Messages

I don't think theres a safegaurding issue around Gallagher at all if he's not taking womens teams. It's more to do with him being a sc**bag.

There needs to be a process in place for things like this and as much as I can't stand the man, Burns can't be going off on solo runs like that. And before that other dose replies with an essay I'm not a zionist or a conservative or whatever other bile you come out with.

You're just a person who disagrees with a safeguarding expert on safeguarding, domestic violence victims on their views on how allegations aren't taken seriously and the GAA president on how he runs the GAA.

The biggest issue you can't be arsed to address is that Burns would never have needed to act if clubs like Naas and Corduff didn't act disgracefully.

[However, someone not being charged with a crime is an insufficient reason for them to be allowed to resume a role, said Northern Ireland-based safeguarding expert Marcella Leonard.The threshold for safeguarding does not come from a court of law, but whether people have concerns about safety, she added."The laymen in the street will say: 'He's not been convicted, innocent until proven guilty.'"However regarding safeguarding, if there are concerns then there is a duty and responsibility to protect people."She said while she welcomed the president's intervention, her concern was over why Naas "thought it was ok to do this".Ms Leonard highlighted the Republic of Ireland's lack of strong adult safeguarding legislation, in contrast to Northern Ireland, and the need for a the GAA to take a consistent approach so that clubs can act with confidence.She said it was up to the GAA to set policy that gives clubs and members "a better understanding of legal issues versus safeguarding concerns"."I'd like to see a concerted, proactive effort to ensure a consistent approach to safeguarding that includes ladies football and camogie," she added.]

So you don't find the allegations credible.

That's your problem right there.

Imagine a solicitor looking at it through a clinical legal lens?

The bastard.

I have little interest in debating whether he should be brought to trial or convicted. There's a whole different threshold at play there.

It's about whether Gallagher should be allowed operate in the GAA and certain people are hiding behind legal basis when it's clearly a moral one.

Every thread you touch turns to sh!te. I really hope, for your sake, you manage better in the real word because you are just a pollutant on here that is only interested in destroying discussion not engaging in it. A complete dose.

I'm a pollutant. Sure.

I just happen to the disagree with 50+ right wing conservative bores and neo-liberals fanatics who hold some very dark positions on things like domestic violence, western supremacy.

It could never ever be your world outlook that is the issue....

And that's a great example of why you are such a toxic poster. I should have known better than to comment on any tread you're involved in.

Keep projecting on me. It's probably easier villify me than look at yourself. You're the guy supporting an alleged wife beater. That's the uneasy truth for you so you can continue to attack me if it eases your guilty conscience but it won't actually address the issues you clearly need to.

Pick out one post where I have supporting a wife beater. Do that and I'll continue the chat.

I said you are supporting an alleged one which you are. Why else are you here arguing against me?

The only reason were arguing here because I support Burns intervention on this, as domestic violence victims do, as safeguarding experts do. We feel that Nicola Gallahger's allegations are credible and therefore they needed to take action.

You're on the other side of the divide - appalled at Rory Gallagher can't pursue his hobby because he's been accused of horrendous allegations against his wife for over a decade.

I'm of view that I feel Nicola Gallagher is the victim here as she is alleging she was beaten viciously for a decade. I find her credible. Do you? You won't answer that..surprise, surprise. Is she making it up? Again you won't answer. You'll ignore those allegations away and focus on poor wee Rory now and how he can't line his pockets on a side hustle.

I'll leave you with this which no doubt you'll ignore.....


However, someone not being charged with a crime is an insufficient reason for them to be allowed to resume a role, said Northern Ireland-based safeguarding expert Marcella Leonard.

The threshold for safeguarding does not come from a court of law, but whether people have concerns about safety, she added.

"The laymen in the street will say: 'He's not been convicted, innocent until proven guilty.'

"However regarding safeguarding, if there are concerns then there is a duty and responsibility to protect people."

She said while she welcomed the president's intervention, her concern was over why Naas "thought it was ok to do this".

Ms Leonard highlighted the Republic of Ireland's lack of strong adult safeguarding legislation, in contrast to Northern Ireland, and the need for a the GAA to take a consistent approach so that clubs can act with confidence.

She said it was up to the GAA to set policy that gives clubs and members "a better understanding of legal issues versus safeguarding concerns".

"I'd like to see a concerted, proactive effort to ensure a consistent approach to safeguarding that includes ladies football and camogie," she added.

Of course you'll disagree with safeguarding expert I suppose?

Didn't find one then? Funny that! Feel free to read back on my posts on this thread and if you have an issue with one of them, quote it and I'll happily discuss something I've said, not what you want me to have said. The strawman arguments can gtf.

You're clearly not very bright. You just refused to answer whether you thought Nicola Gallahger's allegations are credible. You are in this thread because you are angry at Jarlath Burns preventing a guy with sickening allegations against him from coaching in the GAA. You believe he is the victim and you continue to ignore the words of his ex wife.

I'll ask you again. Do you find Nicola Gallahger's allegations credible? Here is the view of an expert in safeguarding.

Why do you disagree with her? Do you have a problem with women in general?

"However regarding safeguarding, if there are concerns then there is a duty and responsibility to protect people."

She said while she welcomed the president's intervention, her concern was over why Naas "thought it was ok to do this".

The only people that seem to back Gallahger in this are a number of conservative white men in their 50s and we seem to have a lot of people with your 1960s world view on this forum.

[However, someone not being charged with a crime is an insufficient reason for them to be allowed to resume a role, said Northern Ireland-based safeguarding expert Marcella Leonard.The threshold for safeguarding does not come from a court of law, but whether people have concerns about safety, she added."The laymen in the street will say: 'He's not been convicted, innocent until proven guilty.'"However regarding safeguarding, if there are concerns then there is a duty and responsibility to protect people."She said while she welcomed the president's intervention, her concern was over why Naas "thought it was ok to do this".Ms Leonard highlighted the Republic of Ireland's lack of strong adult safeguarding legislation, in contrast to Northern Ireland, and the need for a the GAA to take a consistent approach so that clubs can act with confidence.She said it was up to the GAA to set policy that gives clubs and members "a better understanding of legal issues versus safeguarding concerns"."I'd like to see a concerted, proactive effort to ensure a consistent approach to safeguarding that includes ladies football and camogie," she added.]

So you don't find the allegations credible.

That's your problem right there.

Imagine a solicitor looking at it through a clinical legal lens?

The bastard.

I have little interest in debating whether he should be brought to trial or convicted. There's a whole different threshold at play there.

It's about whether Gallagher should be allowed operate in the GAA and certain people are hiding behind legal basis when it's clearly a moral one.

Every thread you touch turns to sh!te. I really hope, for your sake, you manage better in the real word because you are just a pollutant on here that is only interested in destroying discussion not engaging in it. A complete dose.

I'm a pollutant. Sure.

I just happen to the disagree with 50+ right wing conservative bores and neo-liberals fanatics who hold some very dark positions on things like domestic violence, western supremacy.

It could never ever be your world outlook that is the issue....

And that's a great example of why you are such a toxic poster. I should have known better than to comment on any tread you're involved in.

Keep projecting on me. It's probably easier villify me than look at yourself. You're the guy supporting an alleged wife beater. That's the uneasy truth for you so you can continue to attack me if it eases your guilty conscience but it won't actually address the issues you clearly need to.

Pick out one post where I have supporting a wife beater. Do that and I'll continue the chat.

I said you are supporting an alleged one which you are. Why else are you here arguing against me?

The only reason were arguing here because I support Burns intervention on this, as domestic violence victims do, as safeguarding experts do. We feel that Nicola Gallahger's allegations are credible and therefore they needed to take action.

You're on the other side of the divide - appalled at Rory Gallagher can't pursue his hobby because he's been accused of horrendous allegations against his wife for over a decade.

I'm of view that I feel Nicola Gallagher is the victim here as she is alleging she was beaten viciously for a decade. I find her credible. Do you? You won't answer that..surprise, surprise. Is she making it up? Again you won't answer. You'll ignore those allegations away and focus on poor wee Rory now and how he can't line his pockets on a side hustle.

I'll leave you with this which no doubt you'll ignore.....


However, someone not being charged with a crime is an insufficient reason for them to be allowed to resume a role, said Northern Ireland-based safeguarding expert Marcella Leonard.

The threshold for safeguarding does not come from a court of law, but whether people have concerns about safety, she added.

"The laymen in the street will say: 'He's not been convicted, innocent until proven guilty.'

"However regarding safeguarding, if there are concerns then there is a duty and responsibility to protect people."

She said while she welcomed the president's intervention, her concern was over why Naas "thought it was ok to do this".

Ms Leonard highlighted the Republic of Ireland's lack of strong adult safeguarding legislation, in contrast to Northern Ireland, and the need for a the GAA to take a consistent approach so that clubs can act with confidence.

She said it was up to the GAA to set policy that gives clubs and members "a better understanding of legal issues versus safeguarding concerns".

"I'd like to see a concerted, proactive effort to ensure a consistent approach to safeguarding that includes ladies football and camogie," she added.

Of course you'll disagree with safeguarding expert I suppose?

Mate do you not think you've made your point by now. Seriously

I'm not here arguing with myself. I'm here taking flak and have guys posting lies about me and simultaneously calling for a moderator. Nothing to do with what I've said though but all to do with the unease of their own position when it's pointed out where and who they stand with and more importantly against.

It's not a great look for this forum to be honest and it's not my views that are the issue, it's ones trying to engage a pile on me because I agree with what Jarlath Burns has done in this case.

Now I'm happy to leave it at that but I'm not willing to accept the false narratives being thrown about.

Is there still a mod here? Would be useful for cases like this.

Very important that the echo chamber is protected for you alright. Have a look in the mirror and ask yourself what I've said on this matter makes you feel so uneasy and crying for a mod? I bet you can't answer that truthfully.

My position is crystal clear here, it's in line with president of the GAA, it's in line with domestic violence support groups, it's in line with safeguarding experts. You're the one on the opposite side of the divide.

This isn't a discussion on the legal nature of whether Gallagher is guilty of what is wife is accused of or not.

It's a discussion on whether Gallagher should be operating in the GAA if the allegations are viewed as credible.

If people viewed these allegations as credible, as I do, as Jarlath Burns does, as domestic violence groupings do - there's no argument to have here.

The issue is your beliefs and how uncomfortable you are with your own position when it's spelled out to you. Calling for mods is very Zionist of you. Cancel and censor the other voice that raises uncomfortable truths


Maybe go outside and get some fresh air pal.

So you don't find the allegations credible.

That's your problem right there.

Imagine a solicitor looking at it through a clinical legal lens?

The bastard.

I have little interest in debating whether he should be brought to trial or convicted. There's a whole different threshold at play there.

It's about whether Gallagher should be allowed operate in the GAA and certain people are hiding behind legal basis when it's clearly a moral one.

Every thread you touch turns to sh!te. I really hope, for your sake, you manage better in the real word because you are just a pollutant on here that is only interested in destroying discussion not engaging in it. A complete dose.

I'm a pollutant. Sure.

I just happen to the disagree with 50+ right wing conservative bores and neo-liberals fanatics who hold some very dark positions on things like domestic violence, western supremacy.

It could never ever be your world outlook that is the issue....

And that's a great example of why you are such a toxic poster. I should have known better than to comment on any tread you're involved in.

Keep projecting on me. It's probably easier villify me than look at yourself. You're the guy supporting an alleged wife beater. That's the uneasy truth for you so you can continue to attack me if it eases your guilty conscience but it won't actually address the issues you clearly need to.

This is not healthy behaviour lad. Go outside for a walk or get another hobby.

Dismissing domestic violence victims is certainly not healthy behaviour.

But I'm the one who needs to go out for a walk apparently.

This forum is clearly an echo chamber for conservatives stuck in the 1960s.

It's the views on this forum with regard to this matter which is massively out of step. I don't think you'd find so massive support for Gallagher across many otte areas or Irish society.

Apparently I'm the issue here though. Interesting.

Show one single person on here who has dismissed domestic violence victims.

Ok.

Litmus test.

Do you find Nicola Gallahger's allegations credible. Yes or no?

If you don't you are dismissing domestic violence victims.

Maybe you should listen to how domestic violence victims and how they feel about Rory Gallagher operating in the GAA? I'm pretty sure you'll dismiss their opinions though.

So you don't find the allegations credible.

That's your problem right there.

Imagine a solicitor looking at it through a clinical legal lens?

The bastard.

I have little interest in debating whether he should be brought to trial or convicted. There's a whole different threshold at play there.

It's about whether Gallagher should be allowed operate in the GAA and certain people are hiding behind legal basis when it's clearly a moral one.

Every thread you touch turns to sh!te. I really hope, for your sake, you manage better in the real word because you are just a pollutant on here that is only interested in destroying discussion not engaging in it. A complete dose.

I'm a pollutant. Sure.

I just happen to the disagree with 50+ right wing conservative bores and neo-liberals fanatics who hold some very dark positions on things like domestic violence, western supremacy.

It could never ever be your world outlook that is the issue....

And that's a great example of why you are such a toxic poster. I should have known better than to comment on any tread you're involved in.

Keep projecting on me. It's probably easier villify me than look at yourself. You're the guy supporting an alleged wife beater. That's the uneasy truth for you so you can continue to attack me if it eases your guilty conscience but it won't actually address the issues you clearly need to.

This is not healthy behaviour lad. Go outside for a walk or get another hobby.

Dismissing domestic violence victims is certainly not healthy behaviour.

But I'm the one who needs to go out for a walk apparently.

This forum is clearly an echo chamber for conservatives stuck in the 1960s.

It's the views on this forum with regard to this matter which are massively out of step. I don't think you'd find so massive support for Gallagher across many otte areas or Irish society as you do here.

Apparently I'm the issue here though. Interesting.

So you don't find the allegations credible.

That's your problem right there.

Imagine a solicitor looking at it through a clinical legal lens?

The bastard.

I have little interest in debating whether he should be brought to trial or convicted. There's a whole different threshold at play there.

It's about whether Gallagher should be allowed operate in the GAA and certain people are hiding behind legal basis when it's clearly a moral one.

Every thread you touch turns to sh!te. I really hope, for your sake, you manage better in the real word because you are just a pollutant on here that is only interested in destroying discussion not engaging in it. A complete dose.

I'm a pollutant. Sure.

I just happen to the disagree with 50+ right wing conservative bores and neo-liberals fanatics who hold some very dark positions on things like domestic violence, western supremacy.

It could never ever be your world outlook that is the issue....

And that's a great example of why you are such a toxic poster. I should have known better than to comment on any tread you're involved in.

Keep projecting on me. It's probably easier villify me than look at yourself. You're the guy supporting an alleged wife beater. That's the uneasy truth for you so you can continue to attack me if it eases your guilty conscience but it won't actually address the issues you clearly need to.

[little interest in debating]

So you don't find the allegations credible.

That's your problem right there.

Imagine a solicitor looking at it through a clinical legal lens?

The bastard.

I have little interest in debating whether he should be brought to trial or convicted. There's a whole different threshold at play there.

It's about whether Gallagher should be allowed operate in the GAA and certain people are hiding behind legal basis when it's clearly a moral one.

There's the issue.
You are so convinced by your own point of view you can't give any consideration to the possibility that this is not a black and white issue and that your opinion may be wrong.
You strike me as one of those people who believes everything you read on the internet as fact OR you have some direct involvement with this issue, or very similar one. If the latter is the case, I genuinely hope you get a resolution to it.

Can you not accept at least the possibility that RG is being wronged here? However unlikely you feel that to be, it's still a possibility. In much the same way where you say that if JB thinks RG "could" have done the things he's accused of, his ex-wife "could" have made it up. The criminal investigations and lack of charges being brought give some weight to the that, or at least some weight behind the allegations not being as "credible" as you would have everyone believe.

You have formed what you believe to be a factual opinion without considering all the possibilities.

I think it's fair to say that everyone else on this board, on this particular issue, are all in agreement that if he did it he should be gone from the GAA, but if we can't be certain then it's unsafe to go on the solo run approach JB took as it opens the door to future issues being wrongly managed.

Yes, you are all in agreement - bar general lee who I would have a very similar view on this matter going by what he has posted so far.

That doesn't make you right. In fact it pretty much spells out why domestic violence is a serious social issue up north. You disbelieve as a woman alleging domestic violence as default.

This place is a bit of an echo chamber for you and others. You do not want dissenting voices here. I just find your outlook of domestic violence to be from the dark ages. A GAA profiles ability to coach in the GAA trump domestic violence victims and their views. Pretty disgusting when it's laid at your door isn't it? You are unable to debate that issue. That's why none of you supporting Gallahger here can admit Nicola Gallagher's allegations are credible.

So you don't find the allegations credible.

That's your problem right there.

Imagine a solicitor looking at it through a clinical legal lens?

The bastard.

I have little interest in debating whether he should be brought to trial or convicted. There's a whole different threshold at play there.

It's about whether Gallagher should be allowed operate in the GAA and certain people are hiding behind legal basis when it's clearly a moral one.

Every thread you touch turns to sh!te. I really hope, for your sake, you manage better in the real word because you are just a pollutant on here that is only interested in destroying discussion not engaging in it. A complete dose.

I'm a pollutant. Sure.

I just happen to the disagree with 50+ right wing conservative bores and neo-liberals fanatics who hold some very dark positions on things like domestic violence, western supremacy.

It could never ever be your world outlook that is the issue....

So you don't find the allegations credible.

That's your problem right there.

Imagine a solicitor looking at it through a clinical legal lens?

The bastard.

I have little interest in debating whether he should be brought to trial or convicted. There's a whole different threshold at play there.

It's about whether Gallagher should be allowed operate in the GAA and certain people are hiding behind legal basis when it's clearly a moral one.

So you don't find the allegations credible.

That's your problem right there.

I don't think you're credible, as this is a second name on the board you've come back as, that I know of

Yap yap yap as usual from you.

Keep deflecting from the bit where you disbelieve domestic violence victims as a standard. If you had any gumption you'd answer the question posed to you as we all know you have no problem answering things on behalf of others without the facts.

So you don't find the allegations credible.

That's your problem right there.

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.

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.

Credible. Do you find the allegations credible? You won't answer that. You hide behind a load of legal mumbo jumbo.

We are not talking about whether Gallagher should go to trial or be convicted here. You don't seem to have any problem with a guy accused of what he has operating within the GAA. I do. That's where we differ despite all the bluster you've posted.

I think it's no wonder domestic violence and the statistics on it in the north are the way they when you see men completely dismissive towards any allegation.

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.