Messages

See there are posts on the Board about large sums of money getting paid to managers. Have always wondered where this money would come from. How would it be paid? Would the manager pay tax on it? Does the County pay into a pension scheme for the manager and do they pay their part of having him as an employee? Or is it all shady and murky?
Surely with it all being about allegations, then the tax people could prove to the GAA if managers are being paid or not. In Belfast, even the money from the gaming machines has to be accounted for in all clubs and bars. Long gone are the days of Clubs putting 200 pounds 'tips' in the books for the bin men' and such sundries. You hear fellas complaining about paying someone 100 pounds and 'All he does is put them round the cones for half an hour.' Would take it though that trainers are allowed to be paid and would be in the books as such.

the managers are self employed and invoice the club/county on a weekly basis.  They pay their own tax in the same way any self employed person does.  As for how the county/club account for the money, who knows, but it's a legitimate deductible expense (not that they should be paying tax anyway).

They were talking about bringing in 13 a side football - sending lads off for cynical fouls would make it 5 a side football.  You'd need some level of fitness for that ! 

The team fouling rule should be looked at, also, and I'm near blue in the face saying this, the sin bin should be revisited.

Whats that about Ulick?

Had to laugh at the waxing lyrical about him having built the golf course at his house and how he matched it to US courses etc so he was gonna live in the north forever with his childhood sweetheart holly (who he clearly he didnt want to be there in that homecoming vid) etc etc, then a few weeks later hes split with her and is basing himself in the US   

I think he's only spending part of the year there, he's only looking to buy an apartment, not building a huge big place like Gmac.

Karl lacey is now available at 14/1 for player of the year think il put something on him at that price he has been the best defender in the country this year

well it's better value than backing donegal for the all ireland as he could still win even if they lose in the final - they have to beat the dubs though as it's practically unprecedented for a player to win who only made the semi-final

Sure did brogan not win it last year?

Aye, but the dubs won the all ireland last year didn't they (or at least played in the real final)?  Maybe last year was more about the esteem in which Cork have been held by most pundits and fans.

Karl lacey is now available at 14/1 for player of the year think il put something on him at that price he has been the best defender in the country this year

well it's better value than backing donegal for the all ireland as he could still win even if they lose in the final - they have to beat the dubs though as it's practically unprecedented for a player to win who only made the semi-final

Is Rickie Fowler finally going to break his duck? Has been knocking on the door for long enough and is in good form.

None of the Irish will contend, McIlroy seems to have lost the run of himself a bit since winning the US Open and needs to get back to playing steadily and less time on Twitter and on the celebrity circuit.

I honestly can't see Rickie winning, he's an abysmal price for a young lad who does not know how to win, he's been in winning positions a number of times and has fallen away badly every time.  He's about 36.0 or so, which is a ridiculous price.

Gmac is great value at 160.0 odd.  I mentioned him earlier and I really think that Romero could go really well here, he's been in brilliant form on all sorts of courses over the last 6 weeks and has contended in majors before, he can win when he gets the opportunity.  Of course he's liable to throw in a double or triple bogey every now and then, but he can also make birdie after birdie on every type of course.

Just signed up to this betfair, excuse my ignorance on this type of betting.

If anyone can answer me a few questions.

e.g David Horsey best odds of 78/1 to not win.  The amount in the pot for this was £2. So if i bet £2 that David Horsey does not win, does this mean I will get 2X£78 +£2, and if he does win, the person backing the bet gets 2X£78 out of my money?

Every player has a back and a lay price.  If you're backing it's the same as with any bookie, if you lay, you are the bookie.  In your account you have deposited £100.

If you back someone at 50.0 for £2 you stand to win 2 x 50 = 100 -2 = £98 winnings.  Whether he wins or not you now have £98 left to bet with on other things.
If you lay at 50.0 for £2, they set aside your total potential loss of £98 and you now have £2 to bet with until the event has settled.  If the player you laid loses, you win the £2.

The biggest advantage (and sometimes the biggest curse) of betfair is that you can back and then lay the same player later on if he does well.  You can effectively guarantee a profit long before the event is over.

Watched X-men First Class tonight and really enjoyed it.
Haven't watched any of the rest of them,are they worth watching?

they're not the worst, funnily my favourite was the last one 'Wolverine Origins' or something like that (you'd prob need to watch the others first though).
Another very underrated superhero film was Fantastic 4 and the follow up - much better than many of the others out there imo.

Imo canon law and civil law are totally separate.  We can't dictate which set of laws people adhere too, but we can and should enforce civil law when it has been violated. 

Bit of a contradiction there, no?

Not that I can see, but do elaborate if you can be bothered.

Are they going to specify which crimes need be reported and which don't?  Will they specify the actions which should be taken by a priest if someone through their confession also points a finger at another person as being involved?  Should the priest start investigating the accusation himself?  Maybe the priest should record all confessions to ensure the accuracy of his evidence, feck it, get a stenographer in.

Nonsensical questions. It all depends on the specifics of the case. All that counts is did a priest know something by way of the confession and fail to report it to the authorities when he should have.
[/quote]
What parameters should be set?  What about white collar crime?  A wee bit of fraud which has stopped and the victim is trying to rectify?  No TV licence?  Prostitution?  Using illegal substances?  Will we limit it to child sex crimes?  What age limit should we set?  What about statutory rape, especially mistaken statutory rape?  What about the revolutionaries and freedom fighters?

Shows you what I know I was always taught if something was said in confession the priest could do nothing about it.  In fact the example they used to use teaching us was if someone confessed to the priest they had swapped the table wine for poison the priest would have to drink the poison.  I have no doubt your version is more accurate but no matter I am of the belief that if even so much as one priest who wouldnt otherwise have done so is persuaded to disclose information on a crime because either a) they believe they may be breaking the law or b) because they realise they can no longer hide behind cannon law then again I would say this law has done its job.

Laws dont exist so that they can be enforced they exist so that there breach can be prevented.

Under canon law a priest can never violate the seal of the confessional, if the priest wants to adhere to canon law then he will not breach the confidence.  I'm just pointing out that at present regardless of the proposed legislation the priest is in exactly the same position he will be in afterwards except that he will not be guilty of a criminal offence if he decides to adhere to canon law.  I'm probably making this more confusing than it is, but in simple terms every priest has the choice, and whatever bullshit legislation FG bring in will not change that.

Screenmachine has a history of racist remarks....

screenmachine
Re: Islamists threaten South Park
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2010, 11:34:23 AM »

It must be no craic at all being a towel head...

I hope we've no Muslims on here or I could be in for a while kickin by the sounds of things...

http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=16040.0

A classy individual...

I could trawl back through plenty of your posts and clearly identify you as being a grumpy d**khead but I'll not bother, I have better things to be at.

If you want to find out whether the term "darkie" is offensive, there's a simple test you can apply. Walk into any pub frequented by black people and greet them as "darkies".

Walk into a pub frequented by black people and greet them as "black people" and you will probably get a similar reaction...

:DScreen heard the last time you called a S'neill man a Balubas you got a slap so can't see you having the balls to walk into that bar and call them anything.

that'd be mistaken identity on your part Glens, there's more than one screen on here. 

[The seal of the confessional is inviolate in all circumstances]

the Church serves the laws of God, not of Man, this is a non story brought about a grand standing taoiseach, who as a catholic was well aware he was talking nonsense, The seal of the confessional is inviolate in all circumstances

Not in Ireland. The Vatican has no authority in Ireland.

No, but at present in Ireland, in common with much of the developed world, there is no obligation to disclose any information gained under the seal of the confessional.  The person obtaining that information has always got the choice of whether to disclose it or not, in reality this all comes down to individual conscience and not whether or not priests place greater store by canon law or civil law. as I'd be shocked if civil law was the winner there.
Essentially a priest hearing such information in the confessional has the choice, he can report it and be excommunicated or remain silent and allow the perpetrator to remain free - he has to decide which is the right and moral course to take. 

It's a load of nonsense as a confession to a priest, be it in the confessional or over pints in the pub, would not be held as evidence in a court of law as the defendent wouldn't be under caution that anything he says etc.

It would certainly be admissible as hearsay evidence in the north sure wasnt it used in the Hazel Stewart case recently. Id be surprised if it were inadmissible in the south

Totally ignorant of that, what happened?  Who did he/she confess to?  How did the information get out?

Re lawyers, they can still represent their client and on hearing the confession they cannot head over to the prosecution and inform them of the new evidence.

And to the crux of your point, why do you think this would have the effect of 'bringing one child molester to court'.  As things stand, if such a person confessed to a priest, the priest has exactly the same option he will have in the future, he can go to the authorities with the information or choose not to. 

There's no need for a specific law for the confessional. Failure to report a crime is already a crime. There is nothing in the law (as far as I know) that excludes the priest in the confessional from this requirement any more than it excludes me. By the same token, the possibility of convicting a priest is about the same as that of convicting me if someone I don't know and can't identify confesses a crime to me in a dark room with no corroborating evidence and nobody else present - especially if I deny it ever happened.

I think there is common law which recognises the seal of the confessional.

I have a feeling one of the big guns is going to win this one.

Im going for Phil, Westwood, Day and Mahan as my mini outsider.

Bogball are u sure McDowell is 170/1??

He is 80/1 on paddypower

he's at least 159/1 on betfair, but people are and have been getting matched at 169/1, in fact he touched 179/1 for a while.
He can be backed at 11.5/1 for a top ten finish which I might do too.

Seriously, it makes no sense to back most golfers with traditional bookies - the favs are always almost the same prices, but the further down the book you go, the bigger the discrepancy.

Big Clarkey for example was about 270/1 on the exchanges, I can't remember what price O'Neill got on him, but I doubt it was that big.