Rory Gallagher

[David McKeown]

It's funny how Rory Gallagher will publicly threaten Burns with legal action but not anyone who made defamatory allegations against a supposed innocent man.

It's a very different scenario. Defamation is a good deal more complicated than that.

[general_lee]

It's funny how Rory Gallagher will publicly threaten Burns with legal action but not anyone who made defamatory allegations against a supposed innocent man.

It's a very different scenario. Defamation is a good deal more complicated than that.

I appreciate that, but surely an innocent individual would at least instruct his solicitor to make a bit of noise either through a public statement or letters to persons making the defamation. He didn't hang about with JB.

[Wildweasel74]

What,you mean like Gerry Adams trying to sue anybody saying he's in the IRA, good luck with that.

[Spike]

It's funny how Rory Gallagher will publicly threaten Burns with legal action but not anyone who made defamatory allegations against a supposed innocent man.

Empty threats and hot air.    If he cant take the eyewitnesses to court, a watery email from JB isn't going to go far. The last place RG wants to be in is a courtroom where documented evidence comes into the public domain. He needs to exist in the grey areas where his morally bankrupt supporters can feel comfortable. 

[lenny]

It's funny how Rory Gallagher will publicly threaten Burns with legal action but not anyone who made defamatory allegations against a supposed innocent man.

Empty threats and hot air.    If he cant take the eyewitnesses to court, a watery email from JB isn't going to go far. The last place RG wants to be in is a courtroom where documented evidence comes into the public domain. He needs to exist in the grey areas where his morally bankrupt supporters can feel comfortable. 

If he takes burns to court none of the stuff about gallagher would be discussed. The issue would be if burns has acted within the powers that he has as president and has the gaa been consistent and fair in applying these powers.

[tiempo]

JB is a one man morality police, will be very very interesting to see his approach in the orchard

[Milltown Row2]

It's funny how Rory Gallagher will publicly threaten Burns with legal action but not anyone who made defamatory allegations against a supposed innocent man.

Empty threats and hot air.    If he cant take the eyewitnesses to court, a watery email from JB isn't going to go far. The last place RG wants to be in is a courtroom where documented evidence comes into the public domain. He needs to exist in the grey areas where his morally bankrupt supporters can feel comfortable. 

Do you know any players locally, that have went to court for assault and still playing? How's the moral compass on those? 

[PAULD123]

You can't really blame men like Jarlath, they have their wives breathing down their necks. If he didn't intervene he would have a lot to listen to at home.

The question is will Jarlath have a problem with the Armagh player involved in assault playing for his club? Gallagher isn't allowed to be involved in a club yet others are? The likes of McFaul and Kyle Hayes climbed the Hogan steps. Is that a bad look for the GAA too?

I don't remember Suzanne Burns being voted in as GAA president.

[Spike]

JB is a one man morality police, will be very very interesting to see his approach in the orchard

Is having a leader with morals a bad thing now?

It's funny how Rory Gallagher will publicly threaten Burns with legal action but not anyone who made defamatory allegations against a supposed innocent man.

Empty threats and hot air.    If he cant take the eyewitnesses to court, a watery email from JB isn't going to go far. The last place RG wants to be in is a courtroom where documented evidence comes into the public domain. He needs to exist in the grey areas where his morally bankrupt supporters can feel comfortable. 

Do you know any players locally, that have went to court for assault and still playing? How's the moral compass on those?   

I don't so my moral compass is just fine.

[PAULD123]

I think the issues are getting confused:

Issue 1 - Are the accusations about RG true
Issue 2 - Was Burns correct to intervene in the way he did

It is possible the first answer to be YES but the second to be NO. Burns' intervention is not dependent on him being right that RG is guilty or unsuitable. Even if that is true, even if RG did do it, even if if is a horrible person, Burns is not necessarily correct to intervene personally.

Burns is not wrong or right based on the accusations being true. Burns is wrong because he circumvented the very structures in the organization he is supposed to lead. He should have worked within the GAA structure or reformed it to work better. He undermined their process and authority. He also acted selectively not universally (which is hypocritical). Burns has made his organization look weak.

So for me - Burns was wrong to do what he did, even if he could be correct that RG is unsuitable to coach.

(Although, don't forget, the DRA said that there was no case for him not being allowed to coach)

[Spike]

JB is a one man morality police, will be very very interesting to see his approach in the orchard

You make it sound as if having a leader with morals is a negative?  Perhaps i'm reading that wrong

For those interested the DRA Ruling: http://www.sportsdra.ie/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/24.02.26-Final-Decision.pdf

It questions the authority to debar but does not dismiss the safeguarding judgement.

[Milltown Row2]

JB is a one man morality police, will be very very interesting to see his approach in the orchard

Is having a leader with morals a bad thing now?

It's funny how Rory Gallagher will publicly threaten Burns with legal action but not anyone who made defamatory allegations against a supposed innocent man.

Empty threats and hot air.    If he cant take the eyewitnesses to court, a watery email from JB isn't going to go far. The last place RG wants to be in is a courtroom where documented evidence comes into the public domain. He needs to exist in the grey areas where his morally bankrupt supporters can feel comfortable. 

Do you know any players locally, that have went to court for assault and still playing? How's the moral compass on those?   

I don't so my moral compass is just fine.

You don't? Hmm interesting

[David McKeown]

It's funny how Rory Gallagher will publicly threaten Burns with legal action but not anyone who made defamatory allegations against a supposed innocent man.

It's a very different scenario. Defamation is a good deal more complicated than that.

I appreciate that, but surely an innocent individual would at least instruct his solicitor to make a bit of noise either through a public statement or letters to persons making the defamation. He didn't hang about with JB.

No not necessarily there are potential issues which may or may not be live in this case when people are for example simply repeating what they themselves said in court proceedings.

By way of example if you accuse me of a serious crime in a witness box under oath you have a cast iron defence to a defamation claim. If you then repeat that in a public arena you still have potentially a defence but it gets trickier.

When the original claim is made in a court that's not public the issue becomes even murkier.

I don't know if RG considered defamation proceedings and if he did whether they were perused or not and if not why not but I do know that it's not just as simple as they said this untrue thing so we should sue and if we don't we accept it.  Although it could still be that but I'd be speculating

[93-DY-SAM]

The crux of this is one rule for one person and a different one for someone else. That's the corner Jarleth has backed himself into now and this will follow him around for the rest of his term.

[David McKeown]

I think the issues are getting confused:

Issue 1 - Are the accusations about RG true
Issue 2 - Was Burns correct to intervene in the way he did

It is possible the first answer to be YES but the second to be NO. Burns' intervention is not dependent on him being right that RG is guilty or unsuitable. Even if that is true, even if RG did do it, even if if is a horrible person, Burns is not necessarily correct to intervene personally.

Burns is not wrong or right based on the accusations being true. Burns is wrong because he circumvented the very structures in the organization he is supposed to lead. He should have worked within the GAA structure or reformed it to work better. He undermined their process and authority. He also acted selectively not universally (which is hypocritical). Burns has made his organization look weak.

So for me - Burns was wrong to do what he did, even if he could be correct that RG is unsuitable to coach.

(Although, don't forget, the DRA said that there was no case for him not being allowed to coach)

Did they? from memory and it's been a while since I read the decision but my memory was that the rules on punishments regarding safeguarding were at odds with the official guide and therefore were of no force and effect.