Messages

Cheers for that last night. I enjoyed it. All down here from there.

Im not convinced by the legality of it in the South and understand there may be a criminal investigation on going about it at the minute.  I also note theres likely to be a parliamentary inquiry about it in the UK

Don't think there's any criminal investigation going on, but ccpc are reviewing the oasis ticket sale to make sure it was compliant with consumer protection law.

Ahh ok I heard on the news there was one and I know there was a new statute about it in 2021 but I haven't examined it properly.

Im not convinced by the legality of it in the South and understand there may be a criminal investigation on going about it at the minute.  I also note theres likely to be a parliamentary inquiry about it in the UK

[Armagh GAA have clearly established guidelines and methods for requesting the use/appearance of the Sam Maguire and will NEVER charge for this.]

There's a fake Sam Maguire trophy doing the rounds! Statement on the Armagh GAA Facebook page.

SAM MAGUIRE - IMPORTANT NOTICE

Armagh GAA have been made aware of a counterfeit Sam Maguire trophy being taken around a number of pubs, event venues and schools in exchange for substantial amounts of money.

Armagh GAA have clearly established guidelines and methods for requesting the use/appearance of the Sam Maguire and will NEVER charge for this.

#BeAware

Anyone aware of what these guidelines and methods are?  Sam seems to be popping up everywhere and anywhere with little advance notice.

There's a booking form, booked solid to Christmas !

I liked the RTE headline on this story.  SHAM MAGUIRE

Should I have received something by now?

Oasis are dirt. Rubbish music, mediocre performers, minus interest in their fans

Would agree their music mightn't be too fancy but sang with passion and a bit of style. Cant wait. Instantly back being one of the biggest bands about, especially with how little there is out there.

Did they ever get any traction in the states?

I saw them at Austin City Limits when I was living over there so either 2005 or 2006 and there was a sizeable crown

So, I think 2024 is better, no one game, just the journey.

Would agree with that, Benny. I never, ever thought that 2002 could be surpassed, but I believe 2024 did just that, and there are many in Armagh who think likewise.

As for the original, question, for me it would be the Ulster preliminary round replay against Fermanagh in the Athletic Grounds in 1993. Possibly the most unbelievable match I was ever at. An 'I was there...' moment, or more pertinently, an 'I was there and stayed to the end...' moment.

That was game two of a six game odyssey that would see us not even get to a provincial final, whilst Derry would play five matches and win Sam. What a Summer that was. Great memories of following that Armagh team. 

That was my first championship match in Armagh (the first coming in Irvinestown) and its been a complete love affair with County football ever since

Brian Whelehan famously missed out on an all star but got POTY in 1994. If you are nominated for POTY you are a cert for inclusion in the team of the year. Only outlier to that is when Cluxton and Clarke were nominated for POTY but obviously only one could get in the team.

Was that not the Texaco player of the year he won which in turn lead to the creation of the All Star player of the year in 1995?

My tuppence after watching the semis again

1. Blaine Hughes (Armagh) - every keeper made a howler bar him

2.Johnny McGrath (Galway)
3. McKay (Armagh)
4. Forker - to get him in somewhere & McCambridge misses out to get POTY

5.Dylan McHugh (Galway)
6.Silke (Galway)
7.Mogan (Donegal)

8. Paul Conroy (Galway)
9. Langan (Donegal)

10. Rian O'Neill (Armagh)
11. John Maher (Galway)
12. N Grimley (Armagh) - Conaty YPOTY

13.Oisin Gallen (Donegal) 
14. Mulroy or Louth MFer
15. Conor Turbitt (Armagh)

reckon Louth will defo get one

I know Young Player doesn't always get an all star (Clarke didnt in 02 when he was young player of the year but strangely Cooper did get the all star i think) but I think and I am open to correction that the player of the year has always been an all star

The 'he hasn't been charged or convicted in court' argument is a bit like saying Al Capone was a well known tax dodger. 

Is it? because we know there's been public law proceedings and a finding of fact in his favour.

What were these proceedings?

The family ones referred to in his statement

This is an extremely difficult and sensitive set of circumstances. On the one hand, RG was never convicted of a crime (assuming through lack of evidence) and also has custody of his children. To the outsider looking in, that would suggest that he has been wrongly accused. On the other hand, there seems to be this local knowledge that suggests that RG did everything that he is accused of, and everybody bar the Police know about it. As David pointed out above, that's not how the Law works, but at this moment in time, and possibly forever more, RG will not be able to outrun these rumours. For that reason, Derry would be making a big mistake by taking him back

Agree it's a very difficult situation and my view is probably more grounded in idealism than realism (which I accept) also I'm not local so am completely basing this on what has been reported. My issue though and it's not specific to the RG situation is that when you have a scenario where allegations have been made, investigated, reviewed and a no prosecution decision has been made (which in my experience are rare) and a family case has arrived at a conclusion like it has then preventing someone from moving on with their life, particularly if a potential employer does due diligence is a slap in the face of the presumption of innocence. Therefore public opinion sometimes has to take a back seat.

All that said. No investigation or court process or due diligence is infallible. So it's a difficult balancing exercise.

That's fair. I read your comments as more or less that in family issues etc the courts and Trust wouldn't award custody unless rigours check etc. apologies if picked you up wrong.

As I said, I'm more making the point that custody of the kids can be a misleading bias in cases as our experience of Trust is they are understaffed and some workers incompetent. Which can easily lead to manipulation and distortion. But that's just my experience. Other Trusts I know operate more efficiently and are more competent.

Never even knew non-mols existed until family member was served. Couldn't believe the other party didn't have to be present or made aware of the process. Our barrister told us it would have covered accidental contact but I thought that was strange so will take your word on it.

It wouldn't be unusual for us to advise that out of abundance of caution.

The 'he hasn't been charged or convicted in court' argument is a bit like saying Al Capone was a well known tax dodger. 

Is it? because we know there's been public law proceedings and a finding of fact in his favour. We also know that the authorities in the North investigated the case and issued a no prosecution decision, that was affirmed on review.

We also know complaints were made to the Gardai. I'm not sure what happened those.

The issue with the 'inventor of sell by dates' was that he was protected by a corrupt establishment until the people turned on him.

As a law professional I am sure you are more aware than almost anyone else on here of the difficulty in successfully prosecuting domestic violence crimes.

Disappointed that you are taking this stance.

As a legal professional I know the following. Firstly there is a difficulty in securing any form of conviction because of the necessary standard of proof that applies in criminal cases. That said I also know that we have a conservative and risk adverse prosecution service who will direct prosecution in a high number of such cases. Consequently when the  prosecution even after review choose not to prosecute that is significant. I can't gainsay their reasons for doing so but I imagine they have greater knowledge than what is in the public forum.

Similarly as a legal professional I know that family courts aren't burdened by the same burden of proof. They take even suggestions of domestic violence very seriously and conducted extensive investigations involving many experts including lawyers for the children and the local health care trust. Their job isn't to establish which parent would it be better for kids to live with. Their job is to first of all establish would it be safe to allow either parent care of the children. If they have any suspicions following these involved and detailed investigations they won't take a risk. So again that is significant.

That coupled with the presumption in favour of innocence is where my stance comes from. However your concern for my stance is touching.

Usually agree with majority of your posts David but having had a family member involved in a DV case, which is still ongoing, in which the children were taken into care by the Trust, can only completely disagree with you in this instance.

In the letter informing said family member of the decision not to prosecute, they were told initially there was insufficient evidence. On the advice of their solicitor they appealed and the subsequent letter effectively said it is a he said/she said matter and they won't be pursuing a prosecution.

These extensive investigations have been non existent and there have certainly not been many experts involved. A single social worker and a guardian appointed by the court are the only people who have been involved with the children.

There have been many suggestions (on both sides I will add) that the children shouldn't be returned to either parent yet the Trust appear ignorant to such and inconsistent at best, incompetent at worst. They also appear to make complete illogical decisions and u-turns for no reason. For example, an application was made to the court by the Trust to reduce parental contact of one parent mentioning they didn't demonstrate the ability to understand the requirements needed to be a parent. The application was to reduce contact to one hour supervised a week. This was rejected by the court who had the opinion current contact (two supervised visits of two hours) should remain. The very next day the trust informed us the same parent would now be getting unsupervised contact for three hours twice a week.

Any dealings I have had with the trust and their understaffed employees, have been an eye opener to the sheer incompetence and/or inability of the Trust at times. The point I am getting is that the "system" so to speak, is far from this infallible, bastion of truth you seem to suggest. Our experience has been the complete opposite.

Lies and misleading statements have regularly been believed by the Trust and not followed up or fact checked.

This is not a suggestion that RG is guilty, more to say in our experience, not being prosecuted and having custody of the kids means sweet f**k all and the Trust can easily be manipulated by someone with a bit of cunning or brains.

In this case, the abuser sought and was granted a temporary ex-parte Non-molestation and Occupation order which upon review and with evidence was immediately scrapped. Maybe you'll explain it better than I can, but my understanding is an ex-parte Non-molestation is brought without representation from the other party and is essentially a restraining order, which is enforceable even if the party whom the order is against isn't aware the other party is in the vicinity. ie they could be walking down the street and not even know the other party is in the same town and yet be arrested for breaching.

Firstly I am sorry for your experience.

I'm not holding the Trust or the Family Courts as some infallible system. I'm saying it would be one in a number of different factors which when all weighed together and balanced against things like (it's hard to secure convictions) that my view would be that it's a difficult position for Derry. Stuck between RG's entitlement to be treated as innocent against the backlash from a public who may not be fully informed or willing to afford a presumption of innocence. In those circumstances I'd be leaning towards a persons presumption of innocence.

On the issue of non mols they are criminal orders. They can be obtained without the respondent being made aware. It's a controversial topic in law here. They can't be enforced until served and they don't prevent accidental contact or even contact at all. They are designed to prevent molestation

The 'he hasn't been charged or convicted in court' argument is a bit like saying Al Capone was a well known tax dodger. 

Is it? because we know there's been public law proceedings and a finding of fact in his favour. We also know that the authorities in the North investigated the case and issued a no prosecution decision, that was affirmed on review.

We also know complaints were made to the Gardai. I'm not sure what happened those.

The issue with the 'inventor of sell by dates' was that he was protected by a corrupt establishment until the people turned on him.

As a law professional I am sure you are more aware than almost anyone else on here of the difficulty in successfully prosecuting domestic violence crimes.

Disappointed that you are taking this stance.

As a legal professional I know the following. Firstly there is a difficulty in securing any form of conviction because of the necessary standard of proof that applies in criminal cases. That said I also know that we have a conservative and risk adverse prosecution service who will direct prosecution in a high number of such cases. Consequently when the  prosecution even after review choose not to prosecute that is significant. I can't gainsay their reasons for doing so but I imagine they have greater knowledge than what is in the public forum.

Similarly as a legal professional I know that family courts aren't burdened by the same burden of proof. They take even suggestions of domestic violence very seriously and conducted extensive investigations involving many experts including lawyers for the children and the local health care trust. Their job isn't to establish which parent would it be better for kids to live with. Their job is to first of all establish would it be safe to allow either parent care of the children. If they have any suspicions following these involved and detailed investigations they won't take a risk. So again that is significant.

That coupled with the presumption in favour of innocence is where my stance comes from. However your concern for my stance is touching.

The 'he hasn't been charged or convicted in court' argument is a bit like saying Al Capone was a well known tax dodger. 

Is it? because we know there's been public law proceedings and a finding of fact in his favour. We also know that the authorities in the North investigated the case and issued a no prosecution decision, that was affirmed on review.

We also know complaints were made to the Gardai. I'm not sure what happened those.

The issue with the 'inventor of sell by dates' was that he was protected by a corrupt establishment until the people turned on him.