RG at arms length

[Wildweasel74]

Vetting only shows up relevant criminal convictions

[nrico2006]

The crime was drunk driving, running over a pedestrian who has now life changing injuries , leaving the scene of the crime and then covering it up by the father pretending to be driving. I think it's a lot more serious than you are realising...

Its definitely more serious than anything alleged.

[nrico2006]

The crime was drunk driving, running over a pedestrian who has now life changing injuries , leaving the scene of the crime and then covering it up by the father pretending to be driving. I think it's a lot more serious than you are realising...

Its definitely more serious than any alleged crime.

[Baile Brigín 2]

Vetting only shows up relevant criminal convictions

False.

[Milltown Row2]

Just thinking about this topic when I heard the news yesterday - I assume Kavan Keenan isn't going to play for Antrim again?

I was wrong. Obviously hit and runs must not be a big enough deal to cause any kickback.

you make a very important on this matter nrico. The clammer for RG to get pushed from his role with Derry, the subsequent interference by the President in the matter. The amount of negative posts on here and other platforms covering this was huge. For  a man not found guilty of domestic abuse, in fact it never got near the doors of a court. Yet here we have a player who was involved in an alleged crime that has got to court. Has it generated 100th of on line interest or newspaper courage?  Not remotely, selective outrage by many many in the gaa and further afield people

Is there not a safeguarding issue? A coach allegedly battering his wife over a sustained period is a bigger risk than a player doing something stupid on a once off basis.

I agree Burns, yet again, fucked this up. But there is a soft power argument. Is the GAA as an organisation entitled to Blackwall a wife beater? Should a bully of that nature be let near kids? Do we need a conviction? Where does this stop?

That should be "alleged" wife beater.
No-one in the public domain or on any internet forum knows what happened - all we know is that he was never charged with anything or taken to court.
Whereas there are cases out there where people have been charged with crimes, and indeed found guilty - but nowhere near the same uproar.

If the GAA are going to make a stance on anything, it needs to be within the rules of its own organisation and not based on internet rage.

I'm talking in general.

If someone had a laptop of child porn or a car load of heroin but they got off on a technicality, should the GAA act?

What are these rules?

Again, you are comparing a player doing something stupid once to a manager allegedly abusing his wife over years. The uproar will not be the same, but Connolly and Hayes got plenty of it.

That's my point - there are no rules and actions taken by Burns were shooting from the hip.
Absolutely agree action should be taken in safeguarding issues - but as it stands it looks like its a subjective view that is triggering action or not.
IF the GAA are going to go down this line, they need to define rules or processes and work within those confines.

The comparison I was making is that someone who was accused of a crime but not charged or taken to court was treated more severely than someone who was accused and found guilty of crime, so factually a criminal.
That doesn't sit well with me.

Managers are held to a higher standard. The alleged crime was worse. That's life.

Should convicted murders be banned from managing?

[Baile Brigín 2]

Should convicted murders be banned from managing?

As a rule yes.

They wouldn't pass vetting anyway

[Milltown Row2]

Should convicted murders be banned from managing?

As a rule yes.

They wouldn't pass vetting anyway

Been round many clubs in the North?

[tiempo]

What about sheep shaggers?

[tbrick18]

The crime was drunk driving, running over a pedestrian who has now life changing injuries , leaving the scene of the crime and then covering it up by the father pretending to be driving. I think it's a lot more serious than you are realising...

I'm not disputing that.

But a manager with (alleged) anger/bullying issues is a safeguarding problem, a player being a galoot isn't.

So to use your rationale, if I was to accuse you of having bullying/anger issues but no resulting action is taken by the authorities after they investigate, then it's right and proper that the GAA oust you as it is a safeguarding problem? All because I accuse you?

I just fundamentally disagree that an allegation is more serious than a guilty verdict.

In the south the law is I should be suspended while the authorities investigate.

The law also says the GAA can't just ignore the accusations.

Would he pass vetting?

Absolutely agree about suspension during investigations. But if the investigation doesnt result in charges or prosecution how can the GAA claim to know better?
And I agree they can't ignore accusations, but that's the first step in the suspension until investigated.
I'm showing my ignorance here, but is there a GAA rule around suspending while investigating criminal activity? I'm going to guess not, but its a genuine question.

To follow that thread through though, if the GAA can't ignore accusations, then they also can't ignore criminal convictions - but they seem to.

As for vetting - an AccessNI search on RG will not have anything on to show in relation to this case as no charges were made. The disclosure service will alert on convictions, not allegations - to the best of my knowledge.

The GAA, or in this case Jarlath Burns, took the "moral high ground" as he thought it would land well from a PR pov, but when it came to Allianz where was the moral high ground?

[tiempo]

Jarlath used RG (and by extension his kids) as collateral to launch the misguided Game Changer initiative. Game Changer encourages Joe public to intervene in civil or private disputes without clear cause, appropriate training or proper evidential basis

Jarlath showed exactly why Game Changer doesn't work, because it encourages escalation/reporting to carry out a vendetta

[Baile Brigín 2]

Should convicted murders be banned from managing?

As a rule yes.

They wouldn't pass vetting anyway

Been round many clubs in the North?

I'm not aware of how it works in the north, are you referring to, ahem, political activity?

But south of that border line a murder conviction fixes you from a safeguarding perspective

[Baile Brigín 2]

The crime was drunk driving, running over a pedestrian who has now life changing injuries , leaving the scene of the crime and then covering it up by the father pretending to be driving. I think it's a lot more serious than you are realising...

I'm not disputing that.

But a manager with (alleged) anger/bullying issues is a safeguarding problem, a player being a galoot isn't.

So to use your rationale, if I was to accuse you of having bullying/anger issues but no resulting action is taken by the authorities after they investigate, then it's right and proper that the GAA oust you as it is a safeguarding problem? All because I accuse you?

I just fundamentally disagree that an allegation is more serious than a guilty verdict.

In the south the law is I should be suspended while the authorities investigate.

The law also says the GAA can't just ignore the accusations.

Would he pass vetting?

Absolutely agree about suspension during investigations. But if the investigation doesnt result in charges or prosecution how can the GAA claim to know better?
And I agree they can't ignore accusations, but that's the first step in the suspension until investigated.
I'm showing my ignorance here, but is there a GAA rule around suspending while investigating criminal activity? I'm going to guess not, but its a genuine question.

To follow that thread through though, if the GAA can't ignore accusations, then they also can't ignore criminal convictions - but they seem to.

As for vetting - an AccessNI search on RG will not have anything on to show in relation to this case as no charges were made. The disclosure service will alert on convictions, not allegations - to the best of my knowledge.

The GAA, or in this case Jarlath Burns, took the "moral high ground" as he thought it would land well from a PR pov, but when it came to Allianz where was the moral high ground?

As far as I know, intbe south it's the law and that trumps any GAA rule or lack of it.

I don't know how else to say it. Players are not vetted. Coaches are. So having suspicions about a coach and a criminal player are nothing to do with each other.

There are 3 potential responses you get for vetting in the south. Pass. Fail. Passed but don't let them in. The latter is for bogies without convictions, but you will get a coded return suggesting you swerve.

[seanyb]

Should convicted murders be banned from managing?

As a rule yes.

They wouldn't pass vetting anyway

Been round many clubs in the North?

Exactly. I know 2 off the top of my head took Senior football teams having served life sentences in the kesh.

I know a few more who managed senior intercounty teams who served time in jail also 

[Milltown Row2]

Should convicted murders be banned from managing?

As a rule yes.

They wouldn't pass vetting anyway

Been round many clubs in the North?

Exactly. I know 2 off the top of my head took Senior football teams having served life sentences in the kesh.

I know a few more who managed senior intercounty teams who served time in jail also 

But allegedly is a no no   

[tbrick18]

Should convicted murders be banned from managing?

As a rule yes.

They wouldn't pass vetting anyway

Been round many clubs in the North?

Exactly. I know 2 off the top of my head took Senior football teams having served life sentences in the kesh.

I know a few more who managed senior intercounty teams who served time in jail also 

I'd say there's a fair few committee men at club and county level who have colourful pasts too.