Armagh v Derry - Ulster Final, 14th May, 2023 @ 4pm

[J70]

Yes but  That doesn't  mean these allegations are  true.

See now you're moving the goalposts. Nobody on this thread, as far as I can see, has said that the allegations are true or that Gallagher is guilty of anything.

Your point was to ask if you could just make up shit to get someone discredited and removed from their position. The counter to that is that serious allegations from someone close (for example, a wife) have to be taken more seriously than those of any old twat on the internet. Do you not see the difference?

I do see the  difference. But  my point was that trial  by FB sets  a dangerous precedence. 

I didn't really want to  go into this  case ,  but  it  seems odd  that he has custody of  kids , and surely that involved courts/authorities, so  why wasn't  these allegations  made during that process ?

Like I say ,  I really didn't want to  go into this , as it's clearly a delicate issue.  So that's  all I'll say on it.

Come on, are you really that naïve?

Her with an alcohol problem and possibly under threats of additional violence and being cut off completely from her children? You never heard of a similar scenario where a woman was afraid to go public?

If there were domestic abuse allegations with any foundation there is no way gateway/ social services would have given him custody. Regardless of whether the mother of a child has an alcohol problem. It's not a case of they have to go with one of the parents, if there are doubts over both parents the kids would go to a family member or into care. Not a chance a social worker would leave themselves open to recommending a child live with a parent with serious allegations hanging over them.

My point was that they might NOT have known in the first place because the woman was afraid to raise the concerns.

Is that not what Nicola Gallagher's post was about? Silence?

[seafoid]

How would he have got a residence order if the accusations were true?  Surely she would raise any legitimate reasons why he shouldn't have custody and if this happened as frequently as some have speculated, surely the kids would have witnessed something at some point and said so if asked.

On the match, there is no chance he will be managing on Sunday.

If she had been drinking heavily at the time the social workers were involved he would have got the kids and she would not have been able to oppose it.

[Armaghtothebone]

Ulster GAA statement.

How to say nothing in six paragraphs

Ulster GAA has commented ahead of Sunday's Ulster Senior Football Championship Final in Clones.

In a statement Provincial Secretary and CEO Brian McAvoy urged people travelling to the game to respect the occasion and make it a joyous one for all.

He said; "Clones will be beaming on Sunday with a full capacity St. Tiernach's Park hosting the showpiece game of Gaelic Football calendar in the province. The GAA prides itself on being a community and family organisation and we want Sunday's game to be a celebration of all that is good about our Association and a great day for the GAA in Ulster.

"Unfortunately, isolated actions by a very small minority of supporters at both semi-finals did nothing to enhance our status within the community and I appeal to all supporters to by all means 'get behind' their team, but to do so in a way which is respectful to everyone, irrespective of their creed, gender, tradition, political opinion, or indeed which team they support."

In light of recent events, McAvoy also addressed the issue of domestic abuse.

He said; "While we cannot comment or make judgement on any specific allegation or allegations, Ulster GAA does not condone any form of domestic violence. We are proud to have joined with White Ribbon NI in pledging to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women. We encourage and support anyone who has been a victim of such abuse not to suffer in silence but to avail of the statutory and voluntary support services that are available in the community."

[themac_23]

Yes but  That doesn't  mean these allegations are  true.

See now you're moving the goalposts. Nobody on this thread, as far as I can see, has said that the allegations are true or that Gallagher is guilty of anything.

Your point was to ask if you could just make up shit to get someone discredited and removed from their position. The counter to that is that serious allegations from someone close (for example, a wife) have to be taken more seriously than those of any old twat on the internet. Do you not see the difference?

I do see the  difference. But  my point was that trial  by FB sets  a dangerous precedence. 

I didn't really want to  go into this  case ,  but  it  seems odd  that he has custody of  kids , and surely that involved courts/authorities, so  why wasn't  these allegations  made during that process ?

Like I say ,  I really didn't want to  go into this , as it's clearly a delicate issue.  So that's  all I'll say on it.

Come on, are you really that naïve?

Her with an alcohol problem and possibly under threats of additional violence and being cut off completely from her children? You never heard of a similar scenario where a woman was afraid to go public?

If there were domestic abuse allegations with any foundation there is no way gateway/ social services would have given him custody. Regardless of whether the mother of a child has an alcohol problem. It's not a case of they have to go with one of the parents, if there are doubts over both parents the kids would go to a family member or into care. Not a chance a social worker would leave themselves open to recommending a child live with a parent with serious allegations hanging over them.

My point was that they might NOT have known in the first place because the woman was afraid to raise the concerns.

Is that not what Nicola Gallagher's post was about? Silence?

Yeah but in RG statement he said 'Allegations against me have been investigated and dealt with by the relevant authorities.' that would be something that will be easily verified by police/ gateway so I would doubt his legal team would let him put that in the statement if it wasn't true.

[Derryman forever]

I don't think there is a cat in hells chance he will be on the sideline on Sunday but the vacuum just creates idle speculation.

I don't expect that he will be taking Derry training this week either as his head must be anywhere but a game of football on Sunday. Kick out strategies and zonal defending will be the last thing on his mind this week. Which is desperate timing for Derry their supporters, players and county board. Gallagher, unlike some other management teams which rely on a combined backroom team, was more than the manager, he was the coach. the tactician and the motivator all rolled into one. It will be difficult for Derry to refocus now for Sunday and there will be an eerie feeling in their dressing room in the run up to and on the day of the match itself. Whilst I thought it was 50/50 before this week I'd be confident that this has swung it in Armaghs favour provided that we too don't become distracted.

This us how I see it also.

[seafoid]

Yes but  That doesn't  mean these allegations are  true.

See now you're moving the goalposts. Nobody on this thread, as far as I can see, has said that the allegations are true or that Gallagher is guilty of anything.

Your point was to ask if you could just make up shit to get someone discredited and removed from their position. The counter to that is that serious allegations from someone close (for example, a wife) have to be taken more seriously than those of any old twat on the internet. Do you not see the difference?

I do see the  difference. But  my point was that trial  by FB sets  a dangerous precedence. 

I didn't really want to  go into this  case ,  but  it  seems odd  that he has custody of  kids , and surely that involved courts/authorities, so  why wasn't  these allegations  made during that process ?

Like I say ,  I really didn't want to  go into this , as it's clearly a delicate issue.  So that's  all I'll say on it.

Come on, are you really that naïve?

Her with an alcohol problem and possibly under threats of additional violence and being cut off completely from her children? You never heard of a similar scenario where a woman was afraid to go public?

If there were domestic abuse allegations with any foundation there is no way gateway/ social services would have given him custody. Regardless of whether the mother of a child has an alcohol problem. It's not a case of they have to go with one of the parents, if there are doubts over both parents the kids would go to a family member or into care. Not a chance a social worker would leave themselves open to recommending a child live with a parent with serious allegations hanging over them.

My point was that they might NOT have known in the first place because the woman was afraid to raise the concerns.

Is that not what Nicola Gallagher's post was about? Silence?

Yeah but in RG statement he said 'Allegations against me have been investigated and dealt with by the relevant authorities.' that would be something that will be easily verified by police/ gateway so I would doubt his legal team would let him put that in the statement if it wasn't true.

Relevant authorities is vague but probably means social workers . 
the story is in the national outrage system now and may be for  several days.

[J70]

Yes but  That doesn't  mean these allegations are  true.

See now you're moving the goalposts. Nobody on this thread, as far as I can see, has said that the allegations are true or that Gallagher is guilty of anything.

Your point was to ask if you could just make up shit to get someone discredited and removed from their position. The counter to that is that serious allegations from someone close (for example, a wife) have to be taken more seriously than those of any old twat on the internet. Do you not see the difference?

I do see the  difference. But  my point was that trial  by FB sets  a dangerous precedence. 

I didn't really want to  go into this  case ,  but  it  seems odd  that he has custody of  kids , and surely that involved courts/authorities, so  why wasn't  these allegations  made during that process ?

Like I say ,  I really didn't want to  go into this , as it's clearly a delicate issue.  So that's  all I'll say on it.

Come on, are you really that naïve?

Her with an alcohol problem and possibly under threats of additional violence and being cut off completely from her children? You never heard of a similar scenario where a woman was afraid to go public?

If there were domestic abuse allegations with any foundation there is no way gateway/ social services would have given him custody. Regardless of whether the mother of a child has an alcohol problem. It's not a case of they have to go with one of the parents, if there are doubts over both parents the kids would go to a family member or into care. Not a chance a social worker would leave themselves open to recommending a child live with a parent with serious allegations hanging over them.

My point was that they might NOT have known in the first place because the woman was afraid to raise the concerns.

Is that not what Nicola Gallagher's post was about? Silence?

Yeah but in RG statement he said 'Allegations against me have been investigated and dealt with by the relevant authorities.' that would be something that will be easily verified by police/ gateway so I would doubt his legal team would let him put that in the statement if it wasn't true.

That's fair... assuming the allegations the authorities investigated covered everything. Which would put it at odds with her FB statement about staying silent.

Horrible situation.

[Mike Tyson]

Yes but  That doesn't  mean these allegations are  true.

See now you're moving the goalposts. Nobody on this thread, as far as I can see, has said that the allegations are true or that Gallagher is guilty of anything.

Your point was to ask if you could just make up shit to get someone discredited and removed from their position. The counter to that is that serious allegations from someone close (for example, a wife) have to be taken more seriously than those of any old twat on the internet. Do you not see the difference?

I do see the  difference. But  my point was that trial  by FB sets  a dangerous precedence. 

I didn't really want to  go into this  case ,  but  it  seems odd  that he has custody of  kids , and surely that involved courts/authorities, so  why wasn't  these allegations  made during that process ?

Like I say ,  I really didn't want to  go into this , as it's clearly a delicate issue.  So that's  all I'll say on it.

Come on, are you really that naïve?

Her with an alcohol problem and possibly under threats of additional violence and being cut off completely from her children? You never heard of a similar scenario where a woman was afraid to go public?

If there were domestic abuse allegations with any foundation there is no way gateway/ social services would have given him custody. Regardless of whether the mother of a child has an alcohol problem. It's not a case of they have to go with one of the parents, if there are doubts over both parents the kids would go to a family member or into care. Not a chance a social worker would leave themselves open to recommending a child live with a parent with serious allegations hanging over them.

You give social workers and social services too much credit. Have been involved in similar circumstances through family and they have proved to be utterly inept and stubborn. A lot depends on who you get and indeed what mood you get them in. As alluded to earlier, one wrong word to them and they can have a child taken away instantly.

By the time they got involved I would say she was heavily dependent on alcohol and the reason they got involved. Then it's a simple case of "Who do we believe? Father who is a role model in the gaa or mother who is alcohol dependent?" It's easy to present a good show for a 15 minute visit or 1 hour meeting.

"Those marks? Sure she is drunk half the time and falling banging herself of furniture etc"

We've seen countless time of failings from social services were the child's life ends in tragedy.

His version of allegations being dealt with could be very different to what we understand i.e it was mentioned once in a meeting and nothing came from it.

I've turned this into a rant now, apologies. There is certainly a lot more behind the scenes than has been made public and I would say the lack of an outright denial of any allegations speaks volumes.

[Itchy]

Yes but  That doesn't  mean these allegations are  true.

See now you're moving the goalposts. Nobody on this thread, as far as I can see, has said that the allegations are true or that Gallagher is guilty of anything.

Your point was to ask if you could just make up shit to get someone discredited and removed from their position. The counter to that is that serious allegations from someone close (for example, a wife) have to be taken more seriously than those of any old twat on the internet. Do you not see the difference?

I do see the  difference. But  my point was that trial  by FB sets  a dangerous precedence. 

I didn't really want to  go into this  case ,  but  it  seems odd  that he has custody of  kids , and surely that involved courts/authorities, so  why wasn't  these allegations  made during that process ?

Like I say ,  I really didn't want to  go into this , as it's clearly a delicate issue.  So that's  all I'll say on it.

Come on, are you really that naïve?

Her with an alcohol problem and possibly under threats of additional violence and being cut off completely from her children? You never heard of a similar scenario where a woman was afraid to go public?

If there were domestic abuse allegations with any foundation there is no way gateway/ social services would have given him custody. Regardless of whether the mother of a child has an alcohol problem. It's not a case of they have to go with one of the parents, if there are doubts over both parents the kids would go to a family member or into care. Not a chance a social worker would leave themselves open to recommending a child live with a parent with serious allegations hanging over them.

If you believe that about social services you'd believe anything, kids are daily being left in horrendous situations.

[93-DY-SAM]

If his statement had included a denial of the allegations there would have been a pile on to call him a liar. David McK offered solid advice earlier in the thread. Suggest people go back and read it - http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=31998.msg2199966#msg2199966

[Milltown Row2]

Not this case, but it seems anyone who's in the public eye could possibly be or actually have already been accused of anything through social media and whether it's true or not will or could potentially lose their living/friends/family and be put through the courts because someone wants to have a go at them.

But it doesn't stop the social media detectives/lawyers having their pound of flesh and coming to their own conclusions

[larryin89]

It's truly amazing what people will believe about the system till they experience it . Ye do realise men are known to be abusers and known by Gardai but  it's a long long long road to getting them found guilty in a court . The controlling abuse can be something again you'd never understand, women will often make statements only to withdraw them days later because of the control . It's fooking horrible . The layman picking up on a story would often say " ahh shur why did she go back to him or why didn't she get out if he was such a basta" etc etc but it really is not black and white at all . The control and manipulation is off the scale .

[gallsman]

Christ. Police found enough in allegations to send a file to the DPP.

So much for the "it's already been dealt with by the authorities" crowd.

[God14]

Christ. Police found enough in allegations to send a file to the DPP.

So much for the "it's already been dealt with by the authorities" crowd.

Staggering!

Derry GAA after watching that bbc ni headline news report cannot continue to sit on their hands

[uimhr ocht]

PPS investigated,no prosecution, no evidence, case closed reports BBC