RG at arms length

[Armagh18]

Didnt see you do much complaining when a certain lad was still playing for Cullyhanna under circumstances still to be determined!

Again. Playing and managing/coaching are different things. Different rules apply.

You would imagine the same rules should apply in Nugents case though. Gallagher wasn't being hounded because he was a manager, would have been no different if he had been a player.

Maybe club v county held to different standards? Presumably Cullyhanna are standing by their man and believe he is innocent which they've every right to do. Armagh gave him the road immeadiately.

[Hand of God]

RG was not charged and won custody, probably his aim and doesn't want or need to engage further proceedings with the ex wife

Jarly enters stage left to punch down on behalf of a sports national governing body, RG has the right to proceed as he sees fit

And Nicola Gallagher? Domestic violence victims?

You don't seem to consider them at all. Rory Gallagher is the victim in your eyes, Jarlath Burns is the abuser. Crazy.

Examples please?

Lads, stop entertaining this fella. It's as simple as that.

Which part of what I said do you disagree with?

I think you are yet another person on here with an appalling outlook on domestic violence and are quite aggressive when that is examined.

Examples please?

I've had my say on this a long time back at the time. All you have done is repeat the same things over and over with no engagement with other posters when asked any detail. David laid out all the facts from a legal perspective but sure he is only a solicitor so what would he know. Did you get your law degree from the same cornflakes box as wee Seamie Bryson.

Hope you find the answers to whatever is making you so angry. You just won't find them here as none of us here knows the exact ins and outs of this.

All the best. 

This has absolutely nothing to do with a legal perspective. The GAA should be making decisions on a moral perspective. I am very critical of Burns when it comes to Allianz and making a decision on a commercial perspective rather than a moral one but with Gallagher he got it 100% morally right.

I get that you don't care about domestic violence victims but hiding behind legal convictions doesn't make it right. We are coming from an era where institutions turned a blind eye to abusers for decades.

You don't know what the ins and outs are but you are quite happy to side with the alleged abuser over the alleged victim when it comes to membership of an amateur sporting organisation. I'm not angry btw, I'm just aghast at how dismissive you (and others) are to domestic violence and the victims of it.

The faux position where you claim to be objective is very, very easily exposed. You support Gallagher.

[Hand of God]

Didnt see you do much complaining when a certain lad was still playing for Cullyhanna under circumstances still to be determined!

I think that's wrong too and I have severe issues with it.

I can draw a distinction with a singular incident on a night where alcohol was involved to multiples sustained actions over a decade.

All allegations against both Nugent and Gallagher are heinous but what sets Gallahger's apart from pretty much anything I've seen in the GAA is the sustained and repetitive nature of it.

I can't countenance how so many people are willing to disbelieve the severity of these allegations.

I think Cullyhanna have let themselves down badly here but there's a massive difference between both cases. Massive.

[Hand of God]

RG was not charged and won custody, probably his aim and doesn't want or need to engage further proceedings with the ex wife

Jarly enters stage left to punch down on behalf of a sports national governing body, RG has the right to proceed as he sees fit

And Nicola Gallagher? Domestic violence victims?

You don't seem to consider them at all. Rory Gallagher is the victim in your eyes, Jarlath Burns is the abuser. Crazy.

If you find out a thing or 2 about family court proceedings

c100 and Safeguarding
Section 7
Dispute resolution
PD12J
Final heading and order
(The minimum steps)

Then you'll find Mrs Gallaghers claims have been priced into the decision to award custody of the kids to RG

The Gallaghers have been through a formal legal process administered by the DoJ

Then another wing it form of frontier justice dispensed by Jarlath

Yes the latter was abusive, abuser being Jarlath, victims being RG and more importantly the kids

Jarlath of course doesn't have to explain any of this to the kids, or provide for them or tuck them in at night. What he did was poorly thought out and reckless, and has completely undermined the Game Changer initiative, showing it up at best as another virtue signalling slogan and worst the GAAs in house mechanism to slander and wade through people's private lives

Now we are getting done to brass tacks.

You are saying she's a liar.

[David McKeown]

So just to summarise your position as I understand is

Allegations have been made therefore Burns has to act. He has to believe those allegations but ignore and not consider the denials or the large number of factors that cast doubt over the veracity of the allegations. He has to do so and ignore the rules and procedures of the Association?

You place no weight on the legal proceedings except the one that RG hasn't taken ie defamation ignoring the legal and practical issues of same. But you again place no weight on the fact the complainant hasn't taken legal proceedings of her own.

You place considerable weight on the Facebook post of a witness but do not consider the fact that she either didn't report the contents of same to either police force or if she did the contents was discounted when compared to the other evidence.

You place no weight on the three police investigations and 4 no prosecution decisions all of which were made on the basis of all available evidence not just what's in the public domain. You seem to this for two reasons. Firstly because of the standard/burden of proof involved and secondly because of failings in previous unconnected investigations. Going as far as to accuse those who have indicated these decisions may be relevant factors as hiding behind legal processes. Yet you seemingly ignore the findings of the family court which doesn't require anywhere near the same level of proof. You also seem to discount that plenty of people have made untrue allegations in the past.

Finally you condemn those who say that an investigation should take place and proper procedures should take place as condoning domestic violence and being akin to church leaders involved in some sort of coverup yet have provided no reason why an investigation should not take place other than some kind of ambiguous non defined 'moral' reason that should preclude an investigation.

[93-DY-SAM]

RG was not charged and won custody, probably his aim and doesn't want or need to engage further proceedings with the ex wife

Jarly enters stage left to punch down on behalf of a sports national governing body, RG has the right to proceed as he sees fit

And Nicola Gallagher? Domestic violence victims?

You don't seem to consider them at all. Rory Gallagher is the victim in your eyes, Jarlath Burns is the abuser. Crazy.

Examples please?

Lads, stop entertaining this fella. It's as simple as that.

Which part of what I said do you disagree with?

I think you are yet another person on here with an appalling outlook on domestic violence and are quite aggressive when that is examined.

Examples please?

I've had my say on this a long time back at the time. All you have done is repeat the same things over and over with no engagement with other posters when asked any detail. David laid out all the facts from a legal perspective but sure he is only a solicitor so what would he know. Did you get your law degree from the same cornflakes box as wee Seamie Bryson.

Hope you find the answers to whatever is making you so angry. You just won't find them here as none of us here knows the exact ins and outs of this.

All the best. 

No I'm not. Besmirching the good name of solicitors there.

Ah my bad. I don't know why I assumed that from your posts here and on other threads. Apologies.

[David McKeown]

RG was not charged and won custody, probably his aim and doesn't want or need to engage further proceedings with the ex wife

Jarly enters stage left to punch down on behalf of a sports national governing body, RG has the right to proceed as he sees fit

And Nicola Gallagher? Domestic violence victims?

You don't seem to consider them at all. Rory Gallagher is the victim in your eyes, Jarlath Burns is the abuser. Crazy.

Examples please?

Lads, stop entertaining this fella. It's as simple as that.

Which part of what I said do you disagree with?

I think you are yet another person on here with an appalling outlook on domestic violence and are quite aggressive when that is examined.

Examples please?

I've had my say on this a long time back at the time. All you have done is repeat the same things over and over with no engagement with other posters when asked any detail. David laid out all the facts from a legal perspective but sure he is only a solicitor so what would he know. Did you get your law degree from the same cornflakes box as wee Seamie Bryson.

Hope you find the answers to whatever is making you so angry. You just won't find them here as none of us here knows the exact ins and outs of this.

All the best. 

No I'm not. Besmirching the good name of solicitors there.

Ah my bad. I don't know why I assumed that from your posts here and on other threads. Apologies.

I'm the other side of the profession. I was trying to make a joke about how people often confuse the two. BCB is a solicitor I believe

[Milltown Row2]

Having a break at the minute 

[Hand of God]

So just to summarise your position as I understand is

Allegations have been made therefore Burns has to act. He has to believe those allegations but ignore and not consider the denials or the large number of factors that cast doubt over the veracity of the allegations. He has to do so and ignore the rules and procedures of the Association?

You place no weight on the legal proceedings except the one that RG hasn't taken ie defamation ignoring the legal and practical issues of same. But you again place no weight on the fact the complainant hasn't taken legal proceedings of her own.

You place considerable weight on the Facebook post of a witness but do not consider the fact that she either didn't report the contents of same to either police force or if she did the contents was discounted when compared to the other evidence.

You place no weight on the three police investigations and 4 no prosecution decisions all of which were made on the basis of all available evidence not just what's in the public domain. You seem to this for two reasons. Firstly because of the standard/burden of proof involved and secondly because of failings in previous unconnected investigations. Going as far as to accuse those who have indicated these decisions may be relevant factors as hiding behind legal processes. Yet you seemingly ignore the findings of the family court which doesn't require anywhere near the same level of proof. You also seem to discount that plenty of people have made untrue allegations in the past.

Finally you condemn those who say that an investigation should take place and proper procedures should take place as condoning domestic violence and being akin to church leaders involved in some sort of coverup yet have provided no reason why an investigation should not take place other than some kind of ambiguous non defined 'moral' reason that should preclude an investigation.

You have a poor grasp of the English language.

He doesn't have to believe them. He has to use his judgement to decide if they are credible. If his judgement believes them to be credible he needs to act.

Clearly you seem to disbelieve women who report allegations of domestic violence.

You are being very dishonest here and trying to manipulate and twist the truth to camouflage your own questionable stances.

It's very clear what I believe and it's completely in conflict to what you are reporting.

You'd have made a great bishop back in the 1960s.

[David McKeown]

So just to summarise your position as I understand is

Allegations have been made therefore Burns has to act. He has to believe those allegations but ignore and not consider the denials or the large number of factors that cast doubt over the veracity of the allegations. He has to do so and ignore the rules and procedures of the Association?

You place no weight on the legal proceedings except the one that RG hasn't taken ie defamation ignoring the legal and practical issues of same. But you again place no weight on the fact the complainant hasn't taken legal proceedings of her own.

You place considerable weight on the Facebook post of a witness but do not consider the fact that she either didn't report the contents of same to either police force or if she did the contents was discounted when compared to the other evidence.

You place no weight on the three police investigations and 4 no prosecution decisions all of which were made on the basis of all available evidence not just what's in the public domain. You seem to this for two reasons. Firstly because of the standard/burden of proof involved and secondly because of failings in previous unconnected investigations. Going as far as to accuse those who have indicated these decisions may be relevant factors as hiding behind legal processes. Yet you seemingly ignore the findings of the family court which doesn't require anywhere near the same level of proof. You also seem to discount that plenty of people have made untrue allegations in the past.

Finally you condemn those who say that an investigation should take place and proper procedures should take place as condoning domestic violence and being akin to church leaders involved in some sort of coverup yet have provided no reason why an investigation should not take place other than some kind of ambiguous non defined 'moral' reason that should preclude an investigation.

You have a poor grasp of the English language.

He doesn't have to believe them. He has to use his judgement to decide if they are credible. If his judgement believes them to be credible he needs to act.

Clearly you seem to disbelieve women who report allegations of domestic violence.

You are being very dishonest here and trying to manipulate and twist the truth to camouflage your own questionable stances.

It's very clear what I believe and it's completely in conflict to what you are reporting.

You'd have made a great bishop back in the 1960s.

Excellent ignore the issues and attack the person. If you are going to make stuff up in attempt to defame me I see no point in continuing.

[Hand of God]

So just to summarise your position as I understand is

Allegations have been made therefore Burns has to act. He has to believe those allegations but ignore and not consider the denials or the large number of factors that cast doubt over the veracity of the allegations. He has to do so and ignore the rules and procedures of the Association?

You place no weight on the legal proceedings except the one that RG hasn't taken ie defamation ignoring the legal and practical issues of same. But you again place no weight on the fact the complainant hasn't taken legal proceedings of her own.

You place considerable weight on the Facebook post of a witness but do not consider the fact that she either didn't report the contents of same to either police force or if she did the contents was discounted when compared to the other evidence.

You place no weight on the three police investigations and 4 no prosecution decisions all of which were made on the basis of all available evidence not just what's in the public domain. You seem to this for two reasons. Firstly because of the standard/burden of proof involved and secondly because of failings in previous unconnected investigations. Going as far as to accuse those who have indicated these decisions may be relevant factors as hiding behind legal processes. Yet you seemingly ignore the findings of the family court which doesn't require anywhere near the same level of proof. You also seem to discount that plenty of people have made untrue allegations in the past.

Finally you condemn those who say that an investigation should take place and proper procedures should take place as condoning domestic violence and being akin to church leaders involved in some sort of coverup yet have provided no reason why an investigation should not take place other than some kind of ambiguous non defined 'moral' reason that should preclude an investigation.

You have a poor grasp of the English language.

He doesn't have to believe them. He has to use his judgement to decide if they are credible. If his judgement believes them to be credible he needs to act.

Clearly you seem to disbelieve women who report allegations of domestic violence.

You are being very dishonest here and trying to manipulate and twist the truth to camouflage your own questionable stances.

It's very clear what I believe and it's completely in conflict to what you are reporting.

You'd have made a great bishop back in the 1960s.

Excellent ignore the issues and attack the person. If you are going to make stuff up in attempt to defame me I see no point in continuing.

You've a hard neck after the all the lies and mistruths you made in your last post. You were the one making stuff up and misrepresenting my position and now suddenly you're accusing me of doing exactly what you just did.

My position is this.

The GAA is an amateur sporting organisation, we are not talking about criminal charges here against Gallagher.

Gallagher is accused of absolutely heinous acts over the course of a decade. You consistently refuse to address the severity of them and you consistently refuse to address the credibility of them. I address what has been alleged and why I feel they are credible. You just ignore them

As I said you would have made a great bishop in the 1960s if you were around. Why do you need absolute proof to act? It's an amateur sporting organisation - surely if they believe the allegations have credibility they should act? Not for you though - the GAA need to look after their own.

Various domestic violence groups have spoken out against Gallagher and how the GAA should deal with him but you continue to ignore them.

Burns is right on this but very wrong on Allianz. You can continue to defame me if you so choose.

[Wildweasel74]

Go bck to u ramblings about Russia and the west on the Russia v Ukraine thread, they missing you there!

[David McKeown]

So just to summarise your position as I understand is

Allegations have been made therefore Burns has to act. He has to believe those allegations but ignore and not consider the denials or the large number of factors that cast doubt over the veracity of the allegations. He has to do so and ignore the rules and procedures of the Association?

You place no weight on the legal proceedings except the one that RG hasn't taken ie defamation ignoring the legal and practical issues of same. But you again place no weight on the fact the complainant hasn't taken legal proceedings of her own.

You place considerable weight on the Facebook post of a witness but do not consider the fact that she either didn't report the contents of same to either police force or if she did the contents was discounted when compared to the other evidence.

You place no weight on the three police investigations and 4 no prosecution decisions all of which were made on the basis of all available evidence not just what's in the public domain. You seem to this for two reasons. Firstly because of the standard/burden of proof involved and secondly because of failings in previous unconnected investigations. Going as far as to accuse those who have indicated these decisions may be relevant factors as hiding behind legal processes. Yet you seemingly ignore the findings of the family court which doesn't require anywhere near the same level of proof. You also seem to discount that plenty of people have made untrue allegations in the past.

Finally you condemn those who say that an investigation should take place and proper procedures should take place as condoning domestic violence and being akin to church leaders involved in some sort of coverup yet have provided no reason why an investigation should not take place other than some kind of ambiguous non defined 'moral' reason that should preclude an investigation.

You have a poor grasp of the English language.

He doesn't have to believe them. He has to use his judgement to decide if they are credible. If his judgement believes them to be credible he needs to act.

Clearly you seem to disbelieve women who report allegations of domestic violence.

You are being very dishonest here and trying to manipulate and twist the truth to camouflage your own questionable stances.

It's very clear what I believe and it's completely in conflict to what you are reporting.

You'd have made a great bishop back in the 1960s.

Excellent ignore the issues and attack the person. If you are going to make stuff up in attempt to defame me I see no point in continuing.

You've a hard neck after the all the lies and mistruths you made in your last post. You were the one making stuff up and misrepresenting my position and now suddenly you're accusing me of doing exactly what you just did.

My position is this.

The GAA is an amateur sporting organisation, we are not talking about criminal charges here against Gallagher.

Gallagher is accused of absolutely heinous acts over the course of a decade. You consistently refuse to address the severity of them and you consistently refuse to address the credibility of them. I address what has been alleged and why I feel they are credible. You just ignore them

As I said you would have made a great bishop in the 1960s if you were around. Why do you need absolute proof to act? It's an amateur sporting organisation - surely if they believe the allegations have credibility they should act? Not for you though - the GAA need to look after their own.

Various domestic violence groups have spoken out against Gallagher and how the GAA should deal with him but you continue to ignore them.

Burns is right on this but very wrong on Allianz. You can continue to defame me if you so choose.

I have in no way defamed you for a start I have not even identified you.

You on the other hand have accused me of condoning violence against women and compared me to priests in the 1960 with the clear inference that I would be prepared to cover up institutional abuse. You have claimed that I have lied and spoke in mistruths without even one specific example.

I have consistently said that I do not find the allegations or the person making them to be incredible. I have simply pointed out that in this case there is a considerable body of evidence (that you are choosing to ignore) that casts doubt over the veracity of the allegations. As a result it is not possible to form a view as I am not privy to all of the information. Hence why I have consistently called for a procedurally fair investigation into the matter. You have tried to twist that position to suit your narrative.

[tonto1888]

So just to summarise your position as I understand is

Allegations have been made therefore Burns has to act. He has to believe those allegations but ignore and not consider the denials or the large number of factors that cast doubt over the veracity of the allegations. He has to do so and ignore the rules and procedures of the Association?

You place no weight on the legal proceedings except the one that RG hasn't taken ie defamation ignoring the legal and practical issues of same. But you again place no weight on the fact the complainant hasn't taken legal proceedings of her own.

You place considerable weight on the Facebook post of a witness but do not consider the fact that she either didn't report the contents of same to either police force or if she did the contents was discounted when compared to the other evidence.

You place no weight on the three police investigations and 4 no prosecution decisions all of which were made on the basis of all available evidence not just what's in the public domain. You seem to this for two reasons. Firstly because of the standard/burden of proof involved and secondly because of failings in previous unconnected investigations. Going as far as to accuse those who have indicated these decisions may be relevant factors as hiding behind legal processes. Yet you seemingly ignore the findings of the family court which doesn't require anywhere near the same level of proof. You also seem to discount that plenty of people have made untrue allegations in the past.

Finally you condemn those who say that an investigation should take place and proper procedures should take place as condoning domestic violence and being akin to church leaders involved in some sort of coverup yet have provided no reason why an investigation should not take place other than some kind of ambiguous non defined 'moral' reason that should preclude an investigation.

You have a poor grasp of the English language.

He doesn't have to believe them. He has to use his judgement to decide if they are credible. If his judgement believes them to be credible he needs to act.

Clearly you seem to disbelieve women who report allegations of domestic violence.

You are being very dishonest here and trying to manipulate and twist the truth to camouflage your own questionable stances.

It's very clear what I believe and it's completely in conflict to what you are reporting.

You'd have made a great bishop back in the 1960s.

Excellent ignore the issues and attack the person. If you are going to make stuff up in attempt to defame me I see no point in continuing.

You've a hard neck after the all the lies and mistruths you made in your last post. You were the one making stuff up and misrepresenting my position and now suddenly you're accusing me of doing exactly what you just did.

My position is this.

The GAA is an amateur sporting organisation, we are not talking about criminal charges here against Gallagher.

Gallagher is accused of absolutely heinous acts over the course of a decade. You consistently refuse to address the severity of them and you consistently refuse to address the credibility of them. I address what has been alleged and why I feel they are credible. You just ignore them

As I said you would have made a great bishop in the 1960s if you were around. Why do you need absolute proof to act? It's an amateur sporting organisation - surely if they believe the allegations have credibility they should act? Not for you though - the GAA need to look after their own.

Various domestic violence groups have spoken out against Gallagher and how the GAA should deal with him but you continue to ignore them.

Burns is right on this but very wrong on Allianz. You can continue to defame me if you so choose.

I have in no way defamed you for a start I have not even identified you.

You on the other hand have accused me of condoning violence against women and compared me to priests in the 1960 with the clear inference that I would be prepared to cover up institutional abuse. You have claimed that I have lied and spoke in mistruths without even one specific example.

I have consistently said that I do not find the allegations or the person making them to be incredible. I have simply pointed out that in this case there is a considerable body of evidence (that you are choosing to ignore) that casts doubt over the veracity of the allegations. As a result it is not possible to form a view as I am not privy to all of the information. Hence why I have consistently called for a procedurally fair investigation into the matter. You have tried to twist that position to suit your narrative.

David mate, there is no point arguing with HoG over this. As has been seen plenty of times he ignores what others, rationally, put to him/her and will twist it to suit his/her own position

[RedHand88]

Not gonna lie, accusing someone of defamation on an anonymous Internet forum gave me a laugh.