RG at arms length

[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

Who is this murdererer?

As I said you have no knowledge of teams clubs in the north.

[tiempo]

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.

I don't think a sports governing body should be conducting balance of probability investigations

The suicide rate among men in the UK is elevated among those subject to family court proceedings and the child maintenance service, both operate on this basis and are widely open to abuse

[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.

I don't think a sports governing body should be conducting balance of probability investigations

The suicide rate among men in the UK is elevated among those subject to family court proceedings and the child maintenance service, both operate on this basis and are widely open to abuse

All employers have to. What would you suggest instead?

[Baile Brigín 2]

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.

I don't think a sports governing body should be conducting balance of probability investigations

The suicide rate among men in the UK is elevated among those subject to family court proceedings and the child maintenance service, both operate on this basis and are widely open to abuse

All employers have to. What would you suggest instead?

Does a county or club manager work for the GAA?

[tiempo]

All employers have to. What would you suggest instead?

The framework provided by law makers in the form of existing background checks is sufficient, a sports governing body should not get involved in civil and private matters much less any sort of investigation capacity

RG and his kids were Jarlaths collateral, he wanted to validate Game Changer with no regard for the consequences within that family home

[Baile Brigín 2]

All employers have to. What would you suggest instead?

The framework provided by law makers in the form of existing background checks is sufficient, a sports governing body should not get involved in civil and private matters much less any sort of investigation capacity

RG and his kids were Jarlaths collateral, he wanted to validate Game Changer with no regard for the consequences within that family home

I agree that Burns, yet again, made a Bollix of this.

But to say the GAA, or any sports body, should have no involvement in a process about a coach after they land the gig if they turn out to be dodgy is legally dubious and morally false.

If a juvenile coach gets off on a technicality after being caught with a laptop full of child porn, you can't seriously be suggesting they remain in place?

[tiempo]

That example is a quantum leap from anything I said therefore the question is irrelevant

Excited to find out what technicality exists for a person with a laptop full of child porn to avoid conviction, or are we just talking out our hoop?

[Baile Brigín 2]

That example is a quantum leap from anything I said therefore the question is irrelevant

Excited to find out what technicality exists for a person with a laptop full of child porn to avoid conviction, or are we just talking out our hoop?

It's not actually.

You are saying in the absence of a conviction a sports body shouldn't act.

The date on the warrant was wrong. Has happened. Or more straightforward- he is pending trial.

But the point emerging is there should be a process for this. There isn't. And while I think Naas were on la last land and Burns was right to step in, the lack of a procedure saw shite spilled everywhere.

[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?

As I said you have no knowledge of teams clubs in the north.

Well aren't you the smartest boy on the board.

[tiempo]

That example is a quantum leap from anything I said therefore the question is irrelevant

Excited to find out what technicality exists for a person with a laptop full of child porn to avoid conviction, or are we just talking out our hoop?

It's not actually.

You are saying in the absence of a conviction a sports body shouldn't act.

The date on the warrant was wrong. Has happened. Or more straightforward- he is pending trial.

But the point emerging is there should be a process for this. There isn't. And while I think Naas were on la last land and Burns was right to step in, the lack of a procedure saw shite spilled everywhere.

Divergent thinking I'll give you that

Go watch Minority Report its fantastical you'll enjoy it

[Wildweasel74]

Back in the 90,s there been more than a few lads playing who been in Jail for memberahip,explosives and on up. Dont remember much say then.

[Truthsayer]

Back in the 90,s there been more than a few lads playing who been in Jail for memberahip,explosives and on up. Dont remember much say then.

For real? You do know the difference between a criminal record and a political record? Or are you suggesting the political prisoners in the H block and other prisons were in fact ODCs?

[Baile Brigín 2]

Back in the 90,s there been more than a few lads playing who been in Jail for memberahip,explosives and on up. Dont remember much say then.

Playing...

[imtommygunn]

There were(county)  management setups where the manager knew some of the backroom team through sharing a cell in Maghaberry....

I get the stuff round RG but you're going for the safeguarding thing here. Was Burns's problem, or anyone's problem, safeguarding? I really don't think it was.

[Milltown Row2]

Back in the 90,s there been more than a few lads playing who been in Jail for memberahip,explosives and on up. Dont remember much say then.

For real? You do know the difference between a criminal record and a political record? Or are you suggesting the political prisoners in the H block and other prisons were in fact ODCs?

Totally unrelated to topic more your post. Do you also put loyalist political prisoners in the same bracket?