ignore it? You would have to satisfy yourself that there was nothing in the accusation. You can't just hope for the best in a matter of this seriousness. The club/county (and their sponsors at the very least) would need to know that when asked about the matter that the accused can issue a full and frank denial, not just a statement like "sure that has all been dealt with".

That is the hurdle that has to be surmounted.

A different point related to this issue. If an issue is discussed on social media AND is also separately reported to the authorities, or the accuser or witnesses make themselves available for direct discussions on the matter you cannot dismiss it as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob". Personally I would worry about the mentality of anyone who brings dismissive language to a debate on this particular issue. Maybe that is just me.

The gaa don't have any power or authority to investigate private individuals of any crime or accusation outside of the gaa. In fact, it could be considered an invasion of privacy.
So how could they satisfy themselves that there was nothing to the accusation?
It has to be based on what the police/social services decide as they are the authority in the case.

For me it's black and white.

Absolutely if someone is being investigated for a crime the gaa should consider what action to take while that is happening. Sensible thing is to temporarily suspend with no prejudice pending the outcome of external investigations if the alleged crime is of a certain level of seriousness.

I haven't seen anyone use dismissive language on the issue or do anything other than condemn abuse so I'm not sure where you are coming g from on that.



Note that I referred the issue to the club or county contemplating the potential appointment, not the GAA.

Anyone can see that questions will be asked of any club/county appointing RG. The most obvious question being "how did you get comfortable that he is innocent of the allegations?". Given the seriousness of the allegations and refusal to answer that question or a response that was to the effect of "we didn't think it merited consideration" or "we asked him and he said that that it was already investigated by someone else and we thought sure that's all right then". Sponsors would run a mile.

The first step would have to be what RG himself when asked the inevitable question in public. If he was asked the basic question of did he beat his former partner and the only answer he could give was that "it was already investigated by someone else" then would remain unappointable.

On the dismissive language point I have already referred to the 2 examples ie referring to this as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob" are both examples of dismissive language.


No social media and no social media mob and there is no investigation by the Ulster Council. That is 2hy those terms have been used multiple times. You're happy enough for trial by social media to supersede the court of law? Where would that get us?

There is no dismissive language in here at all regarding this, none at all.

Show the bit where I said that trial by social media should supersede a court of law?

I have said again if an accusation is made to the authorities and is supported by at least one witness who makes themselves available for further questions and this is repeated or reported on social media that does not mean that it is trial by social media. To then refer it to as trial by social media and ignore the fact that a witness has supported the allegation and made themselves available then that is dismissive language. If you know the witness is lying then call them a liar but don't dismiss their existence or their testimony.

Main Street

#518
Quote from: David McKeown on March 23, 2024, 06:46:44 PMThe DRA decision on over turning the suspension is illuminating on a lot that has been discussed here.

From memory (as I haven't read the decision since it was published) RG stood down voluntarily from Derry role shortly after the allegations surfaced. Ulster GAA initially incorrectly thought this was from all GAA roles and were subsequently slow to disbar him.

RG was disbarred through rules dealing with adult safeguarding which conflicted with and did not explicitly disallow the rules in the official guide (unlike the rules relating to child safeguarding). They were therefore void.

On a more general point. The GAA are duty bound to investigate any complaint about any member to the best of their ability if that complaint has the potential to raise safeguarding issues.
Safeguarding issues do not apply to Rory Gallagher.
QuoteThe GAA are not bound by criminal court decisions where there is a higher burden of proof and will make all decisions on the balance of probabilities.

Family courts are confidential and the GAA will not be given information in respect of them. The outcome of the family courts is largely irrelevant as a result. It was mentioned here that abusive fathers are more likely to get custody than unsuitable mothers. That isn't really accurate. It's not a zero sum equation. If the court has concerns over both parents it's more likely to place children into care or into the care of other suitable family members.
[/quote]
It is accurate in cases  which would resemble  the type of RG v Nicola and apparently there are many of these type of cases.  RG was not charged with any abuse. We are not talking about a dodgy Davy Tweed looking for custody after being cleared of all charges on a technicality, after spending 4 years in jail and the prosecutor dropped the case due to lack of something.
In a situation where you have a determined, combatant, solid articulate father, with no case of abuse to answer to,  with boxes of references and more than competent legal representation  versus a partner who has allegedly (but crucially not proven) suffered long term abuse and has acquired an addiction of sorts. The father would  most likely gain custody even if decent testimony was offered  to support amother's claims of abuse.
What I am saying is that a father being awarded custody does not vindicate the father from allegations of spousal abuse as is being claimed by some posters here.



JoG2

Quote from: LCohen on March 23, 2024, 08:48:53 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on March 23, 2024, 08:38:22 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 23, 2024, 08:10:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on March 23, 2024, 06:32:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on March 23, 2024, 06:04:30 PMIf any individual has perpetrated domestic violence then there is no role for them in the organisation.

If there is a public accusation but no formal conviction then surely a club/county cannot just ignore it? You would have to satisfy yourself that there was nothing in the accusation. You can't just hope for the best in a matter of this seriousness. The club/county (and their sponsors at the very least) would need to know that when asked about the matter that the accused can issue a full and frank denial, not just a statement like "sure that has all been dealt with".

That is the hurdle that has to be surmounted.

A different point related to this issue. If an issue is discussed on social media AND is also separately reported to the authorities, or the accuser or witnesses make themselves available for direct discussions on the matter you cannot dismiss it as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob". Personally I would worry about the mentality of anyone who brings dismissive language to a debate on this particular issue. Maybe that is just me.

The gaa don't have any power or authority to investigate private individuals of any crime or accusation outside of the gaa. In fact, it could be considered an invasion of privacy.
So how could they satisfy themselves that there was nothing to the accusation?
It has to be based on what the police/social services decide as they are the authority in the case.

For me it's black and white.

Absolutely if someone is being investigated for a crime the gaa should consider what action to take while that is happening. Sensible thing is to temporarily suspend with no prejudice pending the outcome of external investigations if the alleged crime is of a certain level of seriousness.

I haven't seen anyone use dismissive language on the issue or do anything other than condemn abuse so I'm not sure where you are coming g from on that.



Note that I referred the issue to the club or county contemplating the potential appointment, not the GAA.

Anyone can see that questions will be asked of any club/county appointing RG. The most obvious question being "how did you get comfortable that he is innocent of the allegations?". Given the seriousness of the allegations and refusal to answer that question or a response that was to the effect of "we didn't think it merited consideration" or "we asked him and he said that that it was already investigated by someone else and we thought sure that's all right then". Sponsors would run a mile.

The first step would have to be what RG himself when asked the inevitable question in public. If he was asked the basic question of did he beat his former partner and the only answer he could give was that "it was already investigated by someone else" then would remain unappointable.

On the dismissive language point I have already referred to the 2 examples ie referring to this as "trial by social media" or a "social media mob" are both examples of dismissive language.


No social media and no social media mob and there is no investigation by the Ulster Council. That is 2hy those terms have been used multiple times. You're happy enough for trial by social media to supersede the court of law? Where would that get us?

There is no dismissive language in here at all regarding this, none at all.

Show the bit where I said that trial by social media should supersede a court of law?

I have said again if an accusation is made to the authorities and is supported by at least one witness who makes themselves available for further questions and this is repeated or reported on social media that does not mean that it is trial by social media. To then refer it to as trial by social media and ignore the fact that a witness has supported the allegation and made themselves available then that is dismissive language. If you know the witness is lying then call them a liar but don't dismiss their existence or their testimony.

You're clearly just trying to get annoyed. Again, social media was mentioned as it was the catalyst for the Ulster Council investigation. I'm dismissing no witness ffs. For what it's worth, if anyone is guilty of such a crime, throw away the key.

David McKeown

Quote from: Main Street on March 23, 2024, 08:56:47 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on March 23, 2024, 06:46:44 PMThe DRA decision on over turning the suspension is illuminating on a lot that has been discussed here.

From memory (as I haven't read the decision since it was published) RG stood down voluntarily from Derry role shortly after the allegations surfaced. Ulster GAA initially incorrectly thought this was from all GAA roles and were subsequently slow to disbar him.

RG was disbarred through rules dealing with adult safeguarding which conflicted with and did not explicitly disallow the rules in the official guide (unlike the rules relating to child safeguarding). They were therefore void.

On a more general point. The GAA are duty bound to investigate any complaint about any member to the best of their ability if that complaint has the potential to raise safeguarding issues.
Safeguarding issues do not apply to Rory Gallagher.
QuoteThe GAA are not bound by criminal court decisions where there is a higher burden of proof and will make all decisions on the balance of probabilities.

Family courts are confidential and the GAA will not be given information in respect of them. The outcome of the family courts is largely irrelevant as a result. It was mentioned here that abusive fathers are more likely to get custody than unsuitable mothers. That isn't really accurate. It's not a zero sum equation. If the court has concerns over both parents it's more likely to place children into care or into the care of other suitable family members.
It is accurate in cases  which would resemble  the type of RG v Nicola and apparently there are many of these type of cases.  RG was not charged with any abuse. We are not talking about a dodgy Davy Tweed looking for custody after being cleared of all charges on a technicality, after spending 4 years in jail and the prosecutor dropped the case due to lack of something.
In a situation where you have a determined, combatant, solid articulate father, with no case of abuse to answer to,  with boxes of references and more than competent legal representation  versus a partner who has allegedly (but crucially not proven) suffered long term abuse and has acquired an addiction of sorts. The father would  most likely gain custody even if decent testimony was offered  to support amother's claims of abuse.
What I am saying is that a father being awarded custody does not vindicate the father from allegations of spousal abuse as is being claimed by some posters here.



[/quote]

Sorry why do they not apply?  Particularly given he was disbarred by the Ulster Adult Safeguarding Panel and his appeal to the DRA was against that panel.

I also don't think we can generalise but my experience albeit I would not profess to be an expert in family courts is that they are particularly conservative and will nearly always not grant full custody to fathers if there has been any form of abuse alleged and certainly will not do so without a thorough and comprehensive investigation involving many specialists in the field.  The court is legally obligated to focus on the welfare of the child. The court will hear from social workers, often the children will be separately represented etc etc. That said it also shouldn't be seen as vindication because again the court is focused on the welfare of the child
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner