RG at arms length

[general_lee]

Forget defamation proceedings, was there ever a robust statement released by RG outright denying the allegations? I know if I was completely innocent of something I was accused of, that would be my first course of action.

When he threatened the legal action against Burns he said he "categorically denied" the allegations.

So not his first course of action? He released a statement immediately after the Facebook post but didn't deny the accusations.

He said the allegations had been "investigated and dealt with" from what I recall.

I have my doubts about RG as much as the next man but this apparent attitude of "sure he didn't even come out and flatly deny it immediately, isn't that really incriminating?!" is very, very dangerous.

I always found it strange and I share your doubts. That's not dangerous - I know if I was wrongly accused of something heinous I'd be proclaiming my innocence from the get go.

[Saffron_sam20]

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.

This nails it, perfectly summed up

[gallsman]

I always found it strange and I share your doubts. That's not dangerous - I know if I was wrongly accused of something heinous I'd be proclaiming my innocence from the get go.

What's dangerous is to assume that just because you'd do something, someone else would do the same.

I can perfectly understand the logic of someone, if innocent, either being advised or deciding to engage with allegations such as the ones RG faced/continues to face as little as possible.

The fact he apparently chose not to outright deny the allegations in 2023 should in no way be considered suspicious or incriminating, as some on here would have you believe.

[Milltown Row2]

Forget defamation proceedings, was there ever a robust statement released by RG outright denying the allegations? I know if I was completely innocent of something I was accused of, that would be my first course of action.

When he threatened the legal action against Burns he said he "categorically denied" the allegations.

So not his first course of action? He released a statement immediately after the Facebook post but didn't deny the accusations.

He said the allegations had been "investigated and dealt with" from what I recall.

I have my doubts about RG as much as the next man but this apparent attitude of "sure he didn't even come out and flatly deny it immediately, isn't that really incriminating?!" is very, very dangerous.

I always found it strange and I share your doubts. That's not dangerous - I know if I was wrongly accused of something heinous I'd be proclaiming my innocence from the get go.

Not this case general, but in general (pun intended) shit sticks and no matter how much you try and clear your name, even though you haven't been charged on something you could throw your remortgaged house at it, people on social media will still think you did something, or there's no smoke without fire or whatever.

 

[imtommygunn]

I always found it strange and I share your doubts. That's not dangerous - I know if I was wrongly accused of something heinous I'd be proclaiming my innocence from the get go.

What's dangerous is to assume that just because you'd do something, someone else would do the same.

I can perfectly understand the logic of someone, if innocent, either being advised or deciding to engage with allegations such as the ones RG faced/continues to face as little as possible.

The fact he apparently chose not to outright deny the allegations in 2023 should in no way be considered suspicious or incriminating, as some on here would have you believe.

It's a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario.

[GTP]

To quote HOG " 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 am a member of the GAA, and it should not be making moral decisions on my behalf. It is a sporting organisation and should make decisions based on the agreed rules of that sport. If those rules say anyone accused of domestic violence will be disbarred from the organisation and if necessary, the President of the GAA will intervene to ensure they are not involved in the management of any team, then we as members can either accept this or resign.
There are lots of things people wouldn't morally accept in the past and even today such as homosexuality or abortion. If the GAA is the moral arbiter of domestic abuse, then it can also become the moral arbiter of other issues and that is not it's role.
Regardless of what RG did or did not do his status as a member of the GAA should have been dealt with in the same way as every other member. And since as far as I am aware no one on this board has sited a precedent before the RG case or since in which a member has been treated in a similar manner my thoughts are he has been treated wrongly by the GAA. The decision in the case of the sponsor of the league which was described by HOG as commercial rather than moral also shows the danger of the GAA making moral decisions. They are only correct moral decisions if you agree with them.
Please note, this is not a statement in support of domestic abuse or a judgement on any person involved or the allegations made.
And not that you need support, but I have found David's contribution both informative and well argued.
 

[tonto1888]

I dont know if RG done what he is accused of doing. I do know when the allegations first came out that my dislike of the man (based on is playing and management days, I do not know him personally) coloured my judgement in that I wanted him to be guilty. That was unfair.

In terms of what Jarlath done I think he probably overstepped. Either that or he should be getting involved in all cases where there are public allegations of abuse

[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.

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.

[tiempo]

Only HoG can judge me

[Armagh18]

Only HoG can judge me

Surely hes using chat gpt?

[Milltown Row2]

Only HoG can judge me

Surely hes using chat gpt?

But he must have it on the 'Talking shite' mode

[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.

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.

The answer to that question would become obvious on even a cursory perusal of my posts. I do not know if the allegations are credible or not. I do not operate a policy that all claims are automatically credible. Likewise I do not operate a policy that simply because someone hasn't been convicted that allegations are incredible. In this case like with many others there is considerable nuance to the case.

The allegations are horrendous and if accurate should result in lengthy disbarment. The allegations are worthy of investigation. Against that there is considerable evidence to call into question the credibility of same. As I don't have access to all of the information it is impossible for me to make a determination.

I would say that you've decided to ignore all of those factors and question why that is but I feel I will never get an answer to that question. So I'll take the advice offered by others in this thread and leave it there.

[Hand of God]

So you don't find the allegations credible.

That's your problem right there.

[Milltown Row2]

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

[Baile Brigín 2]

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.