RG at arms length

[tomjacks19]

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 

You dont have to complete Vetting to manage Senior teams it is only when working with Juveniles.

[imtommygunn]

Which further fuels what I say that the RG issue was not a safeguarding one at all...

[general_lee]

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.

If an alleged crime was against a child, would your stance change?

[tomjacks19]

Which further fuels what I say that the RG issue was not a safeguarding one at all...

Im wrong if there are 17yr olds on the panel it would be required.

[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?

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 

You dont have to complete Vetting to manage Senior teams it is only when working with Juveniles.

If 17 year old can play on your team, you need full vetting

[tomjacks19]

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 

You dont have to complete Vetting to manage Senior teams it is only when working with Juveniles.

If 17 year old can play on your team, you need full vetting

As i said

[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.

If an alleged crime was against a child, would your stance change?

No.

[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 

You dont have to complete Vetting to manage Senior teams it is only when working with Juveniles.

RG was appointed Naas senior coach, not Juvenile.

[mrdeeds]

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 

You dont have to complete Vetting to manage Senior teams it is only when working with Juveniles.

RG was appointed Naas senior coach, not Juvenile.

17 year olds player senior so by right would need to be vetted.

[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?

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 

You dont have to complete Vetting to manage Senior teams it is only when working with Juveniles.

RG was appointed Naas senior coach, not Juvenile.

As has been said more than once, if it is possible for a 17 year old to play on your team, which it is, you need Garda vetting. All senior coaches need it.

His vetting would come in 'passed with caveats, your call'.

[Milltown Row2]

Convicted murder in the north good to go, alleged no case no conviction not ok?

This isn't about a specific person btw, just trying to find morally acceptable candidates

[Hand of God]

The level and sustained duration of what was alleged against Gallagher was not something that should be glossed over.

It's an allegation that can be very difficult proven guilty or not given the level of time that passed.

I think if people believe those allegations then I think there's no way he should near any job of that extent. Sadly I think the GAA has a long and storied history to turning a blind eye to poor behaviour if the person in question is a good footballer or manager.

I know what I believe in this case and his involvement would not sit well with me.

[David McKeown]

If I was advising the Association my legal advice would be as follows:

If you become aware of alleged criminal behaviour which is of a level to raise a safeguarding concern. Then suspend the individual (on full pay if they are being paid) and allow the criminal investigation to run its course. Do no investigation during that period.

Once the criminal investigation has taken place conduct your own procedurally fair investigation and look at all the information/facts you have  access to. Based on that information and that information alone (ie not conjecture or unsubstantiated rumour) make your determination on the appropriate course of action to take.

Some points I would note. Firstly the investigation would be on the balance of probabilities and not subject to strict rules of evidence.

Consequently whilst a conviction would be almost irrefutable proof that the conduct alleged occurred. An acquittal or a no prosecution decision would not however be proof it didn't.

Against that you have to consider all of the information you are provided with. To take the case of RG as an example it's not just a no prosecution decision. It's three police investigations recommending no prosecution, two PPS decisions and two reviews directing no prosecution. At least one family court decision that it would seem did not conclude that RG did what has been publicly alleged. It may even be possible to conclude through a private hearing why those things were.

If that was done and a decision made that either the accused did or did not do not do what's alleged then I don't think anyone could complain with what flowed from that. If it was determined they did. Then appropriate sanctions disbarment etc could apply. If it were determined they did not then the individual should be permitted to resume their position/ duties etc.

A trial by media or rumour or conjecture isn't fair on anyone.

[tbrick18]

If I was advising the Association my legal advice would be as follows:

If you become aware of alleged criminal behaviour which is of a level to raise a safeguarding concern. Then suspend the individual (on full pay if they are being paid) and allow the criminal investigation to run its course. Do no investigation during that period.

Once the criminal investigation has taken place conduct your own procedurally fair investigation and look at all the information/facts you have  access to. Based on that information and that information alone (ie not conjecture or unsubstantiated rumour) make your determination on the appropriate course of action to take.

Some points I would note. Firstly the investigation would be on the balance of probabilities and not subject to strict rules of evidence.

Consequently whilst a conviction would be almost irrefutable proof that the conduct alleged occurred. An acquittal or a no prosecution decision would not however be proof it didn't.

Against that you have to consider all of the information you are provided with. To take the case of RG as an example it's not just a no prosecution decision. It's three police investigations recommending no prosecution, two PPS decisions and two reviews directing no prosecution. At least one family court decision that it would seem did not conclude that RG did what has been publicly alleged. It may even be possible to conclude through a private hearing why those things were.

If that was done and a decision made that either the accused did or did not do not do what's alleged then I don't think anyone could complain with what flowed from that. If it was determined they did. Then appropriate sanctions disbarment etc could apply. If it were determined they did then the individual should be permitted to resume their position/ duties etc.

A trial by media or rumour or conjecture isn't fair on anyone.

Sure is that not what I've been saying all along 

Perfectly presented - I don't think anyone could argue with a procedure like that and it avoids any solo runs or subjective decision making.

Question is - why didn't the GAA, and Jarlath, follow a procedure like that?

[Baile Brigín 2]

Convicted murder in the north good to go, alleged no case no conviction not ok?

This isn't about a specific person btw, just trying to find morally acceptable candidates

Who is this murdererer?